The new Mishnah, the seventh chapter, now shifts its focus from blemishes in animals, whether a sacrificial offering or a firstborn animal, to blemishes in priests. What are the specific blemishes that disqualify a priest from serving? The Mishnah states that certain blemishes, whether permanent or temporary, disqualify a person. As long as these blemishes are present, the priest is disqualified from service. The Mishnah then lists additional blemishes that are more specific to humans than to animals: the Kilon, the Laftan, the Makban, the Shirosho Shakut, and the Uskifat. Rashi explains that the Gemara will elaborate on the nature of these specific blemishes.
The Gemara continues, discussing those with "baalei hatarot," referring to a type of hunchback. There is a disagreement: Rabbi Yehudah declares them fit, while the Sages disqualify them. Commentaries explain that a "hunchback" here refers to a slight protrusion on the back, resembling that of a camel. Another disqualifying blemish is a "kideyah," which means baldness. What constitutes a "kideyah"? The Mishnah clarifies: "Any person who does not have a single line of hair extending from ear to ear." If even one strand of hair connects from ear to ear, he is considered fit; otherwise, he is a "kideyah" and disqualified.
The Gemara then asks: Why does the Mishnah state that all the blemishes that disqualify an animal also disqualify a person? The Torah lists specific blemishes for animals and specific blemishes for humans. How do we know that these categories are interchangeable? For example, the blemish of "yabelit" is mentioned only in relation to animals, not humans. Why then would it apply to humans? Conversely, other blemishes, such as "tabelul" (various eye spots or tearing), are listed as disqualifying for humans but not explicitly for animals. How do we know that these human-specific blemishes also apply to animals? How can we interchange the disqualifications between humans and animals?
The Gemara answers that we derive this through a principle called Gezerah Shavah. There are two blemishes, "garav" and "yalepet," that are explicitly mentioned in the Torah as disqualifying for both humans and animals. Since these two blemishes are common to both, we can make a Gezerah Shavah, an inferential link, to conclude that all blemishes mentioned for animals also apply to humans, and vice versa. The Gemara clarifies that this Gezerah Shavah is effective because the words "garav" and "yalepet" are considered "mufneh," meaning they are superfluous in the text and not needed for any other derivation. If they were not superfluous, one could argue that humans and animals are fundamentally different and cannot be compared. For example, an animal offered on the altar might be subject to stricter rules than a priest who does not go on the altar. Conversely, a priest, who is bound by many mitzvot, might be subject to stricter rules than an animal. However, because the words are "mufneh," the Gezerah Shavah holds, even if there might otherwise be questions about the comparison.
The Gemara further refines this point. It asks why the Torah needed to mention both "garav" and "yalepet." If "yalepet," a non-disgusting skin boil, is a blemish, then "garav," a disgusting, pus-filled boil, would surely be a blemish by an "a fortiori" argument. Thus, the mention of "garav" is superfluous. This superfluity allows for the Gezerah Shavah, linking the blemishes of humans and animals.
The Gemara then poses another question: Why did the Torah not simply list all blemishes in one place, either for humans or for animals, and then use the Gezerah Shavah to link them? Why did it split the list of blemishes between humans and animals, and then use "garav" and "yalepet" to connect them? The Gemara explains that this is necessary because there are certain blemishes specific to animals that do not apply to humans, such as "kalut" (closed hooves, like a donkey) or "khutin" (torn gums). If all blemishes were listed only for humans, we would not know about these animal-specific disqualifications. Conversely, there are blemishes specific to humans that do not apply to animals, such as "gibben" (long eyebrows) or "harum" (a flattened nose). If all blemishes were listed only for animals, we would not know about these human-specific disqualifications. Therefore, the Torah had to list the unique blemishes for each category and then use the common ones ("garav" and "yalepet") to link the shared ones.
The Gemara offers another explanation based on the principle of "chidush," novelty. When the Torah repeats a law, it is justified if the repetition contains a new element. The Torah lists blemishes for humans, adding some that are specific to humans, and then lists blemishes for animals, adding some that are specific to animals. Since each list contains new, category-specific blemishes, the repetition of general blemishes in both lists is justified. Thus, the general blemishes apply to both, while the exclusive ones apply only to their respective categories.
The Gemara then notes that the Torah discusses blemishes in three contexts: a priest with a blemish, a sacrificial offering with a blemish, and a firstborn animal with a blemish. It asks why the Torah needed to write about blemishes in all three places. Why couldn't one be derived from another? If the Torah had only written about a blemish in a priest, one might think that disqualification applies only to a priest due to his many mitzvot, but not to a sacrificial offering. Similarly, a priest cannot be derived from a firstborn animal, because a firstborn animal goes on the altar, which might imply stricter rules. A sacrificial offering cannot be derived from a firstborn animal either, because a firstborn animal is born inherently holy, whereas a regular offering must be sanctified later. Conversely, a firstborn animal cannot be derived from a sacrificial offering, as there are many types of offerings, suggesting a broader application of blemishes, which might not extend to the singular category of a firstborn. Thus, the Gemara concludes that each case has unique stringencies or leniencies, necessitating the separate mention of blemishes for all three.
The Gemara then returns to the specific blemishes mentioned in the Mishnah for priests: Kilon, Laftan, Makban, Shirosho Shakut, and Uskifat. These are described as awkward or abnormal head shapes that disqualify a priest. The Gemara asks: How do we know about these blemishes? The Torah does not explicitly list them. Rabbi Hanan, quoting Rabbi Kila, explains that the Torah states that a priest must be "of the seed of Aaron." This implies that a priest must resemble other people from the lineage of Aaron. If his head shape is significantly different from the norm, even if not explicitly listed as a blemish in the Torah, he is disqualified because he does not look like the "seed of Aaron."
