Bekhorot 45b (מה:) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

extra fingers on his hands and feet

six on each, twenty-four in all; Rabbi Yehuda deems him fit, and the Sages deem him unfit.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: And both of them,

Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages,

expounded the same verse.

As it is written:

“And there was yet another battle in Gat, and there was a man of conspicuous stature, whose fingers were six and six, twenty-four

in number.”

And

the Sages hold:

the verse speaks of his disgrace,

and therefore an extra finger is a blemish.

But

Rabbi Yehuda

holds: The verse speaks of his praise,

and therefore it is not a blemish.

Rabba said:

Why

is it necessary for the verse to write, “six and six, twenty-four in number”?

It is obvious that once he had six fingers on each hand and foot, there were twenty-four altogether.

And we answer:

They are necessary, for had the Merciful One written only “six and six,” I would have said that he had six on his hand and six on his foot,

meaning that he had six fingers on one hand and one foot, but not on both hands and both feet. Therefore it

writes: “twenty-four,”

to indicate that there was an extra finger on each hand and each foot.

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

that his two hands and two feet were not equal, but

five

fingers

on this one, and seven

fingers

on that one.

Therefore it

writes: “six and six”

to indicate that there were six on each hand and foot.

And that which is written

“in number”

indicates that they were

counted on the hand,

as they stood in a single row with the other fingers.

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

and he had

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

Rabbi Tarfon said to him

:

May there be many more like you in Israel!

This indicates that he said this in praise of him, since he was not blemished. This is a proof for Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei said

to Rabbi Yehuda:

Is that a proof? This is what he said to him: May those like you be fewer

among the mamzerim and the netinim of Israel!

Would that all those disqualified from entering the congregation were like you and it were evident that they were disqualified; consequently, people would not attach themselves to them.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who controls both his hands.

The Sages taught: One who is left-handed, whether

he is left-handed

with regard to his hand,

as he is accustomed to perform his actions with his left hand,

or

he is left-handed

with regard to his foot,

as when he walks he moves his left foot first,

is unfit.

The reason that a left-handed koen is unfit is that the service is performed only with the right hand, and a left-handed person has no right hand, since even his left is not considered a right hand. A person who is left-handed with regard to his foot is unfit because it is written: “to stand and 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 in his right hand,

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

But

the Sages hold:

Additional strength began in his left hand,

meaning that his right hand did not become weakened; rather, the opposite occurred—his left hand became stronger, and his right is indeed considered his right.

Mishna:

The Cushite,

whose skin is black.

And the red-skinned,

whose skin is red like crimson.

And the albino,

whose skin is exceedingly white.

And the excessively tall and thin,

who is very tall and thin, and is unattractive.

And the dwarf,

who is short in stature [a dwarf].

And the deaf 43 ,

And the mentally incapacitated.

And the intoxicated,

from other beverages—for example, one who drank a great deal of milk or honey and became confused in mind; it is not referring to one intoxicated by wine, as explained in the Gemara.

And those with pure afflictions,

such as “he is entirely turned white.” But in the case of impure afflictions, one is liable to karet for entering the Temple courtyard, and it is unnecessary to teach us that he may not serve.

All these blemishes are

disqualifying in a person, but valid in an animal.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: An animal that is mentally incapacitated is not among the choicest!

Rabbi Elazar says: Even those with dangling growths,

who have pieces of flesh protruding and hanging from them,

are disqualifying in a person, but valid in an animal.

Gemara:

Cushite

is

okhma—

black.

Red-skinned

is

ḥuvara—

white.

Albino

is

sumaka—

ruddy.

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But what of the one who said to those around him

:

“Who wants lubekyanei?” And they turned out to be white,

as he had white lambs in his possession. And this proves that an albino is white, similar to lubekyanei, whereas you said that it is red?

And we retract the earlier explanation:

Rather, Cushite—

okhma,

black.

Red-skinned—

sumaka,

red.

As people say: Sumaka

is giḥya,

as people commonly call red “giḥya.”

Albino—

ḥiuvara,

white.

As in the case of the one who said to them, “Who wants lubekyanei?” and they turned out to be white;

this proves that an albino is white.

We learned in the Mishna:

Excessively tall and thin.

Rav Zevid taught

: Excessively tall and thin means

tall.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

Is it a blemish?

But Rav Abbahu said: From where is it derived 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.”

He said this in their praise; this proves that height is praiseworthy.

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

The Mishna is referring

to one who is excessively tall and thin, with a drooping posture,

tall and thin in proportion to his height; because of his extreme thinness and height, he becomes stooped, and his vertebrae appear as though they are sagging, and therefore his appearance is unattractive.

Reish Lakish said:

A man who is

tall should not marry

a

tall woman, lest they produce

a child who will be as tall as a

mast.

A man who is

a dwarf should not marry

a woman who is

a dwarf,

short in stature,

lest they produce

a child who is

utzavta,

exceedingly short.

A man who is

white should not marry

a woman who is

white, lest they produce

a child who is

bohek,

extremely white.

A man who is

black should not marry

a woman who is

black, lest they produce

a child who is

tefu'aḥ,

exceedingly black.

