Priestly Defects and Modesty in Public

Tosafot clarifies which irregularities disqualify a priest from the Temple service, and why the demands of bodily health override scholarly modesty.

The Disparity of Rav Yehuda's Eyes

The Mishnah disqualifies a priest whose eyes are different from one another. In explaining this condition, the Gemara relates that Rav Huna pointed with his finger and said it refers to someone with one eye like ours and one like theirs, which caused Rav Yehuda to take offense. Rashi comments that Rav Yehuda was seated opposite Rav Huna and had abnormal eyes.

Tosafot notes that Rashi leaves unexplained what this physical defect was and why Rav Yehuda found the gesture so offensive. Rabbeinu Tam explains that Rav Yehuda was exceptionally tall, whereas Rav Huna was short. Consequently, Rav Yehuda's eyes were very large compared to Rav Huna's smaller eyes. By contrasting their eyes, Rav Huna illustrated having one oversized eye and one small eye.

This contrast disqualified the priest not because it constitutes a full biblical מום (blemish) that desecrates the Temple service post facto, but because he אינו שוה בזרעו של אהרן (not uniform among Aaron's descendants).

Graded Irregularities of the Eye

The Gemara cites a baraita defining eye defects, listing round eyes, extremely round eyes, lightly tearing eyes, dripping eyes, and streaming eyes. Rashi explains that each term in the baraita represents an intensifying progression of the condition.

Tosafot is troubled by this formulation: if the tanna already disqualifies the milder conditions, why must the baraita enumerate the progressively more severe ones? It is axiomatic that whatever disqualifies in a lighter state certainly disqualifies in a severe state.

Tosafot resolves that all these variations must be mentioned to teach that even the most extreme forms are not categorized as an actual biblical מום (blemish). Rather, even in their most severe manifestation, they disqualify solely because the priest אינו שוה בזרעו של אהרן (not comparable to Aaron's descendants).

ותימה כיון דתנא קילתא כ"ש חמירתא

And this is astonishing, for once it taught the lighter case, all the more so the severe case! (Tosafot on Bekhorot 44a:12:1)

Modesty and Urgent Bodily Needs

On the following amud, the Gemara cites Rabbi Abba, who taught that Torah scholars may urinate in public but may not drink water in public. Rashi explains that a scholar must conduct himself with modesty in food and drink, but he must cast off modesty to relieve himself so he does not court danger.

Tosafot questions this prohibition, noting an account in Tractate Pesachim where an Amora drank openly in public without turning his face away. Tosafot suggests that drinking during a shared meal is permissible, whereas drinking water alone draws unseemly attention to one's personal thirst.

Alternatively, Rabbeinu Tam reads the baraita as an emphatic warning directed at pious individuals. Even a scholar whose personal standard of modesty prevents him from ever drinking water in public must never delay urinating, because retaining bodily waste causes severe physical injury.

דאפילו לאותן הצנועים שלא לשתות מים בפני רבים לא ליהוי צנוע להטיל מים שמא ימתין ויסתכן

Even for those modest individuals who do not drink water in public, let him not be modest to withhold urinating, lest he delay and endanger himself. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 44b:2:1)

Tosafot demonstrates that atypical physical forms disqualify priests through a lack of familial uniformity rather than an absolute blemish, while bodily preservation strictly overrides the highest standards of modesty.

Learn Bekhorot 44 on Super Daf