## Bekhorot Daf 45b

###### Bekhorot 45b:1
[Bekhorot 45b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:1)

יָתֵר בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, וַתְּהִי עוֹד מִלְחָמָה, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי אִישׁ מָדוֹן אֶצְבַּע יָדָיו וְאֶצְבַּע רַגְלָיו שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ״, מָר סָבַר בִּגְנוּתֵיהּ מִשְׁתַּעֵי, וּמָר סָבַר בִּשְׁבָחֵיהּ מִשְׁתַּעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if one has **an extra** appendage **on his hands and on his feet,** six on each for a total of twenty-four, Rabbi Yehuda deems him fit while the Rabbis disqualify him. **Rabbi Yitzḥak says: And both derived** their opinions **from one verse,** as it is stated with regard to David’s war against the Philistines: **“And there was again war** at Gath” (II Samuel 21:20), **and it is** also **written** in that same verse: **“And there was a champion, who had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes,** twenty-four in number.” One **Sage,** i.e., the Rabbis, **holds** that the verse **speaks of negative** qualities of the champion, and therefore it may be derived from here that extra appendages are blemishes; and one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda, **holds** that the verse **speaks in his praise,** which means that extra appendages are not blemishes at all.


###### Bekhorot 45b:2
[Bekhorot 45b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:2)

אָמַר רַבָּה: מָה לִי דִּכְתִיב ״שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מִסְפָּר״? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: שֵׁית דִּידֵיהּ וְשֵׁית דְּכַרְעֵיהּ, כְּתַב ״עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע״. וְאִי כְּתַב ״עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הוּא חֲמֵשׁ מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וּשְׁבַע מֵהַאי גִּיסָא, כְּתַב ״שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ״. ״מִסְפָּר״ — בְּנִסְפֶּרֶת עַל גַּבֵּי הַיָּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to that verse, **Rabba says: Why do I** need that **which is written** in the verse: “On every hand **six** fingers, **and** on every foot **six** toes, **twenty-four in number”?** Isn’t it obvious that one who has six appendages on each limb will have twenty-four in total? Rabba explains: All of these details **are necessary, as, had the Merciful One written** only **six and six, I would say** there were **six of his hand and six of his foot,** i.e., he had only twelve appendages. Therefore, the Merciful One **wrote “twenty-four.” And had** the Merciful One **written** only **“twenty-four,” I would say** he had **five** fingers **on this side and seven** fingers **on that side.** Therefore, the verse **wrote six and six.** The verse concludes with the term **“in number” to** indicate that these fingers **were counted** in a single row **on the back of the hand.**


###### Bekhorot 45b:3
[Bekhorot 45b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:3)

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, יָתֵר בְּיָדָיו וּבְרַגְלָיו שֵׁשׁ וָשֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע. אָמַר לוֹ: כְּמוֹתְךָ יִרְבּוּ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה? כָּךְ אָמַר לוֹ: כְּמוֹתְךָ יִתְמַעֲטוּ מַמְזֵירֵי וּנְתִינֵי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the dispute concerning whether or not extra appendages are a blemish, it **is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda says:** There was **an incident involving one man who came before Rabbi Tarfon,** and he had **extra** appendages **on his hands and on his feet, six and six,** for a total of **twenty-four** appendages. Rabbi Tarfon **said to him: There should increase among the Jewish people** those that are **like you,** i.e., strong men. Clearly, extra appendages are not a blemish but a praiseworthy condition. **Rabbi Yosei said to** Rabbi Yehuda: You seek to bring **a proof from there? This** is what Rabbi Tarfon actually **said to him:** All ***mamzerim* and Gibeonites should be like you,** i.e., physically weak, so that **they should decrease from the Jewish people.**


###### Bekhorot 45b:4
[Bekhorot 45b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:4)

הַשּׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן — אִיטֵּר, בֵּין בַּיָּד בֵּין בָּרֶגֶל — פָּסוּל. הַשּׁוֹלֵט בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו — רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. מָר סָבַר — כְּחִישׁוּתָא אַתְחִלָא בְּיָמִין, וּמָר סָבַר — בְּרִיּוּתָא אַתְחִלָא בִּשְׂמֹאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that in the case of a priest **who has control of both of his hands,** i.e., he is ambidextrous, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him disqualified and the Rabbis deem him fit. With regard to this dispute **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: One whose **left** side is dominant, **whether** his left **hand or** his left **foot,** is **disqualified** from performing the Temple service. Furthermore, in the case of **one who has control of both of his hands, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **deems** him **disqualified and the Rabbis deem** him **fit.** The Gemara explains this dispute: One **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that he learned to control his left hand because **a weakness began in** his **right** hand. He is therefore disqualified, as his right hand is weak. **And** one **Sage,** i.e., the Rabbis, **holds** that **a strength began in** his **left** hand that allowed him to control both hands. Nevertheless, his right hand remains strong.


