Defining Disqualifying Blemishes in Priests and Animal Offerings

How Tosafot harmonizes textual derivations, baseline defect definitions, and biological viability across priests and sacrifices.

Freeing the Analogy Between Man and Animal

The Torah records disqualifying blemishes for priests who serve in the Temple and for animals offered on the altar. To apply defects stated in one realm to the other, the Gemara employs a גזירה שוה (verbal analogy) using the words גָּרָב (scab) and יַלֶּפֶת (scurvy). For this analogy to withstand logical refutation, the words must be מופנה (free of other derivations). The Gemara demonstrates that גָּרָב is superfluous through an a fortiori deduction from יַלֶּפֶת, which Rashi notes is less repulsive than the deep-seated scab of גָּרָב.

Tosafot raises a fundamental objection: in the preceding chapter, Rava derived from גָּרָב that a split in flesh does not count as a blemish. If the word is occupied by Rava's exposition, how can the Gemara treat it as entirely free for the verbal analogy?

Tosafot resolves this by clarifying that Rava's exposition does not negate the word's availability. The verse is not established for itself to teach that a scab is an independent blemish, but only to delineate that tangential distinction regarding a split in flesh. Thus, the word remains open to anchor the analogy between humans and animals.

כיון דלפי דרשא לא מיתוקמא גרב לגופיה אלא ללמד החרום במקום בשר

Since according to the exposition, garav is not established for itself, but rather to teach regarding a split in a place of flesh. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 43a:9:1)

The Scope of Baseline Blemish Definitions

Later, Rava asks why the Torah independently specifies that blemishes disqualify in three distinct areas: a priest, sacrificial animals, and a firstborn animal. The Gemara demonstrates that all three verses are necessary because each category possesses unique stringencies that prevent one from being derived from another.

Tosafot challenges this conclusion: if these categories are entirely independent, from where do we derive the baseline definition that a disqualifying defect must be a מום שבגלוי ואינו חוזר (a visible blemish that does not heal)? That core standard was derived earlier solely regarding a firstborn animal through a כלל ופרט (general rule and specific case). How can we apply it to priests and offerings if the categories cannot derive laws from one another?

Tosafot answers by invoking the principle הואיל דגלי גלי (since it was revealed, it was revealed). While each sacred category requires an independent verse to establish that blemishes disqualify it, the fundamental definition of what constitutes a physical blemish extends to all categories once revealed in the Torah.

תימה למאי דקאמר צריכי דמשמע דלא ילפינן מהדדי מנלן באדם ובקדשים כל מום שבגלוי ואינו חוזר

This is astounding: according to what it says that 'they are all necessary,' which implies that we do not derive them from one another, from where do we derive regarding a person and regarding sacrificial animals that it must be any blemish that is visible and does not heal? (Tosafot on Bekhorot 43a:15:1)

Biological Viability and Priestly Disqualification

The Mishnah records that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus defines a גִּבֵּן (a disqualified priest) as someone possessing two backs and two spines. The Gemara immediately questions this: can such an individual live? Rav ruled that a creature miscarried with two spines is not considered a viable offspring in humans, and in an animal it is forbidden for consumption. Rashi explains that the animal fetus is forbidden as a נפל (nonviable fetus), which ritual slaughter cannot permit.

Tosafot questions Rashi's reading, noting that Niddah 24a deals with a fetus found inside a slaughtered animal rather than one that emerged alive. Furthermore, Rabbeinu Tam rejects Rashi's claim in tractate Niddah that our mishna discusses animal blemishes.

Instead, Rabbeinu Tam demonstrates that our mishna explicitly describes human priests. The Gemara's challenge was specifically raised against Rav, whose ruling presumed such a person could not survive. The Gemara reconciles this by explaining that the priest's spine is merely crooked, creating the appearance of two spines while permitting viability.

While the requirement of perfection in sacred service requires individual verses, core blemish definitions apply universally once revealed.

Learn Bekhorot 43 on Super Daf