(45a:1)ובעל הפיקים העיקל איזהו העיקל כל שהוא מקיף פרסותיו ואין ארכבותיו נוקשות זו לזו פיקה יוצא מגודלו עקיבו יוצא לאחוריו פרסותיו רחבות כשל אווז
(45a:1)and a ba’al happikim, and the ikkel. What is the ikkel? It is anyone who places his feet together and his knees do not knock into each other, i.e., he is bowlegged. A priest with a protuberance emerging alongside the thumb of his hand or the big toe of his foot, or one whose heel emerges and protrudes back from his foot, or one whose feet are wide like those of a goose are all disqualified from performing the Temple service.
(45a:2)אצבעותיו מורכבות זו על זו או קלוטות למעלה עד הפרק כשר למטה מן הפרק וחתכה כשר היתה בה יתרת וחתכה אם יש בה עצם פסול ואם לאו כשר
(45a:2)A priest whose fingers or toes are configured one upon the other, or one whose fingers or toes are attached, is likewise disqualified. But if they were attached from above the palm of the hand or the bottom of the foot only until the middle joint, he is fit. If they were attached below the joint, higher up on the finger or toe, and he cut to separate them, he is fit. In a case where there was an extra finger or toe on his hand or foot and he cut it, if that extra appendage contains a bone, the priest is disqualified even after it was cut, and if there is no bone the priest is fit.
(45a:3)יתר בידיו וברגליו שש ושש עשרים וארבע ר' יהודה מכשיר וחכמים פוסלין השולט בשתי ידיו רבי פוסל וחכמים מכשירין:
(45a:3)If there was an extra appendage on his hands and on his feet, six on each for a total of twenty-four, Rabbi Yehuda deems the priest fit and the Rabbis deem him disqualified. With regard to one who is ambidextrous and has control of both of his hands, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the priest disqualified, as his halakhic status is like that of one who is left-handed, and the Rabbis deem him fit.
(45a:4)גמ׳ ת"ר (ויקרא כא, יט) שבר רגל אין לי אלא שבר רגל מנין לרבות הקישן והעיקל והקילבן ת"ל או שבר רגל תנא בעל הקיפין והשופנר א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן בעל הפיקין שיש לו כסתות הרבה שופנר שאין לו כסתות כל עיקר:
(45a:4)GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From the verse that states: “Broken-footed” (Leviticus 21:19), I have derived only that a broken leg disqualifies a priest from performing the Temple service. From where do I derive to include that the kishan, i.e., one who knocks his ankles or his knees together; the ikkel; and the kilvan are disqualified as well? The same verse states: “Or broken-footed.” The term “or” serves to include all blemishes of the leg. It was also taught in a baraita: A ba’al hakippin and the shufnar are blemished. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A ba’al happikin is one who has large protuberances on his leg, while a shufnar is one who has no protuberances at all.
(45a:5)פיקה יוצא מגודלו ועקיבו יוצא לאחוריו: א"ר אלעזר שוקו יוצא באמצע רגלו: פרסותיו רחבות כשל אווז: אמר רב פפא לא תימא דטריפה ולא סדיקא אלא כיון דטריפה אע"ג דסדיקא:
(45a:5)The mishna teaches that one with a protuberance emerging alongside the thumb of his hand or the big toe of his foot, and one whose heel emerges and protrudes back from his foot are disqualified. Rabbi Elazar says: The description: One whose heel emerges and protrudes back from his foot, means his calf, i.e., his lower leg, emerges from the middle of his foot. The mishna also teaches that one whose feet are wide like those of a goose is disqualified. Rav Pappa says: Do not say that this is referring only to one whose feet are entirely like those of a goose, i.e., his feet are flat and his toes are not split. Rather, once one’s feet are flat he is considered blemished, even though his toes are split.