###### Bekhorot 45b:5
[Bekhorot 45b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַכּוּשִׁי, הַגִּיחוֹר, וְהַלַּבְקָן, וְהַקִּפֵּחַ, וְהַנַּנָּס, וְהַחֵרֵשׁ, וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה, וְהַשִּׁיכּוֹר, וּבַעֲלֵי נְגָעִים טְהוֹרִים — פְּסוּלִין בְּאָדָם וּכְשֵׁרִים בַּבְּהֵמָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹטָה מִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מִן הַמּוּבְחָר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף בַּעֲלֵי הַדִּלְדּוּלִין פְּסוּלִין בָּאָדָם וּכְשֵׁרִין בַּבְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** Concerning **the *kushi*, the *giḥor*, the *lavkan*, the *kipe’aḥ*, the dwarf, the deaf-mute, the imbecile, the drunk, and** those **with ritually pure marks,** their conditions **disqualify a person** from performing the Temple service **and are valid,** i.e., they do not disqualify with regard to being sacrificed, **in** the case of **an animal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: An imbecile among animals is not optimal** for sacrifice. **Rabbi Elazar says: Even** with regard to those **with** flesh or skin that **hangs** from their body, that blemish **disqualifies in** the case of **a person and is valid in** the case of **an animal.**


###### Bekhorot 45b:6
[Bekhorot 45b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:6)

**גְּמָ׳** כּוּשִׁי — אוּכָּמָא, גִּיחוֹר — חִיוָּורָא, לַבְקָן — סוּמָּקָא. אִינִי? וְהָא הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״מַאן בָּעֵי לוּקְיָאנֵי״, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח חִיוָּורָא! אֶלָּא: כּוּשִׁי — אוּכָּמָא, גִּיחוֹר — סוּמָּקָא, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: ״סוּמָּקָא גִּיחְיָא״, לַבְקָן — חִיוָּורָא, כְּהָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״מַאן בָּעֵי לוּקְיָאנֵי״, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח חִיוָּורֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that a *kushi*, a *giḥor*, and a *lavkan* are disqualified. The Gemara explains: **A *kushi*** is one whose skin is extremely **black, a *giḥor*** is one whose skin is extremely **white,** and a ***lavkan*** is one whose skin is extremely **red.** The Gemara asks: **Is that so? But** there was **a certain** person **who said to** others: **Who wants a *lukiyani*** lamb, **and** the lamb **was found** to be **white. Rather, a *kushi*** is one whose skin is extremely **black; a *giḥor*** is one whose skin is extremely **red, as people say** about one whose skin is extremely red: ***Giḥia* red;** and **a *lavkan*** is one whose skin is extremely **white, as** in the case of **that person who said: Who wants a *lukiyani*, and it was found** to be **white.**


###### Bekhorot 45b:7
[Bekhorot 45b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:7)

קִפֵּחַ. תָּנֵי רַב זְבִיד: גָּבוֹהַּ. אִינִי? וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מִנַּיִן שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִשְׁתַּבֵּחַ בְּבַעֲלֵי קוֹמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָנֹכִי הִשְׁמַדְתִּי אֶת הָאֱמֹרִי מִפְּנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר כְּגֹבַהּ אֲרָזִים גׇּבְהוֹ״. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בַּאֲרִיכָא שְׁמִיטָה סַנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **a *kipe’aḥ*** is disqualified. **Rav Zevid taught** that this is referring to one who is extremely **tall.** The Gemara asks: **Is that so,** that one who is tall is considered blemished? **But didn’t Rabbi Abbahu teach: From where** is it derived **that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is praised through** His destruction of **those of stature? As it is stated: “Yet I destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars”** (Amos 2:9). **Rav Pappa said** in response: The mishna is not referring to one who is tall and has a healthy build, but to one who is **long, emaciated,** and **ugly.**


