Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6-7

Sugya Map

This sugya in Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6-7 meticulously enumerates a comprehensive list of physical blemishes (mumim) that disqualify a Kohen from performing service in the Beit HaMikdash. It extends the Biblical prohibitions (Vayikra 21:17-23) by detailing many Rabbinically derived or elaborated conditions.

• Issue: What specific physical characteristics render a Kohen pasul (disqualified) for Temple service? How do these relate to blemishes that disqualify animals for sacrifice, and what are the unique mumim for humans?
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Halakhic Practice: While Temple service is currently suspended, the sugya establishes the stringent physical requirements for kehuna that would be binding upon its reinstatement.
  • Conceptual Understanding of Mum: The Mishnah provides a rich tapestry for understanding the concept of "blemish" in Jewish law – its scope, whether it's always an impairment, and the role of "appearance" (mareh) versus functional defect.
  • Distinction between De'oraita and Derabanan: The Mishnah implicitly and explicitly (e.g., "זה הוא הגיבן האמור בתורה") distinguishes between blemishes whose disqualification is explicitly stated in the Torah and those that are Rabbinically decreed or derived through drashot.
  • Human vs. Animal Mumim: The Mishnah highlights conditions that are mumim for a Kohen but not for an animal (e.g., kushi, shikur), and vice-versa (e.g., tereifa, yotzei dofan). This illuminates the distinct spiritual roles of Kohen and korban.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6-7¹
  • Vayikra 21:17-23² (The foundational Biblical text for Kohen blemishes)
  • Bekhorot 43b-45a³ (Gemara's elaboration and source-tracing of the Mishnah's mumim)
  • Sifra Emor Parasha 3:9-13⁴ (Tannaitic midrash on Vayikra 21)

---

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah in Bekhorot 7:6-7 enumerates an extensive catalogue of mumim in a Kohen. It opens by establishing a foundational principle and then branches into specific categories.

Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6

"כל אלו מומין שנאמרו בבהמה, אחד קבועים ואחד עוברים, פוסלין באדם. ומוסיפין עליהם: אחד שראשו מחודד, ואחד שראשו ככובס, ואחד שראשו כפטיש, ואחד שראשו שקוע, ואחד שראשו בולט מאחוריו. ובעלי גיבנין – ר' יהודה מכשיר וחכמים פוסלין. הקרח פסול. איזהו קרח? כל שאין לו שיר מקיף מאוזן לאוזן. יש לו – כשר. אין לו גבינין, או שיש לו גבין אחד – זה הוא הגיבן האמור בתורה. ר' דוסא אומר: גבינין שלו שוכבין. ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר: מי שיש לו שתי גבות ושתי שדרות. החרם פסול. איזהו חרם? כל שצובע שתי עיניו כאחת. או ששתי עיניו למעלה, או ששתי עיניו למטה, או אחת למעלה ואחת למטה, או שרואה חדר ועלייה כאחת, או שאינו רואה את השמש, או שעיניו שונות, או שעיניו דומעות תמיד, ומי שנשרו ריסיו – פסול משום מראית העין. עיניו גדולות כשל עגל, או קטנות כשל אווז; גופו גדול לאבריו, או קטן לאבריו; חוטמו גדול לאבריו, או קטן לאבריו – פסול. והצומם והצומע פסולין. איזהו צומע? כל שאוזניו קטנות. ואיזהו צומם? כל שאוזניו דומות לספוג. שפתיו בולטות על התחתונה, או התחתונה על העליונה – הרי זה מום. ומי שנשרו שיניו – פסול משום מראית העין. שדיה שמוטות כשל אשה; כריסו נפוחה; טיבורו בולט; אפיקורוס, אפילו פעם אחת בהרבה שנים; ובעל רוח; ומי ששק אשכיו ארוך; ומי שגרמיו ארוכין – פסול. אין לו אשכים, או שיש לו אשך אחד – זה הוא מרוח אשך האמור בתורה. ר' ישמעאל אומר: כל שנמעכו אשכיו. ר' עקיבא אומר: כל שיש לו רוח באשכיו. ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר: כל שמראו חשוכים. המקיש בקרסוליו, ובארכובותיו, ובעל פיקים, והעיקל. איזהו עיקל? כל שנותן רגליו זו בצד זו ואין ארכובותיו נוגעות זו בזו. פיקה יוצאה מגודלו, או עקבו יוצא מאחוריו, או שרגליו רחבות כשל אווז – פסול. אצבעותיו זו על גב זו, או מדובקות – פסול. אם היו מדובקות מלמעלה עד הפרק – כשר. מלמטה מן הפרק וקצץ – כשר. היתה לו יתירה בידיו וברגליו וקצצה – יש בה עצם – פסול, ואין בה עצם – כשר. היתה לו יתירה בידיו וברגליו, שש ושש עשרים וארבע – ר' יהודה מכשיר וחכמים פוסלין. שלט בשתי ידיו – ר' יהודה פוסל, וחכמים מכשירין."

