1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that all the blemishes listed above - pertain to a Kohen too, irrespective of whether they are permanent or temporary.

(b)The Tana adds Kilon, Lifton, Makvan she'Rosho Shakut and Sakifas (all of which will be explained in the Sugya) - which all involve unusual shaped heads.

(c)According to Rebbi Yehudah, a hunchback is not considered a Ba'al-Mum. The Chachamim maintain - that he is.

(d)Our Mishnah considers baldness a blemish - provided there is not a single row of hair crossing the head from ear to ear.

2)

(a)The problem with ...

1. ... Yabeles (a wart) is that - the Torah does not insert it among the Mumei Adam (see Tosfos DH 'Ha Ika Yabeles'), in which case it seems to preclude it.

2. ... Dak and Tevalul (blemishes on the eye) is that - the Torah does not insert them among the Mumei Beheimah, so it seems to preclude them too.

(b)Why do we query these and not Chutin (the gums) and a short tail (which are not written by Mumei Adam either) - because whereas the former are written explicitly by the one or the other, the latter are not written explicitly by Beheimah either (and are only learned from the Ribuy "Kol Mum Ra").

(c)And we learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Garav Yalefes" "Garav Yalefes" (one by Mumei Adam, the other, by Mumei Beheimah) that - whatever is written by one extends to the other.

(d)We ask whether the words are Mufneh (superfluous), because if they were not, we could not learn ...

1. ... Adam from Beheimah - since the latter goes on the Mizbe'ach (which the former does not).

2. ... Beheimah from Adam - because the latter is Chayav to observe the Mitzvos (which the former is not).

3)

(a)And we answer that "Garav" is superfluous, because, having inserted Yalefes, it does not need to write Garav - because if a wart is a blemish, how much more so a boil, which is disgusting ...

(b)... because it is hard like clay, sunken and makes grooves (see also Rabeinu Gershom).

(c)We ask on the fact that the Torah lists the majority of blemishes in both places - why it does not just write them all either by Adam or by Beheimah, and add "Garav" and "Yalefes" for the Gezeirah-Shavah.

(d)We dismiss the suggestion that the Torah should write all the Mumin by ...

1. ... Adam, from which we could then learn Beheimah - because then we would have thought that Kalut and Chutin (which do not apply to Adam), are only considered blemishes Lechatchilah by Beheimah, but do not disqualify the Korban.

2. ... Beheimah, from which we could then learn Adam - because then we would have thought that Giben and Charum, which do not apply to Beheimah, are only considered blemishes Lechatchilah by Adam, but do not disqualify the Avodah.

(e)The reason that ...

1. ... Kalut and Chutin do not apply to Adam is - because a. he does not have hooves, and b. all his gums have teeth.

2. ... Giben and Charum do not apply to Beheimah is - because a. they do not have eye-lashes, and b. their noses are not situated between their eyes.

4)

(a)Finally, we ask - why the Torah did not write all the blemishes by one of them together whatever is missing by the other one, plus Garav and Yalefes by both (thereby avoiding what appears to be undue repetition).

(b)And we resolve the problem by citing Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael - who states that sometimes the Torah will repeat an entire Parshah, just for the sake of one Chidush that it did not mention the first time.

5)

(a)Rava discusses why the Torah finds it necessary to repeat the Blemishin three times - by Adam (Kohen), by B'chor Beheimah and by Kodshim (see Tosfos DH 'Lamah li').

(b)Had the Torah written only one of them, we would not have known either of the others from it. We would not have been able to learn ...

1. ... Beheimah or Kodshim from Adam - who has been given many Mitzvos (and perhaps that is why a Blemish invalidates him).

2. ... Adam from Beheimah - which itself goes on the Mizbe'ach.

3. ... Kodshim from Beheimah - which is Kadosh from birth.

4. ... Adam or Beheimah from Kodshim - because of the diverse branches that become Pasul (Chata'os, Ashamos and Olos).

(c)Neither can we learn ...

1. ... B'chor Beheimah from Adam and Kodshim combined - a. because of their extensive Kedushos (Adam through the performing of many Mitzvos, and Kodshim via the many branches of Kodshim [Chata'os, Ashamos, Olkos and Shelamim]), and b. because they apply even to animals that are not Bechorim.

2. ... Kodshim from ... B'chor Beheimah and Adam - because their Kedushah comes automatically (not by virtue of a declaration [which Kodshim do not]).

3. ... Adam from B'chor Beheimah and Kodshim - because they go directly on the Mizbe'ach (whereas Adam does not).

6)

(a)Our Mishnah lists various blemishes that pertain to Adam but not to Beheimah. The source for this is - the Pasuk in Emor "Kol Ish asher bo Mum mi'Zera Aharon", implying that a Kohen who is different than other Kohanim is Pasul even if the mark that distinguishes him is not a genuine blemish.

(b)The basic difference between ...

1. ... genuine Mumin and Pesulim that derive from she'Eino Shaveh be'Zar'o shel Aharon (based on the Pasuk in Emor "Mum bo ve'Lo Yechalel ... ") is that - the former invalidate the Avodah, whereas the latter do not.

2. ... Pesulim that derive from she'Eino Shaveh be'Zar'o shel Aharon and those that are based on Mar'is ha'Ayin (which will be discussed later in the Sugya) is that - the former transgresses an Asei, which the latter do not.

7)

(a)When we explain that Kilon refers to someone whose head is shaped like the lid of a barrel, and Lifta, like the head of turnip, we mean that - the head of the former is narrow at the top and wide at the bottom, whereas by the latter, it is the other way round.

(b)What is unusual about the latter's neck is that - the top of his head protrudes from his neck at the back as well as at the front.

(c)A Makvan is a Kohen whose Oref (the back of his head) is round and narrow like a hatchet. A Beraisa describes Rosho Shakut as one whose face slopes, and Rosho Sakifas as one whose head slopes upwards until it reaches a point. People describe this as Shakil Pisa - a piece missing (which seems to be the case).

(d)Rosho Sakifas might also mean that - the back of his head protrudes upwards, conveying the impression that his head is lower than his neck (as if a piece of it had been cut off).

(e)A Beraisa adds Tzavaro Shakut ve'Shamut. Tzavaro Shakut means that his head is placed between his shoulders (as if he had no neck), and Tzavaro Shamut, that - he has an extremely long neck, causing his head to tilt backwards or forwards (as if it was dislocated).

8)

(a)Our Mishnah cites the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim regarding a hunchback. Assuming that both agree that hunchback which is caused by a bone is a blemish, they are arguing over where there is no bone - whether when all's said and done, he does look different than other Kohanim (the Chachamim), or whether that is just an extra piece of flesh (Rebbi Yehudah).

(b)Rava qualifies Kere'ach (bald) in our Mishnah - by confining it to where the Kohen has no hair at the back, only in front, but if he has hair in front too, he is not considered a Ba'al Mum, even though most of his head is hairless ...

(c)... and certainly if he has hair at the back but not at the front (which is less unsightly than where he has hair at the front, too).

(d)In the second Lashon, Rava is referring to the Seifa 've'Im Yesh lo, harei Zeh Kasher', on which he comments that - this applies only to where the Kohen has hair at the back only, but if he has hair at the front too, he is a Ba'al-Mum...

(e)... and how much more so if he has hair at the front but not at the back.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan states that Kohanim who are bald, dwarfs or whose eyes run constantly - are all Pasul ...

(b)... because they are not Shaveh be'Zar'o shel Aharon.

(c)We reject the suggestion that, based on the fact that the first two cases already appear in Mishnahs, Rebbi Yochanan is coming to teach us ...

1. ... the third case - because then why did he add the other two cases.