(45a:6)אצבעותיו מורכבות זו על גב זו או קלוטות: ת"ר (ויקרא כא, יט) שבר יד אין לי אלא שבר יד
(45a:6)The mishna further teaches that a priest whose fingers or toes are configured one upon the other, or whose fingers or toes are attached, is likewise disqualified from performing the Temple service. But if they were attached from the hand or foot from above the palm of the hand or the bottom of the foot until the middle joint, or if they were attached below the joint, higher up on the finger or toe, and he cut to separate them, he is fit. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Broken-handed” (Leviticus 21:19). I have derived only that a broken hand disqualifies a priest.
(45a:7)אצבעות מורכבות (למעלה) או קלוטות למעלה מן הפרק וחתכן והאמרת כשר אלא ולא חתכן מנין ת"ל או שבר יד:
(45a:7)From where do I derive that if his fingers or toes are configured one upon the other, or if they are attached from the hand or foot above the middle joint and he cut them to separate them, that he is disqualified? The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita to ask: But didn’t you say in the mishna that if he separates his fingers he is fit? Rather, the baraita is referring to a priest whose fingers or toes are attached above the middle joint and he did not cut them. From where is it derived that he is disqualified? The verse states: “Or broken-handed.”
(45a:8)היתה בו יתרת וחתכה אם יש בה עצם פסול ואם לאו כשר: אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן והוא שנספרת ע"ג היד
(45a:8)§ The mishna teaches: In a case where there was an extra finger or toe on his hand or foot and he cut it, if that extra appendage contains a bone, the priest is disqualified even after it was cut, as he is considered to be missing a limb, and if not, the priest is fit. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And this is the halakha only in a case where it can be counted along the back of the hand or foot, i.e., the extra digit is situated in a row with his other fingers or toes. Only in such a situation is an additional appendage considered a distinct limb to the extent that if it contains a bone he is disqualified even after it has been cut away.
(45a:9)ת"ר יתירה שיש בה עצם ואין בה צפורן מטמא במגע ובמשא ומטמא באהל ועולה למנין קכ"ה אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן ובנספרת על גב היד
(45a:9)With regard to extra appendages the Sages taught: In the case of an extra appendage that was cut from a corpse, which contains a bone, then even if it does not have a nail it imparts ritual impurity both through contact and by carrying it, and it imparts impurity in a tent, as is the halakha with regard to the limb of a corpse. And if the extra appendage has no flesh surrounding the bone and therefore does not impart the impurity of a limb from a corpse, it is included in the count of 125 bones, which constitute a majority of the number of bones in a human being. A majority of bones imparts impurity in a tent, even if there is no flesh on any of them. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And it is considered a limb only when it can be counted along the back of the hand or foot.
(45a:10)אמר רב חסדא דבר זה רבינו הגדול אמרו המקום יהיה בעזרו יתרת שיש בה עצם ואין בה צפורן מטמא במגע ובמשא ואין מטמא באהל אמר רבב"ח א"ר יוחנן ובשאינה נספרת על גב היד
(45a:10)Rav Ḥisda says: This matter was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. An extra appendage that contains a bone and does not have a nail imparts ritual impurity through contact and by carrying, but it does not impart impurity in a tent. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And it does not impart impurity in a tent only when it is not counted along the back of the hand or foot.
(45a:11)א"ר יוחנן עשו דבריהם כדברי נביאות מה נפשך אי אבר הוא באהל נמי תטמא ואי לאו אבר הוא במגע ובמשא נמי לא ליטמי
(45a:11)Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Sages rendered their statements in this case like statements of prophecy, i.e., there is no rationale for this halakha, as whichever way you look at it there is a difficulty: If a digit that is not counted with the other digits is considered a limb, it should impart impurity in a tent as well; and if it is not a limb, it also should not impart impurity through contact or by carrying.
(45a:12)אמר רב הונא בר מנוח משמיה דרב אחא בריה דרב איקא משום עצם כשעורה נגעו בה
(45a:12)Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ said in the name of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika: This appendage imparts impurity through contact and by carrying because the Sages touched upon it, i.e., issued a ruling concerning it, and determined that the halakhot of a bone the volume of a barley grain apply to it, i.e., it is considered a bone fragment and not a limb. Accordingly, it does not impart impurity in a tent.
(45a:13)רב פפא אמר גזירה שאינה נספרת אטו נספרת אי הכי שאינה נספרת באהל נמי תטמא
(45a:13)Rav Pappa said: It is a rabbinic decree that an appendage that is not counted with the other digits imparts impurity through contact and carrying, due to a case where the appendage is counted with the other digits, in which case it is considered a limb and imparts impurity in a tent. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, then an appendage that is not counted should impart impurity in a tent as well.
(45a:14)עבדו רבנן היכירא כי היכי דלא לישרפו עלייהו תרומה וקדשים
(45a:14)The Gemara explains: The Sages implemented a distinction by decreeing this appendage imparts impurity only through contact and carrying, in order that people will know that this impurity applies by rabbinic law and not by Torah law. And therefore they will not come to burn teruma, i.e., the portion of produce designated for the priest, or consecrated items that have been rendered impure on account of this type of impurity, as by Torah law they are ritually pure and may not be burned.
(45a:15)תנן התם רוב בנינו ורוב מנינו של מת אע"פ שאין בו רובע טמאין ת"ר איזהו רוב בנינו שני שוקיים וירך אחד הואיל ורוב גובהו בגדול איזהו רוב מנינו קכ"ה
(45a:15)§ With regard to impurity imparted by extra appendages, we learned in a mishna there (Oholot 2:1): A majority of the skeletal structure or a majority of the number of bones in the corpse of a dead person, even when there is not a quarter of a kav of bones among them, are impure. Concerning the ruling of this mishna, the Sages taught in a baraita: What is considered a majority of the skeletal structure of a corpse? It is two calves and one thigh, since this constitutes a majority of the height of an adult. What is considered a majority of the number of bones? One hundred and twenty-five bones.
(45a:16)א"ל רבינא לרבא תנא מניינא אתא לאשמועינן קמ"ל כדתניא חסר שאין בו אלא מאתים ויתר שיש בו מאתים ושמונים וא' כולן עולין למנין קכ"ה זיל בתר רובא דאינשי
(45a:16)Ravina said to Rava: Is the tanna coming to teach us a number? It is obvious that as there are 248 bones in the human body, 125 of them constitute a majority. Rava responded: The tanna teaches us that the halakha is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a corpse that lacks some bones and has only 200 bones, or one that has extra and has 281 bones, all of them are included in the count of 125. In other words, whether the number of 125 is in a majority or minority of that particular corpse, this number of bones imparts impurity, as one follows the majority of people, and most people have 248 bones.
(45a:17)א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל מעשה בתלמידיו של ר' ישמעאל ששלקו זונה אחת שנתחייבה שריפה למלך בדקו ומצאו בה מאתים וחמשים ושנים אמר להם שמא באשה בדקתם שהוסיף לה הכתוב שני צירים ושני דלתות
(45a:17)With regard to the number of limbs or bones in the human body, Rabbi Yehuda says that Shmuel says: There was an incident involving the students of Rabbi Yishmael, who boiled the corpse of a prostitute who was sentenced by the king to death by burning, in order to separate her flesh from her bones. They examined and found she had 252 limbs. They were puzzled by their finding, as the Sages say that the human body has only 248 limbs. Shmuel said to them: Perhaps you examined the corpse of a woman, as the verse added to her two hinges and two doors, for a total of 252 limbs.