Mishnah Bekhorot 7:7

"הכושי, הגיחור, הלבקן, הקפח, הננס, החרש, השוטה, השכור, ובעלי סימני טהרה – פוסלין באדם וכשרין בבהמה. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: שוטה בבהמה אינו מובחר. ר' אלעזר אומר: אף בעלי הדלדולין – פוסלין באדם וכשרין בבהמה. אלו אינן פוסלין באדם ופוסלין בבהמה: שאכלו את עצמן ואת ולדותיהן, והטריפה, ויוצא דופן, והשנבעל, והמוקצה. ומי שנשא נשים בעבירה – פסול עד שידור הנאה ממנה. ומי שנטמא למתים – פסול עד שיקבל עליו שלא יטמא למתים."⁵

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

• "אחד קבועים ואחד עוברים, פוסלין באדם": This opening clause in M. 7:6 is critical. It establishes that all animal mumim, whether permanent (k'vu'im) or transient (overim), also apply to humans. The nuance of "עוברים" (transient) is significant, implying that even temporary conditions can disqualify, raising questions about l'chatchila vs. b'dieved or the need for a Kohen to be tamim at all times of service. This contrasts with some mumim in animals which must be kavu'a (permanent) to disqualify.
• "ומוסיפין עליהם": This phrase clearly indicates that the subsequent list constitutes additional mumim unique to human Kohanim, beyond those shared with animals. This highlights the heightened standard of physical perfection for the Kohen.
• "זה הוא הגיבן האמור בתורה" / "זה הוא מרוח אשך האמור בתורה": These explicit declarations identify specific conditions from the Mishnah's list as directly corresponding to terms found in Vayikra 21:20. This is crucial for distinguishing mumim de'oraita (Biblical) from mumim derabanan (Rabbinic).
• "פסול משום מראית העין": This phrase, appearing for "מי שנשרו ריסיו" (fallen eyelashes) and "מי שנשרו שיניו" (missing teeth), is a profound chiddush. It indicates that certain conditions are not inherently mumim de'oraita based on functional defect, but are Rabbinically disqualified due to their unsightly appearance. This introduces a subjective, aesthetic dimension to k'huna disqualification.
• Parallel Structure for Disputes: The Mishnah presents machlokot (disputes) between R' Yehuda and the Rabbis regarding "בעלי גיבנין" (humped backs), "יתירה בידיו וברגליו" (extra digits), and "שלט בשתי ידיו" (ambidexterity). The consistent structure "ר' יהודה מכשיר וחכמים פוסלין" (or vice-versa) underscores these as fundamental disagreements about the definition of mum – whether an anomaly, even if not debilitating, constitutes a disqualification, or whether a perceived advantage can be a mum.

---

Readings

The Mishnah's terse enumeration of mumim necessitates extensive elucidation from the Rishonim and Acharonim. We turn to Rambam and Tosafot Yom Tov, two seminal commentators, to unpack its layers.

Rambam: Systematizing the Apophthegms

The Rambam, in his commentary to the Mishnah (פירוש המשניות, בכורות ז:ו), brings his characteristic precision and systematic approach to defining the various mumim. His chiddush lies not only in his meticulous lexicography but also in his conceptual distinctions and occasional psak against the explicit Mishnah text, relying on Gemara.

Defining Ambiguity: Lower Limb Anomalies⁶

The Mishnah lists several foot and leg-related mumim: "המקיש בקרסוליו, ובארכובותיו, ובעל פיקים, והעיקל... פיקה יוצאה מגודלו, או עקבו יוצא מאחוריו, או שרגליו רחבות כשל אווז." The Rambam clarifies:

• מקיש בקרסוליו/בארכובותיו: "מקיש קרסוליו אחת בחברתה בשעת הליכתו וכן מקיש בארכבותיו" – one who knocks his ankles or knees together while walking. This defines the action as the mum.
• בעל פיקה: "בעל פיקה הוא שתהא עקבו מאחר רגליו בולטת ויצאת יותר מן הראוי" – one whose heel protrudes excessively from the back of his foot. This is a specific bone deformity.
• עיקל: "ועיקל הוא מי ששוקיו כפופין כקשת ושיעור כפיפה זו זכרנו כבר שהוא עד שהנותן רגליו זו בצד זו לא יתחברו ארכבותיו" – one whose thighs are bowed like an arch, to the extent that when his feet are placed together, his knees do not touch. The Rambam refers to an earlier discussion (likely elsewhere in Bekhorot or elsewhere in his corpus, e.g., Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:15) where this measurement is detailed, indicating his approach of cross-referencing and building a comprehensive halakhic system.
• פיקה יוצא מגודלו: "שיהא בולט מבוהן היד והרגל שום דבר או שיתעקם ג"כ" – a protuberance or deviation from the thumb of the hand or big toe of the foot. This distinguishes it from ba'al pikah (protruding heel).

Rambam's precision here is vital. Without these definitions, the Mishnah's terms would be vague, leading to uncertainty in psak. His systematic approach ensures clarity and consistency across the mumim.

The Machloket of Extra Digits: Quantity vs. Quality⁷

The Mishnah presents a famous machloket: "היתה לו יתירה בידיו וברגליו, שש ושש עשרים וארבע – ר' יהודה מכשיר וחכמים פוסלין." Rambam explains the Rabbis' position: "אפי' יהיו שש ושש בידיו ושש ושש ברגליו שלא ישתנה אבר מן הדומה לו הרי הוא מום אצל החכמים" – even if there are six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, and the extra digit does not differ from the other digits (i.e., it's a fully formed, seemingly normal digit), it is still a mum according to the Sages. This highlights the Rabbis' view that any deviation from the natural, standard human form, even if seemingly an "enhancement," constitutes a mum for a Kohen. Rambam also clarifies R' Yehuda's leniency: "ואפי' היה גם באחת באלו הד' אברים שש בלבד והנשאר חמש חמש אינו מום אצל ר"י" – even if only one of the four limbs (hands/feet) has six digits, R' Yehuda considers him fit. This shows R' Yehuda's broader leniency, focusing perhaps on functionality or a higher threshold for what constitutes a mum.

Beyond Color: The Essence of Complexion Blemishes⁸

The Mishnah lists: "הכושי, הגיחור, הלבקן." Rambam provides concise definitions: "כושי שחור: גיחור אדום. הלבקן לבן בתכלית הלובן." However, his chiddush lies in a crucial conceptual caveat: "והשמר שמא תעלה בדעתך שאלו השמות נאמרו על הגוונים לפי שאינן אלא שמות לבני אדם שיש בהן אלו הגוונים" – beware lest you think these names refer merely to colors, for they are names of people who possess these (extreme) complexions. This implies that it's not simply being black, red, or white that disqualifies, but rather being an extreme example of these, to the point of being considered a distinct "type" of person. It's the degree of deviation from the norm, not merely a color difference, that makes it a mum. This is a profound insight into the definition of mum: it's not about arbitrary classification, but about a noticeable, unusual, and perhaps jarring deviation.

The Shikur: Defining the Disqualifying Intoxication⁹

The Mishnah lists "השכור" (the drunkard) among those who "פוסלין באדם וכשרין בבהמה." Rambam clarifies the psak: "ומי שאמר שהשכור מכלל המומין המיוחדים המותרים באדם כבר זכרנו שבעלי המומים המיוחדי' באדם אינם מותרים לעבודה ולפיכך השכור אינו מותר לעבודה וזהו אמת" – the drunkard is indeed disqualified from service. This is a crucial clarification, as "מותרים באדם" in context could be misread. He then introduces a critical distinction regarding the cause of intoxication: "אבל מי שנשתכר מדברים שמבלבלין המות זולתי מיין והשכר כגון ששתה חלב הרבה או אכל דבש הנקרא בלשון ערב סיכרא"ן ובלע"ז נושקימא"י אינו נדון כדין זה רק כשהוא שתוי יין או שכר הוא מחלל עבודה" – only one intoxicated by wine or strong drink is disqualified; one confused by other substances (like excessive milk or honey) is not. This chiddush narrows the scope of the mum based on its specific etiology, grounding it in the Biblical prohibition of yayin v'shekhar for Kohanim (Vayikra 10:9).

Tosafot Yom Tov: Intertextual Harmony and Lexicographical Nuance

Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, in his Tosafot Yom Tov, meticulously analyzes the Mishnah, often engaging with Rashi, Rambam, and other Rishonim, and drawing on the Gemara for context. His chiddush often lies in reconciling divergent interpretations and providing deeper textual foundations.

Sourcing Lower Limb Blemishes: A Braita's Light¹⁰

Regarding the Mishnah's list of lower limb mumim ("המקיש בקרסוליו ובארכבובותיו ובעל פיקים והעיקל"), the Tosafot Yom Tov cites a braita (Bekhorot 44a) which sources these mumim to the phrase "או שבר רגל" (Vayikra 21:19): "דת"ר שבר רגל אין לי אלא שבר רגל מנין לרבות הקישן *)והעיקל והקילבן ת"ל או שבר רגל." This braita explicitly connects these specific physical anomalies, which might seem minor, to a broader Biblical category of "broken leg." TYT further clarifies Rashi's interpretation of these terms in the braita: "[פרש"י [הקישן היינו] המקיש והעיקל (ופיקה יוצא) [והקליבן היינו פיקה יוצאת מגודלו]." This demonstrates how the Mishnah's specific terms are understood to be encompassed within the Torah's more general language, through Rabbinic exegesis. This chiddush shows the process of derasha (exegetical derivation) from the Torah to the Mishnah's extensive list.

Structural Disagreement: Defining Ba'al Pikah vs. Pikah Yotzeit Migudlo¹¹

The Tosafot Yom Tov highlights a structural and definitional dispute between R' Ovadia MiBartenura (הר"ב) and Rambam concerning "בעל פיקים" and "פיקה יוצאה מגודלו." R' Ovadia seemingly interprets "איזהו עיקל" as clarifying ba'al pikah. TYT notes: "כתב הר"ב קא פריש עיקל ברישא כו'. וכבר כתבתי במ"ד. דזמנין דפריש הכי." However, he contrasts this with 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." According to Rambam, "פיקה יוצאה מגודלו" is a separate mum (protuberance by the thumb/toe), distinct from ba'al pikah (protruding heel), and is not a definition of ba'al pikah. This is a crucial chiddush on the Mishnah's internal logic and structure, showing how different Rishonim reconstruct the flow of the text and the definitions of its terms. TYT's engagement demonstrates the careful attention paid to the precise wording and arrangement of the Mishnah.

The Goose's Foot: Reconciling Lexical Interpretations¹²

Regarding "רגליו רחבות כשל אווז" (feet wide like a goose), the Tosafot Yom Tov delves into the meaning of "רחבות." He notes that R' Ovadia MiBartenura and Rashi interpret it as "שקלושות הן כשל אווז, ואין ארכן יתר על רחבן" – that they are thin/weak like a goose's, and their length does not exceed their width. TYT then brings the Gemara (Bekhorot 44b) which discusses the term "טרפא" (webbed/splayed feet) and Rashi's explanation of "טרפא" as "קלושה" (thin/weak). He then contrasts this with the Aruch's definition of "טרפא" as "רחבה ומשווה" (wide and flat). TYT's chiddush here is his observation and reconciliation: "ונמצינו למדין שרש"י בפירוש המשנה הרכיב שני הפירושים ביחד [*ונ"ל ליישב שז"ש ואין כו' ר"ל או אין כו']" – Rashi, in his Mishnah commentary, combined both interpretations. TYT suggests a way to reconcile Rashi's seemingly dual explanation, perhaps implying that "wide" could also mean "thin and spread out," not necessarily "thick and bulky." This intricate analysis of lashon (language) and its various interpretations across different Rishonim and lexicographical works like the Aruch, is a hallmark of TYT's commentary, demonstrating how subtle linguistic differences can lead to distinct understandings of a mum.

Defining "עד הפרק" for Attached Digits¹³

The Mishnah states concerning attached fingers or toes: "אם היו מדובקות מלמעלה עד הפרק – כשר." Tosafot Yom Tov clarifies "עד הפרק": "באיזה פרק אמרו בפרק ראשון הסמוך לכף היד. הרמב"ם בחבורו." He cites Rambam's Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:10) to specify that "the joint" refers to the first joint, the one closest to the palm of the hand or sole of the foot. This is a practical chiddush that provides a clear anatomical boundary for the halakha, essential for determining actual psak.

In sum, Rambam provides the systematic, definitional backbone for the Mishnah's mumim, often highlighting the conceptual underpinnings. Tosafot Yom Tov, on the other hand, excels in the intricate textual analysis, tracing sources, reconciling interpretations, and clarifying linguistic ambiguities, thereby enriching our understanding of the Mishnah's profound legal and conceptual landscape.

