Parallel
זבחים 18
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
—
besmeared or torn, and he officiated, his service is invalid. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Trailing [garments] are fit; [garments which] do not reach [the pavement] are unfit. But it was taught, If they do not reach [the ground] they are fit? — Said Rami b. Hama, There is no difficulty: The latter means where he hitches them up by the girdle; the former, where from the very outset they are not long enough. Rab said: Either [garments] are invalid. R. Huna visited Argiza. His host's son put a difficulty to him: Did then Samuel say, Trailing [garments] are fit, while those which do not reach [the ground] are unfit? but it was taught, If they do not reach [the ground] they are fit? — Said he to him, Disregard that, for Rami b. Hama has answered it. But the difficulty is according to Rab. And should you answer, What is meant by ‘trailing’? Those which are hitched up by the girdle, for the girdle cuts off [the length]. but then there is a difficulty about garments which do not reach? — Said R. Zera, Rab learns [both clauses as one]: Trailing [garments] which are hitched up by a girdle are fit. R. Jeremiah of Difti said: As to trailing [garments] which he did not lift up, there is a controversy of Tannaim. For it was taught: [Thou shalt make thee twisted cords] upon the four corners of thy covering: ‘four’ [intimates,] but not three. Yet perhaps that is not so, but rather, ‘four’ [intimates,] but not five? When it says, Wherewith thou coverest thyself a five-cornered [garment] is alluded to. Hence, how can I interpret ‘four’? as intimating four but not three. Now, why do you include a five-cornered garment and exclude a three cornered one? I include a five-cornered one, because five includes four, and I exclude a three-cornered one, because three does not include four. Now, another [Baraitha] taught: ‘Upon the four corners of thy covering’: four but not three, four but not five. Surely, they disagree in this: one Master holds: The additional [corner] is counted as existent; while the other Master holds: It is as non-existent? — No: all agree that it is as existent, but here it is different, because Scripture includes [a five-cornered garment in the phrase,] ‘Wherewith thou coverest thyself’. And the other? how does he utilise this phrase. ‘Wherewith thou coverest thyself’? — He requires it for what was taught: ‘That ye may look upon it’: this excludes night attire. Yet perhaps that is not so,but rather it excludes a blind man's garment? When it says, ‘wherewith thou coverest thyself’, lo, a blind man's garment is alluded to. Hence, how can I interpret, ‘that ye may look upon it’? As excluding night attire. Now, why do you include a blind man's garment and exclude a night garment? I include a blind man's garment because it can be seen by others, while I exclude night attire, because it is not seen by others. And the other? — He deduces it from ‘wherewith’. And the other?-He does not interpret ‘wherewith’ [as having a separate significance]. Our Rabbis taught: [And the priest shall put on his garment of] bad: this teaches that they [his garments] must be of linen; ‘bad’ implies that they must be new; ‘bad’ implies that they must be of twisted thread; ‘bad’ implies that the thread must be sixfold; ‘bad’ implies that secular garments must not be worn with them. Abaye said to R. Joseph: As for saying. ‘"bad" implies that they must be of linen,’ it is well, for he informs us this: only of linen, but not of anything else. But when he says, "bad" implies that they must be new,’ [does it mean] only new but not threadbare? Surely it was taught : Threadbare [garments] are fit! — Said he to him: And according to your reasoning, [when he says] "bad" implies that the thread must be sixfold,’ [yet surely] ‘bad’ implies each [thread] separately? Rather, this is what he means: the garments which it is stated are to be ‘bad’, must be of linen, new, of twisted thread, and of six-fold thread: Some of these [provisions] are recommendations [only], while others are indispensable. How do you know that ‘bad’ means flax [linen]? — Said R. Joseph son of R. Hanina: [It connotes] that which comes up from the ground in separate stalks. Say that it means wool? — Wool splits. But flax too splits? — It splits through beating. Rabina said, [It is deduced] from the following: They shall have linen tires upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with [anything that causes] sweat [bayaza’]. Said R. Ashi to Rabina: Then how did we know this before Ezekiel came? — Then according to your reasoning, when R. Hisda said: We did not learn this from the Torah of Moses our Teacher, but we learnt it from Ezekiel the son of Buzi: No alien, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh [shall enter into My sanctuary]: whence did we know it until Ezekiel came? But indeed it was a tradition, and Ezekiel came and gave it a support in Scripture; so this too was a tradition etc. What does ‘they shall not gird themselves with [anything that causes] sweat’ mean? — Said Abaye: They shall not gird themselves in the place where they sweat. As it was taught: When they gird themselves, they must do so neither below their loins nor above their elbows, but
—