Bekhorot 90

Chapter 90

א יתר בידיו וברגליו: אמר ר' יצחק ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו (שמואל ב כא, טו) ותהי עוד מלחמה וכתי' (שמואל ב כא, כ) ויהי איש מדון אצבע ידיו ואצבע רגליו שש ושש מר סבר בגנותיה משתעי ומר סבר בשבחיה משתעי
1 IF HE HAS ADDITIONAL FINGERS AND ADDITIONAL TOES ON HIS HANDS AND FEET etc. Said R'Isaac: And both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah and the Sages.');"><sup>1</sup></span> derive their views from [the interpretation of] the same verse: And there was yet a battle in Gath where there was a man of great stature that had on every hand six fingers and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Sam. XXI, 20.');"><sup>2</sup></span> One Master holds that Scripture means to disparage him, while the other Master [R'Judah] holds that Scripture means to praise him. Said Rabbah: Why does Scripture say: 'Six', 'six' and 'twenty-four in number'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Could I not have inferred one number from the other?');"><sup>3</sup></span> It was necessary [to state all these numbers]. For if the Divine Law had only said 'six' [fingers] and 'six' [toes], I might have thought that the one word 'six' referred to one hand and the other 'six' referred to one leg.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not to two legs and two hands.');"><sup>4</sup></span> Therefore the Divine Law says: Twenty-four. And if the Divine Law had said only 'twenty-four', I might have thought that it meant five fingers on one hand and seven fingers on the other, [the same applying to the feet].
ב אמר רבה מה לי דכתיב שש ושש עשרים וארבע מספר צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא שש ושש הוה אמינא שית דידיה ושית דכרעיה כתב עשרים וארבע ואי כתב עשרים וארבע הוה אמינא הוא חמש מהאי גיסא ושבע מהאי גיסא כתב שש ושש מספר בנספרת ע"ג היד
2 Therefore the Divine Law says: 'Six', 'six' 'in number' teaching us that the case here is one where the additional fingers are counted with the others. It has been taught: R'Judah says: A man once came before R'Tarfon with additional fingers and toes, six on each, making altogether twenty-four. He said to him: May the like of you increase in Israel!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Proving that additional fingers are marks of strength.');"><sup>5</sup></span> Said R'Jose to him: Do you bring a proof from this incident? This is really what R'Tarfon said to him. May through people like you bastards and nethinim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The offspring of Nathin, a descendant of the Gibeonites. David decreed their exclusion from the Israelitish community with regard to inter-marriage.');"><sup>6</sup></span> diminish in Israel!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' May nethinim and bastards like you possessing additional fingers and toes be multiplied, so as eventually to cause a decrease in their number, for they would then be distinguishable and marked off from the rest of the community (R. Gershom.)');"><sup>7</sup></span> IF ONE HAS EQUAL STRENGTH IN BOTH HANDS.