---

Friction

One of the most intriguing frictions in our Mishnah arises from the machloket between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis regarding conditions that appear to be, or could even be considered, advantageous rather than blemishing. Specifically, we find this dispute concerning "יתירה בידיו וברגליו" (extra digits) and "שלט בשתי ידיו" (ambidexterity).

The Kushya: Is an "Enhancement" a Blemish?

The Mishnah states:

1. "היתה לו יתירה בידיו וברגליו, שש ושש עשרים וארבע – ר' יהודה מכשיר וחכמים פוסלין."
2. "שלט בשתי ידיו – ר' יהודה פוסל, וחכמים מכשירין."¹⁴

The kushya is profound: How can something that appears to be an advantage or an added capability be considered a mum (blemish) that disqualifies a Kohen?

• Extra Digits: An individual with six fully formed fingers or toes (a condition known as polydactyly) might be perceived as having more rather than less. One could argue that having an extra digit could increase dexterity or stability. Why would the Rabbis deem this a disqualification? And conversely, why does Rabbi Yehuda validate it, suggesting it's not a mum?
• Ambidexterity: "שלט בשתי ידיו" (one who has control of both of his hands) describes an ambidextrous person. This is widely considered an advantage, allowing equal facility with both hands. Yet, Rabbi Yehuda deems such a Kohen pasul, while the Rabbis consider him kasher. This seems counterintuitive. Why would an enhanced capability be a mum, and why would the Rabbis be more lenient here than with extra digits?

The core tension lies in the definition of mum. Is a mum exclusively something that impairs function or appearance negatively? Or does it encompass any deviation from the norm, even if that deviation is seemingly positive or neutral? For the Kohen, who must be tamim (whole/perfect) to serve, this question cuts to the heart of what "perfection" entails.

The Terutz: Competing Conceptions of Temimut

The terutz lies in understanding the underlying conceptual frameworks of temimut (wholeness/perfection) held by Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.

The Rabbis' Conception: Temimut as Normative Conformity

For the Rabbis, the concept of temimut for a Kohen (and for korbanot) is rooted in normative conformity. Any deviation from the standard, natural human form, regardless of whether it is functionally superior or inferior, constitutes a mum.

• Extra Digits: The standard human has five fingers and five toes. An extra digit, while perhaps functionally advantageous, is a clear departure from this natural, created norm. The Kohen's body is meant to be a perfect vessel for divine service, reflecting the ideal human form. A deviation, even an "improvement," distorts this ideal. The Gemara (Bekhorot 45a) links extra digits to the verse "וכל אשר בו מום לא יקרב" (Vayikra 21:21), implying that "מום" includes anything that makes one "different" or "unique" in a way that is not the standard. The Rambam's explanation (as noted in the "Readings" section) that the Rabbis consider it a mum even if the extra digit is indistinguishable from the others, strongly supports this idea of deviation from the norm as the disqualifying factor. It's not about impairment, but about she'lo yishtaneh eiver min ha'domeh lo – that the limb should not be different from its fellows in the standard configuration.
• Ambidexterity: Here, the Rabbis validate the ambidextrous Kohen. Why is this not a deviation from the norm? The Gemara (Bekhorot 45b) explains Rabbi Yehuda's position: "רבי יהודה פוסל, מאי טעמא? דכתיב 'ותהי ימינו לובשת' (תהלים קט:יט), ואיכא דאמרי דכתיב 'ותהי ימינו לובשת' – דהא קיימא לן אין שמאל לובשת." This suggests that a Kohen's yamin (right hand) is inherently primary in service. To be "שלט בשתי ידיו" (ambidextrous) means one's dominant hand is not clearly defined, or both are equally dominant. For the Rabbis, this isn't a physical deviation from the norm, but a functional one that doesn't necessarily contradict the physical temimut of the body. The human body is naturally equipped with two hands, and using both equally is a skill, not a deformity. Therefore, it does not violate the physical ideal of the Kohen.

Rabbi Yehuda's Conception: Temimut as Functional Adequacy / Specific Deficiency

Rabbi Yehuda's approach seems to focus more on functional adequacy or specific impairments, rather than strict normative conformity, or perhaps on a different conception of what constitutes an ideal form.

• Extra Digits: Rabbi Yehuda validates a Kohen with extra digits. This implies that for him, an extra digit is not a mum as long as it does not impair the Kohen, and perhaps even if it offers an advantage. He might view it as an addition that doesn't detract from the body's integrity. The Gemara (Bekhorot 45a) suggests a drasha for R' Yehuda: "כל יתירה אינה מום, דכתיב 'וכי יגדל וימכר' (ויקרא כה:לד) – וכי יגדל אבר יתירה." This suggests that an extra limb, if fully grown, is not considered a mum. This is a significant chiddush – a mum must be a lack or a defect, not an excess.
• Ambidexterity: Rabbi Yehuda disqualifies the ambidextrous Kohen. His reasoning, as brought in the Gemara, is that the right hand holds a special status in the avodah (service) – "ותהי ימינו לובשת" (Tehillim 109:19). The Avodah requires a clear distinction of dominant hand, particularly the right. If one is ambidextrous, this clear distinction is blurred. While functionally capable, it deviates from the spiritual ideal of the Kohen whose right hand is uniquely dedicated to service. This represents a functional or spiritual mum, even if not a physical one. His psak here highlights that temimut for a Kohen isn't just about anatomical perfection, but also about the proper orientation of the body for its sacred task.

In summary, the friction reveals two distinct philosophies regarding temimut:

• Rabbis: Temimut is about normative physical conformity. Any deviation from the standard human form is a mum, even if advantageous. Functional skills like ambidexterity are not physical deviations and thus not mumim.
• R' Yehuda: Temimut is about functional integrity and the absence of defect. An excess (like an extra digit) is not a mum if it's well-formed. However, a functional deviation that impacts the spiritual ideal of service (like ambidexterity blurring the primacy of the right hand) is a mum.

This machloket provides a profound lens through which to view the concept of "blemish" in Jewish law, demonstrating that it is not a monolithic concept but is shaped by differing interpretations of ideal form and function in a sacred context.

---

Intertext

The meticulous enumeration of blemishes in Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6-7, and the nuanced discussions surrounding them, find profound resonance and parallels in other areas of Jewish law, particularly in Tanakh and the broader halakhic corpus.

Vayikra 21:17-23: The Blueprint for Temimut

The most direct intertextual parallel is the foundational passage in Parashat Emor, Vayikra 21:17-23, which lists the initial set of physical disqualifications for Kohanim. This is the de'oraita source for the concept of mumim in a Kohen.

"דַּבֵּר אֶל־אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר אִישׁ מִזַּרְעֲךָ לְדֹרֹתָם אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם לֹא יִקְרַב לְהַקְרִיב לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו׃ כִּי כָל־אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ מוּם לֹא יִקְרָב אִישׁ עִוֵּר אוֹ פִסֵּחַ אוֹ חָרֻם אוֹ שָׂרוּעַ׃ אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ שֶׁבֶר רֶגֶל אוֹ שֶׁבֶר יָד׃ אוֹ גִבֵּן אוֹ דַק אוֹ תְּבַלֻּל בְּעֵינוֹ אוֹ גָרָב אוֹ יַלֶּפֶת אוֹ מְרוֹחַ אָשֶׁךְ׃ כָּל־אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ מוּם לֹא יִקְרַב אֶל־הַפָּרֹכֶת וְאֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא יִגַּשׁ כִּי־מוּם בּוֹ חָלָל הוּא אֶת־לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו לֹא יִקְרָב׃ אַךְ אֶת־לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו מִקָּדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים וּמִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁים יֹאכֵל׃ אַךְ בְּפָרֹכֶת לֹא יָבֹא וְאֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא יִגַּשׁ כִּי־מוּם בּוֹ וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל אֶת־מִקְדָּשָׁיו כִּי אֲנִי ה' מְקַדְּשָׁם׃"¹⁵

Our Mishnah explicitly links several of its listed mumim to this passage, e.g., "זה הוא הגיבן האמור בתורה" and "זה הוא מרוח אשך האמור בתורה."¹⁶ This demonstrates the Mishnah's role in providing the mesorah (tradition) for identifying the precise meaning of these Biblical terms, which are often obscure without Rabbinic interpretation. For example, the Mishnah's discussion of gibben (humpbacked) and mero'aḥ ashekh (crushed testicles) presents multiple Tannaitic opinions, indicating the complexity of deriving clear definitions even for explicitly mentioned Biblical mumim. The Sifra, a Tannaitic midrash, further elaborates on these verses, often tracing the Mishnah's mumim to expansions of the Biblical terms through drashot (e.g., from "או שבר רגל" to include "המקיש בקרסוליו," as noted by Tosafot Yom Tov).

This intertextual link highlights that the Mishnah's extensive list is not an arbitrary expansion but a meticulous unfolding of the Torah's intention, mediated through the Oral Law. The overarching principle, "כי מום בו חלל הוא" (because a blemish is in him, he is desecrated), underscores the idea that the Kohen, as a conduit for the divine, must embody physical wholeness and purity.

Mumim in Korbanot: A Shared Principle of Perfection

A significant portion of the Mishnah (7:6) begins by stating, "כל אלו מומין שנאמרו בבהמה, אחד קבועים ואחד עוברים, פוסלין באדם."¹⁷ This immediately draws a parallel to the laws of mumim in sacrificial animals. The Torah likewise demands temimut for korbanot: "תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לָכֶם זָכָר אֵין־בּוֹ מוּם" (Vayikra 22:19). The detailed laws of animal mumim are found throughout Seder Kodshim, particularly in Masechet Bekhorot itself, and in Tractate Chulin (regarding tereifot).

The conceptual overlap is profound: both the Kohen and the korban act as intermediaries in the divine service, and both must therefore be tamim. Any physical imperfection, whether inherent or acquired, compromises their suitability for this sacred role. The Rambam, in his Mishneh Torah, dedicates extensive sections to Hilchot Isurei Mizbe'a (Laws of Altar Prohibitions) and Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash (Laws of Entering the Sanctuary), detailing the mumim for both animals and Kohanim, often drawing direct parallels. For instance, the discussion of "עיניו גדולות כשל עגל, או קטנות כשל אווז" for a Kohen¹⁸ is reminiscent of similar descriptions for animal mumim.

However, the Mishnah (7:7) also explicitly differentiates: "הכושי, הגיחור, הלבקן... פוסלין באדם וכשרין בבהמה. ... אלו אינן פוסלין באדם ופוסלין בבהמה: שאכלו את עצמן ואת ולדותיהן, והטריפה, ויוצא דופן, והשנבעל, והמוקצה."¹⁹ This differentiation is crucial. While the principle of temimut is shared, its application varies based on the nature of the intermediary. A Kohen, embodying humanity, is subject to mumim related to human appearance and conduct (like being a kushi or shikur), while animals are subject to mumim that relate to their physical integrity and ritual purity (like being a tereifa or yotzei dofan, or having specific behavioral anomalies like eating its offspring). This underscores the unique spiritual role of the Kohen as a human agent.

The concept of mum mareh (disqualification due to appearance), mentioned in our Mishnah for "מי שנשרו ריסיו" and "מי שנשרו שיניו," is a fascinating parallel. While mum mareh is also a factor in animal mumim (e.g., in Chulin 47b regarding an animal's eye), its explicit mention for Kohanim highlights the aesthetic dimension of kehuna. The Kohen must not only be functionally perfect but also present an unblemished appearance, perhaps to inspire reverence and avoid distracting the congregants during service.

In conclusion, the sugya on Kohen mumim is deeply embedded in a broader halakhic discourse about perfection and fitness for sacred roles. It serves as a bridge between the explicit Biblical demands for Kohanim and korbanot and the intricate, often Rabbinically expanded, details of their application, thereby illustrating the comprehensive nature of halakha.

---

Psak/Practice

The intricate details of Kohen mumim outlined in Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6-7, while specific to the context of Temple service, offer profound insights into the meta-psak heuristics that shape Jewish law, particularly concerning the concepts of temimut, mum, and the role of physical perfection in sacred endeavors.

The Enduring Relevance (Meta-Psak Heuristics)

While the direct psak on Kohen blemishes is not currently applicable due to the absence of the Beit HaMikdash, the underlying principles are highly relevant for understanding halakha and its interpretive mechanisms:

1. Defining Mum – More Than Just Impairment: The Mishnah, especially through the Rabbis' position on extra digits, demonstrates that a mum is not solely a functional impairment. It is often a deviation from the normative ideal form. This principle is vital in other areas of halakha, such as determining mumim for divorces (Gittin 6:7) or for animals (Bekhorot, Chulin). A condition can be an "enhancement" or neutral in function, yet still be a mum because it departs from the established norm. This sets a very high standard for anything designated as kadosh (holy).

