Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 45 for kids: Hands, Feet, and Service

בכורות מ״ה

✋ This daf asks which conditions affect a priest’s ability to serve in the Temple. It also compares rules for priests with rules for animals brought as offerings.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 45a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 45b 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 45

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 45 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 45a, in English Tab translation (32)
  1. A person with protuberances and the bowlegged person — These are explained below. The bowlegged person is explained first: when he sits and brings his feet together, his knees do not touch because they bend outward.
  2. A knob protruding from his thumb — A round piece of flesh, like a knob, protrudes from his thumb.
  3. His heel protrudes behind him — As the Gemara explains, his lower leg meets the middle of his foot, leaving half the foot in front and half behind.
  4. Wide like a goose’s — His feet are flat like a goose’s, and no longer than they are wide.
  5. Up to the joint — The middle joint.
  6. Beyond the joint — Toward the nail. Even if the digits are joined along their full length, he is fit if he cuts them apart.
  7. An extra one — An extra finger or toe.
  8. If it has a bone, he is disqualified — Once he cuts it off, he is missing a limb that he had. If it has no bone, he is fit, because it is merely a growth.
  9. Six on each, twenty-four in all — The Gemara explains, in connection with the verse, why this number is specified. The mishna uses the verse’s wording.
  10. The kishan — One whose ankles knock together.
  11. The ikkel and the kilvan — This refers to a knob protruding from his thumb.
  12. A person with protuberances and the shufnar — This is the correct reading.
  13. Many pads — The padding on his leg is very large.
  14. Bare — Lacking such padding.
  15. Above in the baraita — This corresponds to below in the mishna.
  16. And countable along the back of the hand — The extra finger stands in line with the others and can be counted with them. In that case, the mishna treats it as a limb.
  17. If it has a bone but no nail — The point is that even without a nail, it counts as a limb if it stands in line with the fingers.
  18. It imparts impurity by contact, carrying, and in a tent — This assumes it has some flesh, but less than an olive’s bulk. An olive’s bulk of flesh from a corpse would impart impurity in a tent even without a bone or a place in the row of fingers. With no flesh at all, it would not impart impurity in a tent merely as a limb, even if it stood in that row: bones do so only if they constitute most of the body’s structure, most of its bones, or a quarter-kav in volume. Here, some flesh suffices because its place in the row makes it a limb. As stated in tractate Niddah, a limb has no minimum size, even if it contains less than an olive’s bulk from a carcass or a corpse.
  19. And it counts toward 125 — If it has no flesh, it counts toward 125 bones, a majority of the 248 bones of a corpse; that majority imparts impurity in a tent. This applies only if it stands in line with the fingers. Without a nail or a place in that row, it is not considered a limb.
  20. Our great rabbi — Rav.
  21. And it does not impart impurity in a tent — This refers to an extra digit that is not in line with the others, as explained below. It has two deficiencies: no nail and no place in the row. If it has a nail, it imparts impurity in a tent even if it is not in the row, as taught in tractate Niddah.
  22. Like prophetic statements — People heed a prophecy without requiring its reason; likewise, the Sages gave no reason for these rulings.
  23. Even though they do not amount to a quarter-kav, they are impure — They impart impurity in a tent. This is taught in tractate Oholot.
  24. Because they constitute most of a full-grown person’s height — The two lower legs and one thigh together constitute most of the body’s height, excluding the head. The baraita in tractate Oholot does not count the head in the body’s structure; it lists the lower legs, thighs, torso, and spine. Another reading is, ‘Because they constitute most of its structure in height,’ which is the wording of the Tosefta.
  25. Is it teaching us the number? — This is a question: since a person has 248 bones, it is obvious that 125 is a majority.
  26. One who is missing and has only two hundred — He was born missing two digits on each hand and foot, eight in all. Each digit has six bones, as explained in Tractate Oholot. He is therefore missing forty-eight bones from the usual 248, leaving two hundred. One with extra bones has 281: for example, a woman born with four extra digits, one on each hand and foot. Those digits add twenty-four bones. A woman also has two hinges, two doors, and a key, as stated below, bringing the total to 277. I do not know where the remaining four come from: Tractate Oholot clearly says that each digit has only six bones in all, including its base and branches.
