(טז) וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ (יז) דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֖ן לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֣ישׁ מִֽזַּרְעֲךָ֞ לְדֹרֹתָ֗ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִהְיֶ֥ה בוֹ֙ מ֔וּם לֹ֣א יִקְרַ֔ב לְהַקְרִ֖יב לֶ֥חֶם אֱלֹקָֽיו׃ (יח) כִּ֥י כָל־אִ֛ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בּ֥וֹ מ֖וּם לֹ֣א יִקְרָ֑ב אִ֤ישׁ עִוֵּר֙ א֣וֹ פִסֵּ֔חַ א֥וֹ חָרֻ֖ם א֥וֹ שָׂרֽוּעַ׃ (יט) א֣וֹ אִ֔ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִהְיֶ֥ה ב֖וֹ שֶׁ֣בֶר רָ֑גֶל א֖וֹ שֶׁ֥בֶר יָֽד׃ (כ) אֽוֹ־גִבֵּ֣ן אוֹ־דַ֔ק א֖וֹ תְּבַלֻּ֣ל בְּעֵינ֑וֹ א֤וֹ גָרָב֙ א֣וֹ יַלֶּ֔פֶת א֖וֹ מְר֥וֹחַ אָֽשֶׁךְ׃ (כא) כָּל־אִ֞ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בּ֣וֹ מ֗וּם מִזֶּ֙רַע֙ אַהֲרֹ֣ן הַכֹּהֵ֔ן לֹ֣א יִגַּ֔שׁ לְהַקְרִ֖יב אֶת־אִשֵּׁ֣י ה' מ֣וּם בּ֔וֹ אֵ֚ת לֶ֣חֶם אֱלֹקָ֔יו לֹ֥א יִגַּ֖שׁ לְהַקְרִֽיב׃ (כב) לֶ֣חֶם אֱלֹקָ֔יו מִקָּדְשֵׁ֖י הַקֳּדָשִׁ֑ים וּמִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁ֖ים יֹאכֵֽל׃ (כג) אַ֣ךְ אֶל־הַפָּרֹ֜כֶת לֹ֣א יָבֹ֗א וְאֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֛חַ לֹ֥א יִגַּ֖שׁ כִּֽי־מ֣וּם בּ֑וֹ וְלֹ֤א יְחַלֵּל֙ אֶת־מִקְדָּשַׁ֔י כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י ה' מְקַדְּשָֽׁם׃ (כד) וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֖ן וְאֶל־בָּנָ֑יו וְאֶֽל־כָּל־בְּנֵ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (פ)
כי כל איש וגו׳ נתינת טעם הוא, וכן פירושו דהא כל איש אשר בו מום אין נראה נאה שיקריב.
(א) לֹא־תִזְבַּח֩ לַה' אֱלֹקֶ֜יךָ שׁ֣וֹר וָשֶׂ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִהְיֶ֥ה בוֹ֙ מ֔וּם כֹּ֖ל דָּבָ֣ר רָ֑ע כִּ֧י תוֹעֲבַ֛ת ה' אֱלֹקֶ֖יךָ הֽוּא׃ (ס) (ב) כִּֽי־יִמָּצֵ֤א בְקִרְבְּךָ֙ בְּאַחַ֣ד שְׁעָרֶ֔יךָ אֲשֶׁר־ה' אֱלֹקֶ֖יךָ נֹתֵ֣ן לָ֑ךְ אִ֣ישׁ אוֹ־אִשָּׁ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר יַעֲשֶׂ֧ה אֶת־הָרַ֛ע בְּעֵינֵ֥י יְהוָֽה־אֱלֹקֶ֖יךָ לַעֲבֹ֥ר בְּרִיתֽוֹ׃ (ג) וַיֵּ֗לֶךְ וַֽיַּעֲבֹד֙ אֱלֹקִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים וַיִּשְׁתַּ֖חוּ לָהֶ֑ם וְלַשֶּׁ֣מֶשׁ ׀ א֣וֹ לַיָּרֵ֗חַ א֛וֹ לְכָל־צְבָ֥א הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־צִוִּֽיתִי׃ (ד) וְהֻֽגַּד־לְךָ֖ וְשָׁמָ֑עְתָּ וְדָרַשְׁתָּ֣ הֵיטֵ֔ב וְהִנֵּ֤ה אֱמֶת֙ נָכ֣וֹן הַדָּבָ֔ר נֶעֶשְׂתָ֛ה הַתּוֹעֵבָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את בְּיִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
דבר אל אהרן לאמר איש מזרעך. כתב הרמב"ן ז"ל, לא אמר בכאן דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר כאשר יאמר בפרשיות כולן, והטעם כי שם יצוה בתורת הקרבנות, זאת תורת העולה זאת תורת המנחה והחטאת והאשם וכיוצא בזה, אבל אם אמר בכאן דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו ראוי שיאמר איש מכם לדורותיכם, ולא ירצה להזהיר אהרן עצמו בתורת המומין כי אהרן קדוש ה' כולו יפה, ומום לא יהיה בו, אבל יזהירנו על זרעו שיורם ויזהיר אותם לדורותם. ורז"ל בארו מומים רבים הפוסלין, והזכיר תחלה המום בחסרון האברים, עור או פסח, ואחרי כן בקטנות כגון החרום, ובגדול כגון השרוע, ואחרי כן בשברון העצמות אע"פ שכל אבריו עמו כיון שנשבר העצם פסול, ואח"כ פסל אפילו בכעור התואר כגון הגבן, ואשר בעיניו הגרעינין, ואחרי כן בבשר הגוף שצריך שיהיה נקי וחלק, ואחרי כן הוסיף בעל הרוח אשר ביציו נפוחים בו. ואמר אשר בו מום וחזר ואמר מום בו, כי בין שנולד המום עמו בין שנפל בו המום אחר שנולד הרי זה פסול לעבודה. וחזר והזכיר מומי הבהמה כי בהם נפסלו לקרבן, ופסל בבהמות אפילו מומי היצירה ואין צריך לומר מומי המקרה, מומי היצירה שרוע וקלוט שהם מומים מן הבטן, מומי המקרה הן עורת או שבור או חרוץ או יבלת או גרב או ילפת, ועורת הוא אשר בו עורון שפחתה עינו.
