Bekhorot 45a (מה.) — the Talmud in English

And one with pikin and one with eikel,

and the Mishna explains:

What is an eikel?

Any case in which he brings his hooves around,

meaning that when he sits and joins the soles of his feet to one another,

his knees do not touch one another,

as they are bent outward.

And one with a pika means that

a pika protrudes from his thumb,

meaning that he has a piece of flesh [round, resembling a “pika”] that protrudes from his thumb, either on his hand or on his foot.

His heel protrudes behind him,

meaning that the heel of his foot projects outward, so that it appears as though the lower leg stands in the middle of the foot.

His hooves are as broad as those of a goose,

meaning that his foot is short like that of a goose, and its length is no greater than its width.

His fingers are superimposed one upon another,

whether on his hands or on his feet.

Or

his fingers are

webbed,

meaning that they are joined to one another. If they are joined only

above, up to the joint

in the middle of the fingers,

he is fit.

But if they are joined

below the joint

in the middle, toward the nails,

and he cut them,

separating them from one another,

he is fit.

If he had

a superfluous finger on his hand or foot

and he cut it, if

the superfluous finger

contains a bone, he is disqualified,

since he is now missing a limb.

But if not,

if it did not contain a bone,

he is fit,

as it is merely an excrescence; and once he cut it, he is fit.

One whose hands and feet have six fingers each,

meaning that he has six fingers on each hand and each foot. Together they are

twenty-four;

the tanna’im disagree in this matter.

Rabbi Yehuda deems him fit,

as this is not a blemish. Since the number of fingers on each limb is equal.

And the Sages disqualify him,

for although they are equal, with six on each limb, it is nevertheless a blemish and he is disqualified.

One who is ambidextrous,

meaning that he has as much strength in his right hand as in his left—

Rabbi disqualifies him,

as he maintains that his strength is equal in both hands because of weakness in the right.

And the Sages deem him fit,

as they maintain that the left is exceptionally strong, and this is not due to weakness of the right.

Gemara:

It is written: “Or a man who has a fracture of the leg or a fracture of the hand.”

The Sages taught: “A fracture of the leg”—I have only a fracture of the leg. From where is one whose ankles knock against each other included,

meaning that he knocks his ankles together?

And the eikel,

meaning that when he joins the soles of his feet, his knees do not touch one another?

And the kilban,

meaning that he has a pika protruding from his thumb?

The verse states: “Or a fracture of the leg”;

the word “or” comes to include them.

The tanna taught: One with pikin and one with a shufner.

Rav Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: What is one with

a pikin?

One who has many cushions,

meaning that his ankle is exceedingly large.

A shufner

what is it?

One who has no cushions whatsoever,

meaning that he has no ankle at all.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A pika protrudes from his thumb, and his heel protrudes behind him.”

Rabbi Elazar said: “His heel protrudes behind him” means

that

his lower leg protrudes from the middle of his foot,

meaning that the foot stands in the middle of the leg, with half of it in front and half behind.

We learned in the Mishna:

“His hooves are as broad as those of a goose.”

Rav Pappa said: Do not say

that it is not a blemish except in the case

that it is short,

meaning that his foot is short,

and not split,

meaning that it is not split between the toes.

Rather, once

it is short, since his foot is short,

even though it is split,

meaning that the toes are separated from one another, it is a blemish.

We learned in the Mishna:

“His fingers are superimposed one upon another, or webbed.”

The Sages taught: “Or

a

fracture of the hand.

I have only a fracture of the hand. [What is the source to include] fingers superimposed one upon another or webbed above the joint, and he cut them?

Here, “above” means toward the nail, whereas “below” in the Mishna means the same area.

And we challenge this:

But you said

in the Mishna, “and he cut it,”

he is fit?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what it is saying: Or fingers webbed above the joint

and he did not cut them—how do I know

that he is disqualified?

The verse states: “Or a fracture of the hand”;

the word “or” includes these cases.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If he had a superfluous finger and cut it: If it contains a bone, he is disqualified; and if not, he is fit.”

Rabba bar bar Hanna said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: And it is counted along the back of the hand,

meaning that the superfluous finger is considered a limb specifically when it stands in a single row with the other fingers and is counted together with them; otherwise, if he cuts it, it does not disqualify him, even if it contains a bone.

The halakha is that an olive-bulk of flesh from a corpse imparts impurity through a tent, by contact, and by carrying; and if it is less than this measure, it does not impart impurity through a tent, by contact, or by carrying.

With regard to the bones of a corpse, the measure is as follows: A bone the size of a barley-grain imparts impurity by contact and by carrying, but through a tent it imparts impurity only if there are “the majority of the structure,” meaning the majority of the structural bones of the body, or “the majority of the number,” meaning the majority of the number of bones of the limbs. Likewise, a quarter-kav of bones imparts impurity through a tent.

These measures apply to flesh or bones. But a complete limb that contains a bone and a small amount of flesh, even if it is less than an olive-bulk, imparts impurity through a tent.

The Sages taught:

A

superfluous finger that contains a bone

and has less than an olive-bulk of flesh upon it, even though

it has no nail,

is nevertheless considered a “limb.” And it

imparts impurity by contact, by carrying, and through a tent,

because once it has the status of a limb, it imparts impurity through a tent even though it does not have an olive-bulk of flesh upon it.

And it is counted toward the number of 125

because if there were no flesh at all on the bone of the superfluous finger, it would not impart impurity through a tent on its own, but it joins the count of the 125 bones of the limbs, which constitute the majority of the limbs of a person, who has 248 bones of the limbs; and “the majority of the number” imparts impurity through a tent.

Rabba bar bar Hanna said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

The fact that the bone of the superfluous finger is considered a limb and imparts impurity through a tent applies specifically

when it is counted along the back of the hand.

Rav Ḥisda said: Regarding this matter, our great master—

Rav—

said it; may the Omnipresent be his aid!

A

superfluous finger that contains a bone but has no nail imparts impurity by contact and by carrying, but does not impart impurity through a tent!

Rabba bar bar Hanna said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Rav was speaking of one that is not counted along the back of the hand,

for in that case it is not considered a limb and therefore does not impart impurity through a tent [and specifically when it has no nail, which constitutes two grounds for leniency. But if it has a nail, it is a limb even if it is not counted; and likewise, if it is counted, it is a limb even though it has no nail].

Rabbi Ḥanina said: They made their statement like the words of prophecy,

as they gave no reason for their statement, like prophets who do not need to give a reason for their words, since they are obeyed even without a reason. For

whatever way one considers it!

This superfluous finger,

if it is a limb, it should also impart impurity through a tent; and if it is not a limb, it should not impart impurity by contact and by carrying either.

Why, then, did they distinguish between impurity by contact and carrying and impurity through a tent?

And we answer:

Rav Huna bar Menoaḥ said in the name of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika: They addressed it because of a bone the size of a barley-grain.

For even if it is not a limb, in any event there is here a bone the size of a barley-grain, which is the measure for imparting impurity by contact and by carrying.

Rav Pappa said: The fact that it imparts impurity by contact and by carrying is

The reason it imparts impurity through contact and carrying is that

a rabbinic decree

regarding a superfluous finger

that is not counted, on account of

a superfluous finger that is

counted

30. And we challenge this: If so,

since we issue a decree, then a finger

that is not counted—

should also impart impurity through a tent.

Why do we not issue a decree that it should impart impurity through a tent?

And we answer: The Sages did not decree that it should impart impurity through a tent for this reason:

The Sages made a distinction, so that they would not burn teruma and sacrificial food because of them.

Teruma and sacrificial food that became impure are subject to burning. But when they became impure through rabbinic impurity, they are not burned because of this impurity. Therefore, here they did not decree impurity through a tent, so that people would recognize that this impurity is only rabbinic.

