Unifying Priestly and Animal Blemishes Through Scripture

How the Talmud reads Leviticus 21:20 through a verbal analogy to establish identical physical standards for altar service.

אֽוֹ־גִבֵּ֣ן אוֹ־דַ֔ק א֖וֹ תְּבַלֻּ֣ל בְּעֵינ֑וֹ א֤וֹ גָרָב֙ א֣וֹ יַלֶּ֔פֶת א֖וֹ מְר֥וֹחַ אָֽשֶׁךְ׃

or who is a hunchback, or a dwarf, or who has a growth in his eye, or who has a boil-scar, or scurvy, or crushed testes. (Leviticus 21:20)

Blemishes That Disqualify Priests

In Parashat Emor, the Torah details bodily defects that disqualify a priest from approaching the altar to offer sacrifices. Leviticus 21:20 lists ocular and dermatological conditions, alongside bodily deformities, that mar a priest's physical wholeness.

On the level of peshat (plain meaning), Rashi explains that the term גִבֵּן describes a person whose long eyebrow hairs hang down over his eyes. Rashbam clarifies that מְרוֹחַ אָשֶׁךְ refers to crushed testicles. According to Sforno, these defects represent conditions arising from an imbalance in essential bodily fluids.

אֽוֹ־גִבֵּ֣ן אוֹ־דַ֔ק א֖וֹ תְּבַלֻּ֣ל בְּעֵינ֑וֹ א֤וֹ גָרָב֙ א֣וֹ יַלֶּ֔פֶת א֖וֹ מְר֥וֹחַ אָֽשֶׁךְ׃

or who is a hunchback, or a dwarf, or who has a growth in his eye, or who has a boil-scar, or scurvy, or crushed testes. (Leviticus 21:20)

The Challenge of Asymmetrical Texts

The Mishnah sets down a sweeping rule: all blemishes that disqualify an animal from sacrifice also disqualify a priest from performing the Temple service. However, the Gemara immediately challenges this symmetry by examining the literal verses.

A wart (יַבֶּלֶת) appears explicitly only regarding sacrificial animals in Leviticus 22:22, never regarding human priests. Conversely, Leviticus 21:20 lists a cataract (דַּק) and a white spot in the eye (תְּבַלּוּל) exclusively for priests. Because Scripture omitted these eye blemishes when cataloging animal defects, one might deduce that they do not disqualify an animal.

וְהָאִיכָּא יַבֶּלֶת, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּאָדָם! וְתוּ: דַּק תְּבַלּוּל, דְּלָא כְּתִיבִי בִּבְהֵמָה!

But there is the blemish of a wart, which is not written in the Torah with regard to a person! And furthermore, there are a cataract and a tevallul, which are not written with regard to an animal! (Bekhorot 43a:6)

Linking Passages Through Gezeirah Shavah

The Gemara resolves the omission through a baraita that binds both passages together via a גזירה שוה (verbal analogy). Leviticus 21:20 mentions גָּרָב (a scab) and יַלֶּפֶת (scurvy) regarding priests, and Leviticus 22:22 repeats those exact terms regarding sacrificial animals.

Through this textual bridge, the Torah teaches that whatever defect is stated in one passage applies equally to the other. Human eye defects are transferred to animals, and animal warts are transferred to priests, thereby establishing complete symmetry between both categories.

מִנַּיִן לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה וְאֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גָּרָב״ ״גָּרָב״, ״יַלֶּפֶת״ ״יַלֶּפֶת״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה.

From where is it derived that one applies that which is said of this case to that case, and that which is said of this case to that case? The verse states: 'Scabbed' and 'scabbed,' 'scurvy' and 'scurvy,' to draw a verbal analogy. (Bekhorot 43a:7)

Proving the Words Are Free

A verbal analogy cannot withstand logical refutation unless the shared words are מופנה (superfluous and unencumbered). Without this status, one could argue that an animal is more stringent because it is consumed upon the altar, or that a priest is more stringent because humans bear mitzvot (commandments).

The Gemara proves that the word גָּרָב in Leviticus 21:20 is indeed superfluous. If Scripture had mentioned only the dry eruption of יַלֶּפֶת, we would have deduced through a קל וחומר (an a fortiori argument) that the repulsive, oozing sore of גָּרָב surely invalidates. Scripture stated גָּרָב exclusively to free the term for deduction.

The Rule of Repeated Passages

The Gemara asks why the Torah repeated multiple common blemishes instead of providing a single list accompanied by the verbal analogy. It answers that certain blemishes are physically unique, such as closed hooves in animals or arched eyebrows in humans.

Citing the school of Rabbi Yishmael, the Gemara concludes that Scripture restates an entire passage for the novel element introduced. In halacha, any visible, permanent blemish that disqualifies a sacrificial animal renders a priest unfit to officiate at the altar.

כׇּל פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִשְׁנֵית — לֹא נִשְׁנֵית אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ.

Every passage in the Torah that was stated and repeated was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein. (Bekhorot 43a:14)

Through a superfluous verbal analogy, the Talmud unifies priestly and animal disqualifications into a single standard of bodily wholeness.

Learn Bekhorot 43 on Super Daf