Comentario sobre Behorot 7:9

מומין אלו – that invalidate the firstling, invalidate the Kohen in his Divine service, whether they are permanent or transient all the while that they are upon him.

Introduction Since chapter six dealt with blemishes that render an animal unfit to be a sacrifice, this chapter lists blemishes that disqualify a priest from serving in the Temple.

הכילון (one whose head has the shape of a basket/wedge shaped – see Talmud Bekhorot 43b) – that his head is pointed from above and wide below. And it is similar to the covering of a wine jug which is called an אכלה (or אוכלא/basket or אובלא/perforated trough – vessel made of willow trigs) – therefore it is called a כילון.

These blemishes [named above], whether permanent or transitory, make human beings unfit [to serve in the Temple]. The same blemishes that disqualify animals also disqualify priests from serving in the Temple. That a priest with a blemish cannot serve in the Temple is stated in Leviticus 21:21, “No man among the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a defect shall be qualified to offer the Lord’s gift; having a defect, he shall not be qualified to offer the food of his God.” Our chapter will explain and expand the list found in this chapter of Leviticus.

והלפתן (turnip-shaped) – that his head is similar to a turnip, that it is wide from above and becomes narrower from below.

There are more than this concerning human beings: kilon, liftan, makkaban, one whose head is angular or shekifas . There are other defects that also can prevent a man from serving as a priest. The defects in this section refer to various types of misshapen heads. A kilon is one with a wedge-shaped head, a laftan is one with a turnip shaped head, a makkavan is one with a hammer-shaped head and a shekifas is one with a bent head. In other words, for a priest to serve in the Temple, his head must be shaped in a normal fashion.

מקבן (one whose head is mallet-shaped – see Tractate Bekhorot 43b) – that his head is similar to a mallet, in that the forehead protrudes outward and similarly, his neck from behind him, but his temples are even with his head, and he is similar to a hammer – that is a mallet that goes forth from before him and from behind him.

A hunchback: Rabbi Judah considers him fit, Whereas the sages consider him unfit. The sages debate whether a hunchback can serve as a priest in the Temple. Rabbi Judah says that it does not disqualify him from serving, whereas the sages consider him unfit.

ושראשו שקוט (whose head is abruptly bent, angular; forehead receding abruptly – see Talmud Bekhorot 43b) – This is our reading. There are those who explain that his head protrudes greatly, and extends outward towards his face. But there are those who explain that it does not protrude at all in front of him, like the matter that it leaps from behind him, that his head does not protrude from behind him at all, and that he is lacking, that it is similar to one that a piece of him is severed from behind him. But the language of שקיפס, is that of a lump of brittle stone that was thrown at it (an idolatrous statue) [see Sanhedrin 64a), that a piece from him was taken. And in the Tosefta it counts also a sunken neck/צואר שקוע, that his head is placed between his shoulders and it is similar to one who has no neck.

ובעלי החטוטרת ר' יהודה מכשיר – that when he has a bone in the hump/hunch, everyone does not dispute that it is a blemish. But they dispute, when it doesn’t have a bone. Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is a mere piece of flesh, but the Rabbis hold, as Scripture States (Leviticus 21:21): “No man among the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a defect [shall be qualified to offer the LORD’s gift],” those who are fit within the seed of Aaron shall serve, but he who is not fit among the seed of Aaron shall not serve. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

ואם יש לו הרי זה כשר – and he that should have a row of hair that surrounds from ear to ear from behind him, but not from in front of him. For it is of greater beauty when he has it from behind him but not in front of him more than when he has it (i.e., hair) around all of the head and in the middle it is bald. And all the more so, when he has it (i.e., hair) in front of him, but not behind him, that he is disqualified.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with various defects concerning the hair on one’s head.

גבינים – eye-brows.

A bald-headed person is unfit [for the priesthood]. What is considered bald-headed? One who does not have a line of hair from ear to ear. If he has one, then he is fit. One who is bald cannot serve in the Temple. However, this is limited to one who is really bald, a man who doesn’t even have a line of hair from one ear to the other. Those, like me, who are bald but have a little bit of hair, can, thankfully, fulfill their role as priests (now if only my father was a kohnen..).

