Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 43 for kids: Who May Serve?

בכורות מ״ג

🏛️ This daf studies which conditions keep a priest from serving in the Temple. It compares rules for priests and animals, then looks closely at backs, hair, and eyebrows.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 43a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 43b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Bechorot 43

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 43 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 43a, in English Tab translation (26)
  1. Disqualifying her when there are other brothers — If there are other brothers fit for levirate marriage and the tumtum performs ḥalitza with her, Rabbi Yehuda holds that he has done nothing: she remains permitted to the brothers, and one of them may marry her. Rabbi Yosei regards his status as uncertain, so his ḥalitza may be valid and may bar the brothers from marrying her. They must instead perform ḥalitza with her.
  2. Performing ḥalitza when there are no other brothers — If the tumtum is the only brother, Rabbi Yehuda holds that she needs nothing, since he is certainly a eunuch and is treated as though there were no brother. Rabbi Yosei requires ḥalitza, since he may not be a eunuch. His statement that the tumtum should not perform ḥalitza refers to a case with other brothers.
  3. We shall return to you, “On These Blemishes” — This concludes the chapter.
  4. These blemishes — The blemishes listed for a firstborn animal also disqualify a priest from Temple service.
  5. Whether permanent or temporary — A temporary blemish disqualifies him for as long as he has it.
  6. The pointed-headed, turnip-headed, and hammer-headed — The Gemara explains these terms.
  7. One whose head is indented or protrudes at the back — The Gemara explains these terms.
  8. And those with humped backs — The sages disagree about them; all agree about the other head shapes listed.
  9. Humps — Raised areas on the back.
  10. Why — Why do the blemishes listed for an animal disqualify a person?
  11. But a wart — It is not written in the Torah with regard to a person.
  12. And also a cataract and a tevallul — These were listed among the blemishes of a firstborn animal, though they are not written in the Torah with regard to an animal. The other listed blemishes can be derived from “any bad blemish,” but one might argue that the Torah’s explicit mention of a cataract and a tevallul for a person, and not for an animal, means they do not disqualify an animal. The Gemara answers that the two cases are derived from one another.
  13. A scab, which is repulsive — Scurvy is hard like pottery, sinks into the flesh, and makes grooves.
  14. Let the Merciful One write them all — The blemishes could have been written either for a person or for an animal.
  15. And scab and scurvy in both cases — Scab would establish the verbal analogy, and scurvy would show that “scab” is superfluous and available for that purpose. Why, then, did the Torah write “blind,” “lame,” and “broken” in both cases?
  16. For which should they be written? — For which of the two should the Merciful One list the blemishes, so that the other could be derived from it?
  17. Closed hooves and damaged gums, which do not apply to a person — A person has no hooves, and a person’s teeth conceal the gums; an animal’s gums are visible and can be disqualified when damaged.
  18. They would not disqualify an animal either — That is why the Merciful One listed blemishes for an animal, including closed hooves and gums that are chipped or worn down; the gum blemishes are derived from “damaged.”
  19. Heavy eyebrows and a sunken nose do not apply to an animal — Heavy eyebrows means prominent eyebrows, which an animal lacks. A sunken nose means a nose recessed between the eyes, which an animal does not have.
  20. And those that do not apply to the other — Those blemishes should be written for the one to which they apply.
  21. Something distinctive to it — Each case has a distinctive blemish: heavy eyebrows and a sunken nose for a person, and closed hooves and damaged gums for an animal.
  22. Why is it necessary — Why must the Torah state that blemishes disqualify a priest, a firstborn animal, and other consecrated animals? For a firstborn animal it says, “If it has a blemish” (Deuteronomy 15:21).
  23. A priest cannot be derived from a firstborn animal — If blemishes were stated only for a firstborn animal, one could argue that a blemish disqualifies it because the animal itself is offered as a sacrifice.
  24. A priest cannot be derived from consecrated animals — If blemishes were stated only for consecrated animals, the other cases could not be derived from them.
  25. Their sanctity is greater — This refers to sin offerings, guilt offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings. A person’s sanctity is greater with respect to the commandments.
  26. A man who resembles the descendants of Aaron — Only such a priest needs a blemish to be disqualified; one who does not resemble them is disqualified even without a blemish.
