Talmud - Bekhorot 44a בכורות מ״ד א׳

Rather, even if he does not paint both of his eyes as one, any priest with an abnormally sunken nose is considered a ḥarum.

§ The mishna teaches that if both of one’s eyes are above or both of his eyes are below, he is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean when it mentions a priest wherein both of his eyes are above or both of his eyes are below? If we say that the phrase: Both of his eyes are above, means that he constantly gazes upward, and the phrase: Both of his eyes are below, means that he constantly gazes downward, then the case where one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below must similarly mean that he gazes with one of his eyes downward and one of his eyes upward. But if so, this is identical to the next case in the mishna, that one sees both the room on the ground floor and the upper story as one.

Rather, the phrase: Both of his eyes are above, is referring to a case where his eyes are situated above their normal place, and the phrase: Both of his eyes are below, is referring to a case where his eyes are situated below their normal place. Similarly, the case where one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below is where one of his eyes is situated above and one of his eyes is situated below. And the mishna adds that in a case where his eyes are situated in their proper arrangement as well, but he sees the room on the ground floor and the upper story as one, he too is considered blemished.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to blemishes that disqualify priests: “Or a cataract or a tevallul in his eye” (Leviticus 21:20). Since it is obvious that a cataract or a tevallul can occur only in one’s eyes, why does the verse state: In his eye? The term “in his eye” indicates that any blemish that is in his eye disqualifies him from performing the Temple service. From here the Sages stated: If both of his eyes are below or both of his eyes are above, or if one of his eyes is above and one of his eyes is below, or if he sees the room and the upper story as one, or if when he speaks with his friend another person says: He is looking at me, he is blemished and is disqualified from performing the Temple service.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: When it is stated that a blind man [iver] is disqualified from performing the Temple service (see Leviticus 21:18), this applies whether he is blind in both of his eyes or blind in one of his eyes. With regard to a priest who cannot see due to pale spots on the eye or due to tears streaming from the eye that are constant, from where is it derived that he is disqualified? The same verse states: “A blind man [ish iver].” The superfluous word “ish” serves to include these conditions as well.

Rava says: Why do I need the Merciful One to write the terms “man,” “blind,” “cataract,” “tevallul,” and “in his eye” (Leviticus 21:18, 20)? All these are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only “blind,” then one might say that a blind person is disqualified because his eyes are not in their sockets at all, i.e., they were enucleated. But in the case of a priest with pale spots on the eye or tears streaming from the eye that are constant, where his eyes are still in their sockets but he cannot see, perhaps he is not considered blemished. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “man” to include these conditions as well.

And had the Merciful One written only “man,” one might have thought that only total blindness disqualifies a priest, because he cannot see at all. But if his condition causes merely impaired vision, then he is not considered blemished. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “cataract” to include conditions of impaired vision as well. And had the Merciful One written only that a priest with a cataract is disqualified, it might have been thought that such a priest is disqualified because his vision is impaired. But if his vision is not impaired but his eyes are mixed, i.e., the black and white parts of his eyes are mixed together, then he is not disqualified. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “tevallul.”

And had the Merciful One written only “tevallul,” one might say that this disqualifies a priest because his eyes are mixed. But the Torah does not disqualify a priest due to a deviation from normal appearance, e.g., especially large eyes, or eyes situated higher than normal. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “in his eye.”

In summary, Rava says: Therefore, all blemishes of the eyes that disqualify a priest on account of dimness, i.e., blindness, are derived from the term “man.” All blemishes of the eyes that are related to vision impairment are derived from “cataract.” All blemishes that are related to parts of the eye being intermingled are derived from “tevallul.” Finally, the disqualification of deviations is derived from “in his eye.”

§ The mishna teaches that those unable to look at the sun [sakhei shemesh] are disqualified from performing the Temple service. Rav Yosef taught that this is a reference to those who hate the sun [sanei shemesh], i.e., they are incapable of opening their eyes in sunlight. The mishna further states that one whose eyes are different is disqualified from performing the Temple service. In order to illustrate this blemish, Rav Huna pointed with his finger while saying: The term: Different eyes, is referring to an individual wherein one of his eyes is like ours and one of his eyes is like theirs. And since Rav Huna was pointing at Rav Yehuda, who had abnormal eyes, Rav Yehuda took offense.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to Rav Huna’s interpretation of one whose eyes are different: When the Sages taught that a shekhavna is disqualified from performing the Temple service, they were referring to one whose eyebrows lie flat [shokhvim] and cover his eyes. When they taught that one whose eyes are different [zagdum] is disqualified, they were referring to a case where one of his eyebrows is black and one is white. The Gemara responds: With regard to any pair of limbs that are not identical to one another, the tanna of this baraita calls them different.

§ The mishna teaches that one whose eyes tear constantly is disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Gemara cites a baraita that defines such an individual: His eyes, i.e., his eyelids, droop and can open only partially, or his eyes are round; his eyes tear, or tears stream from his eyes, or tears flow intensely from them.