(45a:18)תניא רבי אלעזר אומר כשם שצירים לבית כך צירים לאשה שנאמר (שמואל א ד, יט) ותכרע ותלד כי נהפכו עליה ציריה רבי יהושע אומר כשם שדלתות לבית כך דלתות לאשה שנאמר (איוב ג, י) כי לא סגר דלתי בטני
(45a:18)It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: Just as a house has hinges [tzirim], so too, a woman has hinges, as it is stated: “And she bowed herself and brought forth, for her pains [tzireha] came suddenly upon her” (I Samuel 4:19). Rabbi Yehoshua says: Just as a house has doors, so too, a woman has doors, as it is stated: “Because it did not shut the doors of my womb” (Job 3:10).
(45a:19)רבי עקיבא אומר כשם שמפתח לבית כך מפתח לאשה שנאמר (בראשית ל, כב) ויפתח את רחמה לרבי עקיבא קשיא דתלמידי רבי ישמעאל דלמא איידי דזוטרא אתמוחי מתמח
(45a:19)Rabbi Akiva says: Just as there is a key to a house, so too, there is a key to a woman, as it is stated: “And He opened her womb” (Genesis 30:22). The Gemara challenges: The incident involving the students of Rabbi Yishmael, who found that the woman had only four additional limbs rather than five, i.e., there was no key, poses a difficulty for Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara responds: Perhaps since it is small, it dissolved in the water when they boiled the corpse.
(45a:20)אמר רב וכולן אין מטמאין באהל שנאמר (במדבר יט, יד) זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל דבר השוה לכל אדם
(45a:20)Rav says: And all of them, i.e., all the limbs found only in a woman, do not impart impurity in a tent, as it is stated: “This is the law: When a person dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14), indicating that only an item that is equal for all people, male and female, imparts impurity in a tent.
(45a:21)אמר ליה אביי ובאיש ליכא והכתיב (ישעיהו כא, ג) צירים אחזוני כצירי יולדה צירי בשר והכתיב (דניאל י, טז) אדני במראה נהפכו צירי הכא נמי צירי בשר הכי נמי מסתברא דאי לא תימא הכי מאתים וארבעים ושמנה היכי משכחת לה לא באיש ולא באשה:
(45a:21)Abaye said to him: And are there no hinges in a man? But isn’t it written: “Pangs [tzirim] have taken hold upon me, as the pangs of a woman in travail” (Isaiah 21:3)? The Gemara responds: The verse is referring specifically to hinges of flesh, which are not considered limbs, as they contain no bones. The Gemara persists: But isn’t it written: “My lord, by reason of the vision my pains [tzirai] come” (Daniel 10:16)? The Gemara responds: Here too, the verse is referring to hinges of flesh. The Gemara notes: So too, it is reasonable that the hinges of a male are only of flesh, as if you do not say so, then as far as the 248 limbs that the Sages stated constitute a human body, how can you find them? Neither in a man nor in a woman.
(45b:1)יתר בידיו וברגליו: אמר ר' יצחק ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו (שמואל ב כא, טו) ותהי עוד מלחמה וכתי' (שמואל ב כא, כ) ויהי איש מדון אצבע ידיו ואצבע רגליו שש ושש מר סבר בגנותיה משתעי ומר סבר בשבחיה משתעי
(45b:1)§ The mishna teaches that if one has an extra appendage on his hands and on his feet, six on each for a total of twenty-four, Rabbi Yehuda deems him fit while the Rabbis disqualify him. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: And both derived their opinions from one verse, as it is stated with regard to David’s war against the Philistines: “And there was again war at Gath” (II Samuel 21:20), and it is also written in that same verse: “And there was a champion, who had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, twenty-four in number.” One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that the verse speaks of negative qualities of the champion, and therefore it may be derived from here that extra appendages are blemishes; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the verse speaks in his praise, which means that extra appendages are not blemishes at all.
(45b:2)אמר רבה מה לי דכתיב שש ושש עשרים וארבע מספר צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא שש ושש הוה אמינא שית דידיה ושית דכרעיה כתב עשרים וארבע ואי כתב עשרים וארבע הוה אמינא הוא חמש מהאי גיסא ושבע מהאי גיסא כתב שש ושש מספר בנספרת ע"ג היד
(45b:2)With regard to that verse, Rabba says: Why do I need that which is written in the verse: “On every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, twenty-four in number”? Isn’t it obvious that one who has six appendages on each limb will have twenty-four in total? Rabba explains: All of these details are necessary, as, had the Merciful One written only six and six, I would say there were six of his hand and six of his foot, i.e., he had only twelve appendages. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “twenty-four.” And had the Merciful One written only “twenty-four,” I would say he had five fingers on this side and seven fingers on that side. Therefore, the verse wrote six and six. The verse concludes with the term “in number” to indicate that these fingers were counted in a single row on the back of the hand.
(45b:3)תניא א"ר יהודה מעשה באדם אחד שבא לפני רבי טרפון יתר בידיו וברגליו שש ושש עשרים וארבע אמר לו כמותך ירבה בישראל אמר לו ר' יוסי משם ראיה כך אמר לו כמותך יתמעטו ממזירי ונתיני מישראל:
(45b:3)With regard to the dispute concerning whether or not extra appendages are a blemish, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: There was an incident involving one man who came before Rabbi Tarfon, and he had extra appendages on his hands and on his feet, six and six, for a total of twenty-four appendages. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: There should increase among the Jewish people those that are like you, i.e., strong men. Clearly, extra appendages are not a blemish but a praiseworthy condition. Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Yehuda: You seek to bring a proof from there? This is what Rabbi Tarfon actually said to him: All mamzerim and Gibeonites should be like you, i.e., physically weak, so that they should decrease from the Jewish people.
(45b:4)השולט בשתי ידיו: ת"ר איטר בין ביד בין ברגל פסול השולט בשתי ידיו רבי פוסל וחכמים מכשירין מר סבר כחישותא אתחלא בימין ומר סבר בריותא אתחלא בשמאל:
(45b:4)§ The mishna teaches that in the case of a priest who has control of both of his hands, i.e., he is ambidextrous, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him disqualified and the Rabbis deem him fit. With regard to this dispute the Sages taught in a baraita: One whose left side is dominant, whether his left hand or his left foot, is disqualified from performing the Temple service. Furthermore, in the case of one who has control of both of his hands, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him disqualified and the Rabbis deem him fit. The Gemara explains this dispute: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that he learned to control his left hand because a weakness began in his right hand. He is therefore disqualified, as his right hand is weak. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that a strength began in his left hand that allowed him to control both hands. Nevertheless, his right hand remains strong.
(45b:5)מתני׳ הכושי הגיחור והלבקן והקפח והננס והחרש והשוטה והשיכור ובעלי נגעים טהורים פסולין באדם וכשרים בבהמה רשב"ג אומר שוטה מן הבהמה אינה מן המובחר רבי אלעזר אומר אף בעלי הדלדולין פסולין באדם וכשרין בבהמה:
(45b:5)MISHNA: Concerning the kushi, the giḥor, the lavkan, the kipe’aḥ, the dwarf, the deaf-mute, the imbecile, the drunk, and those with ritually pure marks, their conditions disqualify a person from performing the Temple service and are valid, i.e., they do not disqualify with regard to being sacrificed, in the case of an animal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: An imbecile among animals is not optimal for sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar says: Even with regard to those with flesh or skin that hangs from their body, that blemish disqualifies in the case of a person and is valid in the case of an animal.
(45b:6)GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a kushi, a giḥor, and a lavkan are disqualified. The Gemara explains: A kushi is one whose skin is extremely black, a giḥor is one whose skin is extremely white, and a lavkan is one whose skin is extremely red. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But there was a certain person who said to others: Who wants a lukiyani lamb, and the lamb was found to be white. Rather, a kushi is one whose skin is extremely black; a giḥor is one whose skin is extremely red, as people say about one whose skin is extremely red: Giḥia red; and a lavkan is one whose skin is extremely white, as in the case of that person who said: Who wants a lukiyani, and it was found to be white.
