Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 1, 2018 | 讟状讝 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Zevachim 18

Study Guide Zevachim 18. Details regarding a kohen who works in the mikdash without the proper clothing of the kohanim are discussed. In what cases is the work he does disqualified?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讜拽讛 讞讜拽讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

The verse states 鈥渟tatute鈥 with regard to those who drank wine, and it likewise states 鈥渟tatute鈥 with regard to the priestly vestments (Exodus 28:43) and with regard to the washing of the hands and feet (Exodus 30:21). One therefore derives by verbal analogy that the halakha in all three cases is the same. If so, there is already a source for the halakha that one who lacks the requisite priestly vestments disqualifies the service.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讚讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪讬转讛 讗讘诇 注讘讜讚讛 讚讗讬谉 讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪讬转讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: If one derived the halakha only from there, I would say: This matter, i.e., that the rites of one who lacks the requisite vestments are disqualified, applies only to a rite for which a non-priest is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, since that is the topic of the passage discussing those who drank wine. But with regard to a rite for which a non-priest is not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, I will say that they are not subject to this halakha. Therefore, the verse (Exodus 29:9) teaches us that the halakha applies to all rites.

讗砖讻讞谉 诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 诪谞诇谉 讗转讬讗 讞讜拽讛 讞讜拽讛 诪诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha that one lacking the requisite vestments disqualifies all rites, even those for which a non-priest is not liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven; from where do we derive that the halakha is the same for those who drank wine, as the passage in Leviticus (10:9鈥10) addresses only rites for which a non-priest receives the death penalty? The Gemara responds: It is derived by verbal analogy between the word 鈥渟tatute鈥 used there and the word 鈥渟tatute鈥 from the verses discussing one lacking the requisite vestments.

讜讛讗 转谞讗 讜诇讛讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 讜讙讜壮 拽讗 谞住讬讘 诇讛 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬拽讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna of the aforementioned baraita derive that the rites of those who drank wine are disqualified from the verse: 鈥淭hat you may put difference between the holy and the common鈥 (Leviticus 10:10), and not by verbal analogy to a priest lacking the requisite vestments? The Gemara responds: 鈥淭hat you may put difference between the holy and the common鈥 is the source of this halakha only before the verbal analogy stands. Once the verbal analogy is derived, it is the source of the halakha with regard to those who drank wine as well.

讜讛讗 转谞讗 诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讬诇讬祝 诪砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 诇砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讜砖诇讗 专讞讜抓 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讜拽讛 讞讜拽讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

The Gemara challenges: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna of the baraita derive the halakha with regard to one lacking the requisite vestments itself from the case of those who drank wine? The Gemara responds: Actually, the disqualification of rites performed by one who drank wine is derived from the case of one lacking vestments. And this is what the tanna is saying: From where is it derived that there is no distinction between one lacking the requisite vestments and those who drank wine and one whose hands and feet are not washed, and that all three disqualify all rites? The verses state the word: 鈥淪tatute,鈥 鈥渟tatute,鈥 in order to derive a verbal analogy.

讗诇讗 诇讛讘讚讬诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚专讘 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讜拽讬诐 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 诪讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讻专讜转

The Gemara asks: But if the halakha that one who drank wine disqualifies the service is derived from the verbal analogy, why do I need the verse: 鈥淭hat you may put difference between the holy and the common鈥? The Gemara responds: The verse is necessary in accordance with the custom of Rav, as Rav would not place an interpreter before him, i.e., he would not lecture in public, from the time that he drank wine on one Festival day until the other, the second Festival day, due to drunkenness. Rav was concerned that he would not issue a proper ruling, because it was customary to drink wine on the Festivals, and the verse states: 鈥淎nd that you may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the impure and the pure. And that you may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord has spoken鈥 (Leviticus 10:10鈥11), indicating that one who drank wine may not issue a halakhic ruling.