  27. All count toward the 125 — All these extra parts count as limbs toward the total of 125 bones. Thus, even though 125 is not a majority of this person's 281 bones, it is still treated as a majority. Likewise, for someone with only two hundred bones, 101 is a majority of his bones but is not treated as a majority; the required number remains 125.
  28. Hinges — Called kardons in Old French.
  29. According to Rabbi Akiva — Including the key, the count is 253. This is difficult for Rabbi Yishmael's students, who found only 252.
  30. Because it is small — The key dissolved during boiling.
  31. And all of them — None of these extra parts in a woman imparts impurity in a tent as an individual limb, even if it has some flesh on it.
  32. Fleshy hinges — This is an answer: without a bone, they are not counted as limbs.
Tosafot on Bechorot 45a, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. One with many protrusions — Rashi explains that his ankle bone is large. The Arukh explains that the sole of his foot is raised, with much flesh toward the front of the foot and at the heel, while the middle forms a dome. The word for “protrusions” supports the Arukh’s explanation, since it refers to flesh rather than bone. Genesis Rabbah likewise says that a person has cushions—the buttocks covering the anus—unlike an animal.
  2. They made their words like words of prophecy—whichever way you look at it, etc. — Since the Gemara challenges this statement, it seems that “words of prophecy” is not meant as praise. But in the first chapter of Bava Batra (12a), it seems to express esteem, since the Gemara cites the teaching that prophecy was taken from the prophets. I explained this at the end of the chapter “How Do We Extend a City?” (Eruvin 60a).
Rashi on Bechorot 45b, in English Tab translation (25)
  1. Six on his hand and six on his foot — He had an extra finger on one hand and an extra toe on one foot, not on both hands and both feet.
  2. May mamzerim and Gibeonites like you decrease among Israel — Let all the mamzerim in Israel be like you, so people will recognize their disqualified parentage and not marry them.
  3. Dominant in his left foot — When he walks, he lifts his left foot first, unlike most people. A priest dominant in his left hand is disqualified because Scripture says, “He shall dip his finger”; wherever it mentions a priest’s finger, it means the right one. The left-footed priest is also disqualified because “to stand and serve” requires the usual stance, chiefly supported by the right foot.
  4. One Sage holds that weakness began — In his right hand.
  5. The mishna: The kushi, the giḥor, the lavkan, and the kipe’aḥ — The Gemara explains these terms.
  6. And those with ritually pure skin marks — Such as a scaly patch. It need not mention impure marks: a person with those is liable to excision even for entering the Temple courtyard.
  7. Hanging flesh — Pieces of flesh that protrude and hang from the body.
  8. The Gemara: Red — Called rosh in the vernacular.
  9. Lukiyani — These were white lambs. People commonly call someone extremely red giḥia.
  10. Long, gaunt, and ugly — He is tall and thin, without enough bulk for his height. Because he is thin, he cannot support his height, so he bends over and looks as though his vertebrae are dislocated.
  11. Pale — Extremely white.
  12. Tafuach — Black as a pot. Compare the use of a tafiaḥ, a pot, to block a window opening near the end of tractate Shabbat.
  13. Drunk — This is a question expressing surprise.
  14. Does he not profane the service? — Scripture says, “Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink,” followed by “to distinguish between the sacred and the ordinary.”
  15. Among the blemishes — Drunkenness should be listed among conditions that invalidate the service. Instead, the mishna lists it with conditions that do not invalidate the service but disqualify someone because he is unlike other descendants of Aaron.
  16. Not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda — He treats other intoxicants like wine in that they invalidate the service. In tractate Keritot he says that serving after drinking wine incurs death, while serving after consuming other intoxicants violates a prohibition. He derives this from “Do not drink intoxicating drink,” followed by “to distinguish between the sacred and the ordinary.”
  17. As it was taught: If he ate a Ke’ila fig — A fig grown in that place, which intoxicates like wine.
  18. Honey drink — Water and honey boiled together, called mid in the vernacular. One who serves after drinking it is liable to lashes. Tractate Keritot attributes this ruling to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that other intoxicants are included in the prohibition against drinking before service. Since they are included, they invalidate the service, as the verse continues, “to distinguish between the sacred and the ordinary.” Our mishna, which does not list them among conditions that invalidate the service, does not follow Rabbi Yehuda.
  19. The mishna: An animal and its offspring — It is unfit for sacrifice because the permitted time to offer it has not yet arrived.
  20. And one who marries women in violation of the law — Such as a divorced woman or a ḥalutza.
  21. The Gemara: This indicates — That is to say.
  22. With males — The father and his son or daughter.
  23. He vows and may serve — Although he has not yet divorced her, he may serve once he vows that neither will benefit from the other.
  24. He must specify — Someone seeking release from a vow must state what he vowed about. When the sage hears that the vow concerns a woman forbidden to him, he will not release him from it.
  25. A vow made in public — This is a matter of dispute in tractate Gittin, in the discussion of a man who divorces his wife because of a vow.
Tosafot on Bechorot 45b, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. And with other intoxicants, but not according to Rabbi Yehuda — A baraita in Zevaḥim says that a non-priest, a priest in acute mourning, a drunk person, or a priest with a blemish invalidates the service when receiving, carrying, or sprinkling the blood. Why does it say “a drunk person” rather than “one who drank wine or has untrimmed hair”? Rabbi Ḥayyim Kohen explained that it means someone intoxicated by something other than wine. The baraita follows Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that such intoxication invalidates the service; that is also how the drunk person mentioned here is understood.
  2. This works if one holds that the vow must be specified, etc. — Rav Naḥman and Rav Pappa disagree about this in Gittin. The law appears to follow Rav Pappa, who requires the vow to be specified, because he is the later authority. Even according to versions that name Rav Sheshet instead of Rav Pappa, the law does not follow Rav Naḥman: the question about a widow collecting her marriage settlement concerns a prohibition, not a monetary ruling. That is clear from the concern raised there that she might shorten her account of the vow. Rav Huna, who was greater in wisdom and following, also requires the vow to be specified.
  3. This works if one holds that a vow made publicly cannot be annulled — Rashi refers to the dispute in Gittin about a man who divorces his wife because of a vow. Rabbi Yehuda says that if many people knew of the vow, he may not take her back, because she made a vow that cannot be released; if they did not know of it, he may take her back, since there is no concern that he will later claim the divorce was mistaken. But how do we know the Rabbis disagree about whether a public vow can be annulled? Perhaps they disagree only about that later claim. Their ruling that he may not take her back in either case suggests that even a public vow can be annulled. Why, then, do they not distinguish a vow made with the consent of many, which may be different? Neither they nor Rabbi Yehuda discuss such a vow. It may be released with those people’s consent or for the sake of a mitzva, so a later claim remains possible. A vow merely made publicly, by contrast, cannot be annulled for either a mitzva or an ordinary purpose. The incident of the Gibeonites shows this, since releasing that vow would have served a mitzva.
  4. Because we make him vow with the consent of many — Gittin says that after Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s enactment, a widow collecting her marriage settlement makes whatever vow the orphans require. Rav Huna limits this to a widow who has not remarried: if she has, her husband can annul her vow, even if it was made publicly. Why not make her vow with the consent of many, which Amemar says cannot be annulled? For a husband’s annulment of his wife’s vows, Rav Huna may see no difference between a public vow and one made with the consent of many. When Gittin asks why she could not instead go to a sage for release, it answers that she must specify the vow; it could have answered that the vow was made with the consent of many, but did not need to. Alternatively, Rav Huna may disagree with Amemar: Amemar’s statement addresses the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, not the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman.

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 45.