We learned in the Mishna:

The deaf, the mentally incapacitated, and the intoxicated.

And we object:

An intoxicated person invalidates the service, as it is written:

Leviticus 10:9:

“Do not drink wine or strong drink, you, nor your sons with you. And it is written: ‘To distinguish between the sacred and the profane.’”

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

among

these

complete

blemishes he

should have been counted.

And why does the Mishna list an intoxicated person here together with blemishes that disqualify because they are not found among the descendants of Aharon, since those other conditions do not invalidate the service?

And we answer: The Mishna is referring

to other substances—

other beverages

that cause intoxication,

which are not included in the Torah’s prohibition, “Do not drink wine or strong drink.” One who drinks them is unfit only because he is not like the descendants of Aharon.

And this is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

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

As it was taught in a beraita: One who ate a fig

that grew in a place called

Ke’ilit,

and it intoxicates like wine,

or drank milk,

or

honey

that was cooked with water,

and entered the Temple, is liable

to lashes on account of “Do not drink wine or strong drink.” And this beraita is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. Since other beverages are included in “do not drink,” they are also included in “to distinguish between the sacred and the profane,” and they invalidate the service.

And the Mishna, which says that one intoxicated by other beverages is disqualified only because he is not like the descendants of Aharon, is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

Mishna:

The following are valid in a person

to serve,

but disqualified in an animal!

An animal and its offspring,

as it is prohibited to slaughter the animal and its offspring on the same day; therefore, the second animal is disqualified for sacrifice on the day on which the first was slaughtered. This is unlike a koen, where a father and son may serve together.

And an animal with a fatal condition

is disqualified when it is an animal, whereas a person with such a condition is fit, as this is a concealed 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. He is disqualified for sacrifice, as it is written: “when it is born,” excluding one born by caesarean section. This is unlike a koen born by caesarean section, who is not disqualified from service. 2

And those with whom a transgression was performed,

who were sexually abused,

and those that killed a person

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

One who marries a woman forbidden to him,

such as a koen who married a divorcee or a woman released by ḥalitza,

is disqualified until he vows not to benefit from her,

meaning that he vows that he will not benefit from her, nor she from him. Through this he becomes fit to serve, since once he has prohibited benefit from her by a vow, he will certainly divorce her.

And one who renders himself impure through contact with the dead is disqualified until he accepts upon himself not to render himself impure through contact with the dead.

That suffices. And in the Gemara it is explained why this differs from the first clause, where he must take a vow and an acceptance alone does not suffice.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna

“and the following are valid in a person,”

an animal and its offspring.

And we consider this:

What is meant by “an animal and its offspring”

that are fit to serve?

If you say Aharon and his son,

that is, a koen and his son, who are fit to serve together,

then its parallel

in the case of an animal would be

a male goat and its son,

which are prohibited from being offered on the same day.

This is difficult:

Does

the prohibition of an animal and its offspring apply to them?

But it was taught

in tractate Ḥullin: The law of

an animal and its offspring applies to females but does not apply to males,

and it is prohibited to slaughter only a mother and her offspring, whereas a male goat and its son are permitted.

Rather, it refers to a female goat and its offspring,

to which the prohibition applies.

Its parallel here

with regard to the koanim, whom we say are fit to serve, would be a

female koen and her son.

This is still difficult:

But is

a female koen fit for service?

And we answer: Actually,

Aharon and his son

are the subject of the Mishna, as the prohibition of an animal and its offspring does not apply to them.

Their parallel here

in the Mishna is

a male goat and its son.

And as for what is difficult to you—that the prohibition of an animal and its offspring does not apply to males—

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

that this Mishna

is in accordance with Ḥananya,

who maintains that the prohibition applies even to males.

As it was taught in a beraita: The prohibition of an animal and its offspring applies to females but does not apply to males. Ḥananya says: It applies to males and females.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who marries a woman forbidden to him

is disqualified until he prohibits benefit from her by a vow.

The tanna taught: He vows

not to benefit from her,

and he serves

immediately thereafter; he need not wait until he divorces her.

He descends

from his service

and divorces her.

And we challenge this:

But let us be concerned lest

after he has performed the service,

this man goes

to a Sage

and the Sage releases him

from his vow, and it turns out that he does not divorce her.

And we answer:

This tanna holds

that one who comes to have his vow released

must specify the vow,

and tell the Sage why he made the vow; once the Sage hears what he vowed, he will not release him from his vow.

And we object:

That works according to the one who says: “He must specify the vow.” But according to the one who says: “He does not

have to

specify the vow,” what can be said?

There remains the concern that they might release him from his vow.

And we answer:

We have him make the vow in public

before many people, that he will divorce her; and a Sage cannot release this vow.

And we object:

That works according to the one who says: “A vow made in public cannot be released.” [

This is derived from the fact that the Israelites did not attack the Gibeonites, because the leaders of the congregation had sworn to them; and why did they not seek release from their oath? From this they learned that a vow made in public cannot be released.]

But according to the one who says

that even a vow made in public

can be released, what can be said?

The original difficulty returns: perhaps he will go to a Sage and the Sage will release him from his vow.