שגביניו שוכבים – that the hair of his eye-brows is long and hanging down over his eyes.

One who has no eyebrows or has only one eyebrow [is unfit], this being the gibben mentioned in the Torah. Rabbi Dosa says: one whose eyebrows lie flat [overshadowing the eyes]. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one who has a double back or a double spine. In the chapter dealing with the blemishes of the priest, the Torah lists the “gibben” (Leviticus 21:20). The rabbis debate what this word means. According to the first opinion, a “gibben” has a problem with his eyebrows. He either has no eyebrows, or only one. Rabbi Dosa says that the problem is slightly different his eyebrows are long and hang over his eyes. Rabbi Hanina believes that the problem has nothing to do with eyebrows, but rather with the back. The person looks as if he has two backs or two spines.

מי שיש לו שני גבים ושתי שדראות – not that he actually has two backs, for that [person] does not exist. But, as for example, that his backbone is curved and appears like many backs and backbones. And everyone admits that these blemishes that are considered by these Tannaim/teachers are blemishes, and only the implication of their expounding is what is differs between each of them, for each one holds that the blemish that he counts is the גבן /hump-backed (or one having defective eye brows) that is the "גבן" of the Torah (i.e., Leviticus 21:20: “or one who is a hunchback, [or a dwarf, or has a growth in his eye, or who has a boil-scar, or scurvy , or crushed testes].”

כוחל שתי עיניו כאחת (he who paints his two eyes in one movement) – that his nose that is between his eyes is sunk and it does not protrude at all, until when he comes to remove the staff used for painting the eye, he is able to stretch the staff used for painting the eye between each eye, but the nose does not prevent it.

Introduction Our mishnah continues to deal with defects of the eyes.

שתי עיניו למעלה – at the height of the forehead which is not like the rest of people.

A harum is unfit [for the priesthood]. What is a harum? One who can paint both of his eyes with one movement. A harum is one who can paint both of his eyes with one movement. This is interpreted to mean that his nose is sunken in, so that he could paint both eyes with one stroke.

ושתי עיניו למטה – from the place where they are accustomed to be.

If both of his eyes were above or both of his eyes were below; or if one one eye was above and the other below; The mishnah now continues to list other eye defects. If both eyes are higher or lower than normal, or if they are uneven, one eye being higher than the other, then he may not serve in the Temple.

עינו אחת למעלה – from the customary place.

Or one who sees the room and the ceiling in one glance; This seems to mean that he is cross-eyed, one eye looking up and one eye looking down.

ואינו אחת למטה – from the customary place.

Or one who covers [his eyes] from the sun; If he is extremely photo-sensitive, he can’t serve. We should note that the Temple was not shaded, so for a priest who can’t bear the sun, serving at the altar might have been unbearable.

רואה את החדר ואת העליה כאחת – that his eyes stand in their appropriate place, but one of his eyes sees above and his other eye sees below, the room below and the attic above, and anyone who sees crooked that he is speaking with his fellow and it appears as if he is looking into the face of another person.

A zugdos and a tziran. A zugdos is interpreted as being a person with eyes or eyebrows of different colors. A tziran is one whose eyes constantly water. All of these visual defects disqualify a priest from serving in the Temple.

סכי שמש (squinting, cross-eyed) – that when he wants to look into the sun, he closes his eyes and closes his eyelids (see also Talmud Bekhorot 44a, where Rabbi Yose changes it to read – סני שמש/who hates the sun, blinkard).

One whose eyelashes have fallen off is unfit [for the priesthood] for appearance sake. The rabbis stated that one whose eyelashes have fallen out cannot serve in the Temple, because his appearance is strange. In other words, he does not have a defect that prevents him from serving, but we don’t let him serve because of his strange appearance.

