Bekhorot 43b (מג:) — the Talmud in English

We raise a question:

What difference is there between

a koen disqualified because of

a blemish

and a koen disqualified because

he is not equal among the offspring of Aaron?

And we answer:

The difference between them concerns the invalidation of the service,

whether his service is disqualified.

In the case of a blemish,

a koen who has a blemish

invalidates the service.

As it is written: “He has a blemish

and he shall not profane.”

But one

who is not equal among the offspring of Aaron does not invalidate the service.

We raise a question:

What difference is there between

one who is disqualified because

he is not equal among the offspring of Aaron,

and one who is disqualified

because of appearance to the eye [

as he is repulsive to those who see him]? For example, one whose eyelashes have fallen out [below, 43b], or whose teeth have been removed [below, 44a].

And we answer:

The difference between them concerns a positive commandment.

One who is not equal among the offspring of Aaron, if he performs the service, transgresses a positive commandment. This is implied by the verse: only one who is equal among the offspring of Aaron may serve; by implication, one who is not equal may not serve. This is a prohibition derived from a positive commandment. But one who is disqualified because of appearance to the eye does not transgress a positive commandment.

We now explain the blemishes enumerated in the Mishna: one whose head is like a cone, one whose head is like a turnip, one whose head is like a hammer, one whose head is flattened, and one whose head is truncated.

One whose head is like a cone: His head resembles a vessel

that covers a barrel, pointed above and broad below.

One whose head is like a turnip: His head resembles the head of a turnip

whose upper part is broad and which narrows toward the bottom.

The tanna taught:

There is another blemish not enumerated in the Mishna:

his neck stands in the middle of his head,

so that his head protrudes equally backward and forward.

One whose head is like a hammer: His head resembles a hammer, [

Rashi’s version is

“a hammer”]]

as his head resembles an axe, with a rounded, narrow back .

And one whose head is flattened,

that is,

at the front,

whose head slopes diagonally at the front .

And one whose head is truncated

that is,

at the back,

whose head lacks height at the back.

The tanna taught: “Flattened”—

at the front; “truncated”—

at the back.

The expression “truncated” is

as people say: “A piece was removed,”

as he appears as though a piece had been removed from the back of his head .

The tanna taught:

There are further blemishes:

his neck is flattened or drooping.

Flattened, because it is hidden and concealed,

as his head lies between his shoulders, resembling one whose head droops.

Drooping, because it is long and drooping,

as his neck is long and thin, and his face protrudes considerably outward. [Rabbeinu Gershom].

We learned in the Mishna:

“And those with humps; Rabbi Yehuda

deems them fit, whereas the Sages deem them disqualified.”

And we explain: In the case of a hump

that contains a bone, everyone agrees that he is disqualified. They disagree

Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages concerning a hump

that does not contain a bone. One Sage holds

that the Sages, who disqualify him, do so because

he is not equal among the offspring of Aaron. And the other Sage holds

that Rabbi Yehuda, who deems him fit, holds that since it contains no bone,

it is merely a piece of flesh.

It is merely a piece of flesh.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A bald person is disqualified.”

Rava said: They taught

that he is disqualified

only when he does not have

a row of hair extending from ear to ear

at the back,

but even if

he has

a row of hair

at the front,

he is still considered bald; all the more so when he has no hair at all, even at the front.

But if he has

a row of hair

at the back and at the front, he is fit. And all the more so if he has hair at the back but not at the front,

for this is more aesthetically acceptable than having hair around the head with baldness in the middle .

There are those who teach

this statement

with regard to the latter clause,

which teaches:

“And if he has one, he is fit.”

And concerning this

Rava said: They taught

that if he has hair he is fit

only when he has it at the back

in a row extending from ear to ear,

but does not have it at the front. If he has it both at the back and at the front, he is disqualified,

as this is more repulsive.

And all the more so if he has it at the front but not at the back. And all the more so if he has none at all, in which case he is disqualified.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Those with bald patches, dwarfs, and those with streaming eyes,

whose eyes discharge and continually shed water,

are disqualified, because they are not equal among the offspring of Aaron.

And we challenge this:

Those with bald patches—

this

we already learned

in the Mishna.

Dwarfs—we already learned

this below [45b]: “One who is bent over and a dwarf.” What, then, did Rabbi Yoḥanan teach us?

And we answer: All of them are necessary.

