Home
In learning perek 7, I was interested to see how the Rambam describes the topic. It's divided between Hilchos Bi'as Mikdash (for mumim on cohanim), and Hilchos Isurei Mizbeach (for mumim on animals). The reverse order from the perakim in Bechoros, where animals come first, in perek 6.
As a result, in Bi'as Mikdash, the Rambam first covers mumim on both animals and cohanim, then the ones on just cohanim, and then goes back for anything missed on the animals in Isurei Mizbeach.
The way he describes the rules is, If a mum that is for both cohen and animal, it is a lav for a cohen to serve that way, and the avodah is posul. If it's a mum that only applies to cohanim, it's a lav but the avodah is not posul. (He's pretty much quoting a gemara there 43b.)
That seems like a very remarkable idea - why should the avodah depend on whether that mum applies to animals as well?
One answer might be that the ones that apply to both are worse, really severe missing pieces and such. The ones that apply to only cohanim (אינו שווה בזרעו של אהרן) just aren't as bad, they just have to do with looking unusual. This of course would be a judgment call, judged by Chazal.
Only thing is, some of the ones in the latter category are things that don't apply to animals simply because animals can't have them. For instance, Rashi at the beginning of perek 7 brings the example of a sunken nose so that the eyes are in a straight line across - just doesn't make sense for a cow.
As a result, in Bi'as Mikdash, the Rambam first covers mumim on both animals and cohanim, then the ones on just cohanim, and then goes back for anything missed on the animals in Isurei Mizbeach.
The way he describes the rules is, If a mum that is for both cohen and animal, it is a lav for a cohen to serve that way, and the avodah is posul. If it's a mum that only applies to cohanim, it's a lav but the avodah is not posul. (He's pretty much quoting a gemara there 43b.)
That seems like a very remarkable idea - why should the avodah depend on whether that mum applies to animals as well?
One answer might be that the ones that apply to both are worse, really severe missing pieces and such. The ones that apply to only cohanim (אינו שווה בזרעו של אהרן) just aren't as bad, they just have to do with looking unusual. This of course would be a judgment call, judged by Chazal.
Only thing is, some of the ones in the latter category are things that don't apply to animals simply because animals can't have them. For instance, Rashi at the beginning of perek 7 brings the example of a sunken nose so that the eyes are in a straight line across - just doesn't make sense for a cow.
