Mishnah Bekhorot 7:2-3

Sugya Map

• Issue: The Mishnah meticulously delineates a panoply of physical blemishes (mumin) that disqualify a Kohen from performing Temple service (avodah). This builds upon the general discussion of mumin in animals, adding specific human conditions and providing precise definitions for Biblically-cited blemishes.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Distinguishing between mumin applicable to both animals and humans, and those unique to humans, often with a higher standard of shleimut (completeness) for the Kohen.
  • Determining which mumin are d'Oraita (Biblical) and which are d'Rabbanan (Rabbinic), the latter often based on mar'it ayin (appearance)¹.
  • The precise, often debated, anatomical and functional definitions of specific Biblical mumin (e.g., kere'aḥ, gibben, mero'aḥ ashekh).
  • The halakhic status of unusual capabilities, such as ambidexterity (ba'al shtei yadoť), as a disqualifier.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Bekhorot 7:2-3
  • Vayikra 21:17-23 (source text for Biblical blemishes)
  • Gemara Bekhorot 43a-45b (for elaboration, baraitot, and Tannaic disputes)
  • Sifra, Emor Perek 3, Halakha 12 (definitions of gibben)

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah (Bekhorot 7:2-3) presents a detailed list of blemishes:

הַקֵּרֵחַ פָּסוּל. אֵיזֶה הוּא קֵרֵחַ? כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שִׁיטָה שֶׁל שֵׂעָר מַקֶּפֶת מֵאֹזֶן לְאֹזֶן. וְאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. אֵין לוֹ גַּבִּינִים, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא גַּבִּין אֶחָד, זֶה הוּא הַגִּבֵּן הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה. רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁגַּבִּינָיו שׁוֹכְבִים. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן אַנְטִיגְנוּס אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּים וּשְׁתֵּי שִׁדְרוֹת.

...אֵין לוֹ אֲשָׁכִים, אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֶלָּא אָשָׁךְ אֶחָד, זֶהוּ מָרוּחַ אָשֶׁךְ הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁנִּמְרְחוּ אֲשָׁכָיו. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רוּחַ בַּאֲשָׁכָיו. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן אַנְטִיגְנוּס אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁמַּרְאָיו חֲשׁוּכִין... וּבַעַל שְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת, רַבִּי פּוֹסֵל, וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:

• "שיטה של שער מקפת מאוזן לאוזן" (a row of hair encircling from ear to ear): This precise phrasing defines kere'aḥ not as general baldness, but a specific pattern: the absence of a continuous band of hair.
• "גבינים" vs. "גבין" vs. "גבים": The Mishnah uses "גבינים" (eyebrows, plural) and "גבין" (eyebrow, singular). Critically, Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus's opinion is recorded as "שני גבים" (two backs/spines), which shifts the anatomical focus dramatically from facial hair to skeletal structure. This variant generates significant interpretive friction.
• "מרוח אשך": This Biblical term from Vayikra 21:20 is given three distinct interpretations. Rabbi Yishmael's "נמרחו אשכיו" (crushed testicles) and Rabbi Akiva's "רוח באשכיו" (wind/swelling in testicles) are anatomically related. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus's "מראיו חשוכין" (whose appearance is dark/gloomy) is a radical reinterpretation, connecting "מרוח" to "מראה" (appearance) rather than "מריחה" (smearing/crushing), and "אשך" to "חשוכין" (darkness) via a phonetic similarity, thereby shifting the blemish from a physical genital defect to a general complexion.
• "בעל שתי ידות": "Master of two hands" or ambidextrous. This is a fascinating disqualifier, as it denotes an unusual ability rather than a physical defect, prompting deeper questions about the nature of shleimut for priestly service.

Readings

Rambam on Mishnah Bekhorot 7:2:1 (קרח and גבן)

• Translation: "The kere’aḥ is disqualified. What is a kere’aḥ? Anyone who does not have a row of hair, etc. He has no eyebrows, or he has only one eyebrow, that is the gibben, etc. The kere’aḥ is known. What it says 'and if he has [a row], he is fit' is on the condition that the row of hair is from the back of the head on the nape side, and that it is from ear to ear. And gibbinin are the eyebrows of the eye. 'His eyebrows lie flat' means that the hair of his eyebrows is abundant until it reaches his eyelids. And the meaning of 'two gabbin' is that his back is divided as if there were two hard chains in each back. And Rabbi Dosa, Tanna Kamma, and Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus do not dispute whether these are blemishes or not blemishes, rather all agree that they are blemishes. But their dispute is which of these three blemishes is the gibben mentioned in the Torah."²
• Chiddush: Rambam provides a precise anatomical definition for kere'aḥ, emphasizing the continuous "from ear to ear" aspect, specifically from the nape. More significantly, he clarifies that the Tannaic dispute regarding gibben (גבן) is not over whether the listed conditions are mumin at all, but rather which of these mumin corresponds to the specific Torah-level designation of gibben. This highlights a nuanced approach to Tannaic disagreements—often not a fundamental halakhic divergence, but a debate on scriptural nomenclature for established disqualifiers. For Rabbi Hanina's view, he offers a literal interpretation of "שני גבים" as a severe spinal malformation involving "hard chains."

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 7:2:1 (קרח)

• Translation: "Anyone who does not have a row of hair, etc. R'av explains 'from behind, etc.' when he has it around the entire head but is bald in the middle, that he is disqualified, as it is stated in the Gemara."³
• Chiddush: Tosafot Yom Tov, citing Rabbeinu Ovadia of Bartenura and the Gemara (Bekhorot 43a), defines kere'aḥ as specifically describing a person with hair encircling the sides of the head but bald in the middle, akin to a tonsure. This refines the Mishnah's "אין לו שיטה" (lacks a row) to mean specifically the absence of a continuous band across the top, even if hair exists peripherally.

Rashash on Mishnah Bekhorot 7:2:1 (אין לו גבינים אין לו אלא גבין אחד)

• Translation: "In the Mishnah: 'He has no eyebrows, he has only one eyebrow.' It is difficult: now you said 'he has only one eyebrow' is a blemish, [then] 'he has none at all' should be implied, as the Gemara asks above (40a) in a similar case. Perhaps so that you should not say that this is more disgusting when he has only one eyebrow than when he has none at all. Or because it is like a sharu'a and zagdan."⁴
• Chiddush: Rashash addresses a common Gemaraic query: why explicitly state a partial defect (one eyebrow) if total absence (no eyebrows) is already a disqualifier, implying the latter is more severe? He proposes two possibilities: (1) one eyebrow might be more aesthetically displeasing than none, emphasizing mar'it ayin; or (2) it constitutes a distinct type of blemish, similar to other specific facial deformities. This underscores the Mishnah's precision in categorizing various forms of disfigurement, even if seemingly less severe than total absence.

Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Bekhorot 7:2:3 (שני גבינים ושתי שדרות)

• Translation: "Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: 'Anyone who has two gabbinim and two spines.' In M, ML, MN, MP and in the Mishnah in the Bavli 'two gabim and two shidra'ot-spines.' The change shidra-shizra is common and has no difference in content, but the change gabbin-gav is substantial. According to manuscript Kaufman, the intention is for one who has a double system of hairs above the eyes. Similarly in Sifra: 'Gibben' who has two gabbinim, he has no gabbinim or he has only one gabin, this is the gibben mentioned in the Torah. Rabbi Dosa says: whose gabbinim lie flat. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: who has two gabim and two shidra'ot' (Emor Perek 3, Halakha 12, 95c). That is, we are dealing with head hair. One who read 'gabim' meant a double spinal column; we do not know of such a phenomenon, but it is possible that such a defective fetus was born. In the Tosefta it is taught: 'If he had two gabim and two shidra'ot, since there is no such one to survive, he is disqualified' (Hullin 3:9, p. 504). It is possible that our Mishnah reflects that rare case in Tosefta Hullin, of a defective fetus born as conjoined twins. The Bavli to our Mishnah (43b) connects the Baraita in Tosefta Hullin (in a different version – or another similar Baraita dealing with abortion) with our Mishnah, and from this, it read 'gabim', even though in the reisha it simply explained that it refers to the eyebrows. The connection is made with the phrase 'למימרא דחי', and it is in all manuscripts. According to its simple meaning, our Mishnah also deals with one who has two eyebrows and the Mishnah did not deviate from facial blemishes, as in the unique reading of manuscript Kaufman."⁵
• Chiddush: This commentary highlights a crucial textual variant in Rabbi Hanina's definition of gibben. While most printed texts read "שני גבים" (two backs/spines), the Kaufman manuscript uniquely reads "שני גבינים" (two eyebrows). This variant fundamentally alters the blemish from an extreme skeletal deformity to a facial one (double eyebrows), making it more consistent with the surrounding context of eyebrow-related mumin. Mishnat Eretz Yisrael also contextualizes the "two backs/spines" reading by connecting it to a rare congenital defect mentioned in Tosefta Hullin concerning non-surviving fetuses, thereby attempting to rationalize its inclusion despite its extreme nature.

Friction

Kushya: The Biological and Contextual Anomalies of "שני גבים ושתי שדרות"

The most significant kushya in this sugya stems from Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus's definition of gibben: "כל שיש לו שני גבים ושתי שדרות"⁶ (one who has two backs and two spines). This definition presents multiple layers of difficulty:

1. Biological Implausibility and Survival: A human being with literally "two backs and two spines" is an extremely rare, if not impossible, congenital anomaly for a viable, adult individual capable of serving in the Temple. The Gemara itself immediately poses this rhetorical challenge: "למימרא דחי הוא?"⁷ (Does this imply that such a person can even survive?). This questions the very premise of including such a condition in a list of disqualifying blemishes for living Kohanim.
2. Contextual Disparity: The immediate preceding definitions of gibben by Tanna Kamma ("אין לו גבינים, אין לו אלא גבין אחד") and Rabbi Dosa ("כל שגביניו שוכבים") relate to eyebrows—a facial feature. Rabbi Hanina's definition, if taken literally, abruptly shifts the discussion to a severe skeletal deformity of the torso, far removed from the face. This creates a jarring lack of thematic continuity within the Mishnah's enumeration of gibben.
3. Linguistic Shift: The term "גבן" (gibben) itself, as understood by the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Dosa, clearly relates to "גבינים" (eyebrows). Rabbi Hanina's use of "גבים" (backs, plural of גב) suggests a different etymological root or a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the term gibben.

Terutz: Reconciling the Extreme Definition

Two principal approaches attempt to resolve this formidable kushya:

1. Textual Emendation and Contextual Harmony (Kaufman Manuscript)

One compelling terutz, championed by the Mishnat Eretz Yisrael commentary based on the Kaufman manuscript, posits a textual variant. Instead of "שני גבים", the original reading for Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus's opinion was "שני גבינים" (two eyebrows).⁸ This emendation dramatically simplifies the kushya:

• Biological Viability: "Two eyebrows" (perhaps a double ridge or two distinct sets of eyebrows) is a plausible, albeit unusual, facial feature. It does not raise the survival question of the Gemara.
• Contextual Harmony: This reading keeps Rabbi Hanina's definition squarely within the realm of facial blemishes, specifically eyebrows, aligning perfectly with the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Dosa. The phrase "ושתי שדרות" (and two rows/spines) could then be interpreted metaphorically as two ridges or rows of hair associated with the eyebrows, maintaining the facial theme. This terutz is elegant as it resolves all three aspects of the kushya by suggesting a scribal error. However, it requires prioritizing a single manuscript over the majority tradition and the Bavli's received text.

2. Literal Interpretation with Miraculous Survival (Bavli)

The more widely accepted terutz, found in the Bavli (Bekhorot 43b), accepts the literal reading of "שני גבים ושתי שדרות" as a severe skeletal deformity. The Gemara, after raising the question of survival, brings a baraita from Tosefta Hullin 3:9, which states that a fetus with "שני גבין ושתי שדראות" does not survive ("אינו מתקיים"). The Gemara then reconciles this with our Mishnah by asserting that while such a creature typically doesn't survive, if it were to miraculously survive, it would indeed be considered a gibben and disqualified.⁹

• Biological Possibility: This approach acknowledges the extreme rarity but insists that the Mishnah (and the Torah's concept of mum) contemplates even such extraordinary cases. The baraita from Tosefta confirms that the concept of such a deformity, even if generally non-viable, was within the rabbinic lexicon.
• Halakhic Scope: This terutz implies that the Torah's standard of shleimut for a Kohen is so absolute that it encompasses even the most profound and rare congenital anomalies. It highlights that the disqualification is based on the existence of the blemish, regardless of its statistical likelihood of appearing in a living, functioning Kohen. While this terutz necessitates accepting a highly unusual scenario, it maintains the integrity of the received Mishnaic text and reflects the profound depth of halakhic analysis, which accounts for even the most remote possibilities in defining sacred perfection. Rambam's explanation of "שני גבין" as a divided back with "שלשלת קשה" also aligns with this literal interpretation, describing a severe spinal issue.¹⁰

Intertext

1. Defining Ritual Fitness: Animals vs. Kohanim

The opening lines of Mishnah Bekhorot 7:2, "אלו מומין שנאמרו בבהמה, בין קבועין בין עוברים, פוסלין באדם," immediately establish a foundational parallel between the physical requisites for sacrificial animals (mukdashim) and performing Kohanim (avodah). This reflects a shared theological premise: the sacred sphere demands physical perfection, or at least the absence of manifest imperfection. The Torah's enumeration of mumin in Vayikra 21:17-23 for Kohanim mirrors the mumin listed for offerings in Vayikra 22:20-25.

However, the Mishnah quickly pivots: "ומוסיפין עליהן באדם" (and in addition to those [blemishes], there are other blemishes that apply only to a priest)¹¹. This crucial phrase indicates a higher, or at least distinct, standard for Kohanim. For example, "בעל שתי ידות" (ambidextrous) disqualifies a Kohen¹², but is irrelevant for an animal. Conversely, certain blemishes like "טרפה" (a mortally wounded animal) or "יוצא דופן" (born by C-section) disqualify an animal from being a sacrifice but not a Kohen from service¹³. This reciprocal relationship, where some blemishes are unique to one category or the other, underscores a critical meta-halakhic principle: while both animal and Kohen serve as offerings or representatives in divine service, the Kohen, as a living, conscious agent of God, is held to a nuanced and in some aspects more stringent standard of shleimut. The Kohen embodies the ideal of human service; thus, his blemishes are not merely physical defects but impediments to the perfect embodiment of sacred representation¹⁴.

2. The Power of "מראית העין" (Appearance)

The Mishnah explicitly mentions several disqualifiers based on "משום מראית העין" (due to the appearance of a blemish), such as "ונושרו ריסיו פסול משום מראית העין" (one whose eyelashes have fallen out is disqualified due to the appearance) and "ושיניו שנשרו פסול משום מראית העין" (one whose teeth fell out is disqualified due to the appearance)¹⁵. These cases are distinct from the d'Oraita blemishes enumerated in Vayikra 21 and introduce a Rabbinic category of disqualification.

The principle of mar'it ayin is pervasive in Halakha, extending far beyond the Temple. It prohibits actions that, while technically permissible, might appear to others as a transgression, leading to chilul Hashem (desecration of God's name) or misunderstanding. Examples include prohibitions against selling non-kosher meat to a non-Jew near a Jewish residence (Avodah Zarah 24b) or drying wet clothes on Shabbat in a public place, even if wrung out before Shabbat (Shabbat 147a). In the context of the Kohen, mar'it ayin implies that the Kohen's physical presentation must not only conform to Torah law but also maintain a certain standard of dignity and respect in the public eye. A Kohen with missing teeth or eyelashes, while perhaps not biblically blemished, might detract from the solemnity and honor of the Temple service, diminishing reverence for the avodah. This demonstrates that the halakhic system is sensitive not only to intrinsic physical perfection but also to the perception and societal implications of the Kohen's role, recognizing him as a public figure whose appearance impacts the sanctity of his sacred function¹⁶.

Psak/Practice

While the Temple's absence renders the direct application of these mumin moot, the sugya provides critical insights into halakhic principles that inform contemporary psak and meta-halakhic heuristics.

1. The Ideal of Shleimut (Completeness): The meticulous cataloging of mumin reinforces the halakhic ideal of tov u'muttar (good and permitted) for sacred objects and persons. This establishes a precedent that sacred endeavors, broadly construed, demand an unblemished state, even if only symbolically today. This concept transcends physical blemishes, extending to purity of intent and action, influencing the selection of shlichei tzibur (prayer leaders) or rabbanim.
2. Differentiating d'Oraita and d'Rabbanan: The Mishnah's explicit mention of "משום מראית העין" for certain disqualifications (e.g., lost eyelashes or teeth) sharply distinguishes d'Rabbanan injunctions from d'Oraita ones. This distinction is paramount in psak, as d'Oraita prohibitions are absolute, while d'Rabbanan enactments, while binding, may theoretically admit of different considerations (e.g., in cases of great need or sha'at hadchak). This heuristic is vital for assessing the severity and flexibility of any halakhic ruling.
3. Halakhic Precision and Tannaic Debate: The rigorous Tannaic debates over the precise definitions of gibben or mero'aḥ ashekh underscore the profound analytical method embedded in Halakha. Each word, each nuance, is meticulously scrutinized. This commitment to textual fidelity and logical derivation remains a cornerstone of psak in all areas of Jewish law, emphasizing a painstaking approach to legal interpretation.
4. The "Ambidextrous" Quandary (Ba'al Shtei Yadoť): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disqualifies an ambidextrous Kohen, while the Sages permit him¹⁷. The Gemara explains Rabbi's view by equating ambidexterity with being left-handed (iṭer), considered a deviation from the norm of right-handedness for certain halakhic contexts (e.g., writing a Sefer Torah or tefillin with the "strong" hand¹⁸). This illustrates that "normality" or "averageness" (beinoniyut) can be a halakhic ideal, even if the deviation is not inherently negative or a physical defect. In modern psak, this might inform discussions about what constitutes "optimal" or "standard" functionality or appearance in various communal roles, not just what is strictly "blemished."

Takeaway

This Mishnah serves as a profound exposition on the ideal of shleimut for sacred service, meticulously detailing physical requirements that transcend mere functionality. The rigorous Tannaic debates over subtle definitions and the inclusion of mar'it ayin highlight the multifaceted nature of halakhic perfection, encompassing both intrinsic form and public perception.

---

¹ Bekhorot 44a, s.v. "מאי טעמא". ² Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Bekhorot 7:2. ³ Tosafot Yom Tov, Bekhorot 7:2:1, s.v. "כל שאין לו שיטה". ⁴ Rashash, Bekhorot 7:2:1, s.v. "אין לו גבינים". ⁵ Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Bekhorot 7:2:3. ⁶ Mishnah Bekhorot 7:2. ⁷ Bekhorot 43b, s.v. "למימרא דחי הוא". ⁸ Mishnat Eretz Yisrael, Bekhorot 7:2:3. ⁹ Bekhorot 43b, s.v. "תניא כוותיה דרבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס". ¹⁰ Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Bekhorot 7:2. ¹¹ Mishnah Bekhorot 7:2. ¹¹ Mishnah Bekhorot 7:3. ¹³ Mishnah Bekhorot 7:4. ¹⁴ Rambam, Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:1. ¹⁵ Mishnah Bekhorot 7:2. ¹⁶ Bekhorot 44a, s.v. "ריסיו". ¹⁷ Mishnah Bekhorot 7:3. ¹⁸ Bekhorot 45b, s.v. "בעל שתי ידות"; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 32:5.