The Sages taught in a baraita: The zadir, and the lupin, and the tamir are disqualified from performing the Temple service. Zadir is a reference to one whose eyes are strange. Lupin is a reference to one with an abundance of eyelashes. Tamir is a reference to one whose eyelashes are depleted. The Gemara asks: And does the tanna teach these cases together with full-fledged blemishes? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: One whose eyelashes have fallen out is disqualified from performing the Temple service due to the appearance of a blemish? Clearly, this is not considered an actual blemish. The Gemara answers that it is not difficult. This mishna is referring to a case where the roots of his eyelashes remain, whereas that baraita is referring to a case where the roots do not remain.

MISHNA: The mishna lists additional blemishes that disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service: If a priest’s eyes are large like those of a calf or small like those of a goose; if his body is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs; if his nose is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs, he is disqualified. And the tzomem and the tzome’a are also disqualified. What is a tzome’a? It is anyone whose ears are small. And what is the tzomem? It is anyone whose ears are similar to a sponge. If his upper lip protrudes beyond the lower lip or his lower lip protrudes beyond the upper lip, that is a blemish. And one whose teeth fell out is disqualified due to the appearance of a blemish.

GEMARA: Rav says: Moses, our teacher, was ten ammot tall, as it is stated: “And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle” (Exodus 40:19). Who spread the tent over the Tabernacle? Moses, our teacher, spread it, and it is written with regard to the height of the Tabernacle: “Ten ammot shall be the length of a board” (Exodus 26:16). Moses must have been at least as tall as the Tabernacle itself for him to have spread the tent over it.

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said to Rav: If so, you have rendered Moses, our teacher, a blemished person, as we learned in the mishna: If one’s body is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs, then he is blemished. A typical person is no more than three arm-lengths [ammot] tall, and yet Moses was apparently ten times taller than the length of his own arm. Rav said to him: Shimi, when I said that Moses was ten ammot tall, I said so in reference to the cubit [amma] of a board used in the building of the Tabernacle. The limbs of Moses were proportional to the rest of his body, but he was indeed ten cubits tall.

The mishna taught that if one’s nose is disproportionately large relative to his limbs or disproportionately small relative to his limbs, he is blemished. The Sages taught in a baraita: The measure of disproportion is the size of one’s small finger.

§ The mishna also taught that the tzomem and the tzome’a are blemished. The Sages taught in a baraita: The tzime’aḥ is also disqualified from performing the Temple service. The Sages did not know what a tzime’aḥ is. They heard a certain Arab who was saying: Who wants a tzime’aḥ, and it was found to be a long-eared goat.

The Gemara discusses the halakha of a tzomem, tzome’a, and tzime’aḥ with regard to animals. Rav Ḥisda says: A female goat that has no horns and a female lamb that has horns are fit for sacrificing upon the altar, i.e., they are not considered blemished, despite the fact that they differ from regular female goats and female lambs.

The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita: There are matters that appear like blemishes but they are not truly like blemishes, and one may therefore slaughter sacrificial animals on account of them in the Temple, i.e., they are fit for sacrifice despite these blemishes; but if they are firstborn animals, they are not permitted for slaughter in the rest of the country on account of these blemishes, as the unique physical characteristics of these animals are not true blemishes. And these are the blemishes: A female goat that has no horns, and a female lamb that has horns, and the tzime’aḥ, and the tzomem, and the tzome’a.

With regard to the horns of an animal, Rav Ḥisda says that Ameimar says: If the horns of an animal were removed, and their bones, i.e., the bones inside the horns, were removed with them, the animal is unfit for sacrifice. But even so, one may not redeem the animal on account of such blemishes, as they are not full-fledged blemishes. But if the hooves were removed, and their bones, i.e., the portion of the leg to which the hooves are attached, were removed with them, they are unfit for sacrifice and they are even redeemed on account of such blemishes, as they are full-fledged blemishes.

Rav Ḥisda stated that the removal of a horn and its bone is not considered a full-fledged blemish that enables the animal to be redeemed. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If the horns or the hooves of an animal were removed, and their respective bones were removed with them, they are unfit and they are redeemed on account of them. The Gemara explains that it is not difficult. This baraita is referring to a case where the bone was entirely uprooted, which is a full-fledged blemish on account of which the animal may be redeemed. That statement of Rav Ḥisda is referring to a case where the bones were cut but were not uprooted entirely.

The Gemara asks: But in a case where the bones of the animal were cut, is the animal even rendered unfit? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Para 2:2): With regard to a red heifer whose horns and hooves are black, the halakha is that one should cut away the black parts so that the heifer remains entirely red. Evidently, cutting away the horns of the heifer does not inflict a blemish upon it. Ze’eiri interpreted the mishna as referring to cutting the horn specifically from above the bone inside it. In such a case, the heifer is not disqualified. Cutting the bone itself does disqualify the animal.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Bechorot 44a explores disqualifying priestly eye blemishes, distinguishing misplaced eye position from abnormal gaze and citing Leviticus for support.