###### Bekhorot 45b:8
[Bekhorot 45b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:8)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: גָּבוֹהַּ לֹא יִשָּׂא גְּבוֹהִית — שֶׁמָּא יֵצֵא מֵהֶן תּוֹרֶן, נַנָּס לֹא יִשָּׂא נַנֶּסֶת — שֶׁמָּא יֵצֵא מֵהֶם אֶצְבָּעִי, לָבָן לֹא יִשָּׂא לְבָנָה — שֶׁמָּא יֵצֵא מֵהֶם בּוֹהֵק, שָׁחוֹר לֹא יִשָּׂא שְׁחוֹרָה — שֶׁמָּא יֵצֵא מֵהֶן טָפוּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish says:** A man who is **tall should not marry** a woman who is also **tall, lest** there **emerge from them** a child who is **extremely tall.** Similarly, a man who is **a dwarf should not marry** a woman who is also **a dwarf, lest** there **emerge from them** a child who is **exceptionally short.** A man whose skin is **pale should not marry** a woman whose skin is also **pale, lest** there **emerge from them** a child who is **extremely pale.** Likewise, a man whose skin is **dark should not marry** a woman whose skin is also **dark, lest** there **emerge from them** a child who is **extremely dark.**


###### Bekhorot 45b:9
[Bekhorot 45b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:9)

הַחֵרֵשׁ, הַשּׁוֹטֶה, וְהַשִּׁכּוֹר. שִׁכּוֹר מַחֵיל עֲבוֹדָה, בַּהֲדֵי מוּמֵי דְּמַחֲילִי עֲבוֹדָה בָּעֵי לְמִיחְשַׁב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **the deaf-mute, the imbecile, and the drunk** are disqualified. The Gemara challenges: Since one who is **drunk profanes the** Temple **service,** the blemish of drunkenness **should have been counted** in the previous chapter **together with** those who have **blemishes that profane the service.** By contrast, those listed in this mishna are disqualified only because they are not equal among the seed of Aaron, and the *halakha* is that rites performed by priests with such blemishes are not profaned after the fact (see 43b).


###### Bekhorot 45b:10
[Bekhorot 45b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:10)

בִּשְׁאָר דְּבָרִים הַמְשַׁכְּרִים. וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: אָכַל דְּבֵילָה קְעִילִית, וְשָׁתָה חָלָב אוֹ דְּבַשׁ, נִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where one became drunk **through other intoxicating agents,** not through wine. In such a case, the rites are not profaned. **And** this is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who holds that even in such a case the rites are profaned, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: Rabbi Yehuda says that a priest who **ate** pressed **figs from Ke’ila or drank milk or honey,** thereby becoming intoxicated, and **entered the Sanctuary** to serve, is **liable** to receive lashes. This is because he transgressed the prohibition: “Drink no wine nor strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 10:9). He understands that “strong drink” means any intoxicating agent. The verse indicates that one who performs the Temple service while drunk profanes the service, as it states immediately afterward: “And that you may put difference between the holy and the common.”


###### Bekhorot 45b:11
[Bekhorot 45b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִין בָּאָדָם וּפְסוּלִין בַּבְּהֵמָה: אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, טְרֵיפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, וְשֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהֶן עֲבֵירָה, וְשֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **These** flaws **do not disqualify a person** from performing the Temple service, **but** they do **disqualify an animal** from being sacrificed: An animal whose mother or offspring were slaughtered that day, as slaughtering it would violate the prohibition against slaughtering the animal **itself and its offspring** on the same day; **a *tereifa*;** one **born by caesarean section;** one **with which a transgression** of bestiality **was performed; and one that killed a person.**


###### Bekhorot 45b:12
[Bekhorot 45b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:12)

וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא נָשִׁים בַּעֲבֵירָה — פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיַּדִּירֶנָּה הֲנָאָה, וְהַמִּטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים — פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** a priest **who marries women by a transgression,** e.g., a divorcée or a woman who underwent *ḥalitza*, is **disqualified** from performing the Temple service **until he vows** not to derive **benefit from her.** The vow ensures that he will divorce her promptly. **And** a priest **who becomes impure** through exposure **to corpses** is **disqualified** from performing the Temple service **until he accepts upon himself** a commitment **that he will no** longer **become impure** through exposure **to corpses.**


###### Bekhorot 45b:13
[Bekhorot 45b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:13)

**גְּמָ׳** וְאֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁירִין בָּאָדָם, מַאי (באותו) [״אוֹתוֹ] וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches about **these** flaws that **do not disqualify a person** from performing the Temple service but do disqualify an animal from being sacrificed, one of which is: Itself and its offspring. The Gemara asks: To **what** possible case involving people is the mishna referring when it differentiates between people and animals **with regard to** the flaw of: **Itself and its offspring?**


