Mishnah Bekhorot 6:12-7:1

Sugya Map

This sugya in M. Bekhorot 6:12-7:1 presents a comprehensive catalog of mumim (blemishes) relevant to two primary halakhic categories, with a final section on other disqualifications:

• Issue 1: Mumim that permit slaughter of a bekhor (firstborn) outside the Temple. These mumim render the bekhor unfit for korban but permit its consumption by a kohen after shechita in the medina (outside Jerusalem).
  • Nafka Mina: The ability to derive benefit from a bekhor that would otherwise remain in a state of kedusha and eventually die of old age or a non-permanent mum. It also impacts the ability to redeem other mukdashim (consecrated animals) on account of these mumim.
  • Primary Sources: Mishnah Bekhorot 6:12-7:1 (first part), Vayikra 22:23.
• Issue 2: Mumim that disqualify a kohen from Temple service. These are physical imperfections listed in the Torah that prevent a kohen from approaching the altar.
  • Nafka Mina: Determines a kohen's eligibility for avodah. This section draws a fascinating parallel between animal and human mumim.
  • Primary Sources: Mishnah Bekhorot 7:1 (middle section), Vayikra 21:17-23.
• Issue 3: Flaws that do not permit slaughter of a bekhor (either in the Temple or medina) or disqualify a kohen, and conversely, flaws that disqualify a kohen but not an animal. This section outlines categories of psulim (disqualifications) that are not considered mumim kvo'im (permanent blemishes) or are mumim specific to kedushat haguf (sacred body) vs. kedushat sh'vach (sacred value).
  • Nafka Mina: Clarifies the limits of the mum categories and introduces other disqualifying factors (e.g., terefa, yotzei dofen, ne'evad bah aveira, harag et ha'adam, tumtum, androgynos).
  • Primary Sources: Mishnah Bekhorot 6:12 (latter part), Mishnah Bekhorot 7:1 (final sections), Vayikra 22:20-25.

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah transitions from animal blemishes to Kohen blemishes and then to complex disqualifications. A particularly dense and debated section is at the very end of M. Bekhorot 6:12: "וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עֲלֵיהֶן לֹא בַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַמְּדִינָה: ...וְטֻמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, לֹא בַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַמְּדִינָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר, אֶלָּא נִגְזָז וְנַעֲבָד." (For these blemishes, one does not slaughter the firstborn, neither in the Temple nor in the rest of the country: ...and a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite [an androgynos], neither in the Temple nor in the rest of the country. Rabbi Shimon says: You have no blemish greater than that [and it may be slaughtered]. And the Rabbis say: Its halakhic status is not that of a firstborn; rather, its halakhic status is that of a non-sacred animal that may be shorn and utilized for labor.)

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "לֹא בַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַמְּדִינָה" (neither in the Temple nor in the rest of the country) implies a severe disqualification – the animal cannot be offered as a korban due to mum, nor can it be eaten by a kohen due to lacking a mum kvo'a that would permit it outside. For tumtum and androgynos, this phrase is repeated, emphasizing their unique and problematic status. R' Shimon's "אֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה" (You have no blemish greater than that) suggests he considers it a mum of the highest order, thus permitting its slaughter for a kohen. The Rabbanan's counter "אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר" (it is not a firstborn) fundamentally redefines its status, removing it entirely from the kedusha of a bekhor, rather than just deeming it blemished. This is a radical reclassification, turning kedushat haguf into ḥullin.

Readings

Rambam on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:12:1

Rambam, in his commentary to M. Bekhorot 6:12:1 (Sefaria: Rambam on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:12:1), explicates the categories of mumim. He first clarifies the Mishnah's opening statement, "אלו שאין שוחטין עליהן לא במקדש ולא כו': אין שוחטין במקדש דבר שיש בו שום ענין מכל אלו לפי שהוא חסר ואין מקריבין אלא שלם בתכלית השלמות וכן לא ישחט עליהן במדינה לפי שאין מומין קבועים." He states that these defects prevent slaughter in the Temple because korbanot must be "שלם בתכלית השלמות" (perfect in ultimate perfection). Crucially, they also cannot be slaughtered in the medina because they "אין מומין קבועים" (are not permanent blemishes). This highlights the fundamental distinction: only mumim kvo'im permit slaughter outside the Temple.

