043a - על אלו מומין פרק ששי בכורות דף מג, ע"א

[What is the difference between them?] To disqualify [the widow] where there are brothers, and to perform chalitzah where there are no brothers – that is the difference between them.^[1]

לפסול במקום אחין - If there are proper brothers with him, and he went and performed chalitzah with her: according to Rabbi Yehuda he did nothing, and did not disqualify her from the brothers – if one of the brothers wishes to perform yibum, he may. According to Rabbi Yosi, who holds him to be a doubt, he disqualified her from the brothers, for perhaps his chalitzah is a valid chalitzah, and none of the brothers can perform yibum with her, since once [a brother] did not build [the house], he may not build it again; rather, they go back and perform chalitzah with her.

ולחלוץ שלא במקום אחין - If there are no brothers other than the tumtum: according to Rabbi Yehuda she is released with nothing at all, for he is certainly a saris and is as if he did not exist; and according to Rabbi Yosi she needs chalitzah, for perhaps he is not a saris. And when he said that he does not perform chalitzah, he meant where there are [other] brothers.

We will return to you, Al Elu Mumin

Chapter Seven – Mumin Elu

MISHNAH

These blemishes, whether permanent or passing, disqualify in a person [a kohen].^[2]

מתני' מומין אלו - those stated regarding the bechor disqualify a kohen from the service.

בין קבועין בין עוברין - as long as they are on him.

And [in a person] there are more than these: the kilon, the lefes and the makben, one whose head is shakut, and the sekifas;^[3]

הכילון והליפתם והמקבן - explained in the Gemara.

ושראשו שקוט וסקיפת - explained in the Gemara.

and those with chatoros^[4] – Rabbi Yehuda declares [them] fit, and the Sages disqualify.

ובעלי חטרות - is a dispute; but those – kilon, lefes and all the rest – are [the view] of all.

חטרות - in Old French, חלדרוב"ש.

The bald one is disqualified.

Who is bald? Anyone who does not have a strip of hair encircling [his head] from ear to ear.

If he has it, he is fit.

GEMARA

Why? But there is yabeles, which is not written in the Torah regarding a person,

גמ' אמאי - [why do they] disqualify in a person?

והא יבלת - which is not written regarding a person.

and also dak and tevalul, which are not written regarding an animal!^[5]

ותו דק תבלול - which we listed among the blemishes of a bechor, and it is not written regarding an animal. For granted, all the others that we listed there, such as the teeth, and a calf’s tail that does not reach the knee, are derived from “any bad blemish”; but regarding dak and tevalul one can object: since the Torah revealed them in a person and did not reveal them in an animal, learn from this that they do not disqualify in an animal. And [the Gemara] answers: they are learned from each other.

They are learned from each other,

as it was taught: Regarding a person yabeles is not stated; regarding an animal dak and tevalul are not stated. From where [do we know] to apply what is stated of this one to that one, and what is stated of that one to this one? The verse says: garav, garav; yalefes, yalefes – for a gezeirah shavah.^[6]

[The words] are free,^[7] for if they were not free, one could refute [the gezeirah shavah]:

A person cannot be learned from an animal, for it itself is offered on the altar;

an animal cannot be learned from a person, for he has been given more mitzvos.

Indeed, they are free.

Let the Torah write yalefes and not need garav, and I would say: if yalefes, which is not repulsive, is a blemish, then garav, which is repulsive, all the more so!

גרב דמאיס - [more] than yalefes, for it is hard like a shard, sinks into the flesh and makes grooves.

Garav, garav that the Torah wrote – why do I need it?

To free [the words for the gezeirah shavah].

But let the Torah write them all in one [place], and garav and yalefes both here and there, and let them be learned from the one!

וליכתבינהו רחמנא לכולהו - the blemishes, either for a person or for an animal.

וגרב וילפת הכא והכא - garav for the gezeirah shavah, and yalefes to show about garav that it is free. [Otherwise,] why did [the Torah] write blind, lame and broken both here and there?

In which of them should the Torah write [them]?

אהייא ליכתב - in which of them should the Torah write them, so that the other is learned from it?

Had it written [them] for a person, I would say: whatever disqualifies in a person disqualifies in an animal, [but] kalut and chutin, which do not exist in a person, would not disqualify in an animal either.

קלוט וחוטין דליתנהו באדם - for a person does not have split hooves; and blemishes of the chutin do not apply to him, for a person has teeth [in front] and the chutin are not seen, while it is an animal that has teeth above, and the chutin are seen, and it is disqualified when they are chipped.

בבהמה נמי לא פסלי - that is why the Torah wrote blemishes for an animal and counted among them kalut, and chutin that were chipped or worn down, which derive from charutz.

And let the Torah write them all for an animal? I would say: whatever disqualifies in an animal disqualifies in a person, [but] gibben and charum, which do not exist in an animal, would not disqualify in a person either.

גבן וחרום ליתנהו בבהמה - for gibben means that he has eyebrows, which are called [in Old French] שורציל"ש, and an animal has no eyebrows; and charum means that his nose is [sunk] between his two eyes, and an animal has no nose between the eyes.

But let the Torah write them all in one [place]; those that do not exist in the other, let the Torah write for an animal, and those that do not exist in the other, let it write for a person; and garav and yalefes both here and there, and let them be learned from each other!

והנך דליתנהו באידך - which do not apply to it, let [the Torah] write in the other.

Rather, [this follows] the Tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, for the Tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage that was stated and then repeated was repeated only for the sake of something new in it.

שנתחדש בה - and here there is something new: in a person, gibben and charum; in an animal, kalut and chutin.

Rava said: Why do I need the Torah to write a blemish for a person, a blemish for consecrated animals, and a blemish for a bechor?^[8]

למה לי - to write that blemishes disqualify in a person, and that blemishes disqualify in a bechor, as it is written (Devarim 15:21) And if it has a blemish etc., and that blemishes disqualify in consecrated animals.

They are needed. For had the Torah written a blemish [only] for a person – [one would say it is] because he has been given more mitzvos.

A person cannot be learned from a firstborn animal, for it itself is offered on the altar.

אדם מבכור לא אתי - that is, if [the Torah] wrote it for a bechor and did not write it for these, a person could not be learned from a bechor: what of a bechor? It is right that a blemish should disqualify it, since it itself is offered.

Consecrated animals cannot be learned from a bechor, for its sanctity is from the womb.^[9]

A person cannot be learned from consecrated animals, for they themselves are offered.

אדם מקדשים לא אתי - that is, if it wrote it for consecrated animals and did not write it for these, these could not be learned from them.

A bechor cannot be learned from consecrated animals, for [that] sanctity is greater.

One cannot be learned from one.

Then let one be learned from two!

From which would it be learned?

Let the Torah not write [it] for a bechor, and let it be learned from these – what of these? Their sanctity is manifold, and they apply to ordinary [animals].^[10]

קדושתן מרובה - chataos, ashamos, olos and shelamim; and a person has greater sanctity in mitzvos.

[Let it not write it] for consecrated animals, and let it be learned from these – what of these? Their sanctity comes of itself.

[Let it not write it] for a person, and let it be learned from these – what of these? They themselves are offered on the altar.

They are needed.

[A person] has more than them.^[11]

From where are these words [derived]?

Rabbi Yochanan said: For the verse says (Vayikra 21:21): Any man of the seed of Aharon who has a blemish – a man who is equal to the seed of Aharon.

איש השוה בזרעו של אהרן - he is the one who needs a blemish [to be disqualified]; but one who is not equal to the seed of Aharon is disqualified even without a blemish.

הא איכא יבלת - [The Gemara] could likewise have challenged from charutz (a gash), which is not written regarding a person, though it applies to a person – in the teeth and in a place of bone – as in an animal. Likewise, nasuk and karus (torn and cut) are not written regarding a person, and gibben is not written regarding an animal, though it applies [to an animal] according to the one who explains below that it is one whose spine is crooked, and does not explain it as the eyebrows. And if you ask: one that has no testicles or has only one testicle, of which we learned above (40a) regarding an animal that it is [a blemish] – [that is derived] only from meroach eshech,^[12] as the Tanna Kamma says below in our chapter: one who has no testicles or has only one testicle, that is the meroach eshech stated in the Torah; and we learn an animal from a person through the gezeirah shavah [cited] shortly. That works for the Tanna Kamma; but according to Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, who say [the verse] is needed for a missing testicle, from where do they [derive it]? For they themselves count it as a blemish in the earlier chapter. And if we derive it from blemishes that are exposed and do not return,^[13] then according to the Tanna Kamma, why do I need a verse for this? And they too would have applied the verse to this, were it not that they need it for a missing testicle; for one cannot distinguish between a person and an animal on the ground that an animal has two sacs and so it counts more as a blemish, since even one that has no testicles at all is needed (to exclude) – to be excluded from meroach eshech. Perhaps one can say that in such a case it is apt to say that it was repeated for the sake of something new in it, as [the school of] Rabbi Yishmael [teaches] shortly. And now it is also well that there are blemishes that were written even though they would derive from an exposed blemish that does not return.

