Bechoros 45
Summary
- A teaching on מסכת בכורות moves from the משנה’s list of physical *mumim* that disqualify *kohanim* from עבודה to the גמרא’s derivations from pesukim that expand those categories, and then into a long sugya about extra fingers and the laws of טומאת מת for an extra limb, including the criterion of *nisperet agav hayad* and the role of a צפורן. It continues with the definitions of רוב בנין and רוב מנין for טומאת אהל, the report about תלמידי רבי ישמעאל finding 252 *eivarim* in a woman and the explanations of added female “צירים,” “דלתות,” and “מפתח,” and then returns to the משנה’s פסולי אדם such as extra digits, ambidexterity, left-handedness, unusual complexion or stature, and intoxication, along with the competing readings of the פסוק about “שש ושש עשרים וארבע.”
- A *mekish kersolav* has bowing that turns knees and feet inward, while *birkovosav* refers to feet facing outward. An *ikel* is defined as someone whose פרסותיו are מקיף yet whose ארכובותיו are not נוקשות זו לזו, and the חזון איש distinguishes this from the earlier case by saying the *ikel* has the condition even when sitting, whereas the earlier case appears only while walking. A *pika yotzei migudalo* is a growth from the toe, and the חזון איש distinguishes it from בשרים מדולדלים by saying בשרים מדולדלים is a piece of skin hanging, while here the growth is covered by skin yet remains a *mum*. An *akeivo yotzei le’acharav* has a heel protruding backward, *perasosav rechavos k’shel avaz* is explained by most מפרשים as wide flat feet though some say very short feet, and *etzbe’osav murkavos* or *kelutos* describes overlapping or fused toes with qualifications of כשר and פסול depending on how far they are joined and whether they are cut.
- A common explanation reads the פרק as the middle joint of the toe and treats fusion up to that joint differently from fusion beyond it, with separation by cutting affecting כשרות. A major dispute among ראשונים frames the חידוש as either that separation resolves the problem or that connection itself can be acceptable and cutting remains acceptable as well. The text raises whether all toes must be affected or only some. The rule is stated that after separation, אם יש בו עצם it is פסול, and אם לאו it is כשר.
- A person with שש ושש on hands and feet totals עשרים וארבעה, and מפרשים connect the Mishnah’s wording to the פסוק that will be cited in the גמרא. רבי יהודה מכשיר and חכמים פוסלים, with a dispute among ראשונים whether רבי יהודה’s leniency applies only to the symmetrical case described or to all configurations. The משנה ends this unit with השולט בשתי ידיו, where רבי פוסל and חכמים מכשירין.
- A ברייתא learns from “או שבר רגל” that beyond שבר רגל the categories of הכיבן, העיקם, and הקילבן are included. Another ברייתא lists הפיקן והשופנר, and רבי יוחנן defines בעל הפיקן as having כססות הרבה and שופנר as having no כססות כל עיקר. רבי אלעזר explains עקבו יוצא לאחוריו as שוקו יוצא באמצע רגלו, with the leg emerging from the middle of the bottom of the foot.
- רב פפא identifies *perasosav rechavos k’shel avaz* with a case like himself and rejects defining it as דטריפא ולא סדיקא. The גמרא rules that once it is דטריפא, even if it is סדיקא, the person is still a בעל מום.
- A ברייתא derives from “שבר יד” that *etzbe’osav murkavos* or *kelutos* can be a *mum*. The sugya challenges the version that implies cutting makes it fit and re-reads the baraita to locate the *mum* in the state of not being separated. The text then states the case of an extra digit that was cut: אם יש בה עצם פסול ואי לא כשר.
- רבי יוחנן is cited as limiting acceptability to a case where the extra digit is *nisperet al gav yad*. Most ראשונים explain that as being lined up with the limb, while some reverse the emphasis and say a digit in a totally different location is less problematic. The ראשונים ask why the rule of כל יתר כנטול דמי from the previous פרק is not applied here, and they answer that it applied to an extra leg, which is as significant as a missing leg, whereas an extra finger is not as significant and therefore the principle is not applied.
- The text states that a מת is מטמא במגע, במשא, and באוהל. An אבר מן המת with bone and flesh is מטמא באהל, while עצם כשעורה is מטמא במגע ובמשא and not באהל. A רובע הקב of עצמות is מטמא באהל, and רוב מנין and רוב בנין bring טומאת מגע משא ואהל.
- A ברייתא teaches that an extra limb with bone and no fingernail is מטמא במגע ובמשא ומטמא באהל and can count toward מניין קכ"ה. רבי יוחנן limits this to when it is *nisperet agav hayad*, and רש"י is presented as distinguishing cases by whether there is a צפורן and whether there is a כזית בשר, describing a case with עצם and בשר but not כזית and no צפורן. רב חסדא reports רב’s ruling that יתירה שיש בה עצם ואין בה צפורן is מטמא במגע ובמשא ואינה מטמא באהל, and the explanation is that this is when it is not *nisperet agav hayad*.
- The text attributes to רבי יוחנן a sharp remark, כמה צריך רבי יוחנן, עשו דבריהם כדברי נביאות, and explains that many מפרשים read it as accepting רב’s statement even without understanding, while תוספות notes that elsewhere such language can signal praise. The difficulty is framed as *mimah nafshach*: if it is an אבר it should be מטמא באהל, and if it is not an אבר it should not be מטמא even במגע ובמשא. One answer attributes the דין to the category of עצם כשעורה, and a second answer attributed to רב פפא explains it as טומאה דרבנן made as a גזירה שאינה נספרת אטו נספרת.
- The גמרא asks why, if it is דרבנן, it is not also מטמא באהל דרבנן. The answer is that the Sages made a היכר by limiting it to מגע ומשא so that people would not treat it as full tumah and come to burn תרומה וקדשים, because burning is required only for tumah that warrants it and is forbidden when the items are not truly טמא מדאורייתא.
- A משנה in אהלות teaches that רוב בנינו ורוב מנינו of a corpse is מטמא even without a רובע. A ברייתא defines רוב בנין as two shins and one thigh because it constitutes רוב גובהו of an adult, and defines רוב מנין as קכ"ה. The sugya rejects the idea that the baraita is merely teaching arithmetic and instead teaches that even a חסר with 200 איברים or a יתר with 280 still uses 125 as the standard because calculation follows רוב דאינשי.
- The sugya raises the מפרשים’ question that men are 248 and women are 252, so “רוב דאינשי” seems unclear, and it presents two answers: that counting men together with *aylonis* yields a majority at 248, or that in the time of חז"ל men lived longer due to women dying in childbirth. A report בשם שמואל describes תלמידיו של רבי ישמעאל boiling a זונה שנתחייבה שריפה למלך and finding 252 איברים, and the text records objections about ניבול המת and suggested defenses that it was part of her punishment, that she was an עכו"ם, or that it was permitted for תלמוד תורה under מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו. רבי ישמעאל responds that it was a woman and the Torah added שני צירים ושני דלתות.
- The text records the question that communities say “רפואה שלמה לרמ"ח איבריו ושס"ה גידיו” even for women, and it offers responses that some נוסחאות say “לכל איבריו,” or that the phrase refers back to the אבות. It also records a question about קריאת שמע having 245 words and being completed to 248 with “השם אלוקיכם אמת” or “אל מלך נאמן,” and it raises the possibility that a woman might require additional words to match 252.
- A ברייתא cites רבי אלעזר: “כשם שצירים לבית, כך צירים לאישה,” supported by “ותכר ותלד כי נהפכו עליה צריה.” רבי יהושע says “כשם שדלתות לבית, כך דלתות לאישה,” supported by “כי לא סגר דלתי בטני.” רבי עקיבא adds “כשם שמפתח לבית, כך מפתח לאישה,” supported by “ויפתח את רחמה.” The גמרא asks that this should yield 253 against the תלמידי רבי ישמעאל’s 252, and answers that the מפתח is tiny and may have dissolved while she was being boiled.
- רב states that all these extra איברים do not מטמא באוהל because “זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באוהל” implies only what is equal for every אדם. אביי challenges from verses about men having צירים, and the גמרא answers that those are צירי בשר rather than an איבר. The sugya argues this is necessary to preserve the category of 248, since otherwise neither men nor women would have רמ"ח.
- רבי יצחק says both רבי יהודה and the חכמים interpret the same פסוק about a giant with six fingers and six toes. The חכמים read it בגנותיה and treat extra digits as a *mum*, while רבי יהודה reads it בשבחיה. The גמרא explains that “עשרים וארבע” is needed to show all four limbs had six, and that “שש ושש” is needed to show symmetry rather than uneven distribution.
- A ברייתא reports that a man with extra digits came before רבי טרפון and he said “כמותך ירבו בישראל,” which suggests agreement with רבי יהודה. רבי יוסי rejects this as proof and reinterprets it as “כמותך יתמעטו ממזרי ונתיני בישראל,” presenting extra digits as a visible marker that would prevent forbidden intermarriage.
- A ברייתא states that an *iter* between hand or foot is פסול, and a major dispute explains why. רש"י ties it to עבודות requiring the right hand and treats a weaker right hand as not being a right hand for עבודה, with ראשונים explaining that once some עבודות require the right, all are oriented to the right. The רמב"ן explains it as a *mum* or as not being שוה בזרעו של אהרן, and the text notes that the feet case can be framed as either not being שוה בזרעו של אהרן or as improper standing in the מקדש. The text brings the practical discussion of חליצה for a left-footed brother-in-law and reports the ruling to do two חליצות, while noting that some prefer a right-footed brother when possible due to concerns linked to רש"י’s framework. The תנאים dispute about ambidexterity is explained as either weakness in the right or extra strength beginning in the left, and the text relates this to the broader conceptual dispute between the approaches.
- The משנה lists הכושי, הגיחור, והלבקן, והקיפח, והננס, והחרש, והשוטה, השיכור, and בעלי נגעים טהורים as פסולים באדם וכשרים בבהמה, with רבן שמעון בן גמליאל saying a שוטה מן הבהמה is אינו מן המבחר and רבי אלעזר adding אף בעלי הדלדולים as פסול באדם וכשר בבהמה. The גמרא defines כושי as אוכמא, resolves גיחור as סומקא with the phrase “סומקא גחייא,” and identifies לוקני as חיוורא. The גמרא defines קיפח as a very tall and skinny person and records ריש לקיש’s marital cautions about extremes of height and complexion producing exaggerated offspring. The text reports a ruling attributed to רב אלישיב permitting hormone treatments for short stature based on legality, a ten-year track record, and the sugya’s framing of extreme shortness as a *mum*.
- The גמרא asks why שיכור appears in this משנה if intoxication already disqualifies עבודה by תורה law. The answer limits the Mishnah’s case to other intoxicants besides wine and states that this is not like רבי יהודה, who holds that eating דבילה קעילית and drinking milk and honey would also create liability for entering the מקדש. The conclusion presented is that the משנה holds only wine is a דאורייתא problem for שיכור, while other intoxicants still place the person in the category of שאינו שוה בזרעו של אהרן.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions