1) RAV HUNA'S DESCRIPTION OF "ZAGDAN"
OPINIONS: The Mishnah (end of 43b) includes "Zagdan" in its list of the Mumim that disqualify a Kohen. When Rav Huna described what "Zagdan" means, he pointed to his eye and to the eyes of those assembled before him and said, "One is like mine, and one is like theirs." Rav Yehudah, who was one of those assembled there, became upset when he heard this.
What did Rav Huna mean when he said, "One is like mine, and one is like theirs," and why did Rav Yehudah become upset?
(a) RASHI (DH Chad) explains that Rav Huna meant that a Zagdan has "one eye like mine, and one eye like Rav Yehudah's." Rav Yehudah had strange-looking eyes, and thus, understandably, he was offended when Rav Huna singled him out in order to teach his students the laws of Mumim.
(b) RABEINU GERSHOM explains that Rav Huna meant, "One eye like mine, and one eye like those people mentioned in the Mishnah." Even though Rav Huna was not referring to Rav Yehudah or to anyone assembled there, Rav Yehudah became upset because one of his eyes was similar to the deformed eyes mentioned in the Mishnah, and Rav Huna's description labeled him as a Ba'al Mum.
(c) TOSFOS (DH Machvei) explains, like Rashi, that Rav Huna meant that a Zagdan has "one eye like mine, and one eye like Rav Yehudah's." However, Rav Yehudah's eyes were perfectly normal. Rav Huna was describing a Mum of having one small eye and one large eye; Rav Huna was small and had small eyes, and Rav Yehudah was large and had large eyes. Rav Yehudah became upset with Rav Huna for mentioning his eyes when describing a Mum, when his eyes were perfectly normal.
2) MOSHE RABEINU'S HEIGHT
QUESTION: Rav said that Moshe Rabeinu was ten Amos high. Rav Shimi bar Chiya disagreed, arguing that if Moshe was ten Amos high, he would have been a Ba'al Mum.
What was Rav Shimi bar Chiya's argument? Moshe Rabeinu was a Levi, and the only Mum which disqualifies a Levi is having a poor voice (Chulin 24a). Moshe Rabeinu's height would not have been a Mum.
ANSWER: The BRISKER RAV points out that Moshe Rabeinu served as the Kohen Gadol during the Yemei ha'Milu'im, the seven days of the consecration of the Mishkan. Consequently, any Mum which disqualifies a Kohen would have disqualified him.
3) "HIDROKAN" AND "YERAKON"
QUESTIONS: The Gemara cites a Beraisa in which Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that "Amud ha'Chozer" leads to "Hidrokan." RASHI (DH Amud) explains that "Amud" refers to feces, and thus "Amud ha'Chozer" refers to feces that had started to exit the body and then was held back. This can cause the illness of Hidrokan, which Rashi (DH Hidrokan) explains is illness of the intestines -- "Choli Me'ayim."
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says further that "Silon ha'Chozer" (urine that started to exit the body and then was held back) causes the illness of "Yerakon," a disease similar to jaundice.
(a) Rashi's explanation that Hidrokan refers to intestinal illness seems inconsistent with the Gemara in Eruvin (41b). The Gemara there teaches that there are three types of sick people who might die suddenly, even while in the midst of speaking (that is, even though they have strength): people with intestinal illness ("Choli Me'ayim"), women who have just given birth, and patients with Hidrokan. It is evident from the Gemara there that Hidrokan is not intestinal illness, since intestinal illness is mentioned there as a separate illness.
Also, Rashi in Berachos (25a, DH Hidrokan, and 62b, DH Hidrokan) writes that Hidrokan is an illness that causes the stomach to swell. Why does Rashi here write that Hidrokan is illness of the intestines ("Choli Me'ayim"), and not that it is an illness that causes the stomach to swell, as he explains in Berachos?
(b) The Gemara here implies that Hidrokan and Yerakon are two separate illnesses. However, the Gemara in Yevamos (60b) teaches that a test to determine whether a woman is a Besulah or not is to have her pass in front of the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol; if her face turns green (Morikos, from the word Yerakon) in color, then this is a sign that she is a Besulah. The Gemara there quotes Rav Nachman who says that a sign that a person is a sinner is that his face is the color of Hidrokan. It is evident from the Gemara in Yevamos that Hidrokan and Yerakon are the same color, and, therefore, presumably they refer to the same illness. Why, then, does the Gemara here imply that they are two separate conditions?
(a) The BE'ER SHEVA to Tamid (27b, DH Meivi) answers that when Rashi here writes "Choli Me'ayim," perhaps he does not mean intestinal illness, such as diarrhea, as the term usually means when used in the Gemara. Rather, Rashi means that the stomach swells. When the Gemara in Eruvin mentions "Choli Me'ayim," it refers to intestinal illness, and it refers to the stomach swelling as "Hidrokan."
(However, Rashi in Eruvin (41b, DH Hidrokan) explains that Hidrokan is an illness of the mouth, which is not consistent with his explanation in other places.)
(b) TOSFOS here (DH li'Yedei) answers that in fact Hidrokan and Yerakon are the same illness. Even though the Gemara here mentions them as two separate illnesses, they must be very similar.
However, Tosfos in Yevamos (60b, DH Siman) disagrees with Tosfos here and states that the two diseases are not similar. Rather, since a person suffering from Hidrokan also possesses some green or yellow color in his face, Rav Nachman in Yevamos compares Hidrokan to green (Yerakon). This is also the answer given by the Be'er Sheva in Tamid. (D. BLOOM)