讗讻转讬 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讜谞转谞讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谉 讘讻讬讛讜谞讜 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖诇讘砖 讘讙讚讬 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: Still, is the disqualification of rites performed by one lacking the requisite vestments derived from here, i.e., from the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons鈥 (Exodus 29:9)? It is derived from there: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:7). The superfluous term 鈥渢he priest鈥 serves to indicate that he may serve only in his priestly state. The verse therefore teaches that with regard to a High Priest who wore the vestments of an ordinary priest and performed sacrificial rites, his service is disqualified.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讚诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 注讘讜讚讛 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 诇讗

The Gemara responds: If one derived the halakha only from there, I would say: This matter applies only to service that is indispensable for effecting atonement. But service that is not indispensable for effecting atonement, e.g., putting fire upon the altar, is not subject to the halakha. Therefore, the verse (Leviticus 1:7) indicates that the halakha applies even to rites that are not indispensable.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讜注专讻讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗转 讛谞转讞讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘讻讬讛讜谞谉 诪讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖诇讘砖 讘讙讚讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: But still, is the halakha derived from here, i.e., from all of the previous sources? It is derived from there: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall lay the pieces, and the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire, which is upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:8). The superfluous term 鈥渢he priests鈥 serves to indicate that the priests may serve only in their priestly state. From here one derives that with regard to an ordinary priest who wore the vestments of the High Priest and performed sacrificial rites, his service is disqualified.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讞讬住讜专 讗讘诇 讬讬转讜专 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: If one derived the halakha only from there, I would say: This matter applies only to a lack of vestments, e.g., a High Priest who wore fewer than his requisite eight vestments, but an excess of vestments, e.g., an ordinary priest who wore more than his requisite four, is not subject to the halakha. This verse therefore teaches us that the halakha applies even to an excess of vestments.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讜 诪专讜砖诇讬谉 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 诪砖讜讞拽讬诐 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 讻砖讬专讛 诇讘砖 砖谞讬 诪讻谞住讬诐 砖谞讬 讗讘谞讟讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讬转专 讗讞转 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 专讟讬讛 注诇 诪讻转 讘砖专讜 转讞转 讘讙讚讜 讗讜 砖讛讬讜

The Sages taught: If the priest鈥檚 vestments were dragging on the ground, or raised up [mesulakin] far from the ground, or frayed, and the priest performed sacrificial rites while wearing them, his service is valid. If he wore two pairs of trousers or two belts, or if he was lacking one of his requisite vestments, or if he wore one extra vestment, or in a case where a priest had a bandage on a wound on his body under his vestment such that the bandage acted as an interposition between the vestments and his skin, or if he wore vestments that were

诪讟讜砖讟砖讬谉 讗讜 诪拽讜专注讬谉 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 驻住讜诇讛

soiled or ripped, and he performed sacrificial rites, his service is disqualified.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讜砖诇讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖住讬诇拽谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讘谞讟 讻讗谉 讚诇讬转谞讬讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讻诇诇

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If the vestments are dragging on the ground, they are fit, but if they are raised up above the ground, they are unfit. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the above baraita that even if the vestments were raised up they are fit? Rami bar 岣ma says: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita deems them fit in a case where the priest raised them up by his belt, although they were initially the proper length; there, Shmuel deems them unfit in a case where they do not initially cover the priest鈥檚 feet at all.

专讘 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 驻住讜诇讬谉

Rav says: In both this case and that case, whether they were dragging or raised up, they are unfit.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讗专讙讬讝讗 专诪讗 诇讬讛 讘专 讗讜砖驻讬讝讻谞讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讜砖诇讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜诪住讜诇拽讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 诪讬谞讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚砖谞讬讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗

The Gemara recounts: Rav Huna happened to come to Argiza. The son of his innkeeper [oshpizekhaneih] raised a contradiction before him: Did Shmuel actually say that if the vestments are dragging on the ground, they are fit, but if they are raised up above the ground, they are unfit? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita that even if the vestments were raised up they are fit? Rav Huna said to him: Raise a contradiction from any source apart from this baraita, as Rami bar 岣ma already answered that it does not contradict Shmuel鈥檚 statement, as it applies only to vestments that were initially the proper length.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 拽砖讬讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 诪专讜砖诇讬谉 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讘谞讟 讜讗讘谞讟 诪讬讙讝 讗讙讬讝 讗诇讗 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the baraita pose a difficulty for Rav, who deems the vestments unfit even if they were dragging? And if you would say: What is the meaning of the word: Dragging, in the baraita? It means that they would initially drag but were raised up by a belt to the proper length, and they are fit since the belt effectively trims them, but then the term: Raised up, in the baraita poses a difficulty. Why should the baraita deem raised vestments fit? If the baraita is referring to vestments that were initially the proper length and were then raised up by a belt, then shouldn鈥檛 they be unfit as the belt trims them?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专讘 讞讚讗 转谞讬 诪专讜砖诇讬谉 砖住讬诇拽谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讘谞讟 讻砖专讬谉

Rabbi Zeira says: Rav taught the baraita not as referring separately to both dragging and raised vestments, but as one statement referring to vestments that are simultaneously dragging and raised, i.e., dragging vestments that the priest raised up by his belt to the proper height are fit. But if they were above or below their proper height for any reason, they are unfit.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 诪专讜砖诇讬谉 砖诇讗 住讬诇拽谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 注诇 讗专讘注 讻谞驻讜转 讻住讜转讱 讗专讘注 讜诇讗 砖诇砖 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讜诇讗 讞诪砖 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛 讛专讬 讘注诇转 讞诪砖 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗专讘注 讗专讘注 讜诇讗 砖诇砖 讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇转 讞诪砖 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讘注诇转 砖诇砖 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讘注诇转 讞诪砖 砖讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讞诪砖 讗专讘注 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讘注诇转 砖诇砖 砖讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 砖诇砖 讗专讘注

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti says: The case of dragging vestments that the priest did not raise is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淥n the four corners of your garment鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), from which it can be inferred: Four, but not three, i.e., a three-cornered garment is exempt from the obligation of ritual fringes. One may ask: Or perhaps it is only specifying four, but not five? When it says in the same verse: 鈥淲ith which you cover yourself,鈥 a garment of five corners is mentioned as obligated. If so, how do I realize the meaning of: 鈥淔our corners鈥? It means four, but not three. And what did you see that led you to include a garment of five corners and to exclude a garment of three corners? I include a garment of five corners as four is included in five, and I exclude a garment of three corners as four is not included in three.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 注诇 讗专讘注 讻谞驻讜转 讻住讜转讱 讗专讘注 讜诇讗 砖诇砖 讗专讘注 讜诇讗 讞诪砖 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬转专 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讚诪讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讬转讬讛 讚诪讬

And it is taught in another baraita that the verse states: 鈥淥n the four corners of your garment,鈥 from which it may be inferred: Four, but not three, and also four, but not five, i.e., only a four-cornered garment is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes. Rabbi Yirmeya continues: What, is it not that these tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to this: That one Sage, who deems a five-cornered garment exempt, holds that an extra item is considered as though it exists and cannot be ignored, and one Sage, who deems it obligated, holds that it is considered as though it does not exist and the garment has only four corners? Accordingly, the first Sage deems a dragging priestly vestment unfit, since one cannot ignore the extra fabric, while the second Sage deems it fit since the extra fabric is treated as immaterial.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讚诪讬 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛

The Gemara responds: No, everyone agrees that an extra piece of a garment is considered as though it exists, and therefore dragging vestments are unfit. And according to the tanna of the second baraita, it is different here, with regard to ritual fringes, as the Merciful One amplifies the halakha to obligate even five-cornered garments with the words 鈥渨ith which you cover yourself.鈥

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗讬 讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜专讗讬转诐 讗转讜 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛 讛专讬 讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜专讗讬转诐 讗转讜 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who deems five-cornered garments exempt, what does he do with this verse: 鈥淲ith which you cover yourself鈥? The Gemara responds: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be unto you for a fringe, that you may look upon it鈥 (Numbers 15:39). The phrase: 鈥淭hat you may look upon it,鈥 serves to exclude a night garment from the obligation of ritual fringes, as the fringes on such a garment cannot be seen. One might ask: Or is it only to exclude the garment of a blind person, who is unable to see the ritual fringes? When it states in the verse: 鈥淲ith which you cover yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), the obligation of ritual fringes for the garment of a blind person is mentioned. If so, how do I realize the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淭hat you may look upon it鈥? It serves to exclude a night garment.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 砖讬砖谞讛 讘专讗讬讛 讗爪诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专讗讬讛 讗爪诇 讗讞专讬诐

The baraita continues: And what did you see that led you to include the garment of a blind person and to exclude a night garment and not the reverse? I include the garment of a blind person because it is at least visible to others, and I exclude a night garment because it is not visible, even to others.