(45b:7)קפח: תני רב זביד גבוה איני והתני ר' אבהו מנין שהקב"ה משתבח בבעלי קומה שנאמר (עמוס ב, ט) ואנכי השמדתי את האמורי מפניהם אשר כגובה ארזים גבהו אמר רב פפא באריכא שמיטה סניא
(45b:7)§ The mishna teaches that a kipe’aḥ is disqualified. Rav Zevid taught that this is referring to one who is extremely tall. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that one who is tall is considered blemished? But didn’t Rabbi Abbahu teach: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is praised through His destruction of those of stature? As it is stated: “Yet I destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars” (Amos 2:9). Rav Pappa said in response: The mishna is not referring to one who is tall and has a healthy build, but to one who is long, emaciated, and ugly.
(45b:8)אמר ר"ל גבוה לא ישא גבוהית שמא יצא מהן תורן ננס לא ישא ננסת שמא יצא מהם אצבעי לבן לא ישא לבנה שמא יצא מהם בוהק שחור לא ישא שחורה שמא יצא מהן טפוח:
(45b:8)Reish Lakish says: A man who is tall should not marry a woman who is also tall, lest there emerge from them a child who is extremely tall. Similarly, a man who is a dwarf should not marry a woman who is also a dwarf, lest there emerge from them a child who is exceptionally short. A man whose skin is pale should not marry a woman whose skin is also pale, lest there emerge from them a child who is extremely pale. Likewise, a man whose skin is dark should not marry a woman whose skin is also dark, lest there emerge from them a child who is extremely dark.
(45b:9)החרש השוטה והשכור: שכור מחיל עבודה בהדי מומי דמחילי עבודה בעי למיחשב
(45b:9)§ The mishna teaches that the deaf-mute, the imbecile, and the drunk are disqualified. The Gemara challenges: Since one who is drunk profanes the Temple service, the blemish of drunkenness should have been counted in the previous chapter together with those who have blemishes that profane the service. By contrast, those listed in this mishna are disqualified only because they are not equal among the seed of Aaron, and the halakha is that rites performed by priests with such blemishes are not profaned after the fact (see 43b).
(45b:10)בשאר דברים המשכרים ודלא כר' יהודה דתניא אכל דבילה קעילית ושתה חלב או דבש נכנס למקדש חייב:
(45b:10)The Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where one became drunk through other intoxicating agents, not through wine. In such a case, the rites are not profaned. And this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that even in such a case the rites are profaned, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that a priest who ate pressed figs from Ke’ila or drank milk or honey, thereby becoming intoxicated, and entered the Sanctuary to serve, is liable to receive lashes. This is because he transgressed the prohibition: “Drink no wine nor strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 10:9). He understands that “strong drink” means any intoxicating agent. The verse indicates that one who performs the Temple service while drunk profanes the service, as it states immediately afterward: “And that you may put difference between the holy and the common.”
(45b:11)מתני׳ אלו כשרין באדם ופסולין בבהמה אותו ואת בנו טריפה ויוצא דופן ושנעבדה בהן עבירה ושהמית את האדם
(45b:11)MISHNA: These flaws do not disqualify a person from performing the Temple service, but they do disqualify an animal from being sacrificed: An animal whose mother or offspring were slaughtered that day, as slaughtering it would violate the prohibition against slaughtering the animal itself and its offspring on the same day; a tereifa; one born by caesarean section; one with which a transgression of bestiality was performed; and one that killed a person.
(45b:12)והנושא נשים בעבירה פסול עד שידירנה הנאה והמטמא למתים פסול עד שיקבל עליו שלא יהא מטמא למתים:
(45b:12)And a priest who marries women by a transgression, e.g., a divorcée or a woman who underwent ḥalitza, is disqualified from performing the Temple service until he vows not to derive benefit from her. The vow ensures that he will divorce her promptly. And a priest who becomes impure through exposure to corpses is disqualified from performing the Temple service until he accepts upon himself a commitment that he will no longer become impure through exposure to corpses.
