Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6-7

Sugya Map

The Mishnah in Bekhorot 7:6-7 embarks on an exhaustive exposition of physical blemishes (מומין) that disqualify a Kohen from performing Temple service (עבודה), building upon the foundational list in Vayikra 21.

• Central Issue: Delineating the specific physical characteristics that constitute a mum for a Kohen, distinguishing between mumin common to both human and animal, those exclusive to humans, and those exclusive to animals.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Practical Halakha: Direct applicability to Kohanim serving in the Beis HaMikdash, determining eligibility for Avodah.
  • Scope of Torah Law: Understanding the extent to which Chazal derived or enacted mumin beyond the explicit Scriptural list, and the interplay between divrei Torah and divrei Soferim in this domain.
  • Theological Underpinnings: Exploring the conceptual basis for requiring physical perfection in Divine service, both for the Kohen and the sacrifice.
  • Linguistic Precision: Detailed definitions of obscure biblical and Mishnaic terms relating to bodily deformities.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6-7.
  • Vayikra 21:17-23 (especially פסוקים 17, 20-21).
  • Gemara Bekhorot 43a-44b (providing derivations and elaborations).
  • Rambam, Hilkhot Bi'at HaMikdash 7-8.
  • Tosafot Yom Tov on Bekhorot 7:6-7.

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah presents a veritable catalogue of mumin, often defining terms previously mentioned and introducing new ones. Let's sample a few illustrative lines:

אֵיזֶהוּ קֵרֵחַ? כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ שׁוּרַת שֵׂעָר מֵאֹזֶן לְאֹזֶן הַמַּקֶּפֶת אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ. [Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6:3]

This line defines kere'aḥ (קרח), a term found in the Torah (Vayikra 21:20). The Mishnah provides a specific criterion: a continuous row of hair encircling the head from ear to ear. This is a classic example of the Mishnah giving a shiur (measure) for a Torah concept. The phrasing 'shurat se'ar ha'makefet et rosho' (a row of hair encircling his head) is precise, emphasizing the completeness of the encirclement.

אֵיזֶהוּ גִּבֵּן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה? כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ גַּבּוֹת, אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גַּבָּה אֶחָת. רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁגַּבּוֹתָיו שׁוֹכְבוֹת. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי גַּבּוֹת וּשְׁתֵּי שִׁדְרוֹת. [Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6:4]

Here, the Mishnah defines gibben (גבן), also from Vayikra 21:20. The initial definition relates to eyebrows (absence or singleness). The dissenting opinions of R' Dosa and R' Chanina ben Antigonus offer alternative, radically different interpretations. R' Dosa's 'gavotav shokhvot' (eyebrows lie flat) suggests an aesthetic or functional issue with the eyebrows themselves, while R' Chanina ben Antigonus's 'shtei gavot u'shtei shidrot' (two backs and two spines) is a significant departure, hinting at a severe spinal deformity. The Mishnah's direct question, 'Eizehu Gibben shen'emar baTorah?' (Which is the gibben stated in the Torah?), underscores the exegetical nature of this section.

כּוּשִׁי, וְגִיחוֹר, וְלַבְקָן, וְקִיפֵּחַ, וְנַנָּס, וְחֵרֵשׁ, וְשׁוֹטֶה, וְשִׁכּוֹר, וְבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין טְהוֹרִין – פּוֹסְלִין בָּאָדָם וְכָשֵׁר בַּבְּהֵמָה. [Mishnah Bekhorot 7:7:6]

This crucial line lists mumin that disqualify a person (Kohen) but not an animal for sacrifice. The inclusion of traits like Kushi (black-skinned), Gichor (red-skinned), Lavkan (white-skinned), Kipe'aḥ (excessively tall), Nanas (dwarf), Cheresh (deaf-mute), Shoteh (imbecile), and Shikur (drunk) reveals an expansive understanding of "blemish" for a Kohen. The phrase 'u'va'alei mumin tehorin' (and those with ritually pure blemishes) is particularly intriguing, implying these are not halakhically impure defects but still disqualifying. The structure 'poslin ba'adam v'kasher babheima' (disqualify in a person and are valid in an animal) highlights the nuanced and often distinct criteria applied to Kohanim versus sacrifices.

Readings

Rambam: Defining the Indefinable

The Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishnah and later in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Bi'at HaMikdash, provides a systematic and often anatomical elucidation of the Mishnah's litany of mumin. His chiddush lies in his unwavering precision and his attempt to codify these abstract descriptions into concrete, observable criteria.

For instance, regarding the Mishnah's final list of mumin in 7:7, the Rambam (on Bekhorot 7:6:1, per Sefaria text) clarifies:

כושי שחור: גיחור אדום. הלבקן לבן בתכלית הלובן לפי שכמו שבשחור מום כן האדום כארגמן או הלבן כחלב מום וכן באר הגמרא והשמר שמא תעלה בדעתך שאלו השמות נאמרו על הגוונים לפי שאינן אלא שמות לבני אדם שיש בהן אלו הגוונים Kushi is black; Gichor is red; Lavkan is white to the extreme. For just as blackness is a blemish, so too is red like crimson or white like milk a blemish. And so the Gemara explains. And beware lest you think that these names refer to the colors, for they are merely names for people who possess these colorations.

The Rambam clarifies that these are not merely descriptive of skin tone, but rather refer to excessive or unnatural colorations that constitute a mum. His additional caveat, 'v'hishamer shema ta'aleh b'da'atkha she'eilu hash'mot ne'emru al hagvanim lefi she'eina ela sh'mot livnei adam sheyeish bahen eilu hagvanim' (And beware lest you think that these names refer to the colors, for they are merely names for people who possess these colorations), suggests that these are established categories of individuals with these conditions, not just a casual description of skin color. This is a subtle but important point, transforming a simple adjective into a specific halakhic status. He also meticulously distinguishes between ba'al pikah (whose heel protrudes) and ikkel (bow-legged), providing precise anatomical definitions derived from the Gemara.

Tosafot Yom Tov: Interrogating and Harmonizing Rishonim

The Tosafot Yom Tov consistently engages with the interpretations of Rashi and Rambam, often highlighting where they diverge or offering a synthesis. His chiddush often lies in his comparative analysis and his quest for linguistic precision, frequently referencing the Gemara for the underlying derashot.

Regarding the terms makish b'karsulav v'b'arkuvotav, ba'al pikah, and ikkel, the Tosafot Yom Tov (on Bekhorot 7:6:1) cites a Baraita brought in the Gemara:

דת"ר שבר רגל אין לי אלא שבר רגל מנין לרבות הקישן *)והעיקל והקילבן [פרש"י [הקישן היינו] המקיש והעיקל (ופיקה יוצא) [והקליבן היינו פיקה יוצאת מגודלו] ת"ל או שבר רגל For the Rabbis taught: I only know shever regel (broken leg) from the Torah; from where do I include hakishan (one who knocks his ankles), ha'ikkel (bow-legged), and hakilban (a protruding pikah)? The verse states 'o shever regel' (or a broken leg), which is a ribbuy (extension). Rashi explains hakishan as makish, ha'ikkel, and hakilban as a pikah protruding from his thumb.

Here, Tosafot Yom Tov, citing the Gemara's Baraita, demonstrates that many of these seemingly extra-Torah mumin are, in fact, derived mid'oraita through ribbuyim from existing verses. He notes Rashi's interpretation, which links kilban to pikah yotzeh migudalo (a pikah protruding from his thumb). Later (on Bekhorot 7:6:2), he contrasts this with the Rambam:

אבל להרמב"ם לא פריש במתני'. אלא עיקל בלבד. דפיקה יוצאה מגודלו. לא הוה פירוש דבעל פיקה. ומפרש בעל פיקה הוא שתהא עקבו מאחר רגליו בולטת ויוצאת יותר מן הראוי: But according to the Rambam, the Mishnah does not explain pikah yotzeh migudalo as the definition of ba'al pikah. Rather, ba'al pikah is defined as one whose heel protrudes excessively from behind his foot.

This highlights a significant interpretive difference: Rashi sees pikah yotzeh migudalo as explaining ba'al pikah, while Rambam views them as distinct mumin, giving a different definition for ba'al pikah altogether. Tosafot Yom Tov's precise inter-Rishonim analysis reveals the complexity in defining these terms.

Friction

The Kushya: Mumin Mid'oraita vs. Miderabanan

The most potent friction point in this Mishnah revolves around the halakhic status of the numerous mumin listed. Vayikra 21:17-23 enumerates a specific, albeit broad, list of disqualifying blemishes. Yet, the Mishnah expands significantly upon this, listing many conditions that appear to be aesthetic or even behavioral (e.g., shoteh, shikur), and explicitly categorizes some as 'poslin ba'adam v'kasher babheima' (disqualifying in a person but valid in an animal) [Bekhorot 7:7:6]. This raises a fundamental question: Are all these mumin mid'oraita (Torah law), derived through extensive exegesis (דרשות) or halakha leMoshe miSinai (law given to Moshe at Sinai), or are some of them miderabanan (Rabbinic enactment)? If the latter, on what basis can Chazal add to the Torah's list of disqualifications for Temple service?

Terutz 1: Expansive Torah Derivations (Rambam & Gemara)

Many Rishonim, particularly the Rambam, and the Gemara itself, understand most of these mumin to be mid'oraita, derived from subtle nuances in the Torah's language. The Gemara (Bekhorot 43b-44a) frequently provides the derashot for seemingly Rabbinic mumin. For instance, the Baraita cited by Tosafot Yom Tov (Bekhorot 7:6:1) derives makishan and ikkel from the ribbuy of 'o shever regel' (or a broken leg) [Vayikra 21:19]. Similarly, the Gemara (Bekhorot 44a) connects kere'aḥ to 'keru'a' (torn) through a gezeirah shavah, implying a Torah source.

For the mumin that are 'poslin ba'adam v'kasher babheima', such as kushi, gichor, lavkan, etc., the Gemara (Bekhorot 45a) offers derashot from Vayikra 21:17, 'kol ish asher bo mum lo yikrav' (any man who has a blemish shall not approach), interpreting 'mum' broadly to include defects in appearance that, while not affecting the animal's physical integrity for sacrifice, are considered unbefitting for one serving in the Temple. The Rambam, in Hilkhot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:1, states this explicitly: "כל הכהנים בעלי מומין פסולין לעבודה, בין שהיה המום בגופו בין שהיה בחכמתו או במדותיו או בדעתו" (All Kohanim with blemishes are disqualified from service, whether the blemish is in his body, his wisdom, his character, or his mind). This suggests a broad, mid'oraita understanding of "blemish" that encompasses mental and even aesthetic imperfections, all derived from the general phrase 'asher bo mum'. Even conditions like shoteh (imbecile) and shikur (drunk) are seen as mid'oraita disqualifications due to their impact on the Kohen's da'at (mind/awareness) during service, which is a fundamental requirement.

Terutz 2: Mar'it Ayin and Rabbinic Enactments

While many mumin are indeed derived from Torah sources, the Mishnah itself hints at Rabbinic involvement. For example, regarding 'u'nitparchu rimsei einav' (whose eyelashes have fallen out) and 'nitnatku shinav' (whose teeth fell out), the Mishnah explicitly states 'mipnei mar'it ayin' (due to appearance) [Bekhorot 7:6:6]. This indicates a Rabbinic decree, not a direct Torah prohibition. The principle of mar'it ayin is a classic Rabbinic concern, aimed at preventing misperception or desecration of holy acts.

Thus, the terutz is multi-faceted: most mumin are mid'oraita, derived through extensive derashot from the general phrasing of Vayikra 21. These derashot expand the concept of "blemish" for a Kohen to include aesthetic and even mental imperfections that would be unfitting for Divine service. A smaller subset, explicitly noted by the Mishnah, are miderabanan, enacted by Chazal for reasons like mar'it ayin, to maintain the dignity and sanctity of the Temple service in the public eye. This shows a sophisticated interaction between the Torah's foundational text and Chazal's interpretive and legislative authority.

Intertext

Tanakh: Vayikra 21:17-23 – The Lexicon of Mumin

The entire discussion in Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6-7 serves as an expansive piyush (explanation) and harḥavah (broadening) of the Torah's explicit list of mumin in Vayikra 21:17-23. The Torah states:

דַּבֵּר אֶל־אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר אִישׁ מִזַּרְעֲךָ לְדֹרֹתָם אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם לֹא יִקְרַב לְהַקְרִיב לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו׃ כִּי כׇל־אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ מוּם לֹא יִקְרָב אִישׁ עִוֵּר אוֹ פִסֵּחַ אוֹ חָרֻם אוֹ שָׂרוּעַ אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה עָלָיו נֶתֶק אוֹ סַפַּחַת וְכׇל־אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם לֹא יִקְרָב׃ [Vayikra 21:17-20] Speak to Aaron, saying: No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish shall approach to offer the food of his God. For no man who has a blemish shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or one with a sunken nose (ḥarum), or one with a limb too long or too short (saru'a), or a man who has a skin lesion or an eruption, or any man who has a blemish shall not approach.

The Mishnah directly addresses terms like gibben (גבן) and mero'aḥ ashekh (מרוח אשך) [Vayikra 21:20], offering multiple interpretations that reflect the ambiguity of these ancient Hebrew terms. Furthermore, the broad phrases 'kol ish asher bo mum' (any man who has a blemish) and 'lo yikrav' (shall not approach) become the exegetical hooks for Chazal to derive the extensive list of additional mumin, including those relating to appearance, mental state, and excessive or diminished features. This demonstrates the Mishnah's role as the primary interpretive lens for the Torah's terse legal declarations.

Rambam: Hilkhot Bi'at HaMikdash 7-8 – Codification of Mishnaic Law

The psak halakha for Kohanim with mumin is meticulously codified by the Rambam in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Bi'at HaMikdash, chapters 7 and 8. These chapters mirror the structure and content of our Mishnah precisely, often quoting or paraphrasing its definitions and distinctions. For example, Rambam codifies the definitions of kere'aḥ, gibben, ḥarum, mero'aḥ ashekh, and all the other mumin discussed in the Mishnah.

המקיש בקרסוליו או בארכובותיו, או בעל פיקה שקדמו לו עקבו ויצאו מאחורי רגליו ביותר, או עיקל ששוקיו כפופות כקשת עד שהנותן רגליו זו בצד זו אין ארכובותיו מתחברות, או שיצא פיקה מאצבע גודלו של יד או של רגל, או שהיו אצבעותיו קלוטות עד הפרק הסמוך לכף היד או לכף הרגל, או שהיו מדובקות עד שיהיו שתי אצבעות כאחת, הכל פסולין. [Rambam, Hilkhot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:11]

This passage is a direct codification of Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6, regarding leg and foot deformities. The Rambam's detailed definitions, such as for ikkel and pikah yotzeh migudalo, reflect his earlier Mishnaic commentary and the Gemara's elaborations. This demonstrates how the Mishnaic text transitioned from an academic discussion to a binding legal code for future Temple service. The Rambam's work serves as the authoritative bridge between the Mishnaic framework and practical halakha.

Psak/Practice

Halakhic Implications

The detailed enumeration of mumin in Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6-7 forms the bedrock of Hilkhot Bi'at HaMikdash. While the Temple service is currently suspended, these laws are not merely theoretical; they are halakha leMa'aseh (practical law) awaiting the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash. A Kohen, today, is still considered to have the potential to serve, and thus the knowledge of these mumin is preserved and studied. The Rambam's codification in Mishneh Torah confirms the binding nature of these Mishnaic pronouncements. The distinctions between mumin that disqualify an animal versus a Kohen remain crucial for understanding the differing standards of perfection required.

Meta-Psak Heuristics

1. Holistic Perfection in Divine Service: The sugya underscores a profound meta-halakhic principle: approaching the Divine requires a state of wholeness, both physical and, by extension (as seen with shoteh and shikur), mental and spiritual. This concept transcends mere functionality; it speaks to the ideal of presenting one's unblemished self before God. The Kohen, as an emissary of the community, must embody this ideal.
2. The Expansive Authority of Chazal: The Mishnah's willingness to define and expand upon Torah terms, and even introduce mumin 'mipnei mar'it ayin', demonstrates the profound authority of Chazal in shaping Torah law. This is not arbitrary; it is an interpretive and legislative power rooted in Torah Sheb'al Peh, ensuring that the spirit and dignity of the mitzvah are upheld. It teaches us that halakha is a dynamic system, where foundational texts are continually elucidated and applied by the Sages.
3. *The Nuance of 'Mum':* The sugya highlights that "blemish" is not a monolithic concept. What constitutes a blemish for an animal sacrifice (primarily physical integrity) differs from that for a Kohen (which includes aesthetic, intellectual, and even character-related aspects). This teaches us to be precise in defining halakhic terms and to appreciate the context-specificity of legal categories.

Takeaway

This Mishnah presents a meticulously detailed taxonomy of mumin, revealing Chazal's expansive interpretation of Torah law concerning the Kohen's physical and mental fitness for Temple service, thereby emphasizing the theological imperative of holistic perfection in Divine proximity, often extending to aesthetic and mental states. It serves as a foundational text for understanding both Hilkhot Bi'at HaMikdash and the interpretive authority of the Sages.