Tosafot on Bechorot 43a, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. But there is the blemish of a wart — The Gemara could also have asked about a groove: it is not written concerning a person, though a person can have one in a tendon or bone, just as an animal can. Likewise, a severed or crushed limb is not written concerning a person, while a humpback is not written concerning an animal—even though an animal can have a curved spine, according to the later explanation that does not interpret this as a defect of the eyebrows. One might also ask about an animal with no testicles or only one, which the earlier mishna calls a blemish. The first tanna identifies this with the Torah’s term “damaged testicles,” so it can be derived for animals from people through the verbal analogy below. But how do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, who understand that verse as referring to a missing testicle, know it is a blemish? They themselves count it as one in the previous chapter. If they derive it from the rule that a visible, permanent defect is a blemish, why does the first tanna need a verse? Nor can one distinguish animals from people on the ground that an animal has two testicular sacs: even having no testicles at all would then require a verse to exclude it from “damaged testicles.” Perhaps a case like this is repeated in the Torah because it teaches something new, as Rabbi Yishmael says below. This also explains why some blemishes are written explicitly even though they could be derived from the rule about visible, permanent defects.
  2. Why did the Torah write “scab”? — This is difficult: Rava said in the previous chapter that “scab” was written to teach that a groove in flesh is not a blemish. Still, “scab” and “scurvy” are each written twice, once concerning a person and once concerning an animal, leaving one occurrence available for the verbal analogy. But that makes the analogy free on only one side, and some hold that such an analogy can be challenged. Moreover, the baraita cites both repeated terms—“scab” and “scab,” “scurvy” and “scurvy.” Why does it need both? This suggests that it cites them together because they appear together in both places, making them available for the analogy. One can answer that Rava’s interpretation does not prevent their use here: under his interpretation, “scab” is not needed for its own case but teaches about a defect in flesh.
  3. A humpback and one with a deformed nose, which do not occur in animals — This follows the first tanna later in this chapter, who explains the term for a humpback as a defect of the eyebrows. But according to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus, who explains it as having two backs and two spines, the condition can occur in an animal too. That is also why the Gemara does not mention “damaged testicles”: Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus interprets that term as referring to someone whose appearance is darkened, and the Gemara is not speaking according to his view.
  4. Why does the Torah write “blemish” concerning a person, a firstborn animal, and consecrated animals? Each is necessary — This is difficult. If each mention is necessary, suggesting that the cases cannot be derived from one another, how do we know that any visible, permanent defect disqualifies a person or a consecrated animal? That rule was derived earlier, by a generalization followed by a specification, concerning a firstborn animal. The same question applies to defects written concerning people or consecrated animals but not firstborn animals, including certain eye defects that, as Rashi explains at the start of this chapter, cannot be derived from “any bad blemish.” The answer is that once the Torah establishes these rules in one case, they apply in the others.
Rashi on Bechorot 43b, in English Tab translation (45)
  1. What difference is there — between a priest disqualified by a full-fledged blemish and one disqualified because he is not equal among Aaron’s descendants, such as someone with a pointed or turnip-shaped head?
  2. Due to appearance — like those listed in the Mishnah whose appearance is unpleasant to see, such as someone whose eyelashes have fallen out or whose teeth have been removed.
  3. A positive commandment — if someone who is not equal among Aaron’s descendants serves, he violates a positive commandment. The verse implies that a descendant of Aaron who is equal may serve, but one who is not equal may not. A prohibition inferred from a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.
  4. Like a barrel cover — narrow at the top and wide at the bottom. Compare the phrase “like a cover for a barrel” in Sanhedrin 28b.
  5. Like the top of a turnip — broad at the top and tapering toward the bottom.
  6. In the middle of his head — his head protrudes as far behind his neck as it does in front.
  7. Like an axe — the back of his head is rounded and short across its width.
  8. Indented in front — the front of his head slopes diagonally, like a carpenter’s tool.
  9. At the back — the back of his head lacks its usual height.
  10. A piece has been taken — he looks as though a piece has been removed from his head.
  11. Hidden — his head rests between his shoulders and looks as though it has drooped down.
  12. A piece — a piece of flesh.
  13. They taught this only when he has no — row of hair running from ear to ear around the back of his head, but does have one in front.
  14. But if he has hair in back and in front, he is fit; all the more so if he has hair in back but not in front — hair at the back without hair in front looks more natural than hair around the whole head with a bald patch in the middle.
  15. Some teach this about the latter clause — of the Mishnah: He is fit only if a row of hair runs from ear to ear around the back of his head, but he has no hair in front. If he also has hair in front, he is disqualified; all the more so if he has no hair at all.
  16. Leaky-eyed priests — priests whose eyes run with tears.
  17. Dwarves—we learned this already — in the Mishnah that lists the very tall, dwarves, and the deaf.
  18. Leaky-eyed priests needed to be mentioned — because they are not taught in the Mishnah.
  19. And you might have thought, and so on — the other cases also needed clarification: You might have thought the Mishnah disqualifies them only because of their appearance, so they would not violate a positive commandment if they served. Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches that they are disqualified because they are not equal among Aaron’s descendants.
  20. His eyelashes — the hairs on his eyelids.
  21. And the same applies to all of them — from those with humped backs onward. Otherwise, you might think that the disqualification derived above for someone not equal among Aaron’s descendants applies only to those with pointed, turnip-shaped, or hammer-shaped heads and the other cases in the first group.
  22. But whenever another case is disqualified due to appearance, it teaches that separately, as the latter clause says, ‘and one whose teeth have been removed,’ and so on — this shows that ‘due to appearance’ in the earlier clause applies only to someone whose eyelashes have fallen out. If it applied to everyone there, why state it again? So Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement must have another purpose.
  23. He came to reject this tanna’s view — that these priests are disqualified only due to appearance. Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches that the law follows the Mishnah: They are disqualified because they are not equal among Aaron’s descendants.
  24. The priests — as the verse says, ‘Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall arrange it’ (Leviticus 1:8).
  25. To include bald priests — they are fit to serve. I found this interpretation of the verse in Torat Kohanim.
  26. Eyebrows — the brows above the eyes.
  27. Whose eyebrows lie flat — the hairs of his eyebrows are long and hang over his face.
  28. Many eyebrows — his two eyebrows meet, with no bare space between them.
  29. This is the interpretation of “or one with prominent eyebrows” — he says this is the condition named in the Torah (Leviticus 21:20). Rabbi Dosa disagrees and does not interpret the word “or” this way.
  30. Does this mean he can live? — Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus disqualifies a person with two backs and two spines.
  31. It is not a child — and the woman is not ritually impure from childbirth.
  32. It is forbidden to eat — it is like an animal carcass: as a nonviable offspring, it is considered dead, and slaughter does not make it permitted.
  33. He had already posed this question to him — in tractate Niddah.
  34. Shimi, is that you? — Can a scholar as great as you not resolve this? The mishna does not mean someone with two actual backs. It means someone whose spine is bent so that it looks like multiple backs and spines. I was speaking of two actual backs.
  35. One who can apply eye paint to both eyes at once — he has no bridge of the nose between his eyes, so he can draw the applicator from one eye to the other without his nose blocking it.
  36. His two eyes are above — as the Gemara explains.
  37. One who shields himself from the sun — he cannot look toward the sun.
  38. Zagdan and tzayaran — the Gemara explains these terms.
  39. His eyelashes — the hairs at the edges of his eyes.
  40. Because of appearance — this refers to the case in which his eyelashes have fallen out.
  41. Sunken — at the top of the nose, between the eyes.
  42. Snub — short in length.
  43. Blocked — his nostrils are closed.
  44. Drooping — his nose is long and hangs below his lip.
  45. You went too far — even if the nose is not sunken that deeply, he is considered flat-nosed.
Tosafot on Bechorot 43b, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. Rava said: They taught this only… — Some manuscripts have a reading different from the one in Rashi’s commentary.
  2. In an animal, it is forbidden to eat — Rashi explains that slaughter does not permit it because it is nonviable. This implies that it has been born, but that cannot be right: in Niddah 24a, the case is an animal found in its mother’s womb. Rav holds that slaughtering the mother does not permit it, while Shmuel holds that it does. Once it is born, even Shmuel forbids it. There Rav Shimi challenges this ruling from our mishnah. Rashi says the challenge is to both Rav and Shmuel: he takes Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus’s teaching to concern animal blemishes, so an animal disqualified for the altar would still be permitted to eat. Rabbeinu Tam objects that the teaching appears here explicitly among human blemishes. Rather, the challenge is only to Rav: he says that when a woman gives birth to such a child, it does not count as an offspring, implying it cannot survive. Yet its disqualification from Temple service here implies that it can survive. The discussion likewise indicates that the challenge is only to Rav.
  3. One who avoids the sun — The Gemara explains this as “one who hates the sun,” as Rashi says: he cannot look toward a sunlit place. The term also suggests someone from whom sunlight is kept.
  4. And one whose eyelashes have fallen out — Here “eyelashes” appears to mean the hairs that can fall out from excessive tears, as in the account of Rabban Gamliel concerning “she weeps bitterly” in Sanhedrin 104b. Elsewhere, the term means the skin surrounding the eye, as in the earlier discussion of an eyelid that was pierced or split, which the Gemara explains as the outer rim of the eye.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Bekhorot, Bechoros, Bekhoroth 43.