Bekhorot 45b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

one extra on his hands and feet,

six and six, twenty-four; Rabbi Yehuda deems fit, and the Sages deem unfit.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: And both of them, Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages,

Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages

expounded one verse.

As it is written:

“And there was again war in Gat, and there was a man of measure, and the fingers of his hands and the fingers of his feet were six and six, twenty-four

in number.”

One—

the Sages hold:

the verse speaks of his disgrace,

and therefore the extra [finger] on his fingers is a blemish.

And the other—

Rabbi Yehuda

holds: the verse speaks of his praise,

and therefore it is not a blemish.

Rabba said:

Why

do I need it to be written, “six and six, twenty-four in number”?

For it is obvious that since he had six fingers on each hand and foot, they were twenty-four altogether.

And we answer:

They are necessary, for if the Merciful One had written “six and six,” I would have said: six of his hand and six of his foot,

for he had six fingers on one hand and one foot, and not on his two hands and two feet. Therefore

it wrote: “twenty-four,”

to say that on every hand and every foot there was an extra [finger].

And if it had written “twenty-four,” I would have said

that his two hands and feet were not equal, but

five

fingers

on this one, and seven

fingers

on that one.

Therefore

it wrote: “six and six”

to say that on every hand and foot there were six.

And that which is written

“in number”

is to say that they were

counted upon the hand,

for they stood in one row with the other fingers.

It was taught: Rabbi Yehuda said: An incident occurred involving a certain man who came before Rabbi Tarfon

and he was

one extra on his hands and feet, six and six, twenty-four.

Rabbi Tarfon said to him:

Rabbi Tarfon

May those like you increase in Israel!

It follows that he said this to praise him, since it is not a blemish—and this is proof for Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei said to

Rabbi Yehuda:

Is that a proof from there? This is what he said to him: “May those like you diminish

the mamzerim and netinim from Israel!”

Would that all the disqualified ones were like you and it would be recognizable that they are disqualified, and through this people would not attach themselves to them.

We learned in the Mishna:

one who controls both his hands.

The Sages taught: A left-handed person, whether

he is left-handed

with regard to his hand,

who is accustomed to perform his actions with his left hand.

Whether

he is left-handed

with regard to his foot,

as when he walks he moves his left foot first,

is disqualified.

And the reason for disqualifying a left-handed person with regard to a priest is that the service is performed only with the right hand, and the left-handed person has no right hand, since even his left is not considered a right hand and a left-footed person is disqualified because it is written, “to stand and to serve,” in the manner of other people, whose principal standing is on the right.

One who controls both his hands: Rabbi deems him unfit, and the Sages deem him fit.

And we explain their reasoning:

One—

Rabbi

holds: weakness began for him in the right [hand],

the fact that they are equal is the result of weakness of the right hand, and he is therefore like a left-handed person who has no right hand

and the other,

the Sages, hold:

exceptional strength began for him in the left [hand],

for his right hand did not weaken; rather, the opposite, his left became stronger, and his right is a right.

Mishna:

The Cushite,

whose skin is black.

And the reddish one,

whose skin is red like crimson.

And the albino,

whose skin is exceedingly white .

And the tall and thin one,

who is very tall and thin, and he is ugly.

And the dwarf,

who is short in stature [dwarf].

And the deaf 43 ,

And the mentally incompetent one.

And the drunkard,

from other beverages, such as one who drank much milk or honey and his mind became confused; and it is not speaking of one drunk from wine, as is explained in the Gemara.'

And those possessing pure afflictions,

such as “it has all turned white.” But with impure afflictions, he is liable to karet for entering the Temple courtyard, and it is unnecessary to teach us that he does not serve.

All these blemishes,

disqualify a person, but are valid in an animal.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A mentally incompetent animal is not the choicest!

Rabbi Elazar says: Even those possessing taltulin,

who have something like pieces of flesh protruding and hanging,

disqualify a person, but are valid in an animal.

Gemara:

“Cushite,”

it is

black—

black.

“Reddish,”

it is

white—

white.

“Albino”

it is

red—

ruddy.

And we challenge:

Is that so? But what of that man who said to those around him:

to the people around him:

“Who wants white [animals]?” and it turned out that they were white,

and he had white lambs in his possession. And infer from this that an albino is white, similar to lubkiyanei, whereas you said that it is red?

And we retract from the above:

Rather, “Cushite”—

black,

black.

“Reddish”—

red,

red.

as people say: “Red”—

“giḥya.”

For people are accustomed to call red “giḥya.”

“Albino”—

white,

white.

like that man who said to them, “Who wants lubkiyanei?” and they turned out to be white,

infer from this that an albino is white.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Tall and thin.”

Rav Zevid taught:

“Tall and thin” is

tall.

And we challenge:

Is that so?

Is it a blemish?

But Rav Abbahu said: From where [do we know] that the Holy One, blessed be He, praises those of tall stature? As it is stated: “And I destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of cedars.”

And He said this as their praise; infer from this that it is praise.

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

The Mishna is

with regard to one who is tall, his [body] drooping, and ugly,

tall and thin in relation to his height; and because of his thinness and great height he becomes bent, and his vertebrae appear as though drooping, and therefore his appearance is ugly.

Reish Lakish said:

A man who is

tall should not marry

a woman

who is tall, lest there emerge from them

a child who will be tall like a

mast.

A man who is

a dwarf should not marry

a woman who is

a dwarf,

short in stature,

lest there emerge from them

a child who is

exceedingly short,

extremely short.

A man who is

white should not marry

a woman who is

white, lest there emerge from them

a child who is

shining white,

very white.

A man who is

black should not marry

a woman who is

black, lest there emerge from them

a child who is

deep black,

exceedingly black.

We learned in the Mishna:

the deaf person, the mentally incompetent person, and the drunkard.

And we challenge:

A drunkard—he invalidates the service, as it is written: [ויקרא י' ט'] Leviticus 10:9

[Leviticus 10:9]

“Wine and strong drink you shall not drink, you and your sons with you.” And it is written: “And to distinguish between the holy and the profane.”

And we expound: “to distinguish between sacred service and profaned service.” And if so,

along with

these

blemishes

complete

he should have been counted.

And for what reason did he teach the drunkard here in the Mishna together with blemishes that disqualify because they are not found among the seed of Aaron, since those do not invalidate the service?

And we answer: The Mishna is speaking

of other things—

other beverages

that intoxicate,

which are not included in the Torah’s prohibition, “Wine and strong drink you shall not drink.” And one who drinks them is not disqualified except because he is not found among the seed of Aaron.

And this is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

for according to him, other intoxicating beverages have the status of wine.

As it was taught: If one ate a fig

that grew in a place called

Ke'ilit,

and it intoxicates like wine.

And he drank milk,

or

honey

that was cooked with water,

and entered the Temple, he is liable

for lashes because of “Wine and strong drink you shall not drink.” And this beraita is Rabbi Yehuda’s. And since other beverages are included in “you shall not drink,” they are also included in “to distinguish between the holy and the profane,” and they profane the service.

And the Mishna, in which we disqualify one drunk from other beverages only because he is not found among the seed of Aaron, is not Rabbi Yehuda’s.

Mishna:

These are fit in a person

to serve,

but disqualified in an animal!

“It and its offspring,”

it is forbidden to slaughter it and its offspring on one day; therefore the second animal is disqualified for sacrifice on the same day on which the first was slaughtered. This is not so with a priest, for the father and son may serve together.

“And an animal with a fatal injury,”

in an animal it is disqualified, but a person who has a fatal injury is fit, since it is a hidden blemish.

“And one born by caesarean section,”

who was not born through the womb, but was removed through the wall of his mother’s abdomen. And he is disqualified for sacrifice, as it is written, “when it is born,” excluding one born by caesarean section. This is not so with a priest born through the wall, who is not disqualified from service. 2

“And those with whom a transgression was performed,”

that were bestialized

and that killed a person]

are disqualified for sacrifice, as above, on 41a, but in a person they are fit .

“One who marries women in transgression,”

such as a priest who married a divorced woman or a ḥalutza,

is disqualified until he makes her forbidden to himself with regard to benefit,

that he vows that he will not benefit from her, nor she from him. Through this he is fit to serve, since once he has made her forbidden to himself with regard to benefit, he will certainly divorce her.

“And one who renders himself impure through the dead is disqualified until he accepts upon himself that he will not render himself impure through the dead.”

And this is sufficient. And in the Gemara it explains how this differs from the first clause, where he must vow and an acceptance is not sufficient.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna

“And these are fit in a person”

“it and its offspring.”

And we inquire concerning it:

What is “it and its offspring”

that are fit to serve?

If you say Aaron and his son, [כלומר כהן ובנו] that is, a priest and his son,

who are fit to serve together,

the equivalent of it

in an animal

would be a he-goat and its offspring,

which are forbidden to be brought as offerings on one day.

It is difficult:

Does

the prohibition of “it and its offspring” apply to them?

But it was taught

in tractate Ḥullin: The law of

“it and its offspring” applies to females and does not apply to males

and it is forbidden to slaughter only a mother and her offspring, but a he-goat and its offspring are permitted.

Rather, a she-goat and its offspring,

with regard to which the prohibition applies.

The equivalent here

with regard to priests, of whom we say that they are fit for service, is speaking of

a female priest and her son.

It is still difficult,

and is

a female priest subject to service?

And we answer: In fact,

Aaron and his son

is what the Mishna is speaking of, since the disqualification of “it and its offspring” does not apply to them.

The equivalent here

in the Mishna is

a he-goat and its offspring.

And as for what is difficult for you, that the prohibition of “it and its offspring” does not apply to males?

They said in the West in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: This says

that is to say: This Mishna

is Hanania’s,

for he holds that it applies even to males.

As it was taught: “It and its offspring” applies to females and does not apply to males. Hanania says: It applies to males and to females.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one who marries women in transgression”

is disqualified until he makes her forbidden to himself with regard to benefit.

A tanna taught: He vows

benefit,

and serves

immediately; he need not wait until he divorces her.

He descends

from his service

and divorces her.

And we challenge:

And let us be concerned lest

after he performs the service

he goes

this man

to a sage, and he permits him

his vow, and it is found that he does not divorce her.

And we answer:

He holds

this tanna: one who comes to have his vow permitted

must specify the vow

and tell the sage what he vowed about; and when the sage hears what he vowed, he will not permit his vow.

And we challenge:

This works according to the one who says: One must specify the vow. But according to the one who says: One who comes to have his vow permitted does not

the one who comes to have it permitted

need to specify the vow, what is there to say?

But there is concern that they will permit his vow.

And we answer:

For we make him vow before the public

before many people that he will divorce her, and the sage cannot permit this vow.

And we challenge:

This works according to the one who says: A vow made before the public has no annulment. [דילפינן מהא דלא הכו את הגבעונים כי נשבעו להם נשיאי העדה, ומדוע לא נשאלו על שבועתם? ומזה למדו שנדר שהודר ברבים אין לו הפרה]For we derive it from the fact that they did not strike the Gibeonites, because the leaders of the congregation had sworn to them; and why did they not seek a ruling concerning their oath? From this they learned that a vow made before the public has no annulment.

[This is derived from the fact that the leaders of the congregation swore an oath to the Gibeonites, and they did not kill them. Why did they not seek the release of their oath? From this they learned that a vow made in the presence of the public cannot be released.]

But according to the one who says:

that even a vow made before the public

has annulment, what is there to say?

For the question returns: perhaps he will go to a sage and he will permit it.