זגדוס (unmatched; one with an unequal pair of eyes or eye-brows) – a זוג /pair is two; דוס in the Roman language is two. Meaning to say, the pair of eyes or the eyelids of the eyes which are customarily equivalent are divided into two matters. As for example, his one eye is black and the other is a kind of tekelet/blue-green. In one of his eye brows there is a lot of hair and in the other, a little. And similarly, in all of the other pairs of limbs, each pair is not similar to each other. He is called a זגדוס.

צירן (one whose eyes discharge a briny liquid, bleary-eyed) – whose eyes flow with tears, dripping or always running (see Talmud Bekhorot 44a).

שנשרו ריסי עיניו – that the hair fell from his eye-lashes.

מפני מראית העין – but it is not a complete blemish. And these words [apply] when there remains in his eyelashes a trace of hair, but if there doesn’t remain even the slightest trace of hair, behold it is a complete blemish. And similarly, if there is a lot of hair in the eye-lid with eye-lashes it is a complete blemish. But there are three laws allotted in the blemishes of a human being. There are equivalent blemishes in man and beasts, a Kohen who transgressed and served with them is flogged and his Divine service is profaned. But the additional blemishes in a person that are not found in animals, a he is flogged but if he served, his Divine service is not profaned. But the blemishes which are on account of being repulsive to look at (i.e, appearance’s sake) if he transgressed and served [in the Temple], he is not flogged, and there is no need to state that his Divine service is profaned.

גופו גדול מיבריו – the measurement of his body is larger than appropriate according to the measurement of the remainder of his limbs, as for example, his hands, and his feet and his legs.

One whose eyes are as large as a calf's or as small as those of a goose;
Or whose body is [unduly] large for his limbs, [unduly] small for his limbs; or whose nose is [unduly] large for his limbs, or whose nose is [unduly] small for his limbs;
A tzimem and a zimea. What is tzimea? One whose ears are very small. What is tzimem? One whose ears resemble a sponge.
If some of a person’s limbs, nose or ears are either too large or too small, the person cannot serve as a priest. Basically, we can summarize that the rabbis thought the priest should look normal and have normal proportions.
I might want to add at this point, that in the ancient world it was thought that a strange outer appearance reflects a problematic inner self, perhaps lack of morality or lack of intelligence. While today we know that this is often, and perhaps usually not so, we should, I believe, acknowledge, that it is sometimes so, and that sometimes, mental problems accompany physical defects. It is not surprising that people in the pre-modern world, including rabbis, took this as the rule. Thankfully, though, we now understand better that, as they say, “one should not judge a book by its cover.”
The mishnah is pretty straightforward, so I will explain only where I feel necessary.
Section three: The only section that probably needs explanation is the “tzimem” whose ears resemble a sponge. According to Rashi, this means that they are shrunken and closed. Maimonides interprets it to mean large and swollen. In either case, they are deformed.

חוטמו גדול – the measurement of his nose is like the measurement of a small finger of his hand. But if it was long than this or shorter than this, it is a blemish.

דומות לספוג – shrunk and closed up.

דדיו שוכבים – large [breasts] until they appear as if they lie like the breasts of a woman.

If the upper lip overlaps the lower or the lower lip overlaps the upper, behold this is a blemish.
One whose teeth have fallen out is unfit [for the priesthood] for appearance sake.
If his breasts hang down like those of a woman, or his belly is swollen, or his navel sticks out, or if he is epileptic, even once every few days, or he is subject to melancholy, a me'ushkan and a ba'al gever [all these are unfit for the priesthood].
If he has no testicles, or only one testicle, this is the “meroah ashekh” mentioned in the Torah. Rabbi Ishmael says: anyone whose testicles were crushed. Rabbi Akiva says: anyone who has wind in his testicles. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one who has a black complexion.
More blemishes!
The first two sections are straightforward so there is no explanation below.
Section three: A “me’ushkan” is one whose testicles are unusually large. A “ba’al gever” is one whose penis is unusually large. Please do not ask me how large is too large. I’m also not sure if they had a measuring stick in the Temple ☺.
Section four: Leviticus 21:20 uses the word “meroah ashekh” to refer to a disqualifying blemish and in this section the rabbis debate its meaning. This is similar to the debate at the end of 7:2.
According to the first three opinions, the “meroah ashekh” has a problem with his testicles, either he is missing them or they are crushed. Rabbi Akiva says that the problem is that he has “wind in his testicles” meaning they are distended. As in 7:2, Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus offers up a completely different explanation. The word “ashekh” sounds like “hoshekh” which means “dark” or “black.” So the “meroah ashekh” is one whose complexion is black.