ג תניא א"ר יהודה מעשה באדם אחד שבא לפני רבי טרפון יתר בידיו וברגליו שש ושש עשרים וארבע אמר לו כמותך ירבה בישראל אמר לו ר' יוסי משם ראיה כך אמר לו כמותך יתמעטו ממזירי ונתיני מישראל:
3 Our Rabbis taught: If one is left-handed or left-legged, Rabbi declares him unfit [for the priesthood]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A left-handed priest is unfit for the priesthood because Scripture says: And the Priest shall dip his right finger, (Lev. XIV, 16) from which we infer that wherever Scripture says finger with reference to a priest, it means that of the right hand. And a left-legged priest is unfit because Scripture says: To stand and to serve, (Deut. XVII, 12) intimating that the serving must be in the normal manner of standing, viz., on the right leg, v. Zeb. 24a.');"><sup>8</sup></span> whereas the Sages declare him fit. One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi.');"><sup>9</sup></span> holds that it is due to an unusual weakness which has befallen the right hand, and the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages.');"><sup>10</sup></span> holds that it is due to unusual strength which has accrued to the left hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Left-handedness is therefore no defect.');"><sup>11</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>[IF ONE IS LIKE AN] ETHIOPIAN, A GIHUR, A LABKAN, A KIPPEAH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These terms are explained in the GEMARA:');"><sup>12</sup></span> A DWARF, A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE, INTOXICATED, OR AFFLICTED WITH PLAGUE MARKS WHICH ARE CLEAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a sore or a rising on the skin. There is no need for the Mishnah to mention that a priest with an unclean skin disease is disqualified, for in that case he is forbidden to enter the Temple-court on pain of excision.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ד השולט בשתי ידיו: ת"ר איטר בין ביד בין ברגל פסול השולט בשתי ידיו רבי פוסל וחכמים מכשירין מר סבר כחישותא אתחלא בימין ומר סבר בריותא אתחלא בשמאל:
4 - [THESE DEFECTS] DISQUALIFY IN HUMAN BEINGS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz. priests.');"><sup>14</sup></span> BUT NOT IN ANIMALS. R'SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: ONE SHOULD NOT FOR CHOICE SACRIFICE A MAD ANIMAL. R'ELEAZAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bah. adds, b. Jacob. hbhheuk hbeuuk');"><sup>15</sup></span> SAYS: ALSO THOSE AFFLICTED WITH WARTS ARE UNFIT IN HUMAN BEINGS BUT ARE FIT IN ANIMALS. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>[ONE WHO IS LIKE] AN ETHIOPIAN, is one abnormally black-complexioned. GIHUR is one who is [abnormally] white-spotted in the face.
ה <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הכושי הגיחור והלבקן והקפח והננס והחרש והשוטה והשיכור ובעלי נגעים טהורים פסולין באדם וכשרים בבהמה רשב"ג אומר שוטה מן הבהמה אינה מן המובחר רבי אלעזר אומר אף בעלי הדלדולין פסולין באדם וכשרין בבהמה:
5 LABKON is one who is [abnormally] red-spotted [in the face]. Now is this really so? Was there not a man who cried out: 'Who wants to buy levkoiums'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Jast. Rashi has here The Aruch has .');"><sup>16</sup></span> and it was found to be white flowers, [snowflakes]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' White lambs (Rashi.) .');"><sup>17</sup></span> Rather [the following are the correct definitions]: [ONE LIKE] AN ETHIOPIAN is one who is [abnormally] black-complexioned.
ו <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> כושי אוכמא גיחור חיוורא לבקן סומקא איני והא ההוא דאמר להו מאן בעי לוקיאני ואישתכח חיוורא אלא כושי אוכמא גיחור סומקא כדאמרי אינשי סומקא גיחיא לבקן חיוורא כההוא דאמר להו מאן בעי לוקיאני ואישתכח חיוורי:
6 GIHUR is one who is [abnormally red-spotted in the face], as people call gihia flame-red.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. e. gihia.');"><sup>18</sup></span> LABKAN is one who is [abnormally] white-spotted [in the face], as we know from one who cried out: 'Who wants levkoiums'? and it was found to be white flowers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' White lambs (Rashi.) .');"><sup>17</sup></span> KIPPEAH. R'Zebid taught: This means [extremely] tall. Now is it really so? Has not R'Abbuha taught: Whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, takes pride in men of high stature? Because it is written in the Scriptures: Yet I destroyed the Amorite before them whose height was like the height of the cedars?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Am. II, 9. vyhna');"><sup>19</sup></span> - Said R'Papa: Kippeah is a tall, thin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' lit. 'loose'; one whose height is out of all proportion to his breadth, and on account of this, he sags and his joints seem to be 'loose.'');"><sup>20</sup></span> and unshapely person.