###### Bekhorot 45b:14
[Bekhorot 45b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:14)

אִילֵּימָא אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו, דִּכְוָתֵיהּ תַּיִישׁ וּבְנוֹ, מִי נָהֵיג? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ נוֹהֵג בִּנְקֵבוֹת, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים! אֶלָּא תְּיָישָׁה וּבְנָהּ, דִּכְוָותַהּ הָכָא כֹּהֶנֶת וּבְנָהּ, כֹּהֶנֶת בַּת עֲבוֹדָה הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** this is referring to **Aaron and his sons,** and it means that they may serve in the Temple on the same day, then **in the corresponding** situation the mishna must be referring to a male **goat and its offspring.** And **does** such a prohibition **apply? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The prohibition against slaughtering an animal **itself and its offspring** on the same day **applies to female** animals, i.e., a mother and its offspring, **but it does not apply to males,** i.e., a father and its offspring. **Rather,** the mishna is referring to a female **goat and its offspring,** that they may not be slaughtered on the same day. If so, **in the corresponding** situation **here,** with regard to the priesthood, the mishna must be referring to **a female priest and her son.** But **is a female priest fit for** performing the Temple **service** at all? Clearly not.


###### Bekhorot 45b:15
[Bekhorot 45b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:15)

לְעוֹלָם אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו, דִּכְוָותַהּ הָכָא תַּיִישׁ וּבְנוֹ. אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין: עֲדָא אָמְרָה חֲנַנְיָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ נוֹהֵג בִּנְקֵבוֹת וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים, חֲנַנְיָה אוֹמֵר: נוֹהֵג בִּזְכָרִים וּבִנְקֵבוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Actually,** the mishna is referring to **Aaron and his sons,** and **in the corresponding** situation **here,** it is referring to a male **goat and its offspring.** And as for the difficulty that the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, applies only to the mother, **they said in the West,** Eretz Yisrael, **in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: That is to say,** the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Ḥananya, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The prohibition against slaughtering an animal **itself and its offspring** on the same day **applies to female** animals **but it does not apply to male** animals. **Ḥananya says: It applies to** both **male and female** animals.


###### Bekhorot 45b:16
[Bekhorot 45b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:16)

וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא נָשִׁים כּוּ׳. תָּנָא: נוֹדֵר וְעוֹבֵד, יוֹרֵד וּמְגָרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that a priest **who marries women** by a transgression is disqualified from performing the Temple service until he vows not to derive benefit from her. It is **taught** in a *baraita*: If a priest was performing a sacrificial rite and it was discovered that he married a woman who was forbidden to him, he does not stop performing the rite. Rather, **he vows** not to derive benefit from her **and** then continues to **perform** the rite. Once he has finished, **he descends** from the altar **and divorces** his wife.


###### Bekhorot 45b:17
[Bekhorot 45b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:17)

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אָזֵיל לְגַבֵּי חָכָם וְשָׁרֵי לֵיהּ! קָסָבַר: צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֶּדֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: How can he be permitted to perform the Temple service before actually divorcing his wife? **But let us be concerned** that **perhaps he will go before a Sage** who will **dissolve his** vow. The Gemara responds: The *tanna* **holds** that when one seeks to dissolve a vow, he **must delineate** the conditions of **the vow** to the Sage. Accordingly, when the Sage hears that he uttered this vow because he married a woman who was forbidden to him, the Sage will not dissolve it.


###### Bekhorot 45b:18
[Bekhorot 45b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:18)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֶּדֶר, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֶּדֶר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּמַדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ בְּרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** one **must delineate** the conditions of **the vow. But according to the one who says** he does **not need to delineate** the conditions of **the vow, what can be said?** The Gemara responds **that we administer the vow** to the priest **in public.** Such a vow cannot be dissolved.


###### Bekhorot 45b:19
[Bekhorot 45b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/45b:19)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר נֶדֶר שֶׁהוּדַּר בְּרַבִּים אֵין לוֹ הֲפָרָה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ לוֹ הֲפָרָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּמַדְּרִינַן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara persists: **This works out well according to the one who says** that **a vow that was taken in public has no** option of **nullification** by a halakhic authority, **but according to the one who says it has** the option of **nullification, what can be said?** The Gemara responds **that we administer the vow**