[讜讗讬讚讱 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗砖专 讜讗讬讚讱 讗砖专 诇讗 讚专讬砖]

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who derives that a five-cornered garment requires ritual fringes from the phrase: 鈥淲ith which you cover yourself,鈥 from where does he derive that the garment of a blind person requires ritual fringes? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the word 鈥渨hich鈥 in the phrase, as that term itself connotes an amplification of the halakha. The Gemara asks: And what does the other Sage do with this word? The Gemara responds: He does not interpret the word 鈥渨hich鈥 as an amplification.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讚 砖讬讛讬讜 砖诇 讘讜抓 讘讚 砖讬讛讜 讞讚砖讬诐 讘讚 砖讬讛讜 砖讝讜专讬诐 讘讚 砖讬讛讜 讞讜讟谉 讻驻讜诇 砖砖讛 讘讚 砖诇讗 讬诇讘砖 砖诇 讞讜诇 注诪讛谉

The Sages taught with regard to the priestly vestments that the term: 鈥淟inen [bad ]鈥 (Leviticus 6:3), used in the verse indicates several properties of the garments: The verse states 鈥渓inen鈥 to indicate that they must be made of fine linen [butz]; 鈥渓inen,鈥 that they must be new; 鈥渓inen,鈥 that their thread must be twisted of several plies; 鈥渓inen,鈥 that their thread must be folded six times; 鈥渓inen,鈥 that the priest may not wear non-sacred clothes along with them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讬讛讜 砖诇 讘讜抓 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讜抓 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讗诇讗 讘讚 砖讬讛讜 讞讚砖讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讞拽讬谉 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪砖讜讞拽讬谉 讻砖专讬诐

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted, the statement that they must be of fine linen is understood; this requirement teaches us that if they are of fine linen they are fit, but if they are of something else they are not. But with regard to the statement: Linen, that they must be new, one can infer that if they are new they are fit but if they are frayed they are not. But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita (18a) that even if they were frayed they are fit?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讘讚 砖讬讛讜 讞讜讟谉 讻驻讜诇 砖砖讛 讘讚 讞讚 讞讚 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讙讚讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 讘讚 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讜 砖诇 讘讜抓 讞讚砖讬诐 砖讝讜专讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讞讜讟谉 讻驻讜诇 砖砖讛 讬砖 诪讛谉 诇诪爪讜讛 讬砖 诪讛谉 诇注讻讘

Rav Yosef said to him: And according to your reasoning that the baraita intends to derive all of these requirements from the word linen, such that all of these requirements are indispensable, how can one understand the requirement: Linen, that their thread must be folded six times? The word bad itself means each one on its own (see Exodus 30:34). Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: Those garments with regard to which it is stated: Linen, must be made of fine linen, and they must be new and twisted, and their thread must be folded six times. Some of these requirements constitute a mitzva ab initio, and some of them are indispensable.

诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讚 讻转谞讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讘专 讛注讜诇讛 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讘讚 讘讘讚

The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this material bad is produced from the flax plant? Rabbi Yosef, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: The verse is referring to an item that grows from the ground with each stalk growing on its own [bad bevad], i.e., it does not split into multiple stalks. The flax plant fulfills this criterion.

讗讬诪讗 注诪专讗 注诪专讗 诪讬驻爪诇 讻讬转谞讗 谞诪讬 诪讬驻爪诇 注诇 讬讚讬 诇拽讜转讗 诪讬驻爪讬诇

The Gemara asks: Why not say that it is wool? The Gemara responds: The individual wool fibers split into smaller fibers. The Gemara rejects this: But flax also splits. The Gemara responds: It splits only by being struck. Wool, by contrast, splits naturally.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 驻讗专讬 驻砖转讬诐 讬讛讬讜 注诇 专讗砖诐 讜诪讻谞住讬 驻砖转讬诐 讬讛讬讜 注诇 诪转谞讬讛诐 诇讗 讬讞讙专讜 讘讬讝注