ז קפח: תני רב זביד גבוה איני והתני ר' אבהו מנין שהקב"ה משתבח בבעלי קומה שנאמר (עמוס ב, ט) ואנכי השמדתי את האמורי מפניהם אשר כגובה ארזים גבהו אמר רב פפא באריכא שמיטה סניא
7 Said Resh Lakish: An abnormally tall man should not marry an abnormally tall woman, lest their offspring be [like] a mast.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tall and slim.');"><sup>21</sup></span> A male dwarf should not marry a female dwarf, lest their offspring be a dwarf of the smallest size.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a fingerlet'. evuc');"><sup>22</sup></span> A man abnormally white-complexioned should not marry an equally white-complexioned woman, lest their offspring be excessively white-complexioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is almost a skin plague. Another explanation of the word is: One glistening (with unsteady eyes) , albino (Jast.) jhpy');"><sup>23</sup></span> A very dark-complexioned man should not marry an equally very dark-complexioned woman, lest their offspring may be pitch black.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , a black earthenware pot.');"><sup>24</sup></span> A DEAF-MUTE PERSON, AN IMBECILE, AN INTOXICATED PERSON. But does not an intoxicated priest profane the Temple-service?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because Scripture says: Do not drink wine nor strong drink (Lev. X, 9) , and it continues: And that ye may put a difference between holy and unholy etc., thus service in that condition profanes, v. Zeb. 17b.');"><sup>25</sup></span> Should not this defect then be mentioned in connection with the disqualifying blemishes [of a priest]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of mentioning it in connection with defects which are 'not like the seed of Aaron' and which do not render service in the Temple actually invalid.');"><sup>26</sup></span> - [The Mishnah] refers to other things from which one can become intoxicated, and this will not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that other things from which a man can become intoxicated have the same rule as drinking wine, which is explicitly stated (in Ker. 13b) as profaning the service.');"><sup>27</sup></span> For it was taught: A priest who ate preserved figs from Keilah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The name of a town in the lowland district of Judea. The figs which come from there are intoxicating.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
ח אמר ר"ל גבוה לא ישא גבוהית שמא יצא מהן תורן ננס לא ישא ננסת שמא יצא מהם אצבעי לבן לא ישא לבנה שמא יצא מהם בוהק שחור לא ישא שחורה שמא יצא מהן טפוח:
8 and drank milk and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek. cur. 'or'.');"><sup>29</sup></span> fermented honey, if he entered the Temple, incurs liability [to excision].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ker. ');"><sup>30</sup></span>
ט החרש השוטה והשכור: שכור מחיל עבודה בהדי מומי דמחילי עבודה בעי למיחשב
9 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE FOLLOWING ARE FIT IN THE CASE OF HUMAN BElngs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., priests.');"><sup>31</sup></span> BUT UNFIT IN THE CASE OF ANIMALS: A FATHER WITH ITS SON,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas a priest and his son may officiate in the Temple on the same day, in the case of an animal it is forbidden to sacrifice an animal and its young on the same day.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
י בשאר דברים המשכרים ודלא כר' יהודה דתניא אכל דבילה קעילית ושתה חלב או דבש נכנס למקדש חייב:
10 A TREFAH, AN ANIMAL EXTRACTED BY MEANS OF THE CAESAREAN SECTION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas a priest who is trefah etc. is fit to carry out his duties.');"><sup>33</sup></span> A PRIEST WHO CONTRACTS AN ILLEGAL MARRIAGE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., a high priest who married a widow or a plain priest who married a divorcee or a woman released by halizah.');"><sup>34</sup></span> IS UNFIT [FOR THE PRIESTHOOD] UNTIL HE VOWS NOT TO DERIVE ANY BENEFIT FROM THE WOMAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., until he divorces her.');"><sup>35</sup></span>
יא <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אלו כשרין באדם ופסולין בבהמה אותו ואת בנו טריפה ויוצא דופן ושנעבדה בהן עבירה ושהמית את האדם
11 ALSO 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. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>THE FOLLOWING ARE FIT IN A HUMAN BEING etc. What does the Mishnah mean by the expression A FATHER WITH ITS SON?