He then delves into specific examples:

• גרב (Garav): Rambam notes, "ומה שאמר בעל גרב ר"ל הגרב הלח אבל היבש הרי הוא מום ועל היבש אמרה התורה או גרב." He distinguishes between garav halach (wet garav), which is not a mum kvo'a and thus doesn't permit slaughter, and garav hayabesh (dry garav), which is a mum kvo'a and is explicitly mentioned in the Torah (Vayikra 22:22). This distinction is critical for halakhic classification.
• יבלת (Yabbelet - wart): Rambam adds a condition: "וע"מ שיהא בהם עצם ואם אין בהם עצם הרי הן נקראים דלדולים." For a wart to be a disqualifying mum, it must contain bone. If it's merely fleshy, it's called dildulim (dangling parts) and is not a mum in this context. This shows the precise nature of halakhic definitions.
• עבירה (Aveira - transgression) and הריגת אדם (Harigat Adam - killing a person): Rambam clarifies the basis of disqualification: "ומה שאמר שנעבדה בו עבירה ושהמית את האדם זהו בעד אחד או ע"פ הבעלים אבל בשני עדים בני מות הן." These animals are disqualified based on the testimony of a single witness or the owner's admission. If there were two witnesses, the animal would be subject to sekila (stoning) as per the din of shor haniskal (an ox that gores to death) (Shemot 21:28-29) or behema shenirba'a (an animal upon which bestiality was committed) (Vayikra 20:15-16), a more severe outcome than simple disqualification.
• טומטום ואנדרוגינוס (Tumtum and Androgynos): Rambam writes, "ומה שאמרו חכמים אינו ברור הוא על האנדרוגינוס אבל טומטום לדברי הכל הוא קדוש מספיקא ויאכל במומו לבעליו לפי שהמוציא מחבירו עליו הראייה ואין הכהן יכול להוציא מיד בעליו." He interprets the Rabbanan's ruling ("אינו בכור") as referring only to the androgynos. The tumtum, by contrast, "לדברי הכל הוא קדוש מספיקא" (according to all, it is sacred due to doubt). Therefore, a tumtum bekhor remains kadosh, and can be eaten by the owner (a kohen) if it develops a mum that permits slaughter, because he'motzi mei'chaveiro alav ha're'aya (the burden of proof is on the one who seeks to extract something from another). This is a crucial distinction, as it implies the tumtum retains its kedusha mi'safek, while the androgynos is definitively ḥullin according to the Rabbanan.

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:12:1-7

Tosafot Yom Tov (TYT) often clarifies the Gemara's reasoning and provides further distinctions, sometimes engaging directly with Rambam.