גרב דכתב רחמנא ל"ל למעוטי - It is difficult: it is needed for what Rava said in the earlier chapter (41a), that the Torah wrote garav to say that a gash in a place of flesh is not a blemish. However, two [mentions of] garav and two of yalefes are written, one for a person and one for an animal, and one is left over to be free. But then perforce it is free on only one side,^[14] and there is an opinion in Bava Kamma (25b) that one may refute [such a gezeirah shavah]. Moreover, since the beraisa says “the verse says garav, garav; yalefes, yalefes” – why do I need [this wording]? To make a gezeirah shavah from both? It implies that it says so because in both these places garav is written together with yalefes, to be free. One can answer: because of Rava’s exposition above, it does not lose its freedom here, since according to that exposition garav is not applied to its own [law] but to teach about the gash in a place of flesh.

גבן וחרום דלא איתנהו בבהמה - This is according to the Tanna Kamma below in our chapter, who explains gibben as the eyebrows; but according to Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus, who says [gibben is one] that has two backs and two spines, it applies well to an animal. And that is why [the Gemara] also does not mention meroach eshech, which is not [in an animal] according to Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus, who says [it is] anyone whose appearance is darkened – for [the Gemara] is not speaking according to him.

למה לי דכתב רחמנא מום באדם מום בבכור מום בקדשים צריכי כו' - It is difficult: according to what [the Gemara] says, “they are needed”, which implies that we do not learn them from each other – from where do we [learn], for a person and for consecrated animals, every blemish that is exposed and does not return, which we expounded regarding a bechor above in the chapter Al Elu Mumin (37a) from a general term and a particular? And likewise the blemishes of a person and of consecrated animals that are not written regarding a bechor – for some of them do not derive from “any bad blemish”, such as dak and tevalul, as the Kuntres [Rashi] explained at the start of our chapter? One can say: since [the Torah] revealed [it in one place], it revealed [it for all].

Notes

1. 1. This completes Rava’s answer, begun at the end of 42b, to “what is the difference between them?” – between Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a tumtum who was opened and found male is like a saris, and Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Yehuda, who says a tumtum does not perform chalitzah lest he be found a saris chamah. Chalitzah is the ceremony that releases a childless widow from yibum, marriage to her late husband’s brother.
2. 2. A kohen with a blemish may not serve in the Mikdash (Vayikra 21:17–23). The blemishes listed for the bechor in the previous chapter disqualify a kohen as well.
3. 3. These are irregular shapes of the head: kilon, lefes and makben, and a head that is shakut in front or sekifas behind. The Gemara explains each of them on the next amud (43b).
4. 4. Chatoros – humps or lumps protruding from the body.
5. 5. Yabeles (a wart) is listed among the blemishes of animals (Vayikra 22:22) but not among those of a kohen (Vayikra 21:18–20); dak and tevalul, defects of the eye, are listed for a kohen (21:20) but not for animals.
6. 6. A gezeirah shavah links two passages that share a word, so that what is stated in one applies in the other. Garav and yalefes appear both in the kohen’s list (Vayikra 21:20) and in the animal’s (22:22).
7. 7. Mufneh, “free”: a word not needed for its own passage, written to teach. A gezeirah shavah whose words are free cannot be refuted by a difference between the two subjects; one that is not free can be.
8. 8. Blemishes are written in three places: for a kohen (Vayikra 21:17–23), for consecrated offerings (Vayikra 22:20–25), and for the bechor (Devarim 15:21).
9. 9. The bechor is holy from birth, of itself, without anyone consecrating it; other offerings become holy only when a person consecrates them.
10. 10. Peshutin – ordinary animals that are not firstborn. Kehunah and offerings are not limited to firstborns, unlike the bechor.
11. 11. The Mishnah listed blemishes, such as kilon and lefes, that disqualify a kohen though they do not disqualify an animal. They are not written in the Torah, so the Gemara asks for their source.
12. 12. Meroach eshech is a kohen’s blemish listed in Vayikra 21:20, a defect of the testicles; it reaches animals through the gezeirah shavah of this amud.
13. 13. On 37a the Gemara derives, from the pattern of general term, particular and general term in Devarim 15:21, that every blemish which is exposed and does not heal is a blemish for a bechor.
14. 14. A gezeirah shavah may be free in only one of its two passages. Bava Kamma 25b brings an opinion that such a one-sided gezeirah shavah can still be refuted.