נכפה – it falls on account of illness (i.e., epilepsy).

אפילו אחת לימים – that it doesn’t regularly fall, but rather one time in a long while.

רוח קצרית (a person subjected to asthmatic spells) – that his breath is short on account of black [gall/bile] that overcomes him periodically, and he remains without any sensation.

המאושכן (one having large testicles – see Talmud Bekhorot 44b) – that the sack of his testicles is long until it reaches the leg from under the hip-bone to the ankle, whether it is swollen on account of wind or on account of moisture.

ובעל גבר – membrum genitale (i.e., the penis). That his membrum virile became long and became large until it reached the leg from under the hip-bone to the ankle.

שנמרחו אשכיו- that his testicles became crushed.

שרוח באשכיו – and through this, his testicles are swollen/blown up.

שמראיו חשוכין – that it is dark. And even though it is not black like a Cushite. And the language [of the words] "מרוח אשך"/crushed testes (see Leviticus 21:20), its complexion is dark. But Scripture is not referring to the testicles. But in the essence of the law, there is no dispute, for each one of them (i.e., Rabbi Yismael, Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Hanina ben Antignos) agree that a blemish that his fellow counts is a blemish. But they did not disagree other than in the explanation of Scripture, and the homiletical implications divide them.

המקיש בקרסוליו – that his knees are curved outwardly and his ankles inwardly and they strike against each other when he walks. Or he strikes with his knees -this is the opposite, that his legs are curved towards the outside and they are distanced from each other until that his [curved] knees are above towards the inside, striking each other.

If one knocks his ankles [against each other, in walking] or rubs his legs [against each other]; a ba’al pikah and an ikkel. What is an ikkel? One whose knees do not touch each other when he puts his feet together.
If he has a lump protruding from his thumb, or if his heel projects backward, or if his feet are wide like those of a goose.
Or if his fingers lie one above the other.
If they are webbed up to the joint, he is fit, if below the root, if he cuts it, he is also fit.
If he has an additional finger and he cut it off, if there was a bone in it, he is unfit, but if not, he is fit.
If he has additional fingers and additional toes, on each hand and foot six fingers and six toes, [making altogether] twenty-four [fingers and toes]: Rabbi Judah declares him fit, But the sages declare him unfit.
One who has equal strength in both hands: Rabbi declares him unfit; But the sages declare him fit.
A kushi, a gihur, a lavkan, a kippeah, a dwarf, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, one intoxicated, or afflicted with plague marks which are clean – [these defects] disqualify in human beings but not in animals.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a mad animal is not a choice sacrifice.
Rabbi Eliezer says: also those afflicted with dangling warts they are unfit in human beings but are fit in animals.
Section one: This section has to do with various unusual ways of walking.
Section two: A “lump” seems to be an extra appendage sticking out of either his thumb or big toe.
Section four: If his fingers are webbed, but only up to the middle joint, he is still fit. If they are webbed past the middle joint, he is still fit if he cuts the skin (ouch!).
Section five: If he had an extra finger that had a bone in it, he is unfit, even if he cut off the extra finger (double ouch!). If there was no bone in it, then he is fit, as long as he cuts it off.
Section six: According to II Samuel 21:20, Goliath had an extra digit on each hand and foot. Perhaps this leads Rabbi Judah to say that as long as the number of digits on each hand and foot is the same, he is not defective and can serve in the Temple. The other rabbis disagree. Just as someone with one extra finger or toe is disqualified, so too is one with an extra digit on each hand and foot.
Section seven: The rabbis considered left-handedness to be a weakness, as did pretty much everybody in the ancient world. Rabbi [Judah Ha-Nasi] thought that someone ambidextrous was simply weak in the right hand, and therefore, he was flawed. The other rabbis attributed this ability to the strength of the left and not the weakness of the right, and therefore, held that he could serve in the Temple.
Section eight: A “kushi” is a dark-skinned person. A “gihor” is a red-skinned person. A “lavkan” is an albino. A “kipeah” is a very tall and thin person. All of the types of people listed in this section cannot serve in the Temple because they are unusual and were therefore were considered to be in some way defective.
The inclusion here of a drunken priest and a priest afflicted with a plague, albeit one considered ritually clean, is exceptional for two reasons. First of all, drunkenness and being afflicted with plagues are temporary conditions, whereas the other conditions are permanent. Second, and more importantly, all of the other categories refer to priests with blemishes in their personal appearance, whereas drunkenness is not. It seems likely that the mishnah included these two categories here because they belong with the list of things that disqualify a human being but not an animal.
Section nine: According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, a mad animal may also not be offered as a sacrifice.
Section ten: Rabbi Eliezer adds in another blemish which disqualifies human beings from serving, but not animals from being sacrificed hanging warts (yick!).

בעל הפיקין והעיקל (swellings and bandy-legged) – and he explains עיקל/bandy-legged in the first clause [of the Mishnah].

כל שהוא מקיף פרסותיו – when he sits and brings close the soles of his feet one to the other.

ואין ארכובותיו נוגעות זו לזו – that they are curved towards the outside. And someone who has swelling/a lump that the swelling goes out from his great toe, a piece of flesh is round like a swelling/lump goes out from the thumb of his hand or from the great toe of his foot.

עקבו יוצא מאחוריו (his heel juts outward) – as for example, that his foreleg stands in the middle of his foot, that half of his foot is towards the inside and half of his foot is towards the outside/back.

רחבות בשל אווז – they are weekend like that of a goose and their length is not not greater than their width.

קלוטות – attached to each other (i.e., webbed)

עד הפרק – the middle [joint] of the toes.

למטה מן הפרק – that is to say, to the side of the nail that is entirely attached.

וחתכן- that they will be separated/divided, it is kosher/appropriate.

היתה בו יתירה – an extra toe.

אם יש בה עצם פסול – for since he severed it, it is lacing a limb that is found in it.

שש ושש עשרים וארבע – meaning to say, even if the fingers of his hand and the toes of his foot were equivalent, that on each hand and foot there are six [digits] apiece, even so, the Sages disqualify it. And all the more so if there were on one of its hands five [digits] and in the other hand six [digits], that is an even greater blemish. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

השולט בשתי ידיו רבי פוסל – for he holds the weakness that he was born with was in his right hand.

וחכמים מכשירין – they hold that he has (unusual) strength which happened to rest in the left hand (see Talmud Bekhorot 45b). And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

הכושי – the black [person].

הגיחור (red-spotted in the face) – red like a purple garment.

הלבקן – extremely white (i.e., albino)

והקפה – long and thin, that is not thick according to its length, and he is ugly and reprehensible.

והשכור – but not from wine, it is considered like a blemish from the greatest blemishes in a person, for if he performed Divine Service, he is flogged, and his Divine Service is not desecrated. But the drunkard from wine and alcohol, if he served, he has profaned/caused the loss of priestly status. For in the portion of those who drink wine it is written (Leviticus 10:10): “for you must distinguish between the sacred and the profane,” and someone who is drunk of our Mishnah is not one other than having drunk a great deal of wine or much honey, or that ate cakes of twisted pressed figs, and his mind became confused. These are considered like having blemishes and they do not profane the Divine Service.

ובעלי נגעים טהורים – as for example (Leviticus 13:39): “it is a tetter broken out on the skin” or (Leviticus 13:13): “for he has turned all white.” For if it was from impure Negaim/plagues (or suspected leprosy), it is not necessary to state it, for even with his entrance into the temple courtyard, he is liable for extirpation.

