## Bekhorot Daf 43a

###### Bekhorot 43a:1
[Bekhorot 43a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:1)

לִפְסוֹל בִּמְקוֹם אַחִים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is a practical difference **with regard to disqualifying** the widow, through his *ḥalitza*, from entering into levirate marriage **in a case** where there are other **brothers.** According to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that this individual is certainly a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally, his *ḥalitza* is of no effect whatsoever, and therefore she may enter into levirate marriage with one of the other brothers. Conversely, according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, since it is possible that he is not a eunuch and his *ḥalitza* is valid, she is forbidden to the other brothers as their brother’s wife.


###### Bekhorot 43a:2
[Bekhorot 43a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:2)

וְלַחְלוֹץ שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם אַחִים, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** there is also a practical difference **between their** opinions **with regard to performing *ḥalitza*** with the widow **in a case where there are no brothers** other than this *tumtum*. According to Rabbi Yehuda, *ḥalitza* is not necessary in this case, as she requires *ḥalitza* only if her late husband had brothers who are obligated to perform levirate marriage, and this individual is definitely a eunuch whose condition is caused naturally. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, maintains that he must perform *ḥalitza* with her, in case he is a male and not a eunuch.


###### Bekhorot 43a:3
[Bekhorot 43a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:3)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ עַל אֵלּוּ מוּמִין.**


###### Bekhorot 43a:4
[Bekhorot 43a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:4)

מַתְנִי׳ **מוּמִין אֵלּוּ**, בֵּין קְבוּעִין בֵּין עוֹבְרִים — פּוֹסְלִין בָּאָדָם, וְיָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן: הַכִּילוֹן, וְהַלַּפְתָּן, וְהַמַּקָּבָן, וְשֶׁרֹאשׁוֹ שָׁקוּט, וּסְקִיפַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** Concerning **these blemishes** which were taught with regard to an animal, **whether** they are **permanent or transient, they** also **disqualify in** the case of **a person,** i.e., they disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service. **And in addition to those** blemishes, there are other blemishes that apply only to a priest: **One whose** head **is pointed,** narrow above and wide below; **and one whose** head **is turnip-like,** wide above and narrow below; **and one whose** head **is hammer-like,** with his forehead protruding; **and** one **whose head** has **an indentation; and** one **wherein the back of his head protrudes.**


###### Bekhorot 43a:5
[Bekhorot 43a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:5)

וּבַעֲלֵי חֲטָרוֹת — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין. הַקֵּרֵחַ פָּסוּל. אֵיזֶהוּ קֵרֵחַ? כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שִׁיטָה שֶׁל שֵׂעָר מוּקֶּפֶת מֵאוֹזֶן לְאוֹזֶן, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ — הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to **those with humped** backs, **Rabbi Yehuda deems** them **fit** for service **and the Rabbis deem** them **disqualified. The *kere’aḥ* is disqualified** from performing the Temple service. **What is a *kere’aḥ*?** It is **anyone who does not have a row of hair encircling** his head **from ear to ear. If he has** a row of hair from ear to ear, **that** person is **fit** for service.


###### Bekhorot 43a:6
[Bekhorot 43a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** אַמַּאי? וְהָאִיכָּא יַבֶּלֶת, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּאָדָם! וְתוּ: דַּק תְּבַלּוּל, דְּלָא כְּתִיבִי בִּבְהֵמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Why** does the mishna say that all the blemishes that disqualify an animal disqualify a priest as well? **But there is** the blemish of **a wart, which is not written in the Torah with regard to a person** but is written with regard to an animal (see Leviticus 22:22). **And furthermore,** there are also the blemishes of **a cataract** and **a *tevallul*, which** appear in the Torah with regard to a person but **are not written** in the Torah **with regard to an animal** (see Leviticus 21:20). Why, then, does the mishna on 38a teach that such blemishes disqualify an animal?


