Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 31, 2019 | ื›ืดื• ื‘ืื™ื™ืจ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bekhorot 44

Additional blemishes that prevent a priest from working in the temple.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื›ื•ื—ืœ ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ื›ืื—ืช

Rather, even if he does not paint both of his eyes as one, any priest with an abnormally sunken nose is considered a แธฅarum.

ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžื˜ื” ืžื” ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžืขืœื” ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžื˜ื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžืขืœื” ื“ื—ื–ื™ ืœืžืขืœื” ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžื˜ื” ื“ื—ื–ื™ ืœืžื˜ื” ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื” ื“ื—ื–ืื™ ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžืขืœื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื•ืื” ืืช ื”ื—ื“ืจ ื•ืืช ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื” ื›ืื—ืช

ยง The mishna teaches that if both of oneโ€™s eyes are above or both of his eyes are below, he is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean when it mentions a priest wherein both of his eyes are above or both of his eyes are below? If we say that the phrase: Both of his eyes are above, means that he constantly gazes upward, and the phrase: Both of his eyes are below, means that he constantly gazes downward, then the case where one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below must similarly mean that he gazes with one of his eyes downward and one of his eyes upward. But if so, this is identical to the next case in the mishna, that one sees both the room on the ground floor and the upper story as one.

ืืœื ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžืขืœื” ื“ืงื™ื™ืžืŸ ืœืžืขืœื” ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžื˜ื” ื“ืงื™ื™ืžืŸ ืœืžื˜ื” ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื” ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื›ืกื“ืจืŸ ื ืžื™ ื•ืจื•ืื” ืืช ื”ื—ื“ืจ ื•ืืช ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื” ื›ืื—ืช

Rather, the phrase: Both of his eyes are above, is referring to a case where his eyes are situated above their normal place, and the phrase: Both of his eyes are below, is referring to a case where his eyes are situated below their normal place. Similarly, the case where one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below is where one of his eyes is situated above and one of his eyes is situated below. And the mishna adds that in a case where his eyes are situated in their proper arrangement as well, but he sees the room on the ground floor and the upper story as one, he too is considered blemished.

ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื ื• ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื• ืžื›ืืŸ ืืžืจื• ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžื˜ื” ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžืขืœื” ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืจื•ืื” ืืช ื”ื—ื“ืจ ื•ืืช ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื” ื›ืื—ืช ืื• ืฉืžื“ื‘ืจ ืขื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืื—ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื™ ืจื•ืื”

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to blemishes that disqualify priests: โ€œOr a cataract or a tevallul in his eyeโ€ (Leviticus 21:20). Since it is obvious that a cataract or a tevallul can occur only in oneโ€™s eyes, why does the verse state: In his eye? The term โ€œin his eyeโ€ indicates that any blemish that is in his eye disqualifies him from performing the Temple service. From here the Sages stated: If both of his eyes are below or both of his eyes are above, or if one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below, or if he sees the room and the upper story as one, or if when he speaks with his friend another person says: He is looking at me, he is blemished and is disqualified from performing the Temple service.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืกื•ืžื ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืกื•ืžื ื‘ืื—ืช ืžืขื™ื ื™ื• ื—ื•ืจื•ื•ืจ ื•ื”ืžื™ื ื”ืงื‘ื•ืขื™ืŸ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ืขื•ืจ

ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: When it is stated that a blind man [iver] is disqualified from performing the Temple service (see Leviticus 21:18), this applies whether he is blind in both of his eyes or blind in one of his eyes. With regard to a priest who cannot see due to pale spots on the eye or due to tears streaming from the eye that are constant, from where is it derived that he is disqualified? The same verse states: โ€œA blind man [ish iver].โ€ The superfluous word โ€œishโ€ serves to include these conditions as well.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื™ืฉ ืขื•ืจ ื“ืง ืชื‘ืœื•ืœ ื‘ืขื™ื ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขื•ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชื ื”ื• ื›ืœืœ ืื‘ืœ ื—ื•ืจื•ื•ืจ ื•ื”ืžื™ื ื”ืงื‘ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื“ืื™ืชื ื”ื• ื‘ื™ื” ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื™ืฉ

Rava says: Why do I need the Merciful One to write the terms โ€œman,โ€ โ€œblind,โ€ โ€œcataract,โ€ โ€œtevallul,โ€ and โ€œin his eyeโ€ (Leviticus 21:18, 20)? All these are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only โ€œblind,โ€ then one might say that a blind person is disqualified because his eyes are not in their sockets at all, i.e., they were enucleated. But in the case of a priest with pale spots on the eye or tears streaming from the eye that are constant, where his eyes are still in their sockets but he cannot see, perhaps he is not considered blemished. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote โ€œmanโ€ to include these conditions as well.

ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื™ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืงื ื—ื–ื™ ื›ืœืœ ืื‘ืœ ืžื—ืกื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื“ืง ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื“ืง ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื—ืกืจืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืžื‘ืœื‘ืœื™ืชื ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืชื‘ืœื•ืœ

And had the Merciful One written only โ€œman,โ€ one might have thought that only total blindness disqualifies a priest, because he cannot see at all. But if his condition causes merely impaired vision, then he is not considered blemished. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote โ€œcataractโ€ to include conditions of impaired vision as well. And had the Merciful One written only that a priest with a cataract is disqualified, it might have been thought that such a priest is disqualified because his vision is impaired. But if his vision is not impaired but his eyes are mixed, i.e., the black and white parts of his eyes are mixed together, then he is not disqualified. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote โ€œtevallul.โ€

ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืชื‘ืœื•ืœ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื‘ืœื‘ืœืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืžืฉื•ื ืžืฉื ื™ื•ืชื ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืขื™ื ื•

And had the Merciful One written only โ€œtevallul,โ€ one might say that this disqualifies a priest because his eyes are mixed. But the Torah does not disqualify a priest due to a deviation from normal appearance, e.g., especially large eyes, or eyes situated higher than normal. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote โ€œin his eye.โ€

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืœื›ืš ื›ืœ ืžื—ืžืช ื›ื”ื™ื•ืชื ืืชื™ื ืžืื™ืฉ ืžื—ืกื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžื“ืง ืžื‘ืœื‘ืœื™ืชื ืžืชื‘ืœื•ืœ ืžืฉื ื™ื•ืชื ืžื‘ืขื™ื ื•

In summary, Rava says: Therefore, all blemishes of the eyes that disqualify a priest on account of dimness, i.e., blindness, are derived from the term โ€œman.โ€ All blemishes of the eyes that are related to vision impairment are derived from โ€œcataract.โ€ All blemishes that are related to parts of the eye being intermingled are derived from โ€œtevallul.โ€ Finally, the disqualification of deviations is derived from โ€œin his eye.โ€

ืกื›ื™ ืฉืžืฉ ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืกื ื™ ืฉืžืฉ ื–ื’ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื—ื•ื™ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื—ื“ ืžื“ื™ื“ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ ืžื“ื™ื“ื”ื• ื•ืื™ืงืคื“ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

ยง The mishna teaches that those unable to look at the sun [sakhei shemesh] are disqualified from performing the Temple service. Rav Yosef taught that this is a reference to those who hate the sun [sanei shemesh], i.e., they are incapable of opening their eyes in sunlight. The mishna further states that one whose eyes are different is disqualified from performing the Temple service. In order to illustrate this blemish, Rav Huna pointed with his finger while saying: The term: Different eyes, is referring to an individual wherein one of his eyes is like ours and one of his eyes is like theirs. And since Rav Huna was pointing at Rav Yehuda, who had abnormal eyes, Rav Yehuda took offense.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืฉื›ื‘ื ื ืฉื’ื‘ื™ื ื™ื• ืฉื•ื›ื‘ื™ื ื–ื’ื“ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื—ื•ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ืœื‘ืŸ ืชื ื ื›ืœ ื–ื•ื’ื ื“ืœื ืฉื•ื™ ืœื”ื“ื“ื™ ื–ื’ื“ื•ื ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to Rav Hunaโ€™s interpretation of one whose eyes are different: When the Sages taught that a shekhavna is disqualified from performing the Temple service, they were referring to one whose eyebrows lie flat [shokhvim] and cover his eyes. When they taught that one whose eyes are different [zagdum] is disqualified, they were referring to a case where one of his eyebrows is black and one is white. The Gemara responds: With regard to any pair of limbs that are not identical to one another, the tanna of this baraita calls them different.