Ravina says that the identity of bad is derived from here: The verse states with regard to the priestly vestments: 鈥淭hey shall have linen [pishtim] crowns upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with yaza (Ezekiel 44:18). The word pishtim is clearly referring to flax.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讛讗 注讚 讚讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪谞诇谉 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 诪转讜专转 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诪讚讘专讬 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讘谉 讘讜讝讬 诇诪讚谞讜 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 注专诇 诇讘 讜注专诇 讘砖专 诇讗 讬讘讗 讗诇 诪拽讚砖讬 诇砖专转谞讬 注讚 砖讘讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪谞诇谉 讗诇讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜讗住诪讻讬讛 讗拽专讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讻讜壮

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: But before Ezekiel came, from where did we derive the identity of bad? Ravina responded: And according to your reasoning, one could ask the same of that which Rav 岣sda said with regard to the prohibition against Temple service by one who is uncircumcised or an apostate: We did not learn this following matter from the Torah of Moses, our teacher; we learned it from the words of Ezekiel, son of Buzi: 鈥淣o stranger, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary to serve Me鈥 (Ezekiel 44:9). Until Ezekiel came, from where did we derive this? Rather, this halakha is learned as a tradition and therefore was observed for generations, and Ezekiel came and gave it support by writing a verse. Here too, it is learned as a tradition, and Ezekiel came and gave it support by writing a verse.

诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讞讙专讜 讘讬讝注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讬讞讙专讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诪讝讬注讬谉 讻讚转谞讬讗 讻砖讛诐 讞讜讙专讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讜讙专讬谉 诇讗 诇诪讟讛 诪诪转谞讬讛谉 讜诇讗 诇诪注诇讛 诪讗爪讬诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase in the verse: 鈥淭hey shall not gird themselves with yaza鈥? Abaye said: They shall not gird themselves in a place in which people sweat [mezi鈥檌n]. As it is taught in a baraita: When they gird themselves with the belt, they may not gird themselves below their loins nor above their elbows, but rather

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 18

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讜拽讛 讞讜拽讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

The verse states 鈥渟tatute鈥 with regard to those who drank wine, and it likewise states 鈥渟tatute鈥 with regard to the priestly vestments (Exodus 28:43) and with regard to the washing of the hands and feet (Exodus 30:21). One therefore derives by verbal analogy that the halakha in all three cases is the same. If so, there is already a source for the halakha that one who lacks the requisite priestly vestments disqualifies the service.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讚讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪讬转讛 讗讘诇 注讘讜讚讛 讚讗讬谉 讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪讬转讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: If one derived the halakha only from there, I would say: This matter, i.e., that the rites of one who lacks the requisite vestments are disqualified, applies only to a rite for which a non-priest is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, since that is the topic of the passage discussing those who drank wine. But with regard to a rite for which a non-priest is not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, I will say that they are not subject to this halakha. Therefore, the verse (Exodus 29:9) teaches us that the halakha applies to all rites.

讗砖讻讞谉 诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 诪谞诇谉 讗转讬讗 讞讜拽讛 讞讜拽讛 诪诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha that one lacking the requisite vestments disqualifies all rites, even those for which a non-priest is not liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven; from where do we derive that the halakha is the same for those who drank wine, as the passage in Leviticus (10:9鈥10) addresses only rites for which a non-priest receives the death penalty? The Gemara responds: It is derived by verbal analogy between the word 鈥渟tatute鈥 used there and the word 鈥渟tatute鈥 from the verses discussing one lacking the requisite vestments.

讜讛讗 转谞讗 讜诇讛讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 讜讙讜壮 拽讗 谞住讬讘 诇讛 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬拽讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna of the aforementioned baraita derive that the rites of those who drank wine are disqualified from the verse: 鈥淭hat you may put difference between the holy and the common鈥 (Leviticus 10:10), and not by verbal analogy to a priest lacking the requisite vestments? The Gemara responds: 鈥淭hat you may put difference between the holy and the common鈥 is the source of this halakha only before the verbal analogy stands. Once the verbal analogy is derived, it is the source of the halakha with regard to those who drank wine as well.