###### Bekhorot 43a:7
[Bekhorot 43a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:7)

מֵילָף יָלְפִי מֵהֲדָדֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: בָּאָדָם לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ יַבֶּלֶת, בַּבְּהֵמָה לֹא נֶאֱמַר דַּק תְּבַלּוּל, מִנַּיִן לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה וְאֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גָּרָב״ ״גָּרָב״, ״יַלֶּפֶת״ ״יַלֶּפֶת״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: These blemishes **are derived from one another, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **In** the case of **a person,** i.e., a priest, **it is not stated of him** that **a wart** disqualifies him from Temple service, and **in** the case of **an animal, it is not stated** that **a cataract** or **a *tevallul*** disqualify it from being sacrificed. **From where** is it derived that one **applies that which is said of this** case **to that** case, **and that which is said of this** case **to that** case? **The verse states: “Scabbed”** and **“scabbed,” “scurvy”** and **“scurvy,”** both with regard to a person and an animal (Leviticus 21:20; 22:22), which serves **to** draw **a verbal analogy** from the verses.


###### Bekhorot 43a:8
[Bekhorot 43a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:8)

מַפְנֵי, דְּאִי לָא מַפְנֵי, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: אָדָם מִבְּהֵמָה לָא יָלֵיף, שֶׁכֵּן הִיא עַצְמָהּ קְרֵיבָה לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ; בְּהֵמָה מֵאָדָם לָא יָלְפָא, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה בְּמִצְוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: These verses must be **free,** i.e., they are superfluous and are stated only for the purpose of the verbal analogy. This means that the verbal analogy cannot be refuted by logical reasoning, whereas if the verses are not free one can refute the analogy if there is a significant difference between the two cases. **As, if they are not free,** the verbal analogy **can be refuted** as follows: One **cannot derive** the disqualifications of **a person** for performing the Temple service **from** those of **an animal,** as the case of an animal can be considered more stringent **because** the animal **itself is sacrificed upon the altar.** Similarly, one **cannot derive** the disqualifications of **an animal from** those of **a person,** as one can claim that the *halakha* with regard to a person should be more stringent, **since** a person **was included in** the performance of **mitzvot.**


###### Bekhorot 43a:9
[Bekhorot 43a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:9)

לָאיֵי, אַפְנוֹיֵי מַפְנֵי, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״יַלֶּפֶת״ וְלָא בָּעֵי ״גָּרָב״, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: וּמָה יַלֶּפֶת דְּלָא מְאִיסָא הָוֵי מוּמָא, גָּרָב דִּמְאִיס לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? ״גָּרָב״ ״גָּרָב״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Indeed,** the terms **are free.** Accordingly, since these disqualifications are derived from a verbal analogy they must be accepted as though they were written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara proves these verses are free: **Let the Merciful One write** that **scurvy** disqualifies a person and an animal, **and** it would be **unnecessary** for the Merciful One to write that **a scab** disqualifies them, as **I would say: And if scurvy, which is not repulsive, is** considered a disqualifying **blemish,** then in the case of **a scab, which is repulsive,** is it **not all the more so** a disqualifying blemish? If so, then with regard to **“scabbed”** and **“scabbed,” which the Merciful One writes** with regard to a person and an animal, **why do I** need them? Evidently, they are **to** be considered **free** for the verbal analogy.


###### Bekhorot 43a:10
[Bekhorot 43a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:10)

וְלִכְתְּבִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא כּוּלְּהוּ בְּחַד, וְגָרָב וְיַלֶּפֶת הָכָא וְהָכָא, וְלֵילְפוּ מֵחֲדָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** if animals and priests are disqualified by the same blemishes, **let the Merciful One write all the** disqualifying blemishes **with regard to one** of them, either a person or an animal, **and** let the Merciful One write that **a scab and scurvy** disqualify both **here and here,** for the purpose of the verbal analogy, **and let** all the other blemishes **be derived** in one case **from** the other **one,** through the verbal analogy.


###### Bekhorot 43a:11
[Bekhorot 43a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:11)

אַהֵיָיא בְּהֵי לִיכְתֹּב רַחֲמָנָא? אִי כְּתַב בְּאָדָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כֹּל דְּפָסוּל בְּאָדָם פָּסוּל בִּבְהֵמָה, קָלוּט וְחוּטִין דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּאָדָם, בִּבְהֵמָה נָמֵי לָא לִיפַּסְלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **To which** is this referring, i.e., **in which** case **should the Merciful One write** all the blemishes? **If** the Merciful One had **written** all of them **with regard to a person** then **I would say: All** blemishes **that disqualify in** the case of **a person** likewise **disqualify in** the case of **an animal.** If so, then with regard to **closed** hooves **and** damaged **gums, which are not** written **with regard to a person** as they are not relevant because a person has no hooves and his gums are covered with teeth, I would say: **In** the case of **an animal as well they should not disqualify.**