ื”ืฆื™ืจืŸ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืชืจื•ื˜ื•ืช ื•ืฆื™ืจื ื™ื•ืช ื“ื•ืžืขื•ืช ื“ื•ืœืคื•ืช ื˜ื•ืจื“ื•ืช

ยง The mishna teaches that one whose eyes tear constantly is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara cites a baraita that defines such an individual: His eyes, i.e., his eyelids, droop and can open only partially, or his eyes are round; his eyes tear, or tears stream from his eyes, or tears flow intensely from them.

ืชื ื ื”ื–ื“ื™ืจ ื•ื”ืœื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืชืžื™ืจ ื–ื•ื™ืจ ื“ืžื–ื•ืจ ืขื™ื ื™ื” ืœื•ืคื™ืŸ ื“ื ืคื™ืฉื™ืŸ ื–ื™ืคื™ื” ืชืžื™ืจ ืฉืชืžื• ื–ื™ืคื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืชื ื• ืœื”ื• ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืฉื ืฉืจื• ืจื™ืกื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืžืคื ื™ ืžืจืื™ืช ื”ืขื™ืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืืฉืชื™ื•ืจ ื’ืจื“ื•ืžื™ ื”ื ื“ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื™ื•ืจ ื’ืจื“ื•ืžื™

The Sages taught in a baraita: The zadir, and the lupin, and the tamir are disqualified from performing the Temple service. Zadir is a reference to one whose eyes are strange. Lupin is a reference to one with an abundance of eyelashes. Tamir is a reference to one whose eyelashes are depleted. The Gemara asks: And does the tanna teach these cases together with full-fledged blemishes? But didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna: One whose eyelashes have fallen out is disqualified from performing the Temple service due to the appearance of a blemish? Clearly, this is not considered an actual blemish. The Gemara answers that it is not difficult. This mishna is referring to a case where the roots of his eyelashes remain, whereas that baraita is referring to a case where the roots do not remain.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ื’ื“ื•ืœื•ืช ื›ืฉืœ ืขื’ืœ ืื• ืงื˜ื ื•ืช ื›ืฉืœ ืื•ื•ื– ื’ื•ืคื• ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืื‘ืจื™ื• ืื• ืงื˜ืŸ ืžืื‘ืจื™ื• ื—ื•ื˜ืžื• ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืื‘ืจื™ื• ืื• ืงื˜ืŸ ืžืื™ื‘ืจื™ื• ื”ืฆื•ืžื ื•ื”ืฆื•ืžืข ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืฆื•ืžืข ื›ืœ ืฉืื–ื ื™ื• ืงื˜ื ื•ืช ื•ื”ืฆื•ืžื ื›ืœ ืฉืื–ื ื™ื• ื“ื•ืžื•ืช ืœืกืคื•ื’ ืฉืคืชื• ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืขื•ื“ืคืช ืขืœ ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ืขื•ื“ืคืช ืขืœ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ื ื•ืฉื ืฉืจื• ืฉื™ื ื™ื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืžืคื ื™ ืžืจืื™ืช ื”ืขื™ืŸ

MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: If a priestโ€™s eyes are large like those of a calf or small like those of a goose; if his body is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs; if his nose is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs, he is disqualified. And the tzomem and the tzomeโ€™a are also disqualified. What is a tzomeโ€™a? It is anyone whose ears are small. And what is the tzomem? It is anyone whose ears are similar to a sponge. If his upper lip protrudes beyond the lower lip or his lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip, that is a blemish. And one whose teeth fell out is disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ื”ื™ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืคืจืฉ ืืช ื”ืื”ืœ ืขืœ ื”ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืžื™ ืคืจืฉื• ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืคืจืฉื• ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ืื•ืจืš ื”ืงืจืฉ

GEMARA: Rav says: Moses, our teacher, was ten ammot tall, as it is stated: โ€œAnd he spread the tent over the Tabernacleโ€ (Exodus 40:19). Who spread the tent over the Tabernacle? Moses, our teacher, spread it, and it is written with regard to the height of the Tabernacle: โ€œTen ammot shall be the length of a boardโ€ (Exodus 26:16). Moses must have been at least as tall as the Tabernacle itself for him to have spread the tent over it.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืœืจื‘ ืื ื›ืŸ ืขืฉื™ืชื• ืœืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื• ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืื‘ืจื™ื• ืื• ืงื˜ืŸ ืžืื‘ืจื™ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืืžื” ืฉืœ ืงืจืฉ ืงืืžืจ

Rav Shimi bar แธคiyya said to Rav: If so, you have rendered Moses, our teacher, a blemished person, as we learned in the mishna: If oneโ€™s body is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs, then he is blemished. A typical person is no more than three arm-lengths [ammot] tall, and yet Moses was apparently ten times taller than the length of his own arm. Rav said to him: Shimi, when I said that Moses was ten ammot tall, I said so in reference to the cubit [amma] of a board used in the building of the Tabernacle. The limbs of Moses were proportional to the rest of his body, but he was indeed ten cubits tall.

ื—ื•ื˜ืžื• ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื ื›ืืฆื‘ืข ืงื˜ื ื”

The mishna taught that if oneโ€™s nose is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs, he is blemished. The Sages taught in a baraita: The measure of disproportion is the size of oneโ€™s small finger.

ื”ืฆื•ืžื ื•ื”ืฆื•ืžืข ืชื ื ืืฃ ื”ืฆื™ืžื— ืœื ื”ื•ื• ื™ื“ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืฆื™ืžื— ืฉืžืขื• ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื˜ื™ื™ืขื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงืืžืจ ืžืืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืฆื™ืžื— ื•ืื™ืฉืชื›ื— ื’ื“ื™ื ื—ื–ื™ื–ื

ยง The mishna also taught that the tzomem and the tzomeโ€™a are blemished. The Sages taught in a baraita: The tzimeโ€™aแธฅ is also disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Sages did not know what a tzimeโ€™aแธฅ is. They heard a certain Arab who was saying: Who wants a tzimeโ€™aแธฅ, and it was found to be a long-eared goat.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืขื– ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืงืจื ื™ื ื•ืจื—ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ืงืจื ื™ื ื›ืฉืจื™ื ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื—

The Gemara discusses the halakha of a tzomem, tzomeโ€™a, and tzimeโ€™aแธฅ with regard to animals. Rav แธคisda says: A female goat that has no horns and a female lamb that has horns are fit for sacrificing upon the altar, i.e., they are not considered blemished, despite the fact that they differ from regular female goats and female lambs.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื™ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื”ืŸ ื›ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ืŸ ื›ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื”ื ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืžื“ื™ื ื” ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืขื– ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืงืจื ื™ื ื•ืจื—ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืงืจื ื™ื ื•ื”ืฆื™ืžื— ื•ื”ืฆื™ืžื ื•ื”ืฆื™ืžืข