2. ... that they are Pasul only because of Mar'is ha'Ayin (as we would otherwise have thought) - because, seeing as the following Mishnah specifically gives the reason of Nashru Risei Einav as Mar'is ha'Ayin, it appears that if the Tana's reason for the prohibition is Mar'is ha'Ayin, then it says so. Consequently, if it does not, it means that it is not the reason.

(d)We suggest that the reason of Mar'is ha'Ayin that the Tana later presents regarding Nashru Risei Einav, pertains to all the other cases as well - incorporating all those from Ba'alei Chatoteres and onward.

(e)We reject this suggestion however - on the basis of the Mishnah on the following Amud, which lists 've'she'Nitlu Shinav', giving the reason as Mar'is ha'Ayin, so we see that the Tana mentions Mar'is ha'Ayin independently, whenever it is the reason.

10)

(a)So we conclude that Rebbi Yochanan is coming to preclude the opinion of another Beraisa, where the Tana rules that the three blemishes under discussion (bald, dwarfs or who eyes run constantly), inter alia - are forbidden because of Mar'is ha'Ayin.

(b)We assume that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah, because of another Beraisa, where he learns from the word "ha'Kohanim" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Archu b'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim") - that bald Kohanim are Kasher to serve (min ha'Torah), in which case it cannot be Pasul because of she'Eino Shaveh be'Zar'o shel Aharon (where he would transgress an Asei).

11)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah gives two definitions of the "Gibein". One of them is that the Kohen has no eyelashes; the other, that - he has only one.

(b)According to Rebbi Dosa, "Gibein" means that his eyelashes are long and actually lie on his eyes ('she'Gevinin Shochvin'). According to Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, it has nothing to do with eyelashes at all - but that the Kohen has two backs (from the word Gav [back]).

(c)The Beraisa describes "Gibein" as a lot of eyelashes (meaning that there is no space whatsoever between the hairs). From the word "O" (in the Pasuk "O Gibein"), the Tana learns that - if it has no eyelashes or only one, it is also considered a blemish.

(d)Rava therefore explains that - our Mishnah, which translates "Gibein" as hair missing, is really referring to the D'rashah from "O", and not to "Gibein" itself (which for some reason, he does not mention).

12)

(a)Rebbi Dosa ('she'Gevinin Shochvin') argues with the Tana Kama in that - he does not Darshen "O".

(b)Rav rules that if a mother miscarries a form with two backs and with two spinal cords, in the case of ...

1. ... a woman - it is not a baby (in which case, she is not Teme'ah Leidah).

2. ... an animal - it has the Din of a Nefel (a stillborn), and may not be eaten (even if one Shechts it).

(c)The problem this creates with our Mishnah is that - if a person with two backs cannot live, how can Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel consider him a Ba'al-Mum?

(d)When Rav Shimi bar Ashi asked Rav that question, Rav addressed with the words 'Shimi At!' - by which he meant 'You, Shim'i the Talmid-Chacham, does not know the answer to that question!'.

(e)To resolve the discrepancy, he established our Mishnah with regard to someone who has a crooked spinal cord, giving the impression that he has two backs, whereas he (Rav) was speaking about a person who actually has two backs.

13)

(a)When our Mishnah defines "Charum" as someone who paints his two eyes with one stroke it means that - his nose is completely sunken, so that when he applies the brush from one eye to the other, there is nothing in between to break the stroke.

(b)The Mishnah rules that a Kohen whose eyebrows have fallen out - is Pasul because of Mar'is ha'Ayin (as we discussed earlier).

(c)The Beraisa learns three things from "O Charum". It includes (among the Mumin) a shrunken nose, a nose with stopped up nostrils - and one that is so long that it droops to below him moustache.

(d)Rebbi Yossi defines "Charum" as a Kohen who paints his two eyes with one stroke (as we explained in our Mishnah). The Chachamim comment on this that - it is not necessary for the nose to be as sunken as that in order to be called Charum.