讜讛讗 转谞讗 诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讬诇讬祝 诪砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 诇砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 讜砖诇讗 专讞讜抓 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讜拽讛 讞讜拽讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

The Gemara challenges: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna of the baraita derive the halakha with regard to one lacking the requisite vestments itself from the case of those who drank wine? The Gemara responds: Actually, the disqualification of rites performed by one who drank wine is derived from the case of one lacking vestments. And this is what the tanna is saying: From where is it derived that there is no distinction between one lacking the requisite vestments and those who drank wine and one whose hands and feet are not washed, and that all three disqualify all rites? The verses state the word: 鈥淪tatute,鈥 鈥渟tatute,鈥 in order to derive a verbal analogy.

讗诇讗 诇讛讘讚讬诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚专讘 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讜拽讬诐 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 诪讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讻专讜转

The Gemara asks: But if the halakha that one who drank wine disqualifies the service is derived from the verbal analogy, why do I need the verse: 鈥淭hat you may put difference between the holy and the common鈥? The Gemara responds: The verse is necessary in accordance with the custom of Rav, as Rav would not place an interpreter before him, i.e., he would not lecture in public, from the time that he drank wine on one Festival day until the other, the second Festival day, due to drunkenness. Rav was concerned that he would not issue a proper ruling, because it was customary to drink wine on the Festivals, and the verse states: 鈥淎nd that you may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the impure and the pure. And that you may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord has spoken鈥 (Leviticus 10:10鈥11), indicating that one who drank wine may not issue a halakhic ruling.

讗讻转讬 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讜谞转谞讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谉 讘讻讬讛讜谞讜 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖诇讘砖 讘讙讚讬 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: Still, is the disqualification of rites performed by one lacking the requisite vestments derived from here, i.e., from the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons鈥 (Exodus 29:9)? It is derived from there: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:7). The superfluous term 鈥渢he priest鈥 serves to indicate that he may serve only in his priestly state. The verse therefore teaches that with regard to a High Priest who wore the vestments of an ordinary priest and performed sacrificial rites, his service is disqualified.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讚诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 注讘讜讚讛 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 诇讗

The Gemara responds: If one derived the halakha only from there, I would say: This matter applies only to service that is indispensable for effecting atonement. But service that is not indispensable for effecting atonement, e.g., putting fire upon the altar, is not subject to the halakha. Therefore, the verse (Leviticus 1:7) indicates that the halakha applies even to rites that are not indispensable.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讜注专讻讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗转 讛谞转讞讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘讻讬讛讜谞谉 诪讻讗谉 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖诇讘砖 讘讙讚讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: But still, is the halakha derived from here, i.e., from all of the previous sources? It is derived from there: 鈥淎nd the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall lay the pieces, and the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire, which is upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:8). The superfluous term 鈥渢he priests鈥 serves to indicate that the priests may serve only in their priestly state. From here one derives that with regard to an ordinary priest who wore the vestments of the High Priest and performed sacrificial rites, his service is disqualified.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讞讬住讜专 讗讘诇 讬讬转讜专 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: If one derived the halakha only from there, I would say: This matter applies only to a lack of vestments, e.g., a High Priest who wore fewer than his requisite eight vestments, but an excess of vestments, e.g., an ordinary priest who wore more than his requisite four, is not subject to the halakha. This verse therefore teaches us that the halakha applies even to an excess of vestments.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讜 诪专讜砖诇讬谉 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 诪砖讜讞拽讬诐 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 讻砖讬专讛 诇讘砖 砖谞讬 诪讻谞住讬诐 砖谞讬 讗讘谞讟讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讬转专 讗讞转 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 专讟讬讛 注诇 诪讻转 讘砖专讜 转讞转 讘讙讚讜 讗讜 砖讛讬讜

The Sages taught: If the priest鈥檚 vestments were dragging on the ground, or raised up [mesulakin] far from the ground, or frayed, and the priest performed sacrificial rites while wearing them, his service is valid. If he wore two pairs of trousers or two belts, or if he was lacking one of his requisite vestments, or if he wore one extra vestment, or in a case where a priest had a bandage on a wound on his body under his vestment such that the bandage acted as an interposition between the vestments and his skin, or if he wore vestments that were

诪讟讜砖讟砖讬谉 讗讜 诪拽讜专注讬谉 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 驻住讜诇讛

soiled or ripped, and he performed sacrificial rites, his service is disqualified.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讜砖诇讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖住讬诇拽谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讘谞讟 讻讗谉 讚诇讬转谞讬讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讻诇诇

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If the vestments are dragging on the ground, they are fit, but if they are raised up above the ground, they are unfit. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the above baraita that even if the vestments were raised up they are fit? Rami bar 岣ma says: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita deems them fit in a case where the priest raised them up by his belt, although they were initially the proper length; there, Shmuel deems them unfit in a case where they do not initially cover the priest鈥檚 feet at all.