###### Bekhorot 43a:12
[Bekhorot 43a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:12)

וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא כּוּלְּהוּ בִּבְהֵמָה, הָוֵה אָמֵינָא: כֹּל דְּפָסוּל בִּבְהֵמָה פָּסוּל בְּאָדָם, גִּבֵּן וְחָרוּם דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בִּבְהֵמָה — בְּאָדָם נָמֵי לָא לִיפַּסְלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if you would say: **Let the Merciful One write all** the blemishes **with regard to an animal, I would say: All** blemishes **that disqualify in** the case of **an animal** likewise **disqualify in** the case of **a person.** Accordingly, with regard to **a *gibben*,** one with blemished eyebrows, **or a *ḥarum*,** one with a sunken nose, **which are not** written **with regard to an animal** as such blemishes do not occur among animals, I would say: **In** the case of **a person as well they should not disqualify.** Therefore, the Torah delineates all the disqualifying blemishes with regard to both an animal and a person in order to state the blemishes that are unique to animals and the blemishes that are unique to people.


###### Bekhorot 43a:13
[Bekhorot 43a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:13)

וְלִכְתְּבִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא כּוּלְּהוּ בְּחַד, וְהָנָךְ דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּאִידַּךְ — לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּבְהֵמָה, וְהָנָךְ דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּאִידַּךְ — לִכְתּוֹב בְּאָדָם, וְגָרָב וְיַלֶּפֶת — הָכָא וְהָכָא, וְלֵילְפִי מֵהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** even so, why is it necessary for the Torah to delineate all the common blemishes? **Let the Merciful One write all of them in** the verses discussing **one** of them, either an animal or a person, **and** as for **those that are not** relevant **for the other,** i.e., those blemishes that apply only in the case of an animal, **let the Merciful One write with regard to an animal, and** as for **those that are not** relevant **for the other,** i.e., those blemishes relevant only to a person, **let** the Merciful One **write with regard to a person. And** let the Torah write the blemishes of **a scab and scurvy** both **here and there,** for the purpose of the verbal analogy, **and let** the fact that their common blemishes disqualify in both cases **be derived from one another.**


###### Bekhorot 43a:14
[Bekhorot 43a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:14)

אֶלָּא, כְּתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כׇּל פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִשְׁנֵית — לֹא נִשְׁנֵית אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the reason the Torah repeats their common blemishes is **in accordance with** that which **the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Every passage** in the Torah **that was stated and repeated was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein.** It is the style of the Torah to repeat a passage even in order to teach only one additional *halakha*. Consequently, with regard to the blemishes of a person and an animal, their common blemishes were repeated on account of those blemishes that apply only to an animal or a person.


###### Bekhorot 43a:15
[Bekhorot 43a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:15)

אָמַר רָבָא: לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא מוּם בְּאָדָם, מוּם בְּקָדָשִׁים, מוּם בִּבְכוֹר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava says: Why do I** need **the Merciful One to write** that **a blemish** causes disqualification from Temple service **in** the case of **a person,** i.e., a priest (see Leviticus 21:17–23), and that **a blemish** causes disqualification **in** the case of **sacrificial** animals (see Leviticus 22:20–25), and that **a blemish** causes disqualification for sacrifice **in** the case of **a firstborn** animal (see Deuteronomy 15:21)?


###### Bekhorot 43a:16
[Bekhorot 43a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:16)

צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא מוּם בְּאָדָם, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה בְּמִצְווֹת. אָדָם מִבְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה לָא אָתֵי, שֶׁכֵּן הוּא עַצְמוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava answers: They are all **necessary. As, had the Merciful One written** only that **a blemish** causes disqualification **in** the case of **a person,** one might suggest that blemishes cause disqualification only in that case, **since** a person **was included in** the performance of **mitzvot.** Similarly, had the Merciful One written only that blemishes disqualify a firstborn animal from being sacrificed, it could be claimed that one **cannot derive** the disqualification of **a person** on account of blemishes **from** the disqualification of **a firstborn animal, since** an animal has an added aspect of stringency in that **it itself is sacrificed upon the altar.**


###### Bekhorot 43a:17
[Bekhorot 43a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:17)

קָדָשִׁים מִבְּכוֹר לָא אָתֵי, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Additionally, one **cannot derive** the disqualifications of **sacrificial** animals **from** those of **a firstborn** animal, **since** the **sanctity of** a firstborn animal is **from the womb,** i.e., from birth, whereas the sanctity of other offerings applies only upon consecration by a person, and they are therefore of a lesser sanctity.