• גרב (Garav): TYT, citing "הר"ב" (presumably Rav Ovadia Bartenura, who follows Rambam's commentary), reinforces the distinction: "כתב הר"ב וגרב האמור בתורה וכו' שחין יבש בין בפנים בין מבחוץ. גמ'." (TYT on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:12:1). He stresses that the garav mentioned in the Torah (Vayikra 22:22) is a dry boil, internally or externally, citing the Gemara's understanding. This aligns with Rambam's view that only garav yabesh is a mum kvo'a.
• חזזית (Ḥazazit): TYT elaborates: "כתב הר"ב חזזית המצרית היא ילפת הכתובה בתורה. שהוא לח מבחוץ ויבש מבפנים. וכן לכון רש"י. וכתב וכיון דיבש מבפנים לא מתסי ע"כ. ונימוקו עמו שהרי יבש בין מבפנים בין מבחוץ נמי מום קבוע הוא כדלעיל ש"מ דיבשות לא יוכל להרפא. ומ"מ גירסתינו בגמ'. דמצרית לח מבפנים ויבש מבחוץ. וכן העתיק רש"י עצמו בפי' החומש פ' תבא." (TYT on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:12:2). He explains ḥazazit mitzrit as a type of yalefet (leprosy-like affliction) that is moist externally but dry internally. He notes Rashi's agreement and explains that the internal dryness implies incurability, making it a mum kvo'a. He then points out a girsa (version) difference in the Gemara, where some say ḥazazit mitzrit is moist internally and dry externally, and Rashi himself supports this in his Torah commentary. This highlights the fluidity of textual transmission and interpretation.
• זקן וחולה ומזוהם (Old, Sick, or Foul-smelling): TYT explains the necessity of specifying these three: "דת"ר מן הצאן מן הכבשים מן העזים פרט לזקן וחולה ומזוהם. וצריכא דאי כתב למעוטי זקן דלא הדר בריא. אבל חולה דהדר בריא אימא לא. ואי כתב למעוטי חולה דלאו אורחיה אבל זקן אורחיה כו'. ואי כתב רחמנא תרי למעוטי הני דכחישי אבל מזוהם דלא כחיש. וא"נ למעוטי מזוהם משום דמאיס. אבל הני דלא מאיס אימא לא. צריכא." (TYT on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:12:3). He cites a baraita deriving from the phrase "מן הצאן... מן הכבשים מן העזים" (from the flock... from the sheep, from the goats) that these terms exclude old, sick, or foul-smelling animals. He then performs a classic tzaricha (necessity) analysis, showing why each of these three conditions cannot be derived from the others, as they represent distinct reasons for disqualification (incurability, temporary illness, or repulsion).
• טומטום ואנדרוגינוס (Tumtum and Androgynos): TYT engages with Rambam's distinction. While Rambam interprets the Rabbanan's "אינו בכור" as applying only to androgynos, TYT's commentary on the tumtum section (TYT on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:12:6) points to Rish Lakish in the Gemara for the tumtum (who is safek male/female). He then clarifies Rambam's girsa regarding the androgynos: "כתב הר"ב אאנדרוגינוס קאי וכן רבנן נמי לא קיימו אלא אאנדרוגינוס אבל טומטום... מטיל מים במקום זכרות זכר ובעי למתביה לכהן..." (TYT on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:12:6). TYT explains that if a tumtum urinates as a male, it is considered male and given to a kohen (albeit not sacrificed in the Temple if it appears blemished). If it urinates as a female, it's safek, as its male organ might have turned inward. This shows a complex interplay of safek and chazaka (presumption) for the tumtum, which is distinct from the androgynos as understood by the Rabbanan. TYT concludes by stating that the halakha follows the Rabbanan that androgynos "אינו בכור" (TYT on Mishnah Bekhorot 6:12:7).

Friction

The most striking kushya arises from the Mishnah's concluding statement regarding the androgynos in M. Bekhorot 6:12: "רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר, אֶלָּא נִגְזָז וְנַעֲבָד." R' Shimon considers the androgynos to possess an ultimate mum, thereby allowing its slaughter outside the Temple for a kohen. The Rabbanan, however, rule that "אֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר" (it is not a firstborn), implying it has no kedusha whatsoever and can be shorn and worked as ḥullin.

The Kushya: How can the Rabbanan declare an androgynos animal to be entirely ḥullin ("אינו בכור")? A bekhor has kedushat haguf from birth (Bekhorot 13a). Even if it has a safek mum, it retains its kedusha until a clear, permanent mum is identified by an expert (Bekhorot 37a). An androgynos is clearly safek regarding its gender: is it male (and thus a bekhor) or female (and thus ḥullin)? The general halakha for safek bekhor is safek kedusha lechumra (uncertain sanctity is treated stringingently) – it should retain its kedusha and eventually be given to a kohen if a mum is found, but certainly not be treated as ḥullin from the outset. The Rabbanan's ruling seems to contradict the fundamental principle of safek kedusha, effectively declaring it safek kedusha le'kula (uncertain sanctity is treated leniently) in an extreme way.

The Terutz (and Terutz Sheni): The Gemara (Bekhorot 43b) provides the underpinning for the Rabbanan's position. Terutz Rishon (Based on Klal u'Prat): The Gemara explains that the verse regarding bekhorot, "כָּל הַזָּכָר פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם" (Shemot 13:12 – "Every male firstborn of the womb"), implies that only a zekhar (male) can be a bekhor. An androgynos, by definition, is not a definitive zekhar (nor a definitive nekeiva). The Gemara employs the exegetical principle of klal u'prat (general and specific) or ribbui u'mi'ut (inclusion and exclusion) to derive this. From "כל הזכר," we know it must be male. From "פטר רחם," we know it must be a firstborn. The androgynos does not fit the simple definition of "male," as it has simanei zechirus (male characteristics) and simanei nekeivut (female characteristics). The Rabbanan argue that kedushat bekhor requires a zekhar vafsheṭ (a simple, unequivocal male). Since an androgynos is a safek zekhar, it falls outside the klal of "כל הזכר." The Gemara further states that a tumtum, while also ambiguous, is still considered safek bekhor because its male organs are merely hidden, not intrinsically dual. However, an androgynos with both sets of organs is seen as a distinct, anomalous creation that doesn't fit the category of "male" for bekhora. Thus, its kedusha is not even safek, but rather non-existent for this specific halakha.

Terutz Sheni (Based on Mara'eh): Rashi (Bekhorot 43b s.v. "וחכמים אומרים אינו בכור") offers another angle. He explains that the Rabbanan view the androgynos as so inherently flawed in its creation ("בריה משונה") that it is not considered a bekhor at all. It's not merely a mum, but a fundamental deviation from the normative animal creation. This is somewhat similar to a terefa (an animal with a fatal organic defect) which is also fundamentally flawed and thus not fit for korban or bekhor. While a terefa usually dies within 12 months, an androgynos lives, but its dual nature removes it from the bekhor category. This perspective frames the issue not as a safek about a bekhor 's status, but as a determination that the androgynos cannot be a bekhor due to its essential nature, regardless of the safek about its gender. It's a safek that resolves itself in kula because the initial definition of "firstborn" is not met.

These terutzim reconcile the Rabbanan's seemingly lenient ruling by positing that the androgynos is either definitively excluded from the definition of "male" for bekhora (Terutz Rishon) or considered such an anomalous creature that it falls outside the normal categories of kedusha from the outset (Terutz Sheni).

Intertext

Tanakh

The foundational texts for animal blemishes (for korbanot and bekhorot) and priestly blemishes are found in Vayikra:

• Vayikra 22:20-25: This passage lists mumim that disqualify animals from being offered as korbanot, including "עַוֶּרֶת אוֹ שָׁבוּר אוֹ חָרוּץ אוֹ יַבֶּלֶת אוֹ גָרָב אוֹ יַלֶּפֶת" (blind, broken, maimed, wart, garav, or yalefet). The Mishnah's detailed list of mumim for bekhorot is an elaboration on these general categories. The garav and yalefet mentioned here are the basis for the discussions by Rambam and TYT about garav yabesh and ḥazazit/yalefet.
• Vayikra 21:17-23: This passage details the mumim that disqualify a kohen from performing Temple service, such as "כִּי אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם לֹא יִקְרָב" (for any man who has a blemish shall not approach). Specific mumim are listed, including "עִוֵּר אוֹ פִסֵּחַ אוֹ חָרוּם אוֹ שָׂרוּעַ אוֹ גִבֵּן...אוֹ יֶלֶפֶת אוֹ גָרָב אוֹ מְרוֹחַ אָשֶׁךְ" (blind, lame, ḥarum, sarua, gibben...yalefet, garav, or mero'aḥ ashekh). The Mishnah's transition in Chapter 7 to Kohen blemishes directly addresses and expands upon these verses, often providing a more precise definition for the often cryptic Torah terms (e.g., gibben, ḥarum, mero'aḥ ashekh).

Sifrei / Gemara

The Mishnah's rulings are extensively discussed and expounded upon in the Gemara Bekhorot, especially Chapters 6 and 7.

• Bekhorot 42b-43a: The Gemara here thoroughly explores the tumtum and androgynos. It is the source for the klal u'prat derivation for "כל הזכר פטר רחם" that underpins the Rabbanan's ruling regarding the androgynos not being a bekhor. The Gemara states: "מאי טעמא דרבנן? דכתיב: 'כל הזכר פטר רחם' – זכר ודאי, פרט לאנדרוגינוס שהוא ספק זכר" (What is the reason of the Rabbis? For it is written: 'Every male firstborn of the womb' - a definite male, excluding an androgynos which is a doubtful male). This directly addresses the friction identified above.
• Bekhorot 43b: The Gemara also discusses the distinction between garav and ḥazazit (Bekhorot 43b s.v. "גרב וחזזית"), providing the definitions that Rambam and TYT later quote, especially regarding the moist/dry aspects and their implications for being a mum kvo'a.

Mishneh Torah

Rambam's Mishneh Torah codifies these halakhot, reflecting his commentary on the Mishnah.

• Hilchot Bekhorot 6:1-12: This section lists and defines the various mumim that permit a bekhor to be slaughtered outside the Temple. For example, Hilchot Bekhorot 6:11 states, "הטומטום קדוש מספק, ואם נפל בו מום שוחטו ואוכלו הכהן... והאנדרוגינוס אינו בכור כלל, ונאכל לכל אדם ונגזז ונעבד" (A tumtum is sacred due to doubt, and if a blemish falls upon it, the Kohen slaughters and eats it... But an androgynos is not a firstborn at all, and may be eaten by any person, shorn and worked). This directly incorporates the Rabbanan's ruling from our Mishnah and Rambam's own interpretation, making the distinction between tumtum and androgynos a definitive psak.
• Hilchot Bi'at Hamikdash 7:1-12: This section details the mumim that disqualify a kohen from service, directly paralleling the latter part of M. Bekhorot 7:1. For instance, Hilchot Bi'at Hamikdash 7:1 lists the general principle from Vayikra 21, and subsequent halakhot define specific blemishes, showing the systematic application of the Mishnah's teachings.

Psak/Practice

The sugya provides crucial meta-psak heuristics for kedusha and disqualification:

1. Mum Kvo'a vs. Mum Over: The most fundamental distinction for bekhorot. Only a permanent, incurable mum (מום קבוע) permits slaughter outside the Temple. Temporary conditions (מום עובר) do not. This is explicitly stated by Rambam regarding "pale spots and tears that are not constant" (M. 6:12) and "internal gums that were damaged but not extracted." The kohen must bring a mumcheh (expert) to confirm the mum is kvo'a (Bekhorot 37a).
2. Mum be-Galei vs. Mum be-Seter: The Mishnah (6:12) states regarding gums, "external gums that were damaged... or scratched, and likewise, the internal gums that were extracted. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: One does not examine from the double teeth, and inward." This implies that mumim that are entirely concealed (מום שבסתר) generally do not permit slaughter, as the Torah says "וְכִי יִהְיֶה בִבְהֵמָה מוּם" (Vayikra 22:20) implying a visible blemish (Bekhorot 36b). However, if an internal mum is so severe it affects external appearance or function, it might qualify.
3. Safek Bekhor (Tumtum) vs. Bria Meshunah (Androgynos): The psak regarding tumtum and androgynos is a cornerstone of this sugya. The tumtum is treated as safek bekhor lechumra, meaning it retains its kedusha but can be slaughtered by a kohen if a mum develops, due to the safek. The androgynos, however, is not considered a bekhor at all by the Rabbanan, becoming ḥullin. Rambam (Hilchot Bekhorot 6:11) codifies this view as halakha, stating that the androgynos "אינו בכור כלל, ונאכל לכל אדם ונגזז ונעבד." This psak demonstrates that some extreme or anomalous conditions are not merely mumim but fundamentally alter the animal's halakhic category.
4. Disqualifications beyond Mumim: Factors like ne'evad bah aveira, harag et ha'adam, terefa, and yotzei dofen (M. 6:12, 7:1) disqualify an animal from korban but are distinct from mumim. They represent moral, physical (fatal flaw), or ontological (not born naturally) disqualifications, emphasizing that kedusha requires not only physical perfection but also an unblemished moral and natural status.

Takeaway

This extensive Mishnah illustrates the meticulousness of halakha in defining physical and ontological perfection for both korbanot and kohanim, revealing a sophisticated legal system that categorizes flaws based on permanence, visibility, and fundamental identity. The precise distinctions, particularly concerning the tumtum and androgynos, underscore that kedusha is not merely about absence of defect, but about meeting a specific, defined ideal of creation and purpose.