The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita: There are matters that appear like blemishes but they are not truly like blemishes, and one may therefore slaughter sacrificial animals on account of them in the Temple, i.e., they are fit for sacrifice despite these blemishes; but if they are firstborn animals, they are not permitted for slaughter in the rest of the country on account of these blemishes, as the unique physical characteristics of these animals are not true blemishes. And these are the blemishes: A female goat that has no horns, and a female lamb that has horns, and the tzimeโ€™aแธฅ, and the tzomem, and the tzomeโ€™a.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืืžื™ืžืจ ื ื˜ืœื• ืงืจื ื•ืชืŸ ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืชืŸ ืขืžื”ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืคื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื”ื ื ื˜ืœื• ื˜ืœืคื™ื™ื ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืชื ืขืžื”ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื”ื

With regard to the horns of an animal, Rav แธคisda says that Ameimar says: If the horns of an animal were removed, and their bones, i.e., the bones inside the horns, were removed with them, the animal is unfit for sacrifice. But even so, one may not redeem the animal on account of such blemishes, as they are not full-fledged blemishes. But if the hooves were removed, and their bones, i.e., the portion of the leg to which the hooves are attached, were removed with them, they are unfit for sacrifice and they are even redeemed on account of such blemishes, as they are full-fledged blemishes.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื ื˜ืœื• ืงืจื ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื˜ืœืคื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืชืŸ ืขืžื”ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืื™ืชืขืงื•ืจ ืื™ืชืขืงื•ืจื™ ื”ื ื“ืื™ื’ื•ื ืื™ื’ื•ืžื™

Rav แธคisda stated that the removal of a horn and its bone is not considered a full-fledged blemish that enables the animal to be redeemed. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If the horns or the hooves of an animal were removed, and their respective bones were removed with them, they are unfit and they are redeemed on account of them. The Gemara explains that it is not difficult. This baraita is referring to a case where the bone was entirely uprooted, which is a full-fledged blemish on account of which the animal may be redeemed. That statement of Rav แธคisda is referring to a case where the bones were cut but were not uprooted entirely.

ื•ื“ืื™ื’ื•ื ืื™ื’ื•ืžื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื• ืคืจื” ืฉืงืจื ื™ื” ื•ื˜ืœืคื™ื” ืฉื—ื•ืจื™ื ื™ื’ื•ื“ ืชืจื’ืžื” ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ืžืขื™ืœื•ื™ ื–ื›ืจื•ืช

The Gemara asks: But in a case where the bones of the animal were cut, is the animal even rendered unfit? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Para 2:2): With regard to a red heifer whose horns and hooves are black, the halakha is that one should cut away the black parts so that the heifer remains entirely red. Evidently, cutting away the horns of the heifer does not inflict a blemish upon it. Zeโ€™eiri interpreted the mishna as referring to cutting the horn specifically from above the bone inside it. In such a case, the heifer is not disqualified. Cutting the bone itself does disqualify the animal.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืœ ืืฉื” ื›ืจื™ืกื• ืฆื‘ื” ื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืจื• ื™ื•ืฆื ื ื›ืคื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืื—ืช ืœื™ืžื™ื ืจื•ื— ืงืฆืจื” ื‘ืื” ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืžืื•ืฉื‘ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื’ื‘ืจ

MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: One who has breasts so large that they sag like those of a woman; or if oneโ€™s belly is swollen and protrudes; or if oneโ€™s navel protrudes; or if one is an epileptic, even if he experiences seizures only once in a long while; or one who is afflicted with a melancholy temper; or one whose scrotum is unnaturally long; or one whose penis is unnaturally long is disqualified from performing the Temple service.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืžืฉืชื™ื ื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืชื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืฉืชื™ื ื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืชื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืื—ื“ ืฉื‘ื™ืงืฉ ืœื”ืฉืชื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื•ืœื ื”ืฉืชื™ืŸ ื•ื ืžืฆื ื›ืจื™ืกื• ืฆื‘ื”

GEMARA: The Gemara cites a halakha involving a swollen belly. Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba, says that Torah scholars may urinate in public and they need not be concerned with issues of modesty, because holding back from urinating causes bodily harm. But they may not drink water in public, as such conduct is unbefitting a Torah scholar. And this is also taught in a baraita: Torah scholars may urinate in public, but they may not drink water in public. And there was an incident involving one who sought to urinate, and he did not urinate, and his belly was found to be swollen.

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉื‘ืชื ื“ืจื’ืœื ื ื’ื“ื• ืœื™ื” ื’ืœื™ืžื ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืชืŸ ืœืš ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ื–ื™ืœ ืื”ื“ืจ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ืืช ื“ืืคืฉืจ ืœืš ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืกืชื›ืŸ

The Gemara relates: It was necessary for Shmuel to urinate on the Shabbat when everyone came to hear halakhot relating to the impending Festival. In order to afford him privacy, they spread a sheet for him. Shmuel then came before his father, who said to him: I will give you four hundred dinars if you will go and retract this incident, i.e., if you will state publicly that one may not hold back from urinating even at the expense of oneโ€™s privacy. Since you are an important man, you can have others spread a sheet around you. But with regard to one who cannot have others spread a sheet for him, should he endanger himself by seeking privacy? You must therefore teach that one should not hold back from urinating even in public.

ืžืจ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืื’ื•ื“ื ื’ืžืœื ืืฉืชื™ืŸ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื—ืžืชืš ืงืืชื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื‘ืื•ื“ื ื”

The Gemara further relates that it was necessary for Mar bar Rav Ashi to urinate while he was walking on the beams of a bridge, and therefore he urinated. They said to him: Your mother-in-law is coming. Mar bar Rav Ashi said to them: I would have done this even in her ear. Since holding back from urinating would place him in physical danger, he would not care that his mother-in-law was coming and might see him.

ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืขืœืงื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืช

The Gemara returns to the incident cited in the baraita involving one who held back from urinating and his belly became swollen: And let me derive, i.e., can it not be said, that his belly swelled due to a leech that entered his intestines? The Gemara responds: The baraita is referring to a case where his urine would thereafter drip and no longer flowed in a healthy manner. Evidently, his health problems resulted from damage to the urinary tract.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื ืงื‘ื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื‘ืื“ื ืื—ื“ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืฉืชืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืœื–ื” ืืœื ื›ืงืœื™ืคืช ื”ืฉื•ื ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืื“ื ื ืฆืจืš ืื ื ืงื‘ื• ื–ื” ืœืชื•ืš ื–ื” ื ืžืฆื ืขืงืจ

Concerning this topic the Sages taught in a baraita: There are two orifices in a man. One of them expels urine and one of them expels semen, and there is only a partition about the thickness of a garlic peel between them. When a man needs to urinate and withholds the urine, if his urinary duct and seminal duct were punctured such that this duct leads into that one, he will be found to be barren, as his urine will penetrate into his seminal duct.

ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืš ืขืงืจ ื•ืขืงืจื” ื•ื‘ื‘ื”ืžืชืš ืื™ืžืชื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืš ืขืงืจ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื‘ื‘ื”ืžืชืš

Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œThere shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattleโ€ (Deuteronomy 7:14)? It means as follows: When will there not be a barren male among you? At a time that you act as among your cattle, i.e., you urinate when the need arises, without hesitation.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืš ืขืงืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืงืจื” ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืชืคืœืชืš ืขืงื•ืจื” ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืžืงื•ื ืื™ืžืชื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืืชื” ืžืฉื™ื ืขืฆืžืš ื›ื‘ื”ืžื”

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says, with regard to the same verse, that the phrase โ€œThere shall not be maleโ€ฆbarren among youโ€ means you will not be barren of students, as one who leaves behind no students is considered barren. The term โ€œor female barrenโ€ indicates that your prayers will not be barren, i.e., unheard, before the Omnipresent, but will be heard by Him. And when will they be heard? At a time when you place yourself in prayer as an animal, with humility.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœื ื™ืฉืชื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžื™ื ืœื ืขืœ ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืก ื•ืœื ืขืœ ืžืงื•ื ืงืฉื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื ื™ ืžื“ื•ืจื™ ื“ื‘ื‘ืœ ืžื”ื“ืจื™ ืžื™ื ืœืขื™ืŸ ืขื™ื˜ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื ืื™ืชืชื ืœื ืชืงื•ื ืœื”ื“ื™ื ื‘ืื ืคื™ ื™ื ื•ืงื ืื’ื™ืกื ืœื™ืช ืœืŸ ื‘ื”

The Gemara cites additional statements of the Sages with regard to urination. Rav Pappa says: A person should urinate in Babylonia only on the dust, as it absorbs the urine. He should not urinate either on an earthenware vessel or on a hard place, as the urine will not be absorbed and will eventually flow into the underwater rivers. As Rav says: Those inclines of Babylonia return the water through underground watercourses to the Spring of Eitam in Eretz Yisrael, from which water was taken to the Temple. Additionally, Abaye says: A woman should not stand openly in front of a child when she urinates. But if she urinates while turning sideways, we have no problem with it.

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืขืžื•ื“ ื”ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ืื“ื ืœื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ืจื•ืงืŸ ืกื™ืœื•ืŸ ื”ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ืื“ื ืœื™ื“ื™ ื™ืจืงื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืงื˜ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ื ืจื‘ื” ืฉื—ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื” ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ืจื‘ื” ืฆืจืขืช ืจื‘ื” ืฆื•ืื” ืจื‘ื” ื”ื“ืจื•ืงืŸ ืจื‘ื” ืžื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื™ืจืงื•ืŸ ืจื‘ื”

It is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A mass of feces that is held back without being discharged causes a person to suffer from dropsy [hidrokan], while a stream of urine that is held back causes a person to suffer from jaundice. Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav Ketina says that Reish Lakish says: If oneโ€™s blood levels increase due to not undergoing bloodletting often enough, then boils will increase on him as well. If oneโ€™s semen levels increase due to not engaging in sexual intercourse often enough, then leprosy will increase on him. If oneโ€™s feces levels increase due to not relieving himself enough, dropsy will increase in him. Finally, if oneโ€™s urine levels increase due to not relieving himself enough, then jaundice will increase as well.

ืจื•ื— ืงืฆืจื™ืช ื‘ืื” ืขืœื™ื• ืžืื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืชื ื ืจื•ื— ื‘ืŸ ื ืคืœื™ื ื‘ืื” ืขืœื™ื•

ยง The mishna teaches that one who is afflicted with a melancholy temper is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara asks: What is this melancholy temper? A tanna taught: A fallen spirit, i.e., the spirit of a demon, has come upon him.

ื”ืžืื•ืฉื‘ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื’ื‘ืจ ืชื ื ืžืฉื•ื‘ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื’ื‘ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื“ ืชื ื ืžืฉื•ื‘ืŸ ื–ื” ื”ืงื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ืจื‘ืชืŸ ื–ื” ื‘ืขืœ ืงื™ืง ืงื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื’ืจื‘ืชื ื‘ื’ื™ื“

The mishna also teaches that one whose scrotum is unnaturally long [meโ€™ushban] and one whose penis is unnaturally long [baโ€™al gever] are disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Sages taught in a baraita: A meshuban is one with exceedingly large testicles, and a baโ€™al gever is one with an unnaturally long penis. Similarly, it is taught in a baraita: A meshuban, this is synonymous with the kayyan. The garbetan, this is synonymous with a baโ€™al kik. A kayyan is one with a condition of the testicles, while a garbeta is one with a condition of the penis.

ื•ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืžื—ื•ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืขื“ ืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืŸ ืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืฉืจ ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืขื“ ืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืฉืจ ืœืžื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ืคืกื•ืœ

The Gemara asks: And how much is considered too long, which disqualifies the priest from performing the Temple service? Rav Yehuda pointed and said: Until the knee. It is likewise taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: If oneโ€™s penis reaches until his knee he is disqualified from performing the Temple service. But if it reaches until just above his knee he remains fit. Some say if his penis reaches until the knee he is fit, but if it passes below the knee he is disqualified.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ื‘ื™ืฆื” ืื—ืช ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžืจื•ื— ืืฉืš ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื ื™ืžื•ื—ื• ืืฉื›ื™ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉืจื•ื— ื‘ืืฉื›ื™ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉืžืจืื™ื• ื—ืฉื•ื›ื™ืŸ

MISHNA: If one has no testicles, or if he has only one testicle, that is the meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh that is stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 21:20) among the blemishes that disqualify a priest from Temple service. Rabbi Yishmael says: A meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh is anyone whose testicles were crushed. Rabbi Akiva says: It is anyone that has wind in his testicles, i.e., they are swollen. Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus says: Meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh does not refer to the testicles; rather, the reference is to anyone whose appearance [marav] is especially dark [แธฅashukhin].

ื’ืžืณ ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื ื—ืกืจ ืืฉืš ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ ืฉื ืžืจื—ื• ืืฉื›ื™ื• ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืžืžืจื•ื— ืืฉืš ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ ืฉื”ืจื•ื— ื‘ืืฉื›ื™ื•

GEMARA: The Gemara explains why the tannaโ€™im interpret meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh in different ways. It is difficult for Rabbi Yishmael: If meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh is referring to one who lacks two testicles, then the Torah should have stated: แธคasar ashekh, lacking a testicle, rather than meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh. Therefore, he teaches that it is referring to one whose testicles were crushed. This is difficult for Rabbi Akiva: If meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh means one with crushed testicles, then the Torah should have stated: Mimroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh, crushed testicles, not meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh. Therefore, he teaches that the Torah is referring to one who has wind in his testicles.

ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ื”ืื™ ืจื•ื— ืืฉืš ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ ืฉืžืจืื™ื• ื—ืฉื•ื›ื™ืŸ ืงืกื‘ืจ ื’ื•ืจืขื™ืŸ ื•ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ

This is difficult for Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus: If meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh is referring to one with wind in his testicles, then the Torah should have stated: Ruaแธฅ ashekh, wind in the testicles. Therefore, he teaches that the Torah is speaking of anyone whose appearance is especially dark. And how does he derive such an interpretation from the verse? He holds that the Sages subtract and add and interpret homiletically. Accordingly, the แธฅet of meroโ€™aแธฅ is removed along with the alef of ashekh. The แธฅet is added to ashekh and the alef is added to meroโ€™aแธฅ, and meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh is rearranged to state: Marav แธฅashukhin, his appearance is dark.

ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื›ื•ืฉื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืœื ืชื ื™ ื›ื•ืฉื™

The Gemara asks: But if so, this is identical to one whose skin is extremely black, and the mishna on 45b explicitly states that such a priest is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara responds: Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus learns from the mishna only that a meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh is disqualified; he does not teach in that mishna the halakha that a person with extremely black skin is blemished.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืงื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจืกื•ืœื™ื• ื•ื‘ืืจื›ื‘ื•ืชื™ื•

MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: One whose legs are crooked and bend inward, causing him to knock his ankles or his knees into each other as he walks,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bekhorot 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 44

ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื›ื•ื—ืœ ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ื›ืื—ืช

Rather, even if he does not paint both of his eyes as one, any priest with an abnormally sunken nose is considered a แธฅarum.

ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžื˜ื” ืžื” ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžืขืœื” ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžื˜ื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžืขืœื” ื“ื—ื–ื™ ืœืžืขืœื” ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžื˜ื” ื“ื—ื–ื™ ืœืžื˜ื” ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื” ื“ื—ื–ืื™ ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžืขืœื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื•ืื” ืืช ื”ื—ื“ืจ ื•ืืช ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื” ื›ืื—ืช

ยง The mishna teaches that if both of oneโ€™s eyes are above or both of his eyes are below, he is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean when it mentions a priest wherein both of his eyes are above or both of his eyes are below? If we say that the phrase: Both of his eyes are above, means that he constantly gazes upward, and the phrase: Both of his eyes are below, means that he constantly gazes downward, then the case where one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below must similarly mean that he gazes with one of his eyes downward and one of his eyes upward. But if so, this is identical to the next case in the mishna, that one sees both the room on the ground floor and the upper story as one.

ืืœื ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžืขืœื” ื“ืงื™ื™ืžืŸ ืœืžืขืœื” ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžื˜ื” ื“ืงื™ื™ืžืŸ ืœืžื˜ื” ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื” ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื›ืกื“ืจืŸ ื ืžื™ ื•ืจื•ืื” ืืช ื”ื—ื“ืจ ื•ืืช ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื” ื›ืื—ืช

Rather, the phrase: Both of his eyes are above, is referring to a case where his eyes are situated above their normal place, and the phrase: Both of his eyes are below, is referring to a case where his eyes are situated below their normal place. Similarly, the case where one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below is where one of his eyes is situated above and one of his eyes is situated below. And the mishna adds that in a case where his eyes are situated in their proper arrangement as well, but he sees the room on the ground floor and the upper story as one, he too is considered blemished.

ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื ื• ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื• ืžื›ืืŸ ืืžืจื• ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžื˜ื” ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœืžืขืœื” ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžืขืœื” ื•ืขื™ื ื• ืื—ืช ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืจื•ืื” ืืช ื”ื—ื“ืจ ื•ืืช ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื” ื›ืื—ืช ืื• ืฉืžื“ื‘ืจ ืขื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืื—ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื™ ืจื•ืื”

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to blemishes that disqualify priests: โ€œOr a cataract or a tevallul in his eyeโ€ (Leviticus 21:20). Since it is obvious that a cataract or a tevallul can occur only in oneโ€™s eyes, why does the verse state: In his eye? The term โ€œin his eyeโ€ indicates that any blemish that is in his eye disqualifies him from performing the Temple service. From here the Sages stated: If both of his eyes are below or both of his eyes are above, or if one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below, or if he sees the room and the upper story as one, or if when he speaks with his friend another person says: He is looking at me, he is blemished and is disqualified from performing the Temple service.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขื•ืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืกื•ืžื ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืกื•ืžื ื‘ืื—ืช ืžืขื™ื ื™ื• ื—ื•ืจื•ื•ืจ ื•ื”ืžื™ื ื”ืงื‘ื•ืขื™ืŸ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉ ืขื•ืจ

ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: When it is stated that a blind man [iver] is disqualified from performing the Temple service (see Leviticus 21:18), this applies whether he is blind in both of his eyes or blind in one of his eyes. With regard to a priest who cannot see due to pale spots on the eye or due to tears streaming from the eye that are constant, from where is it derived that he is disqualified? The same verse states: โ€œA blind man [ish iver].โ€ The superfluous word โ€œishโ€ serves to include these conditions as well.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื™ืฉ ืขื•ืจ ื“ืง ืชื‘ืœื•ืœ ื‘ืขื™ื ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขื•ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชื ื”ื• ื›ืœืœ ืื‘ืœ ื—ื•ืจื•ื•ืจ ื•ื”ืžื™ื ื”ืงื‘ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื“ืื™ืชื ื”ื• ื‘ื™ื” ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื™ืฉ

Rava says: Why do I need the Merciful One to write the terms โ€œman,โ€ โ€œblind,โ€ โ€œcataract,โ€ โ€œtevallul,โ€ and โ€œin his eyeโ€ (Leviticus 21:18, 20)? All these are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only โ€œblind,โ€ then one might say that a blind person is disqualified because his eyes are not in their sockets at all, i.e., they were enucleated. But in the case of a priest with pale spots on the eye or tears streaming from the eye that are constant, where his eyes are still in their sockets but he cannot see, perhaps he is not considered blemished. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote โ€œmanโ€ to include these conditions as well.

ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื™ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืงื ื—ื–ื™ ื›ืœืœ ืื‘ืœ ืžื—ืกื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื“ืง ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื“ืง ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื—ืกืจืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืžื‘ืœื‘ืœื™ืชื ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืชื‘ืœื•ืœ

And had the Merciful One written only โ€œman,โ€ one might have thought that only total blindness disqualifies a priest, because he cannot see at all. But if his condition causes merely impaired vision, then he is not considered blemished. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote โ€œcataractโ€ to include conditions of impaired vision as well. And had the Merciful One written only that a priest with a cataract is disqualified, it might have been thought that such a priest is disqualified because his vision is impaired. But if his vision is not impaired but his eyes are mixed, i.e., the black and white parts of his eyes are mixed together, then he is not disqualified. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote โ€œtevallul.โ€

ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืชื‘ืœื•ืœ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื‘ืœื‘ืœืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืžืฉื•ื ืžืฉื ื™ื•ืชื ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืขื™ื ื•

And had the Merciful One written only โ€œtevallul,โ€ one might say that this disqualifies a priest because his eyes are mixed. But the Torah does not disqualify a priest due to a deviation from normal appearance, e.g., especially large eyes, or eyes situated higher than normal. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote โ€œin his eye.โ€

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืœื›ืš ื›ืœ ืžื—ืžืช ื›ื”ื™ื•ืชื ืืชื™ื ืžืื™ืฉ ืžื—ืกื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžื“ืง ืžื‘ืœื‘ืœื™ืชื ืžืชื‘ืœื•ืœ ืžืฉื ื™ื•ืชื ืžื‘ืขื™ื ื•

In summary, Rava says: Therefore, all blemishes of the eyes that disqualify a priest on account of dimness, i.e., blindness, are derived from the term โ€œman.โ€ All blemishes of the eyes that are related to vision impairment are derived from โ€œcataract.โ€ All blemishes that are related to parts of the eye being intermingled are derived from โ€œtevallul.โ€ Finally, the disqualification of deviations is derived from โ€œin his eye.โ€

ืกื›ื™ ืฉืžืฉ ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืกื ื™ ืฉืžืฉ ื–ื’ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื—ื•ื™ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื—ื“ ืžื“ื™ื“ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ ืžื“ื™ื“ื”ื• ื•ืื™ืงืคื“ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

ยง The mishna teaches that those unable to look at the sun [sakhei shemesh] are disqualified from performing the Temple service. Rav Yosef taught that this is a reference to those who hate the sun [sanei shemesh], i.e., they are incapable of opening their eyes in sunlight. The mishna further states that one whose eyes are different is disqualified from performing the Temple service. In order to illustrate this blemish, Rav Huna pointed with his finger while saying: The term: Different eyes, is referring to an individual wherein one of his eyes is like ours and one of his eyes is like theirs. And since Rav Huna was pointing at Rav Yehuda, who had abnormal eyes, Rav Yehuda took offense.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืฉื›ื‘ื ื ืฉื’ื‘ื™ื ื™ื• ืฉื•ื›ื‘ื™ื ื–ื’ื“ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื—ื•ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ืœื‘ืŸ ืชื ื ื›ืœ ื–ื•ื’ื ื“ืœื ืฉื•ื™ ืœื”ื“ื“ื™ ื–ื’ื“ื•ื ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to Rav Hunaโ€™s interpretation of one whose eyes are different: When the Sages taught that a shekhavna is disqualified from performing the Temple service, they were referring to one whose eyebrows lie flat [shokhvim] and cover his eyes. When they taught that one whose eyes are different [zagdum] is disqualified, they were referring to a case where one of his eyebrows is black and one is white. The Gemara responds: With regard to any pair of limbs that are not identical to one another, the tanna of this baraita calls them different.

ื”ืฆื™ืจืŸ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืชืจื•ื˜ื•ืช ื•ืฆื™ืจื ื™ื•ืช ื“ื•ืžืขื•ืช ื“ื•ืœืคื•ืช ื˜ื•ืจื“ื•ืช

ยง The mishna teaches that one whose eyes tear constantly is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara cites a baraita that defines such an individual: His eyes, i.e., his eyelids, droop and can open only partially, or his eyes are round; his eyes tear, or tears stream from his eyes, or tears flow intensely from them.

ืชื ื ื”ื–ื“ื™ืจ ื•ื”ืœื•ืคื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืชืžื™ืจ ื–ื•ื™ืจ ื“ืžื–ื•ืจ ืขื™ื ื™ื” ืœื•ืคื™ืŸ ื“ื ืคื™ืฉื™ืŸ ื–ื™ืคื™ื” ืชืžื™ืจ ืฉืชืžื• ื–ื™ืคื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื ื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืชื ื• ืœื”ื• ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืฉื ืฉืจื• ืจื™ืกื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืžืคื ื™ ืžืจืื™ืช ื”ืขื™ืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืืฉืชื™ื•ืจ ื’ืจื“ื•ืžื™ ื”ื ื“ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื™ื•ืจ ื’ืจื“ื•ืžื™

The Sages taught in a baraita: The zadir, and the lupin, and the tamir are disqualified from performing the Temple service. Zadir is a reference to one whose eyes are strange. Lupin is a reference to one with an abundance of eyelashes. Tamir is a reference to one whose eyelashes are depleted. The Gemara asks: And does the tanna teach these cases together with full-fledged blemishes? But didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna: One whose eyelashes have fallen out is disqualified from performing the Temple service due to the appearance of a blemish? Clearly, this is not considered an actual blemish. The Gemara answers that it is not difficult. This mishna is referring to a case where the roots of his eyelashes remain, whereas that baraita is referring to a case where the roots do not remain.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืขื™ื ื™ื• ื’ื“ื•ืœื•ืช ื›ืฉืœ ืขื’ืœ ืื• ืงื˜ื ื•ืช ื›ืฉืœ ืื•ื•ื– ื’ื•ืคื• ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืื‘ืจื™ื• ืื• ืงื˜ืŸ ืžืื‘ืจื™ื• ื—ื•ื˜ืžื• ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืื‘ืจื™ื• ืื• ืงื˜ืŸ ืžืื™ื‘ืจื™ื• ื”ืฆื•ืžื ื•ื”ืฆื•ืžืข ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืฆื•ืžืข ื›ืœ ืฉืื–ื ื™ื• ืงื˜ื ื•ืช ื•ื”ืฆื•ืžื ื›ืœ ืฉืื–ื ื™ื• ื“ื•ืžื•ืช ืœืกืคื•ื’ ืฉืคืชื• ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืขื•ื“ืคืช ืขืœ ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื” ืขื•ื“ืคืช ืขืœ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ื ื•ืฉื ืฉืจื• ืฉื™ื ื™ื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืžืคื ื™ ืžืจืื™ืช ื”ืขื™ืŸ

MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: If a priestโ€™s eyes are large like those of a calf or small like those of a goose; if his body is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs; if his nose is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs, he is disqualified. And the tzomem and the tzomeโ€™a are also disqualified. What is a tzomeโ€™a? It is anyone whose ears are small. And what is the tzomem? It is anyone whose ears are similar to a sponge. If his upper lip protrudes beyond the lower lip or his lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip, that is a blemish. And one whose teeth fell out is disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ื”ื™ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืคืจืฉ ืืช ื”ืื”ืœ ืขืœ ื”ืžืฉื›ืŸ ืžื™ ืคืจืฉื• ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืคืจืฉื• ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ืื•ืจืš ื”ืงืจืฉ

GEMARA: Rav says: Moses, our teacher, was ten ammot tall, as it is stated: โ€œAnd he spread the tent over the Tabernacleโ€ (Exodus 40:19). Who spread the tent over the Tabernacle? Moses, our teacher, spread it, and it is written with regard to the height of the Tabernacle: โ€œTen ammot shall be the length of a boardโ€ (Exodus 26:16). Moses must have been at least as tall as the Tabernacle itself for him to have spread the tent over it.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืœืจื‘ ืื ื›ืŸ ืขืฉื™ืชื• ืœืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื• ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืื‘ืจื™ื• ืื• ืงื˜ืŸ ืžืื‘ืจื™ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืืžื” ืฉืœ ืงืจืฉ ืงืืžืจ

Rav Shimi bar แธคiyya said to Rav: If so, you have rendered Moses, our teacher, a blemished person, as we learned in the mishna: If oneโ€™s body is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs, then he is blemished. A typical person is no more than three arm-lengths [ammot] tall, and yet Moses was apparently ten times taller than the length of his own arm. Rav said to him: Shimi, when I said that Moses was ten ammot tall, I said so in reference to the cubit [amma] of a board used in the building of the Tabernacle. The limbs of Moses were proportional to the rest of his body, but he was indeed ten cubits tall.

ื—ื•ื˜ืžื• ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื ื›ืืฆื‘ืข ืงื˜ื ื”

The mishna taught that if oneโ€™s nose is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs, he is blemished. The Sages taught in a baraita: The measure of disproportion is the size of oneโ€™s small finger.

ื”ืฆื•ืžื ื•ื”ืฆื•ืžืข ืชื ื ืืฃ ื”ืฆื™ืžื— ืœื ื”ื•ื• ื™ื“ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืฆื™ืžื— ืฉืžืขื• ืœื”ื”ื•ื ื˜ื™ื™ืขื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงืืžืจ ืžืืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืฆื™ืžื— ื•ืื™ืฉืชื›ื— ื’ื“ื™ื ื—ื–ื™ื–ื

ยง The mishna also taught that the tzomem and the tzomeโ€™a are blemished. The Sages taught in a baraita: The tzimeโ€™aแธฅ is also disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Sages did not know what a tzimeโ€™aแธฅ is. They heard a certain Arab who was saying: Who wants a tzimeโ€™aแธฅ, and it was found to be a long-eared goat.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืขื– ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืงืจื ื™ื ื•ืจื—ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ืงืจื ื™ื ื›ืฉืจื™ื ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื—

The Gemara discusses the halakha of a tzomem, tzomeโ€™a, and tzimeโ€™aแธฅ with regard to animals. Rav แธคisda says: A female goat that has no horns and a female lamb that has horns are fit for sacrificing upon the altar, i.e., they are not considered blemished, despite the fact that they differ from regular female goats and female lambs.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื™ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื”ืŸ ื›ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ืŸ ื›ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื”ื ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืžื“ื™ื ื” ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืขื– ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืงืจื ื™ื ื•ืจื—ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืงืจื ื™ื ื•ื”ืฆื™ืžื— ื•ื”ืฆื™ืžื ื•ื”ืฆื™ืžืข

The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita: There are matters that appear like blemishes but they are not truly like blemishes, and one may therefore slaughter sacrificial animals on account of them in the Temple, i.e., they are fit for sacrifice despite these blemishes; but if they are firstborn animals, they are not permitted for slaughter in the rest of the country on account of these blemishes, as the unique physical characteristics of these animals are not true blemishes. And these are the blemishes: A female goat that has no horns, and a female lamb that has horns, and the tzimeโ€™aแธฅ, and the tzomem, and the tzomeโ€™a.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืืžื™ืžืจ ื ื˜ืœื• ืงืจื ื•ืชืŸ ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืชืŸ ืขืžื”ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืคื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื”ื ื ื˜ืœื• ื˜ืœืคื™ื™ื ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืชื ืขืžื”ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื”ื

With regard to the horns of an animal, Rav แธคisda says that Ameimar says: If the horns of an animal were removed, and their bones, i.e., the bones inside the horns, were removed with them, the animal is unfit for sacrifice. But even so, one may not redeem the animal on account of such blemishes, as they are not full-fledged blemishes. But if the hooves were removed, and their bones, i.e., the portion of the leg to which the hooves are attached, were removed with them, they are unfit for sacrifice and they are even redeemed on account of such blemishes, as they are full-fledged blemishes.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื ื˜ืœื• ืงืจื ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื˜ืœืคื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืชืŸ ืขืžื”ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืื™ืชืขืงื•ืจ ืื™ืชืขืงื•ืจื™ ื”ื ื“ืื™ื’ื•ื ืื™ื’ื•ืžื™

Rav แธคisda stated that the removal of a horn and its bone is not considered a full-fledged blemish that enables the animal to be redeemed. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If the horns or the hooves of an animal were removed, and their respective bones were removed with them, they are unfit and they are redeemed on account of them. The Gemara explains that it is not difficult. This baraita is referring to a case where the bone was entirely uprooted, which is a full-fledged blemish on account of which the animal may be redeemed. That statement of Rav แธคisda is referring to a case where the bones were cut but were not uprooted entirely.

ื•ื“ืื™ื’ื•ื ืื™ื’ื•ืžื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื• ืคืจื” ืฉืงืจื ื™ื” ื•ื˜ืœืคื™ื” ืฉื—ื•ืจื™ื ื™ื’ื•ื“ ืชืจื’ืžื” ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ืžืขื™ืœื•ื™ ื–ื›ืจื•ืช

The Gemara asks: But in a case where the bones of the animal were cut, is the animal even rendered unfit? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Para 2:2): With regard to a red heifer whose horns and hooves are black, the halakha is that one should cut away the black parts so that the heifer remains entirely red. Evidently, cutting away the horns of the heifer does not inflict a blemish upon it. Zeโ€™eiri interpreted the mishna as referring to cutting the horn specifically from above the bone inside it. In such a case, the heifer is not disqualified. Cutting the bone itself does disqualify the animal.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืœ ืืฉื” ื›ืจื™ืกื• ืฆื‘ื” ื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืจื• ื™ื•ืฆื ื ื›ืคื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืื—ืช ืœื™ืžื™ื ืจื•ื— ืงืฆืจื” ื‘ืื” ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืžืื•ืฉื‘ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื’ื‘ืจ

MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: One who has breasts so large that they sag like those of a woman; or if oneโ€™s belly is swollen and protrudes; or if oneโ€™s navel protrudes; or if one is an epileptic, even if he experiences seizures only once in a long while; or one who is afflicted with a melancholy temper; or one whose scrotum is unnaturally long; or one whose penis is unnaturally long is disqualified from performing the Temple service.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืžืฉืชื™ื ื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืชื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืฉืชื™ื ื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืชื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื‘ืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืื—ื“ ืฉื‘ื™ืงืฉ ืœื”ืฉืชื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ื•ืœื ื”ืฉืชื™ืŸ ื•ื ืžืฆื ื›ืจื™ืกื• ืฆื‘ื”

GEMARA: The Gemara cites a halakha involving a swollen belly. Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba, says that Torah scholars may urinate in public and they need not be concerned with issues of modesty, because holding back from urinating causes bodily harm. But they may not drink water in public, as such conduct is unbefitting a Torah scholar. And this is also taught in a baraita: Torah scholars may urinate in public, but they may not drink water in public. And there was an incident involving one who sought to urinate, and he did not urinate, and his belly was found to be swollen.

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉื‘ืชื ื“ืจื’ืœื ื ื’ื“ื• ืœื™ื” ื’ืœื™ืžื ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืชืŸ ืœืš ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื•ื–ื™ืœ ืื”ื“ืจ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ืืช ื“ืืคืฉืจ ืœืš ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืกืชื›ืŸ

The Gemara relates: It was necessary for Shmuel to urinate on the Shabbat when everyone came to hear halakhot relating to the impending Festival. In order to afford him privacy, they spread a sheet for him. Shmuel then came before his father, who said to him: I will give you four hundred dinars if you will go and retract this incident, i.e., if you will state publicly that one may not hold back from urinating even at the expense of oneโ€™s privacy. Since you are an important man, you can have others spread a sheet around you. But with regard to one who cannot have others spread a sheet for him, should he endanger himself by seeking privacy? You must therefore teach that one should not hold back from urinating even in public.

ืžืจ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืื’ื•ื“ื ื’ืžืœื ืืฉืชื™ืŸ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื—ืžืชืš ืงืืชื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื‘ืื•ื“ื ื”

The Gemara further relates that it was necessary for Mar bar Rav Ashi to urinate while he was walking on the beams of a bridge, and therefore he urinated. They said to him: Your mother-in-law is coming. Mar bar Rav Ashi said to them: I would have done this even in her ear. Since holding back from urinating would place him in physical danger, he would not care that his mother-in-law was coming and might see him.

ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืขืœืงื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืช

The Gemara returns to the incident cited in the baraita involving one who held back from urinating and his belly became swollen: And let me derive, i.e., can it not be said, that his belly swelled due to a leech that entered his intestines? The Gemara responds: The baraita is referring to a case where his urine would thereafter drip and no longer flowed in a healthy manner. Evidently, his health problems resulted from damage to the urinary tract.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื ืงื‘ื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื‘ืื“ื ืื—ื“ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืฉืชืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืœื–ื” ืืœื ื›ืงืœื™ืคืช ื”ืฉื•ื ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืื“ื ื ืฆืจืš ืื ื ืงื‘ื• ื–ื” ืœืชื•ืš ื–ื” ื ืžืฆื ืขืงืจ

Concerning this topic the Sages taught in a baraita: There are two orifices in a man. One of them expels urine and one of them expels semen, and there is only a partition about the thickness of a garlic peel between them. When a man needs to urinate and withholds the urine, if his urinary duct and seminal duct were punctured such that this duct leads into that one, he will be found to be barren, as his urine will penetrate into his seminal duct.

ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืš ืขืงืจ ื•ืขืงืจื” ื•ื‘ื‘ื”ืžืชืš ืื™ืžืชื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืš ืขืงืจ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื‘ื‘ื”ืžืชืš

Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œThere shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattleโ€ (Deuteronomy 7:14)? It means as follows: When will there not be a barren male among you? At a time that you act as among your cattle, i.e., you urinate when the need arises, without hesitation.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืš ืขืงืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืงืจื” ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืชืคืœืชืš ืขืงื•ืจื” ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืžืงื•ื ืื™ืžืชื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืืชื” ืžืฉื™ื ืขืฆืžืš ื›ื‘ื”ืžื”

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says, with regard to the same verse, that the phrase โ€œThere shall not be maleโ€ฆbarren among youโ€ means you will not be barren of students, as one who leaves behind no students is considered barren. The term โ€œor female barrenโ€ indicates that your prayers will not be barren, i.e., unheard, before the Omnipresent, but will be heard by Him. And when will they be heard? At a time when you place yourself in prayer as an animal, with humility.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœื ื™ืฉืชื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžื™ื ืœื ืขืœ ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืก ื•ืœื ืขืœ ืžืงื•ื ืงืฉื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื ื™ ืžื“ื•ืจื™ ื“ื‘ื‘ืœ ืžื”ื“ืจื™ ืžื™ื ืœืขื™ืŸ ืขื™ื˜ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื ืื™ืชืชื ืœื ืชืงื•ื ืœื”ื“ื™ื ื‘ืื ืคื™ ื™ื ื•ืงื ืื’ื™ืกื ืœื™ืช ืœืŸ ื‘ื”

The Gemara cites additional statements of the Sages with regard to urination. Rav Pappa says: A person should urinate in Babylonia only on the dust, as it absorbs the urine. He should not urinate either on an earthenware vessel or on a hard place, as the urine will not be absorbed and will eventually flow into the underwater rivers. As Rav says: Those inclines of Babylonia return the water through underground watercourses to the Spring of Eitam in Eretz Yisrael, from which water was taken to the Temple. Additionally, Abaye says: A woman should not stand openly in front of a child when she urinates. But if she urinates while turning sideways, we have no problem with it.

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืขืžื•ื“ ื”ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ืื“ื ืœื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ืจื•ืงืŸ ืกื™ืœื•ืŸ ื”ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ืื“ื ืœื™ื“ื™ ื™ืจืงื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืงื˜ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ื ืจื‘ื” ืฉื—ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื” ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ืจื‘ื” ืฆืจืขืช ืจื‘ื” ืฆื•ืื” ืจื‘ื” ื”ื“ืจื•ืงืŸ ืจื‘ื” ืžื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื™ืจืงื•ืŸ ืจื‘ื”

It is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A mass of feces that is held back without being discharged causes a person to suffer from dropsy [hidrokan], while a stream of urine that is held back causes a person to suffer from jaundice. Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav Ketina says that Reish Lakish says: If oneโ€™s blood levels increase due to not undergoing bloodletting often enough, then boils will increase on him as well. If oneโ€™s semen levels increase due to not engaging in sexual intercourse often enough, then leprosy will increase on him. If oneโ€™s feces levels increase due to not relieving himself enough, dropsy will increase in him. Finally, if oneโ€™s urine levels increase due to not relieving himself enough, then jaundice will increase as well.

ืจื•ื— ืงืฆืจื™ืช ื‘ืื” ืขืœื™ื• ืžืื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืชื ื ืจื•ื— ื‘ืŸ ื ืคืœื™ื ื‘ืื” ืขืœื™ื•

ยง The mishna teaches that one who is afflicted with a melancholy temper is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara asks: What is this melancholy temper? A tanna taught: A fallen spirit, i.e., the spirit of a demon, has come upon him.

ื”ืžืื•ืฉื‘ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื’ื‘ืจ ืชื ื ืžืฉื•ื‘ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื’ื‘ืจ ื‘ื’ื™ื“ ืชื ื ืžืฉื•ื‘ืŸ ื–ื” ื”ืงื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ืจื‘ืชืŸ ื–ื” ื‘ืขืœ ืงื™ืง ืงื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ื’ืจื‘ืชื ื‘ื’ื™ื“

The mishna also teaches that one whose scrotum is unnaturally long [meโ€™ushban] and one whose penis is unnaturally long [baโ€™al gever] are disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Sages taught in a baraita: A meshuban is one with exceedingly large testicles, and a baโ€™al gever is one with an unnaturally long penis. Similarly, it is taught in a baraita: A meshuban, this is synonymous with the kayyan. The garbetan, this is synonymous with a baโ€™al kik. A kayyan is one with a condition of the testicles, while a garbeta is one with a condition of the penis.

ื•ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืžื—ื•ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืขื“ ืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืŸ ืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืฉืจ ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืขื“ ืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ื›ืฉืจ ืœืžื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ืคืกื•ืœ

The Gemara asks: And how much is considered too long, which disqualifies the priest from performing the Temple service? Rav Yehuda pointed and said: Until the knee. It is likewise taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: If oneโ€™s penis reaches until his knee he is disqualified from performing the Temple service. But if it reaches until just above his knee he remains fit. Some say if his penis reaches until the knee he is fit, but if it passes below the knee he is disqualified.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื‘ื™ืฆื™ื ืื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ื‘ื™ืฆื” ืื—ืช ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžืจื•ื— ืืฉืš ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื ื™ืžื•ื—ื• ืืฉื›ื™ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉืจื•ื— ื‘ืืฉื›ื™ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉืžืจืื™ื• ื—ืฉื•ื›ื™ืŸ

MISHNA: If one has no testicles, or if he has only one testicle, that is the meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh that is stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 21:20) among the blemishes that disqualify a priest from Temple service. Rabbi Yishmael says: A meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh is anyone whose testicles were crushed. Rabbi Akiva says: It is anyone that has wind in his testicles, i.e., they are swollen. Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus says: Meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh does not refer to the testicles; rather, the reference is to anyone whose appearance [marav] is especially dark [แธฅashukhin].

ื’ืžืณ ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื ื—ืกืจ ืืฉืš ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ ืฉื ืžืจื—ื• ืืฉื›ื™ื• ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืžืžืจื•ื— ืืฉืš ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ ืฉื”ืจื•ื— ื‘ืืฉื›ื™ื•

GEMARA: The Gemara explains why the tannaโ€™im interpret meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh in different ways. It is difficult for Rabbi Yishmael: If meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh is referring to one who lacks two testicles, then the Torah should have stated: แธคasar ashekh, lacking a testicle, rather than meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh. Therefore, he teaches that it is referring to one whose testicles were crushed. This is difficult for Rabbi Akiva: If meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh means one with crushed testicles, then the Torah should have stated: Mimroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh, crushed testicles, not meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh. Therefore, he teaches that the Torah is referring to one who has wind in his testicles.

ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ื”ืื™ ืจื•ื— ืืฉืš ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ ืฉืžืจืื™ื• ื—ืฉื•ื›ื™ืŸ ืงืกื‘ืจ ื’ื•ืจืขื™ืŸ ื•ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ

This is difficult for Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus: If meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh is referring to one with wind in his testicles, then the Torah should have stated: Ruaแธฅ ashekh, wind in the testicles. Therefore, he teaches that the Torah is speaking of anyone whose appearance is especially dark. And how does he derive such an interpretation from the verse? He holds that the Sages subtract and add and interpret homiletically. Accordingly, the แธฅet of meroโ€™aแธฅ is removed along with the alef of ashekh. The แธฅet is added to ashekh and the alef is added to meroโ€™aแธฅ, and meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh is rearranged to state: Marav แธฅashukhin, his appearance is dark.

ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื›ื•ืฉื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืœื ืชื ื™ ื›ื•ืฉื™

The Gemara asks: But if so, this is identical to one whose skin is extremely black, and the mishna on 45b explicitly states that such a priest is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara responds: Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus learns from the mishna only that a meroโ€™aแธฅ ashekh is disqualified; he does not teach in that mishna the halakha that a person with extremely black skin is blemished.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืงื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจืกื•ืœื™ื• ื•ื‘ืืจื›ื‘ื•ืชื™ื•

MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: One whose legs are crooked and bend inward, causing him to knock his ankles or his knees into each other as he walks,

Scroll To Top