דלדוליו (persons or animals afflicted with large warts) – like pieces of flesh that come out and suspend in them. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

אותו ואת בנו – a father and son who are Kohanim perform Temple service on the same day and at the same time. But the progenitor and his offspring of animals are not offered up on the same day (see Tractate Hullin, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1).

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with blemishes that do not disqualify human beings, even though they do disqualify animals from being sacrifices.

וטריפה – that was born with one of the signs of a (fatal) organic disease -which are delineated in the chapter [three – Tractate Hullin] “These are the Treifah carcasses” (see Mishnah 1 – regarding cattle, and Mishnah 3 among fowl), which is not offered on the Altar.

The following are fit in the case of human beings, but unfit in the case of animals:
A father with his son, It is forbidden to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day. If one does slaughter both on the same day, the second one cannot be used as a sacrifice (see Hullin, chapter five). However, a priest and his son can both serve in the Temple on the same day.

ויוצא דופן – that they tore open its mother and removed it while living. With an animal, it is disqualified from being offered, for it is written (Leviticus 22:26): “[When an ox or a sheep or a goat] is born, [it shall stay seven days with its mother, and from the eighth day on it shall be acceptable as an offering by fire to the LORD],” excluding that which is born from the side (i.e., Caesarean birth). But with a Kohen who offers [having been born by Caesarean section], he is not disqualified though this.

A terefah; A terefah is an animal that has been wounded or is sick and is going to die from the wound or illness (see Hullin, chapter three). If a priest has the signs of being a terefah, he may still serve in the Temple.

הנושא נשים בעבירה – a Kohen who married a divorcee or the female’s issue of a priest’s illegitimate connection/ a priest’s wife illegitimately married to him or a prostitute unfit to marry a priest, he takes a vow and serves [in the Temple]. Even though he has not yet divorced [her], he is permitted to serve after he vowed that he will not benefit from her and she will not benefit from him until he divorces [her]. And he shall take the vow with the knowledge of the community which has no releasing [of the vow] other than for the performance of a Mitzvah. And we should not suspect lest he will go to a Sage and state that for the need of a particular Mitzvah, he asks of him that he should release him from his vow, for since we hold that a person who goes to release his vow must explain upon what he has taken a vow, certainly when the Sage heard that it was because she is a divorcee or a prostitute, that she is forbidden to him through a vow, he will not permit his vow.

One born by means of a caesarean section. An animal born through a caesarean section cannot be sacrificed, but a person born of a caesarean section can still serve in the Temple.

עד שיקבל עליו שלא יהא מיטמא למתים - here it is enough for him with acceptance, for we don’t force him to take a vow [of deriving benefit] like concerning the sinful marrying of [forbidden] women, because there, his [evil] inclination overpowers him, [whereas] here, regarding [corpse] defilement, his [evil] inclination does not overpower him. Therefore, with mere acceptance, it is sufficient for him.

One with which a sin has been committed or has killed a person; An animal with which a sin (such as a sexual sin) has been committed or an animal has killed a person cannot be offered as a sacrifice (see above 6:12). However, these do not disqualify a priest from serving in the Temple.

A priest who contracts an illegal marriage is unfit [for the priesthood] until he vows not to derive any benefit from the woman. Leviticus 21 lists women whom a priest may not marry. If a priest marries such a woman he must divorce her. Marrying such a woman disqualifies him from serving at the altar until he takes a vow not to derive any more benefit from the marriage, neither sexually nor financially. Once he takes the vow he can serve again, even before he divorces her.

One who makes himself unclean through contact with the dead is unfit, until he undertakes that he will no longer make himself unclean through the dead. A priest is forbidden from intentionally coming into contact with the dead, except for his seven close relatives. If a priest intentionally defiles himself by coming into contact with the dead, he cannot serve at the altar until he promises to stop doing so. In this case, he need not take a vow, probably because it is less tempting for him to continue to defile himself, then it is for him to continue to be with his prohibited woman.