Halakhah for Bekhorot 85:43
(ויקרא כא, כא) כל איש אשר בו מום מזרע אהרן איש ששוה בזרעו של אהרן
- Rather [the explanation is] as a Tanna of the school of R'Ishmael taught. For a Tanna of the school of R'Ishmael taught: Wherever a section of the Law is taught and afterwards repeated, the section is repeated for the sake of a new point added.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore although several blemishes are repeated in both sections, yet because of the blemishes which are new that are taught, in the case of either a human being or an animal, Scripture does not refrain from repeating them.');"><sup>27</sup></span> Said Raba: What need is there for the Divine Law to state blemishes in connection with a human being, [a priest], consecrated sacrifices, and a first-born animal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. XV. Could not we have deduced one section of blemishes from the other or one section from the other two?');"><sup>28</sup></span> It was necessary [to state all these sections of blemishes]. For if the Divine Law had only stated the section of blemishes in connection with a human being. we might have thought that the reason was because he carries out many commands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore these blemishes make him unfit.');"><sup>29</sup></span> We cannot again infer [the blemishes] of a human being from those of a first-born animal, as we might have thought that the reason in the latter case was because the animal itself was offered up on the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore we are particular with reference to its blemishes.');"><sup>30</sup></span> You cannot either infer [the blemishes of] consecrated animals from those of a first-born animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if Scripture had only taught the blemishes of a firstborn, we should not have concluded therefrom the blemishes of consecrated animals and those of a human being.');"><sup>31</sup></span> as we might have thought that the reason in the latter case was because it was consecrated from the womb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., born holy, unlike sacrifices which must be sanctified before they become holy.');"><sup>32</sup></span> Nor can you infer [the blemishes of] a human being from those of consecrated animals,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If Scripture had written only the sections relating to the blemishes of consecrated animals and not the other two sections of blemishes, we could not have inferred the latter from the former.');"><sup>33</sup></span> as we might have thought that the reason in the case of the latter was that they themselves are sacrificed. Neither can you infer [the blemishes of] a first-born animal from those of consecrated animals, for we might have thought that the reason in the case of the latter was because the holiness [of a consecrated animal] has a wider scope.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Applying to a female as well as to a male, whereas a first-born animal must be a male. Also there are different kinds of sacrifices i.e., burnt-sacrifices, peace- sacrifices, trespass-sacrifices, etc.');"><sup>34</sup></span> We cannot therefore infer one [section of blemishes] from another single [section of blemishes]. Why not, however, infer one [section of blemishes] from the other two?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore one section would not be necessary for Scripture to state.');"><sup>35</sup></span> - Which [section] should the Divine Law have omitted? Should the Divine Law have omitted [the section relating to blemishes of] the first-born animal, leaving it to be inferred from the other [two sections of blemishes]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. that of consecrated animals and that of a human being.');"><sup>36</sup></span> We might then have thought that the other [two sections] are different, seeing that their holiness has a wider scope and that they also apply to plain, [non-first-born].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether of human beings or animals.');"><sup>37</sup></span> Should the Divine Law have omitted [the section of blemishes relating to] consecrated animals, leaving me to infer it from the other two [sections]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those of a first-born animal and a human being.');"><sup>38</sup></span> We might then have thought that the reason in the latter case was because they are holy on their own accord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest being born as such and the same applies to a firstborn animal.');"><sup>39</sup></span> Should the Divine Law have omitted [the section of blemishes relating to] a human being, which we would then have inferred from the other two sections?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those of consecrated sacrifices and a first-born animal.');"><sup>40</sup></span> I might have thought that the reason in the latter case was because they themselves are sacrificed on the altar. Hence it was necessary [to state the three sections of blemishes]. TO THESE MUST BE ADDED IN CONNECTION WITH BLEMISHES OF HUMAN BEINGS. Whence is this proven? Said R'Johanan: Scripture says: 'No man of the seed of Aaron the Priest that hath a blemish',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 21.');"><sup>41</sup></span> [intimating] that a man who is like the seed of Aaron<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., normal in appearance, as human beings are in general.');"><sup>42</sup></span> [is rendered unfit by a blemish].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But a man who is not like the seed of Aaron is disqualified even without a blemish (Rashi) . [Aliter: We require a man of symmetrical features');"><sup>43</sup></span>