It was necessary for him to teach us about those with streaming eyes,

which are not taught in the Mishna. And it was also necessary to teach us about those with bald patches and dwarfs, because

it might enter your mind

that their disqualification is

only because of appearance to the eye.

He therefore teaches us that they are disqualified because they are not equal among the offspring of Aaron, and the practical difference is that one who serves transgresses a positive commandment.

We challenge this:

But wherever there is

a disqualification

because of appearance to the eye, it is explicitly taught,

for wherever the disqualification is because of appearance to the eye, the Mishna states explicitly that this is the reason for the disqualification, from which you can infer that the other disqualifications are not for this reason. As the Mishna teaches below:

“And one whose eyelashes have fallen out is disqualified because of appearance to the eye.”

If so, we already know that those with bald patches and dwarfs are not disqualified because of appearance to the eye. What, then, did Rabbi Yoḥanan come to teach us?

And we answer:

It might enter your mind to say that one matter was taught

concerning the one whose eyes have fallen out, whose disqualification is because of appearance to the eye,

and the same law applies

to

all of them,

meaning all those disqualified in this chapter are disqualified only because of appearance to the eye [except for the first part of the Mishna, through “those with humps,” whose disqualification is because they are not equal among the offspring of Aaron]. Rabbi Yoḥanan therefore teaches us that this is not so; rather, all of them are disqualified because they are not equal among the offspring of Aaron.

We continue to challenge this: How could one have thought so?

But wherever there is

in this chapter another disqualification that is only because of appearance to the eye,

it is repeated explicitly,

as the tanna returns and states explicitly that it is because of appearance to the eye. For it teaches:

“And one whose teeth have been removed is disqualified because of appearance to the eye,”

and it necessarily follows that the other disqualifications are not because of appearance to the eye. What, then, was the need for Rabbi Yoḥanan to teach us this?

And we answer:

Rather,

Rabbi Yoḥanan came

to exclude the opinion of the following beraita. As it was taught in a beraita: Those with bald patches, dwarfs, and those with streaming eyes are fit, and they said that they are disqualified only because of appearance to the eye.

Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that the halakha does not follow that beraita, but follows our Mishna: They are disqualified because they are not equal among the offspring of Aaron.

We raise a question:

Who is this tanna?

And we answer:

It is Rabbi Yehuda!

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says:

It is written: “And the sons of Aaron

the kohanim shall arrange.”

And we derive in the Torat Kohanim:

This includes those with bald patches [

who are fit by Torah law].

Mishna:

It is stated in the Torah concerning the blemishes of kohanim: “Or a hunchback.” The Mishna explains what this blemish is.

One who has no eyebrows,

a koen who has no eyebrows. Or

one who has only one eyebrow. This is the “hunchback” stated in the Torah!

Rabbi Dosa says:

A hunchback is

anyone whose eyebrows lie down,

whose eyebrow hairs are long and lie over his eyes.

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says:

A hunchback is one

who has two backs [

not concerning the eye, but literally two backs]

and two spinal columns 9 .

Gemara:

We raise a question: Does

“hunchback”

mean one who has no

eyebrows

at all?

And we raise a contradiction from the following: “Hunchback”—

I know only of one

who has many eyebrows,

meaning that his two eyebrows are joined together and there is no space between them.

But if

he has no eyebrows

at all,

or has only one eyebrow, from where

is it derived that he is disqualified?

The verse states: “Or a hunchback,”

and from the word “or” we include one who has only one eyebrow or none at all.

This is difficult, since the wording of the tanna of the Mishna implies that he does not derive it from “or”; rather, the meaning of “hunchback” itself is one who has no eyebrows.

And we answer:

Rava said:

This too is what the Mishna teaches:

“This is the exposition of ‘or a hunchback’

stated in the Torah”!

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Dosa says:

that his eyebrows lie down. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: that he has two backs and two spinal columns.”

We raise a question:

Does this imply

that it is possible for one who has two backs and two spinal columns

to live,

that he is capable of surviving?

But it was stated: With regard to a woman who miscarried a creature that has two backs and two spinal columns, Rav said

concerning it:

In the case of a woman, it is not a child,

and she is not impure with the impurity of childbirth.

In the case of an animal, it is forbidden to eat,

like an animal carcass, as slaughter does not benefit it because it is considered dead. How, then, is it possible for this koen to be alive, such that he is disqualified from the service?

there in tractate Niddah,