Parallel
זבחים 18:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Because ‘statute’ is written in connection with each, to serve as a gezerah shawah! — If [it were derived] from that verse, I would argue that it applies [only] to a service for which a zar is liable to death; but as for a service for which a zar is not liable to death, I would say that it is not so, hence we are informed [that it is not so]. We have thus found [it in the case of] one who lacks [priestly] vestments; how do we know it of one who has drunk wine? -We deduce it from the word ‘statute’ [written here and] in the case of one who lacks vestments. But the Tanna deduces it from the text, That ye may put a difference etc.? — That is before he has established the gezerah shawah. But the Tanna learns [the law for] one who lacks vestments from that of one who drank wine?’ — This is what he means: How do we know that no distinction is drawn between one who lacks vestments and one who drank wine or who did not wash his hands and feet? Because ‘statute’ is written in respect of each, to serve as a gezerah shawah. Then what is the need of ‘that ye may put difference’ etc.? — To teach the practice of Rab. For Rab would not appoint an interpreter from one Festival day to the next, on account of drinking. But still, is it deduced from this text? Surely it is deduced from elsewhere. viz., And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put [fire upon the altar]. [which implies,] in his priestly state; this teaches that if a High Priest donned the vestments of an ordinary priest and officiated, his service is unfit? — If [we made the deduction] from the earlier text, I would argue that it applies only to a service which is essential for atonement, but not to a service which is not essential for atonement. But still, is it deduced from this text? Surely it is deduced from elsewhere, viz., And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces etc. [which intimates,] ‘the priests’ in their priestly state, whence we learn that if an ordinary priest donned the vestments of a High Priest and officiated, his service is unfit? — If [we made the deduction] from the earlier text, I would argue that it applies only to an insufficiency [of vestments], but not to an excess. Therefore it [the present text] informs us [that it is not so]. Our Rabbis taught: If [the priestly vestments] trailed [on the floor], or did not reach [the floor] or were threadbare, and [the priest] officiated [in them], his service is valid. But if he put on two pairs of breeches, two girdles, or if one [garment] was wanting, or if there was one too many, or if he had a plaster on a wound in his flesh, or if [his garments] were
—