###### Bekhorot 43a:18
[Bekhorot 43a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:18)

אָדָם מִקֳּדָשִׁים לָא אָתֵי, שֶׁכֵּן הֵן עַצְמָן קְרֵיבִין. בְּכוֹר מִקֳּדָשִׁים לָא אָתֵי, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מְרוּבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, had the Merciful One written only that sacrificial animals are disqualified due to blemishes, it could be claimed that one **cannot derive** the disqualifications of **a person from** that of **sacrificial** animals, **as** the offerings **themselves are sacrificed.** Similarly, one **cannot derive** the disqualifications of **a firstborn** animal **from** those of **sacrificial** animals, **as the sanctity** of other offerings **is greater** than that of a firstborn animal because there are many types of other offerings, whereas a firstborn animal has only one type of sanctification. Therefore, it was necessary for the Merciful One to specify that blemishes disqualify in each case.


###### Bekhorot 43a:19
[Bekhorot 43a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:19)

חֲדָא מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתְיָא, תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי? מֵהֵי תֵּיתֵי?! לָא לִכְתֹּב רַחֲמָנָא בִּבְכוֹר, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ? מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתָן מְרוּבָּה, וְנוֹהֲגִין בִּפְשׁוּטִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, the disqualification of **one** of these cases **cannot be derived from** only a single other **one.** But **let one** of them **be derived from** the other **two.** The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **From which** two **should** the other one **be derived?** If you will say: **Let the Merciful One not write that** blemishes disqualify **a firstborn** animal **and** one should **derive** that case **from these,** i.e., the disqualifications of a person and sacrificial animals, this suggestion can be rejected. **What** is notable **about these?** They are notable **in that their sanctity is greater** than that of a firstborn offering, as in the case of a person, he is included in the performance of mitzvot; and in the case of a sacrificial animal, there are many types of offerings. **Moreover,** the *halakhot* of these blemishes **apply to regular,** i.e., non-firstborn, animals and people.


###### Bekhorot 43a:20
[Bekhorot 43a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:20)

בְּקָדָשִׁים, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ? מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתָן מֵאֲלֵיהֶן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, if one will say: Let the Merciful One not write that blemishes disqualify **sacrificial** animals **and** one should **derive** that case **from these** cases, a person, i.e., a priest, and a firstborn animal, this too can be rejected: **What** is notable **about these?** They are notable **in that their sanctity is automatic** and requires no consecration, as a priest is a priest by virtue of being the son of a priest, and a firstborn attains its status by being the first child of its mother, while offerings are consecrated by their owners.


###### Bekhorot 43a:21
[Bekhorot 43a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:21)

בְּאָדָם, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ? מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן הֵן עַצְמָן קְרֵיבִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ! צְרִיכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Finally, if one will say: Let the Merciful One not write that blemishes disqualify **a person and** one should **derive** that case **from these** cases, the firstborn animal and sacrificial animals, this suggestion too can be rejected: **What** is notable **about these?** They are notable **in that they themselves are sacrificed upon the altar,** whereas a person is not. Therefore, all three verses **are necessary,** to teach that blemishes disqualify in all these cases.


###### Bekhorot 43a:22
[Bekhorot 43a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/43a:22)

יָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן בְּאָדָם. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כֹּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן״, אִישׁ שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **in addition to those** blemishes that disqualify an animal, there are other blemishes that apply **to a person** despite the fact that they are not actual defects. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** These *halakhot* are derived from **that** which **the verse states: “No man among the seed of Aaron the priest who has a blemish** shall come forward to sacrifice the offerings of the Lord made by fire” (Leviticus 21:21). The verse indicates that the priest must be **a man who is equal among the seed of Aaron,** i.e., one whose appearance is similar to the other priests.