(Devarim 32:42) "I will make My arrows drunk with blood": How is it possible to make arrows drunk? (The meaning is) rather: I shall make others drunk with what My arrows do.
2) Whence is derived (for inclusion) (one with the skin-coloring of) a Cushite, one who is red-spotted, one who is white-spotted, one who is pole-like in appearance (i.e., unusually long and thin), one who is dwarf-like, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, one who is drunk, and those with (halachically) clean plague-spots? From "Every man."
3) (For without "every" we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori, (that all of the aforementioned (#2) should be permitted in a Cohein), viz.: If a beast, which is unfit (for consummation) in the instances of "it and its son" (Vayikra 22:28), are treifah (organic defect) and Caesarian section, is fit for service, along with a Cushite, one who is red-spotted, one who is white-spotted, one who is pole-like in appearance (i.e., unusually long and thin), one who is dwarf-like, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, one who is drunk, and those with (halachically) clean plague-spots.
4) then a man (i.e., a Cohein, who is fit (for the sacrificial service) in the instances of he and his son, etc., how much more so should he be fit for service a Cushite, one who is red-spotted, one who is white-spotted, one who is pole-like in appearance (i.e., unusually long and thin), one who is dwarf-like, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, one who is drunk, and those with (halachically) clean plague-spots! It must, therefore, be written "Every man, etc."
5) "There is a blemish in him": to exclude (from disqualification in the instances of) "he and his son," treifah, and Caesarian section. (For without "in him" we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori: (that all of these are forbidden in a Cohein), viz.: If a beast, which is is fit for a Cushite, one who is red-spotted, one who is white-spotted, one who is pole-like in appearance (i.e., unusually long and thin), one who is dwarf-like, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, one who is drunk, and those with (halachically) clean plague-spots is unfit in the instances of "it and its son, etc.", then a man (a Cohein), who is unfit in the instances of a Cushite, one who is red-spotted, one who is white-spotted, one who is pole-like in appearance (i.e., unusually long and thin), one who is dwarf-like, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, one who is drunk, and those with (halachically) clean plague-spots, how much more so should he be unfit in the instances of "he and his son, etc."! It must, therefore, be written "There is a blemish in him," to exclude "he and his son, etc."