2. The Spectrum of De'oraita vs. Derabanan: The Mishnah's explicit identification of some mumim as "האמור בתורה" and others, like "פסול משום מראית העין," as clearly Rabbinic, illustrates the dynamic interplay between Biblical and Rabbinic law. Rabbinic decrees often expand upon Torah law to safeguard its principles, or to address circumstances not explicitly covered. Mum mareh shows that the Rabbis extended the concept of blemish to include aesthetic considerations, ensuring the Kohen's appearance commanded respect and averted distractions, even if the condition wasn't a Biblical mum. This highlights the role of chazal in shaping the practical expression of kedusha.

3. Holistic Kedusha – Body and Soul: The inclusion of conditions like shikur (drunkard), shotah (imbecile), and ba'al ruach (melancholy temper) demonstrates that temimut for a Kohen is not merely physical but also encompasses mental, emotional, and behavioral integrity. A Kohen must be sound in mind and character to serve. The Rambam's nuanced discussion of shikur (disqualifying only from wine/strong drink, not other substances) further refines this, linking it to the specific spiritual prohibition of Vayikra 10:9. This underscores the holistic demand for kedusha in the Kohen.

4. Authority of Interpretation: The multiple Tannaitic opinions on the meaning of gibben or mero'aḥ ashekh, and the disputes between R' Yehuda and the Rabbis, exemplify the richness and complexity of halakha. The psak generally follows the Rabbis (halakha k'Rabanan) in disputes with R' Yehuda, leading to a stricter standard of temimut. This highlights the authority of the majority in determining halakha.

Practical Application of Principles Today

While Kohanim do not perform Temple service today, the principles gleaned from this sugya find resonance in contemporary halakha:

• Marital Halakha: The concept of mum is crucial in hilchot gittin (divorce law) and kiddushin (marriage law). A mum can invalidate a marriage if it was hidden, or lead to specific rulings regarding a get. The definitions of what constitutes a mum in these contexts often draw conceptually from the discussions in Bekhorot.
• Defining P'sul (Disqualification) in Other Contexts: The analytical framework for determining a p'sul – whether it's a lack, an excess, a deviation from the norm, or an aesthetic concern – can be applied to other areas where perfection or specific attributes are required (e.g., sifrei Torah, tefillin, mezuzot, sukka).
• The Kohen's Enduring Sanctity: Even without service, Kohanim retain aspects of their kedusha, such as prohibitions against tum'at met (corpse impurity) and marrying certain women. The Mishnah's final lines regarding marrying noshim ba'aveira and tum'at met underscore that the Kohen's sanctity is not contingent on Temple service but is an inherent status requiring specific conduct. The psak on these (e.g., the requirement to vow not to benefit from an illicit wife, or to accept not to become impure) remains directly applicable.

In essence, Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6-7 provides a masterclass in the nuanced application of halakha. It teaches us that physical perfection in a sacred context is not merely about functionality, but about normative form, aesthetic integrity, and holistic well-being, all interpreted through the lens of Rabbinic tradition to fulfill the Torah's demand for temimut.

---

Takeaway

This intricate sugya reveals that the Kohen's body, as a sacred vessel for divine service, must mirror the ideal of perfect creation, extending beyond mere functional capacity to encompass normative form, aesthetic integrity, and holistic well-being. The rigorous classification of mumim, both Biblical and Rabbinic, underscores the profound demand for temimut in those who mediate between man and God.

---

¹ Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6-7. ² Vayikra 21:17-23. ³ Bekhorot 43b-45a. ⁴ Sifra Emor Parasha 3:9-13. ⁵ Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6-7. ⁶ Rambam, Pirush HaMishnayot, Bekhorot 7:6, s.v. "המקיש בקרסוליו". ⁷ Rambam, Pirush HaMishnayot, Bekhorot 7:6, s.v. "המקיש בקרסוליו". ⁸ Rambam, Pirush HaMishnayot, Bekhorot 7:6, s.v. "הכושי והגיחור". ⁹ Rambam, Pirush HaMishnayot, Bekhorot 7:6, s.v. "הכושי והגיחור". ¹⁰ Tosafot Yom Tov, Bekhorot 7:6, s.v. "המקיש בקרסוליו". ¹¹ Tosafot Yom Tov, Bekhorot 7:6, s.v. "איזהו עיקל". ¹² Tosafot Yom Tov, Bekhorot 7:6, s.v. "רחב כשל אווז". ¹³ Tosafot Yom Tov, Bekhorot 7:6, s.v. "עד הפרק". ¹⁴ Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6. ¹⁵ Vayikra 21:17-23. ¹⁶ Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6. ¹⁷ Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6. ¹⁸ Mishnah Bekhorot 7:6. ¹⁹ Mishnah Bekhorot 7:7.