Had the Torah written in this instance: “speak to Aaron and his sons,” it should have followed this with the words: איש מכם לדורותיכם, “if any one of your descendants has a blemish, etc.” The Torah did not want to include Aaron himself in a verse referring to physical blemishes. By choosing the wording in front of us, i.e. איש מזרעך לדורותם, “a man of your offspring in their respective generations,” the Torah placed a qualitative distance between Aaron and his future offspring.
Our sages enumerated a multitude of physical defects each of which disqualifies a priest from performing sacrificial service. The Torah here begins the list by mentioning missing or inoperative organs, such as the blind, the lame, followed by relatively minor defects such as a nose without a bridge, or limbs of uneven length. This is followed by priests suffering from broken limbs on their arms or legs. Even priests whose external appearance is aesthetically displeasing are included in the list. Blemishes which are not normally invisible, such as crushed testicles, are also a cause for disqualifying the priest from performing most priestly functions.
When the Torah repeats the words אשר בו מום, “who suffers from a blemish,” this means that regardless of whether the priest has suffered from the blemish from birth or whether the blemish occurred during his lifetime, he is unfit to perform service in the Temple. The Torah continues (chapter 22, 22-24) by listing physical blemishes which disqualify an animal from serving as an acceptable sacrificial offering on the Altar. Included in these animals which do not qualify as sacrifices are the ones which have genetic defects such as uneven limbs or a hoof which is not split. Defects which develop during the lifetime of the animal certainly disqualify it as an offering on the Altar. Defects to the eye are serious even if the sight is not affected but the eye looks diseased.
The term charum is of the expressions: None ‘cheirem’ (doomed) who shall be ‘yachoram’ (doomed of man);73Further, 27:29. ‘v’hacharamti’(and I shall utterly destroy) their cities,74Numbers 21:2. the meaning thereof being destruction. Now [a man with a sunken nose] is called charum because the nose determines the beauty of the face, just as the Rabbis have said:75Yebamoth 120 a. “Evidence [as to the identity of a corpse] may not be given unless [from proof afforded by recognition] of the face together with the nose,” and if someone’s nose is unlike that of the appearance of normal people, the shape [of his face] is deemed “destroyed.”
‘O gibein o dak o t’valul b’eino.’76Verse 20. The expression ‘o gibein’ is connected with the word ‘b’eino’ (in his eye), meaning that he is either a gibein in his eye, or has a dak (membrane) or a t’valul (a speck) in his eye, gibein meaning that the hair of his eyebrows are so long that they lie over his eyes, of the expressions: ‘gav’ (the side of) the altar;77Ezekiel 43:13. upon ‘gabi’ (my back) plowed the plowers.78Psalms 129:3.