专讘 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 驻住讜诇讬谉

Rav says: In both this case and that case, whether they were dragging or raised up, they are unfit.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讗专讙讬讝讗 专诪讗 诇讬讛 讘专 讗讜砖驻讬讝讻谞讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讜砖诇讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜诪住讜诇拽讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 诪讬谞讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚砖谞讬讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗

The Gemara recounts: Rav Huna happened to come to Argiza. The son of his innkeeper [oshpizekhaneih] raised a contradiction before him: Did Shmuel actually say that if the vestments are dragging on the ground, they are fit, but if they are raised up above the ground, they are unfit? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita that even if the vestments were raised up they are fit? Rav Huna said to him: Raise a contradiction from any source apart from this baraita, as Rami bar 岣ma already answered that it does not contradict Shmuel鈥檚 statement, as it applies only to vestments that were initially the proper length.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 拽砖讬讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 诪专讜砖诇讬谉 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讘谞讟 讜讗讘谞讟 诪讬讙讝 讗讙讬讝 讗诇讗 诪住讜诇拽讬谉 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the baraita pose a difficulty for Rav, who deems the vestments unfit even if they were dragging? And if you would say: What is the meaning of the word: Dragging, in the baraita? It means that they would initially drag but were raised up by a belt to the proper length, and they are fit since the belt effectively trims them, but then the term: Raised up, in the baraita poses a difficulty. Why should the baraita deem raised vestments fit? If the baraita is referring to vestments that were initially the proper length and were then raised up by a belt, then shouldn鈥檛 they be unfit as the belt trims them?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专讘 讞讚讗 转谞讬 诪专讜砖诇讬谉 砖住讬诇拽谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讘谞讟 讻砖专讬谉

Rabbi Zeira says: Rav taught the baraita not as referring separately to both dragging and raised vestments, but as one statement referring to vestments that are simultaneously dragging and raised, i.e., dragging vestments that the priest raised up by his belt to the proper height are fit. But if they were above or below their proper height for any reason, they are unfit.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 诪专讜砖诇讬谉 砖诇讗 住讬诇拽谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 注诇 讗专讘注 讻谞驻讜转 讻住讜转讱 讗专讘注 讜诇讗 砖诇砖 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讜诇讗 讞诪砖 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛 讛专讬 讘注诇转 讞诪砖 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗专讘注 讗专讘注 讜诇讗 砖诇砖 讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇转 讞诪砖 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讘注诇转 砖诇砖 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讘注诇转 讞诪砖 砖讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讞诪砖 讗专讘注 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讘注诇转 砖诇砖 砖讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 砖诇砖 讗专讘注

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti says: The case of dragging vestments that the priest did not raise is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淥n the four corners of your garment鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), from which it can be inferred: Four, but not three, i.e., a three-cornered garment is exempt from the obligation of ritual fringes. One may ask: Or perhaps it is only specifying four, but not five? When it says in the same verse: 鈥淲ith which you cover yourself,鈥 a garment of five corners is mentioned as obligated. If so, how do I realize the meaning of: 鈥淔our corners鈥? It means four, but not three. And what did you see that led you to include a garment of five corners and to exclude a garment of three corners? I include a garment of five corners as four is included in five, and I exclude a garment of three corners as four is not included in three.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 注诇 讗专讘注 讻谞驻讜转 讻住讜转讱 讗专讘注 讜诇讗 砖诇砖 讗专讘注 讜诇讗 讞诪砖 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬转专 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讚诪讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讬转讬讛 讚诪讬