(45b:13)גמ׳ ואלו כשירין באדם מאי באותו ואת בנו
(45b:13)GEMARA: The mishna teaches about these flaws that do not disqualify a person from performing the Temple service but do disqualify an animal from being sacrificed, one of which is: Itself and its offspring. The Gemara asks: To what possible case involving people is the mishna referring when it differentiates between people and animals with regard to the flaw of: Itself and its offspring?
(45b:14)אילימא אהרן ובניו דכותיה תייש ובנו מי נהיג והתניא אותו ואת בנו נוהג בנקבות ואינו נוהג בזכרים אלא תיישה ובנה דכוותה הכא כהנת ובנה כהנת בת עבודה היא
(45b:14)If we say this is referring to Aaron and his sons, and it means that they may serve in the Temple on the same day, then in the corresponding situation the mishna must be referring to a male goat and its offspring. And does such a prohibition apply? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day applies to female animals, i.e., a mother and its offspring, but it does not apply to males, i.e., a father and its offspring. Rather, the mishna is referring to a female goat and its offspring, that they may not be slaughtered on the same day. If so, in the corresponding situation here, with regard to the priesthood, the mishna must be referring to a female priest and her son. But is a female priest fit for performing the Temple service at all? Clearly not.
(45b:15)לעולם אהרן ובניו דכוותה הכא תייש ובנו אמרי במערבא משמיה דר' יוסי בר אבין עדא אמרה חנניה היא דתניא אותו ואת בנו נוהג בנקבות ואינו נוהג בזכרים חנניה אומר נוהג בזכרים ובנקבות:
(45b:15)The Gemara explains: Actually, the mishna is referring to Aaron and his sons, and in the corresponding situation here, it is referring to a male goat and its offspring. And as for the difficulty that the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, applies only to the mother, they said in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: That is to say, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, as it is taught in a baraita: The prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day applies to female animals but it does not apply to male animals. Ḥananya says: It applies to both male and female animals.
(45b:16)והנושא נשים כו': תנא נודר ועובד יורד ומגרש
(45b:16)§ The mishna teaches that a priest who marries women by a transgression is disqualified from performing the Temple service until he vows not to derive benefit from her. It is taught in a baraita: If a priest was performing a sacrificial rite and it was discovered that he married a woman who was forbidden to him, he does not stop performing the rite. Rather, he vows not to derive benefit from her and then continues to perform the rite. Once he has finished, he descends from the altar and divorces his wife.
(45b:17)וליחוש דלמא אזיל לגבי חכם ושרי ליה קסבר צריך לפרט את הנדר
(45b:17)The Gemara asks: How can he be permitted to perform the Temple service before actually divorcing his wife? But let us be concerned that perhaps he will go before a Sage who will dissolve his vow. The Gemara responds: The tanna holds that when one seeks to dissolve a vow, he must delineate the conditions of the vow to the Sage. Accordingly, when the Sage hears that he uttered this vow because he married a woman who was forbidden to him, the Sage will not dissolve it.
(45b:18)הניחא למ"ד צריך לפרט את הנדר אלא למ"ד אין צריך לפרט את הנדר מאי איכא למימר דמדרינן ליה ברבים
(45b:18)The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says one must delineate the conditions of the vow. But according to the one who says he does not need to delineate the conditions of the vow, what can be said? The Gemara responds that we administer the vow to the priest in public. Such a vow cannot be dissolved.
(45b:19)הניחא למ"ד נדר שהודר ברבים אין לו הפרה אלא למ"ד יש לו הפרה מאי איכא למימר דמדרינן
(45b:19)The Gemara persists: This works out well according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has no option of nullification by a halakhic authority, but according to the one who says it has the option of nullification, what can be said? The Gemara responds that we administer the vow