We learned there: The majority of the structure—

the majority of the bones forming the body of a corpse—

and the majority of its number—

the majority of the number of the bones of its limbs—

of a corpse, even though they do not contain

the measure of

a quarter

of a kav of bones,

are impure

through a tent.

The Sages taught: What is the majority of the structure? The two lower legs and one thigh.

The reason that this is considered the majority of the structure is:

Since it constitutes the majority of the height of a large person,

meaning that this is the majority of the height of a large person [that is, an ordinary person whose limbs are not small relative to his body], excluding the head.

What is the majority of the number—

125.

Ravina said to Rava:

But

did the tanna come to teach us a number?

Since a person has 248 limbs, it is obvious that the majority is 125.

He said to him: This teaches us as it is taught in a beraita:

A person who is

deficient, having only two hundred

limbs instead of 248—for example, one who was born lacking two fingers on each hand and foot, which totals eight fingers, with six bones in each finger, for a total of 48 missing bones—

and one who has additional limbs, having 281

limbs, for example, a woman, as every woman has five limbs more than a man, as will be explained below, and this woman was born with four additional fingers, one additional finger on each hand and foot, with six bones in each finger, totaling 29 additional bones; and when these are added to the 248 limbs, the total is 277.

All of them,

all these additional bones are considered limbs, and they

are counted toward the number 125.

And we learn from this beraita that although for this individual, who has 281 limbs, his majority is 141, and likewise for one who is deficient, who has only 200 limbs, his majority is 101, nevertheless only 125 is considered the majority. This is the novelty that the preceding beraita comes to teach us.

What is the reason?

Follow the majority of people,

and among the majority of people, 125 is the majority of the number.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: An incident occurred involving a student of Rabbi Yishmael who boiled a certain prostitute who had been sentenced by the king to burning; they examined her and found 252

limbs.

They came and asked Rabbi Yishmael: How many limbs are there in a person? He said to them: 248.

They said to him: But we examined her and found 252

limbs?

He said to them: Perhaps you examined a woman? For Scripture added two hinges and two doors to her!

It is taught: Rabbi Elazar says: Just as a house has hinges, so a woman has hinges, as it is stated: “And she crouched and gave birth, for her hinges were turned upon her,”

referring to the hinges of the doors of her womb.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Just as a house has doors, so a woman has doors, as it is stated: “For He did not close the doors of my womb”

Rabbi Akiva says: Just as a house has a key, so a woman has a key, as it is stated: “And He opened her womb.”

And we inquire:

According to Rabbi Akiva, this is difficult:

the fact that

the students of Rabbi Yishmael

counted and found 252, whereas according to Rabbi Akiva there should have been 253.

And we answer:

Perhaps, because the woman’s

key was small,

it dissolved completely

and melted because of the boiling, and therefore they did not find it.

Rav said: And all of them,

all those five limbs that a woman has in addition,

do not impart impurity through a tent

of a corpse, unlike all limbs that impart impurity through a tent on their own,

as it is stated: “This is the law: When a person dies in a tent.” A matter that is common to every person.

[This is unlike the superfluous finger mentioned above, whose bone is common to every person].

Abaye said to him:

What you said, that these limbs are not common to every person—is it difficult?

And

is it the case that

a man does not have

those limbs?

But it is written:

“Pangs seized me like the pangs of a woman in labor.”

It follows that they exist in a man as well.

And we answer: These

are flesh hinges,

and they contain no bone; and something is not considered a complete limb when it has no bone.

We further challenge:

But it is written: “My lord, in the vision my hinges were turned”?

And we answer:

Here too, they are flesh hinges.

It is also reasonable

to explain as we did, that these hinges contain no bone,

for if you do not say so, how can you find 248?

Neither in a man nor in a woman!?

For a man also has more than 248. Rather, learn from this that the hinges in a person are not considered, since they contain no bone.