יב והנושא נשים בעבירה פסול עד שידירנה הנאה והמטמא למתים פסול עד שיקבל עליו שלא יהא מטמא למתים:
12 Shall I say that it refers to Aaron<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a male and his offspring must not officiate on the same day.');"><sup>36</sup></span> and his son, to which the corresponding case in an animal would be a he-goat and its young?
יג <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ואלו כשירין באדם מאי באותו ואת בנו
13 But does this law apply in such circumstances? Has it not been taught: The law prohibiting the killing of an animal and its young on the same day applies only to females and their young, but not to males and their young?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 78b.');"><sup>37</sup></span>
יד אילימא אהרן ובניו דכותיה תייש ובנו מי נהיג והתניא אותו ואת בנו נוהג בנקבות ואינו נוהג בזכרים אלא תיישה ובנה דכוותה הכא כהנת ובנה כהנת בת עבודה היא
14 - Rather the Mishnah refers to a she-goat and its young. Would not then a parallel case in human beings be a priestess and her son? But is a priestess suitable for Temple-service? - One may still say that the Mishnah refers to Aaron and his son and that the corresponding case here is a he-goat and its young. For it was explained in the West<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Palestine colleges.');"><sup>38</sup></span>
טו לעולם אהרן ובניו דכוותה הכא תייש ובנו אמרי במערבא משמיה דר' יוסי בר אבין עדא אמרה חנניה היא דתניא אותו ואת בנו נוהג בנקבות ואינו נוהג בזכרים חנניה אומר נוהג בזכרים ובנקבות:
15 in the name of R'Jose B'Abin [as follows]: This proves that Hanania taught this<big><b>MISHNAH:</b></big> For we have learnt [in a Baraitha]: The law prohibiting the killing of an animal and its young on the same day refers only to females and their young but not to males and their young. But Hanania says: It applies to males and their young as well as to females. A PRIEST WHO CONTRACTS AN ILLEGAL MARRIAGE etc. A Tanna taught: He vows,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to derive any benefit from his wife till he divorces her.');"><sup>39</sup></span> performs the Temple-services [even before divorce] and then leaves the Temple-service<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'descends', sc. from the altar.');"><sup>40</sup></span>
טז והנושא נשים כו': תנא נודר ועובד יורד ומגרש
16 to divorce her. But why do we not fear lest he may go to a Sage and obtain release from his vow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We should not therefore permit him to perform his duties in the Temple after making the vow in case he subsequently consults a wise man in order to nullify the vow.');"><sup>41</sup></span> - He holds the opinion: A vow must be specified in detail [before it can be invalidated].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being the case, the Sage, being informed of the reasons which prompted the vow, will not invalidate it.');"><sup>42</sup></span>
יז וליחוש דלמא אזיל לגבי חכם ושרי ליה קסבר צריך לפרט את הנדר
17 This is no difficulty according to him who says that a vow is required to be specified [before it can be invalidated]. But according to him who says that there is no need to specify in detail a vow before it can be invalidated, what answer would you give? - We make him interdict himself by vow in public.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before ten persons, and the wise man cannot invalidate a vow made in such circumstances without knowing the nature of the vow.');"><sup>43</sup></span> This is no difficulty according to him who holds that an interdiction by vow imposed on a person in public can not be invalidated.
יח הניחא למ"ד צריך לפרט את הנדר אלא למ"ד אין צריך לפרט את הנדר מאי איכא למימר דמדרינן ליה ברבים
18 But according to him who holds that an interdiction by a vow imposed on a person in public can be invalidated - what answer would you give? - We impose an interdiction by vow
יט הניחא למ"ד נדר שהודר ברבים אין לו הפרה אלא למ"ד יש לו הפרה מאי איכא למימר דמדרינן
19 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter