§ 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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

§ 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).

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.”

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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