Now Scripture mentioned79Ramban now sets forth the thought that the blemishes mentioned in these verses are primary types of blemishes, which are to serve as examples for other defects to be deduced therefrom. Thus the Torah mentioned first, cases of missing limbs, then uneven limbs etc. Thus the list here, although not exhaustive, served as the source for the deduction of other defects enumerated by the Rabbis of the Talmud. first [in Verse 18 before us] blemishes of missing limbs: a blind man, or a lame, and afterwards [it
mentioned blemishes which are a result of] the smallness of the limbs, such as the charum [whose nose is sunk into his face, and consequently is shorter than the normal nose], or a result of the largeness of the limbs, such as the saru’a [meaning “anything too long,” as where one eye is larger than the other, or one leg longer]. Then in the following verse [19] it cites blemishes because of the breaking of bones even though he has all his limbs with him, nonetheless, if the bone is broken, he is disqualified [from ministering the Service]. Then [in Verse 20] He disqualified [a priest from performing the Service] even on account of a hideous appearance, such as one whose eyebrows overhang his eyes, or who has kernel-like growths in his eyes [like a membrane or a speck], and then it mentioned blemishes on the flesh of the body [such as scabs or scurvy], because he [the priest] must be clean and smooth [in flesh]. And afterwards He added [o m’roach ashech, which means] one who has wind [and as a result of which] his testicles are swollen, even though it is a sickness common amongst older people, and is not a blemish in the bone or flesh. Now our Rabbis have explained80Bechoroth, Chapter 6. many other blemishes which are deduced from these, for those mentioned in the Torah are merely the primary [categories of those] blemishes [deduced by the Rabbis].
(א) הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיְתָה אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה, בָּאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ, מֵת בַּעְלִיךְ אוֹ גֵרְשֵׁךְ, וְכֵן הָעֶבֶד שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה, וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, מֵת רַבָּךְ, אוֹ מְכָרָךְ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אוֹ נְתָנָךְ בְּמַתָּנָה, אוֹ עֲשָׂאָךְ בֶּן חוֹרִין. וְכֵן כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁהִקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, פְּסוּלִים. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַכְשִׁיר. נוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בַעַל מוּם, עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה:
(1) If a woman was eating terumah, and they came and said to her, “Your husband is dead”, or “He divorced you.” Or, if a slave was eating terumah, and they came and said to him: “Your master is dead”, or “He sold you to an Israelite”, or “He gave you away as a gift”, or “He emancipated you.” So too, if a priest was eating terumah and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah (a woman released from levirate marriage): Rabbi Eliezer says: they must repay both the value and the fifth. But Rabbi Joshua exempts them [from the added fifth]. If [a priest] was standing and sacrificing on the altar and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah: Rabbi Eliezer says: all the sacrifices he had offered on the altar are disqualified. But Rabbi Joshua pronounces them valid. If it, however, it became known that he possessed a blemish, his service is disqualified.
(ב) כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁקָּדַם מוּם קָבוּעַ לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן וְנִפְדּוּ, חַיָּבִין בַּבְּכוֹרָה וּבַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְיוֹצְאִין לְחֻלִּין, לְהִגָּזֵז וּלְהֵעָבֵד, וּוְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן מֻתָּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאִם מֵתוּ יִפָּדוּ, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. כֹּל שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּשָׁן אֶת מוּמָן, אוֹ מוּם עוֹבֵר לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן, וּלְאַחַר מִכָּאן נוֹלַד לָהֶם מוּם קָבוּעַ וְנִפְדּוּ, פְּטוּרִין מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה וּמִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְאֵינָן יוֹצְאִין לְחֻלִּין לְהִגָּזֵז וּלְהֵעָבֵד, וּוְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן אָסוּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ חַיָּב, וְעוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאִם מֵתוּ, יִקָּבֵרוּ:
(2) All sacrificial animals in which a permanent blemish preceded their consecration do not assume inherent sanctity, and only their value is consecrated. And once they were redeemed, they are obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, i.e., their offspring are subject to being counted a firstborn, and in the gifts of the priesthood, and they can emerge from their sacred status and assume non-sacred status with regard to being shorn and with regard to being utilized for labor, as it is prohibited to shear animals with sacred status or utilize them for labor. And their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption. And one who slaughters these animals outside the Temple courtyard is exempt from karet, and those animals do not render an animal that was a substitute for them consecrated. And if these animals died before they were redeemed, they may be redeemed and fed to dogs. Although typically sacrificial animals that were redeemed may not be fed to the dogs, in this case it is permitted. This is the halakha with regard to all animals except for the firstborn animal and the animal tithe, whose sanctity is inherent, even when a permanent blemish preceded their consecration. With regard to all sacrificial animals whose consecration preceded their blemish, or who had a temporary blemish prior to their consecration and afterward developed a permanent blemish and they were redeemed, they are exempt from the mitzva of a firstborn, and from the gifts of the priestood, and they do not emerge from their sacred status and assume non-sacred status with regard to being shorn and with regard to being utilized for labor. And their offspring, which were conceived prior to redemption, and their milk, are prohibited after their redemption. And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive karet, and those animals render an animal that was a substitute for them consecrated. And if these animals died before they were redeemed, they may not be redeemed and fed to dogs; rather, they must be buried.