The Gemara then distinguishes between two types of blemishes: those explicitly listed in the Torah ("real blemishes") and those that disqualify because the priest does not resemble the "seed of Aaron." Is there a practical halachic difference between them? The Gemara affirms that there is: If a priest with an explicitly listed Torah blemish performs service, his service is profaned and nullified. However, if a priest with a blemish that merely makes him "different from the seed of Aaron" performs service, while he should not have served, his service is not nullified. The Gemara then introduces a third category of blemishes: "mar'it ayin" blemishes, which are not actual blemishes but merely appear to be so. What is the halachic difference between a "mar'it ayin" blemish and one that makes a priest "different from the seed of Aaron"? The Gemara explains that if a priest serves with a "mar'it ayin" blemish, he has not violated a positive commandment, as it is a rabbinic prohibition. But if he serves when he is "different from the seed of Aaron," he has transgressed a positive commandment.
The Gemara then details the specific head shapes that disqualify a priest: A Kilon is a head that is narrow on top and wide at the bottom, resembling a barrel cover. A Laftan is the opposite: wide on top and narrow at the bottom, like a turnip. Additionally, for a Laftan, the neck appears to be in the middle of the head, protruding both front and back, unlike a normal person whose head extends forward from the neck. A Makban is a head shaped like an axe, narrow from front to back, with a round neck. A Shirosho Shakut refers to someone whose head is "missing" in the back, not extending fully downwards. An Uskifat is a person with no neck, whose head rests directly on his shoulders, or, alternatively, someone with a very long neck, making his head appear detached from his body.
Regarding "baalei hatarot" (hunchbacks): Rabbi Yehudah permits them, while the Sages disqualify them. The Gemara clarifies that if the hunchback contains a bone, all agree he is disqualified because he does not resemble the normal "seed of Aaron." The dispute arises when there is no bone, only a fleshy protrusion. Rabbi Yehudah considers this akin to being fat, not a disqualifying difference, while the Sages deem it a disqualifying deviation from the norm.
Regarding "kideyah" (baldness): The Mishnah states that one is disqualified if he lacks a single line of hair from ear to ear. The Gemara clarifies that this refers to lacking hair in the back of the head, connecting from ear to ear. If he has hair in the back that connects, even if he is bald in the front, he is fit. The "main beauty" of hair is considered to be in the back. The Gemara outlines different levels of baldness, distinguishing between complete baldness (disqualified), baldness with some hair in the front (disqualified), baldness in the middle with hair in the front and back (fit, as long as the back hair connects), and hair only in the back (fit). Another opinion, attributed to Rav, states that if one has hair only in the back or only in the front, he is disqualified. According to this view, only if he has hair all around his head, even if bald in the middle, is he considered fit, as long as the hair in the back connects from ear to ear. The overarching principle is what is considered "nicer" for a priest to serve.
Rabbi Yohanan states that "karhanim" (bald individuals), "nannasim" (midgets), and "zableganin" (those who constantly tear or cry) are disqualified because they do not resemble the normal "seed of Aaron." The Gemara notes that the disqualification of "karhanim" (baldness) and "nannasim" (midgets) is already mentioned in the Mishnah. Rabbi Yohanan's novelty, therefore, lies in the "zableganin." The Gemara explains that without Rabbi Yohanan's statement, one might have thought that these cases are only "mar'it ayin" prohibitions (rabbinic) because they appear unsightly. Rabbi Yohanan clarifies that these are actual Torah-level disqualifications, meaning that if a priest with such a blemish served, he would transgress a positive commandment. The Gemara then asks why one would assume these are "mar'it ayin" when the Mishnah usually specifies "mipnei mar'it ayin" (because of appearance) when that is the reason. The Gemara explains that there is a Baraita that states that "karhanim" and "nannasim" are actually fit by Torah law and only disqualified due to "mar'it ayin." Rabbi Yohanan's statement comes to contradict this Baraita, asserting that these are indeed Torah-level disqualifications.
Who is the Tanna who holds that these are "mar'it ayin" issues? It is Rabbi Yehudah, who derives from the word "kohanim" in the verse "and the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall prepare the altar" that even a bald priest is included and fit. Thus, according to Rabbi Yehudah, baldness is not a Torah disqualification, making it a "mar'it ayin" issue. Rabbi Yohanan's ruling contradicts Rabbi Yehudah's opinion.
The next Mishnah discusses "gevinim" (eyebrows). If a priest has no eyebrows, or only one eyebrow, this is the "gibben" mentioned explicitly in the Torah as a blemish. Rabbi Yehudah ben Atigin offers a different interpretation: A "gibben" is someone whose eyebrows are so long that they droop over his eyes. Rabbi Hanina ben Atigin adds that a "gibben" is someone who has two brows or two spines. The Gemara asks about the interpretation of "gibben" as someone with no eyebrows. The word "gibben" itself implies an excess, like a "unibrow" where eyebrows are attached. The Gemara clarifies that the Tanna of the Mishnah who said "no eyebrows" did not derive it from the word "gibben" itself, but from the word "o gibben" (or gibben), implying a lack. The word "gibben" itself refers to excessive eyebrows.
Regarding Rabbi Hanina ben Atigin's statement that a "gibben" has two spines: The Gemara questions how a person with two spines could even live, let alone serve as a priest. It refers to a case of a miscarriage with two spines, which is not considered a viable child. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Hanina ben Atigin is not to be taken literally. He refers to a person whose spine is curved in such a way that it appears as if he has two spines. Such a person can live, and the Mishnah rules him disqualified. Blessed is the Lord forever.