1)

(a)Our Mishnah lists - knock-kneed as a blemish, together with knock-ankled.

(b)Ba'al ha'Pikin refers to a Kohen who has a piece of flesh growing out of his thumb. ha'Ikal - to one who, when he sits down with his feet together, is unable to get his knees to touch (bandy-legged).

(c)The Tana classifies a heel that protrudes backwards (in other words, the calf emerges from the middle of the foot, as Rebbi Elazar will explain) as a blemish, as well as - flat-feet, provided they are wide, like those of a goose.

(d)The Mishnah - does not however, consider fingers that overlap or that are joined from the palm up to their middle joint, a blemish ...

(e)... nor even if they are joined beyond that point - provided one cuts them (at least from the tip of the joint).

2)

(a)The Tana classifies an extra finger that one cut off as a blemish - if it had a bone ...

(b)... because it now has a limb missing, whereas if it did not, one has merely cut off a piece of excessive flesh (see also Maharsha and Tif'eres Yisrael).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah declares a B'chor with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, Kasher. The Chachamim - consider it a blemish.

(d)Rebbi invalidates one who is ambidextrous. The Chachamim - declare him Kasher.

3)

(a)From the word "O" in the Pasuk in Emor "O Shever Ragel", the Beraisa includes - knock-ankled, knock-kneed and bandy-legged among the blemishes.

(b)Another Beraisa adds Ba'al ha'Kifin ve'ha'Shufnar. Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan translates Ba'al ha'Kifin as someone with outsize ankles, and ha'Shufnar as - as someone who has no ankles at all.

(c)When our Mishnah invalidates a Kohen with flat feet like a goose, Rav Papa explains that - this speaks even if his toes are cut.

(d)And from the word "O", in the Pasuk (Ibid.) "O Shever Yad" - the Tana includes overlapping fingers, or where the fingers are stuck together beyond the middle joint, provided one did not cut them.

4)

(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan qualifies the earlier ruling classifying an extra finger with a bone that is cut off as a Blemish - by restricting it to a finger that is in line with the other fingers.

(b)The Beraisa rules that an extra finger is Metamei be'Maga be'Masa and be'Ohel - even if it does not have a fingernail attached to it.

(c)It must have some flesh on it, because even a limb is not Metamei without flesh. However, the Tana must be speaking when that flesh amounts to less than a k'Zayis - because if it amounts to more, then it will be Metamei be'Ohel, even if it is not in line with the other fingers, just like a k'Zayis Basar from any other part of a Meis.

(d)And when the Tana adds that all the limbs count in the hundred and twenty five-limbs, he means that - they count in the Rov Minyan (the majority of bones of a Meis) that renders them Metamei be'Ohel.

5)

(a)Once again, Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes this Beraisa where the finger is in line with the other fingers - because the Tana is speaking about a finger without a fingernail.

(b)Rav Chisda citing Rabeinu ha'Gadol (Rav), ruled in the same case as Rebbi Yochanan, that the finger is Metamei be'Maga and be'Masa, but not be'Ohel. This time, Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan commented that - Rav is speaking in a case where the finger is not in line with the other fingers.

(c)For the finger not to be Metamei be'Ohel - two negative points are required 1. that the finger is not in line with the other fingers; b. that it does not have a fingernail attached to it.

6)

(a)When Rebbi Chanina compared the previous ruling to words of prophesy, he meant that - just like words of prophecy, the above Amora'im issued their ruling (knowing that it will be accepted anyway) without offering any logical reason for it.

(b)The problem with it is that - Mah Nafshach, if it is a limb, then why is it not also Metamei be'Ohel?

(c)Rav Huna bar Mano'ach in the name of Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika cites the Din of Etzem ki'Se'orah (regarding the Tum'ah of Sheratzim), by which he means that - the bone of a Sheretz is a precedent for being Metamei be'Maga and be'Masa, but not be'Ohel.

(d)Rav Papa answers that the Rabbanan decreed Tum'ah on a finger that is not in line with the other fingers, on account of a finger that is - and because the Tum'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan, they deliberately did not decree Tum'as Ohel, to remind people not to burn Terumah and Kodshim which became Tamei through contact with it.

7)

(a)We learned in a Mishnah in Ohalos 'Rov Binyano ve'Rov Minyano shel Meis'. However - a quarter of a Kav of bones are Metamei, even though it is neither Rov Binyan nor Rov Minyan.

(b)We already explained Rov Minyano a little earlier. The Beraisa defines Rov Binyano - as the two calves and the two thighs ...

(c)... which the Tana defines as the majority of a man's body - minus his head.

(d)Ravina's problem is that - bearing in mind that a man comprises two hundred and forty eight limbs, we do not need a Beraisa to teach us that Rov Minyano is a hundred and twenty-five limbs.

8)

(a)Rava replies with another Beraisa. The Tana, discussing Chaser and Yeser, gives examples of someone who has two hundred limbs and two hundred and eighty-one limbs respectively. By ...

1. ... deducting two fingers from each hand and two toes from each foot (making a total of eight) we will explain the case of Chaser - since there are six bones in each finger (6x8=48).

2. ... adding one finger to each hand (and establishing the case of Yeser with regard to the limbs of a woman [see Shitah Mekubetzes]), we will explain the case - inasmuch as the four extra fingers contain twenty-four bones, plus the five extra limbs of a woman, making a total of twenty-nine limbs (248+24=277). The four limbs short of 281 remains a puzzle (see Rabeinu Gershom).

(b)In any event, Rava explains the Chidush in the previous Beraisa with this Tana's statement that one hundred and twenty-five limbs (bones) of a Meis, even one with less or more than two hundred and forty-eight - are Metamei be'Ohel ...

(c)... because Chazal (quoting Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai) gave the Shi'ur of Rov Minyan as a hundred and twenty-five, they were referring to Rov Minyan of most people, though in fact, it extends to everyone, irrespective of how many limbs they possess.

9)

(a)When the government burned a harlot at the stake - the Talmidim of Rebbi Yishmael counted her limbs ...

(b)... and discovered two hundred and fifty-two.

(c)When they questioned Rebbi Yishmael's statement that a man has two hundred and forty eight limbs on the basis of their discovery - he asked them whether they had not counted the limbs of a woman (a fact which they had clearly omitted to inform him), who has more limbs than a man.

(d)In another Beraisa, Rebbi ...

1. ... Elazar learns from the Pasuk in Shmuel (in connection with the wife of Pinchas, son of Eli ha'Kohen) "And she bent and gave birth, because her hinges overturned" that - a woman has (two) hinges.

2. ... Yehoshua learns from the Pasuk in Iyov ... "because he did not close the doors of my womb" that - she also has doors, and Rebbi ...

3. ... Akiva from the word "Vayiftach" (in the Pasuk in Vayeitzei, in connection with Rachel Imeinu "Vayiftach es Rachmah") that - the womb also has a Pesach (a Mifte'ach [a key]).

10)

(a)The Talmidim of Rebbi Yishmael found only four extra limbs on a woman, in spite of Rebbi Akiva, who lists five - because the Pesach, which is very small to begin with, melted completely in the fire.

(b)Rav learns from the word "Adam" (in the Pasuk in Chukas "Adam ki Yamus be'Ohel" that - only the limbs that are common to all of mankind are Metamei be'Ohel (but not the five limbs of a woman).

(c)We answer Abaye's query from various Pesukim, which refer to the hinges regarding a man - by establishing them by the hinges of flesh (but not to limbs) ...

(d)... since without a bone it is not considered a limb.

(e)We prove this answer to be correct - because otherwise the number two hundred and forty-eight will apply neither to men nor to women.

11)

(a)The person recorded in Shmuel as having had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot is - the P'lishti giant Golyas.

(b)Our Mishnah, in fact, uses the excessive Lashon of six and six which makes twenty-four - because that is the Lashon used there by the Navi.

(c)And the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim whether an extra finger or toe is Kasher or Pasul is - whether the Navi intends to praise Golyas (Rebbi Yehudah) or to denigrate him (the Chachamim).

(d)The Pasuk finds it necessary to write "six and six which makes twenty-four", because, had it just written ...

1. ... six and six - we might have thought that this refers to the fingers and toes of just one hand and one foot.

2. ... twenty-four - we might have thought that he had seven extra fingers and toes on one hand and foot and five on the other.

12)

(a)The Pasuk in Shmuel adds the word "Mispar" - to teach us that they were in line with the other fingers and toes (Nisperes al-Gabei ha'Yad).

(b)Rebbi Yehudah supports his ruling with an incident that took place with Rebbi Tarfon, whom he cites as having commented (when a man appeared before him with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot) that - there should be many like him in Yisrael (a proof that it is an asset.

(c)Rebbi Yossi counters that however. According to his version, Rebbi Tarfon commented that - all the Mamzerim and Nesinim should be branded with such an identification mark (so that people should avoid them, preventing Kesherim people from intermarrying with them).

(d)In our Mishnah, we cited a Machlokes between Rebbi and the Chachamim with regard to a Kohen who is ambidextrous. The basis of their Machlokes is - whether it is the result of a weak right hand (Rebbi), or a strong left one (the Chachamim).

(e)A left-handed Kohen - is unanimously Pasul.

13)

(a)Our Mishnah - invalidates a Kohen who is black (a Kushi), red or white, as it does ...

(b)... a Kohen who is a exceptionally tall or exceptionally short.

(c)The Tana Kama invalidates a Kohen who is a Chashu (Cheresh, Shoteh or Katan) or who has a Nega Tahor (such as Sapachas). If he has Tzara'as - he will be Chayav Kareis for just entering the Azarah (let alone being disqualified from performing the Avodah).

(d)He permits all of these even Lechatchilah, by an animal, whereas according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - bringing a Beheimah Shotah on the Mizbe'ach is not ideal.

(e)Rebbi Elazar adds - Ba'alei ha'Dildulin (ha'Tiltulin [a person or animal with little bits of flesh growing from him/it]) to the Tana Kama's list.

14)

(a)A Kushi is definitely black. We object to the translation of Gichor as white and Lavkan as red, based on the incident where, after a man announced that he had a Lavkani Eved for sale - they discovered that he was white.

(b)So we translate Gichor - as red and Lavkan as white.

(c)Rebbi Avahu learned from the Pasuk "ve'Anochi Hishmadti es ha'Emori Mipneihem Asher ke'Govah Arazim Gavho" that - the Torah considers tallness an asset.

(d)Rav Papa reconciles this with the Beraisa cited by Rav Z'vid, which translates the Blemish Kapach in our Mishnah as exceptionally tall - by amending the latter to lanky (tall but thin), whereas the Navi is talking about people who grow proportionately wider as they grow taller.

15)

(a)Resh Lakish advises against the marriage of ...

1. ... a lanky man to a lanky woman - because they are likely to have children who resemble a mast.

2. ... a short man to a short woman - because they are likely to have children who are midgets.

3. ... an albino man to an albino woman - because they are likely to have children who are white like chalk (Bohak is a Tahor plague).

4. ... a Kushi to a Kushis - because they are likely to have children who are as black as a burnt pot.

(b)The problem with the fact that the Mishnah includes Shikor in the current list - (which is Pasul because of Eino Shaveh be'Zar'o shel Aharon, and who does not render the Avodah Pasul), whereas a Kohen who drank wine renders the Avodah Pasul (as the Torah writes in Shemini).

(c)We then establish our Mishnah - by a Kohen who drinks other intoxicating liqueurs besides wine (for which he transgresses a La'av, but is not Chayav Misah).

(d)Rebbi Yehudah disagrees. The Beraisa rules that a Kohen who ate a fig from Ke'ilah, drank milk or mead and entered the Beis-Hamikdash - is Chayav Misah (because wine incorporates all intoxicating liqueurs), and we know that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah - because S'tam Toras Kohanim is Rebbi Yehudah.

16)

(a)Or Mishnah rules that the P'sul of ...

1. ... Oso ve'es B'no, Tereifah and Yotzei Dofen - apply to animals but not to Kohanim.

2. ... a Kohen who marries a woman who is divorced or wo is a Chalutzos - is disqualified from performing the Avodah until such time as he makes a Neder forbidding such women on himself.

3. ... a Kohen who renders himself Tamei Meis - is disqualified from performing the Avodah until he stops the practice.

(b)We reject the suggestion that Oso ve'es B'no means ...

1. ... a Kohen and his sons - because the equivalent by Beheimah is permitted too (as we learned in a Beraisa, which confines the Isur to the mother and her son).

2. ... a Kohenes and her sons - because a Kohenes is not subject to the Avodah to begin with.

(c)We conclude that the Tana is referring to a Kohen and his sons, and we reconcile it with u'Pesulin bi'Veheimah - by establishing the author of our Mishnah as Chananyah, who extends Oso ve'es B'no to a father and his sons as well.

17)

(a)We query the Beraisa 'Noder ve'Oved, Yored u'Megaresh' (meaning that as soon as has made the Neder and acted on it, we permit him to perform the Avodah) in that - there is nothing to stop the sinner from going to a Chacham and nullifying his Neder.

(b)And we neutralize that fear even according to those who hold that ...

1. ... it is not necessary to specify the Neder to the Chacham - by establishing our Mishnah by a Neder she'Hudar be'Rabim (that they force him to make in public, which cannot be annulled).

2. ... a Neder she'Hudar be'Rabim can be annulled - by establishing it by a Neder al Da'as Rabim (which binds him to the mind of the community and), which cannot be annulled.

18)

(a)In keeping with this, Ameimar ruled that - even those who hold Neder she'Hudar be'Rabim can be nullified, will agree that - Neder she'Hudar al Da'as Rabim cannot.

(b)There is however, an exception to this rule. Rav Acha forced a certain Melamed Tinokos to declare a Neder al Da'as Rabim, to the effect that he would no longer teach - because he was too stern (he hit the children excessively).

(c)Ravina nevertheless nullified it - because they could not find another Melamed like him (from which we learn that even a Neder she'Hudar al Da'as Rabim can be nullified for a D'var Mitzvah).

(d)In the case where a Kohen renders himself Tamei Meis, we do not force him to make a Neder that he will discontinue the practice, like in the case of the Kohen who marries divorcees - because, unlike the latter case, he derives no physical pleasure from his actions (where a Neder is needed to stop him from being drawn after his Yeitzer ha'Ra).