And it is taught in another baraita that the verse states: 鈥淥n the four corners of your garment,鈥 from which it may be inferred: Four, but not three, and also four, but not five, i.e., only a four-cornered garment is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes. Rabbi Yirmeya continues: What, is it not that these tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to this: That one Sage, who deems a five-cornered garment exempt, holds that an extra item is considered as though it exists and cannot be ignored, and one Sage, who deems it obligated, holds that it is considered as though it does not exist and the garment has only four corners? Accordingly, the first Sage deems a dragging priestly vestment unfit, since one cannot ignore the extra fabric, while the second Sage deems it fit since the extra fabric is treated as immaterial.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讚诪讬 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛

The Gemara responds: No, everyone agrees that an extra piece of a garment is considered as though it exists, and therefore dragging vestments are unfit. And according to the tanna of the second baraita, it is different here, with regard to ritual fringes, as the Merciful One amplifies the halakha to obligate even five-cornered garments with the words 鈥渨ith which you cover yourself.鈥

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗讬 讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜专讗讬转诐 讗转讜 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 转讻住讛 讘讛 讛专讬 讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜专讗讬转诐 讗转讜 驻专讟 诇讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who deems five-cornered garments exempt, what does he do with this verse: 鈥淲ith which you cover yourself鈥? The Gemara responds: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be unto you for a fringe, that you may look upon it鈥 (Numbers 15:39). The phrase: 鈥淭hat you may look upon it,鈥 serves to exclude a night garment from the obligation of ritual fringes, as the fringes on such a garment cannot be seen. One might ask: Or is it only to exclude the garment of a blind person, who is unable to see the ritual fringes? When it states in the verse: 鈥淲ith which you cover yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), the obligation of ritual fringes for the garment of a blind person is mentioned. If so, how do I realize the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淭hat you may look upon it鈥? It serves to exclude a night garment.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讻住讜转 住讜诪讗 砖讬砖谞讛 讘专讗讬讛 讗爪诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘专讗讬讛 讗爪诇 讗讞专讬诐

The baraita continues: And what did you see that led you to include the garment of a blind person and to exclude a night garment and not the reverse? I include the garment of a blind person because it is at least visible to others, and I exclude a night garment because it is not visible, even to others.

[讜讗讬讚讱 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗砖专 讜讗讬讚讱 讗砖专 诇讗 讚专讬砖]

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who derives that a five-cornered garment requires ritual fringes from the phrase: 鈥淲ith which you cover yourself,鈥 from where does he derive that the garment of a blind person requires ritual fringes? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the word 鈥渨hich鈥 in the phrase, as that term itself connotes an amplification of the halakha. The Gemara asks: And what does the other Sage do with this word? The Gemara responds: He does not interpret the word 鈥渨hich鈥 as an amplification.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讚 砖讬讛讬讜 砖诇 讘讜抓 讘讚 砖讬讛讜 讞讚砖讬诐 讘讚 砖讬讛讜 砖讝讜专讬诐 讘讚 砖讬讛讜 讞讜讟谉 讻驻讜诇 砖砖讛 讘讚 砖诇讗 讬诇讘砖 砖诇 讞讜诇 注诪讛谉

The Sages taught with regard to the priestly vestments that the term: 鈥淟inen [bad ]鈥 (Leviticus 6:3), used in the verse indicates several properties of the garments: The verse states 鈥渓inen鈥 to indicate that they must be made of fine linen [butz]; 鈥渓inen,鈥 that they must be new; 鈥渓inen,鈥 that their thread must be twisted of several plies; 鈥渓inen,鈥 that their thread must be folded six times; 鈥渓inen,鈥 that the priest may not wear non-sacred clothes along with them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讬讛讜 砖诇 讘讜抓 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讜抓 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讗诇讗 讘讚 砖讬讛讜 讞讚砖讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讞拽讬谉 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪砖讜讞拽讬谉 讻砖专讬诐

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted, the statement that they must be of fine linen is understood; this requirement teaches us that if they are of fine linen they are fit, but if they are of something else they are not. But with regard to the statement: Linen, that they must be new, one can infer that if they are new they are fit but if they are frayed they are not. But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita (18a) that even if they were frayed they are fit?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讘讚 砖讬讛讜 讞讜讟谉 讻驻讜诇 砖砖讛 讘讚 讞讚 讞讚 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪砖诪注 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讙讚讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 讘讚 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讜 砖诇 讘讜抓 讞讚砖讬诐 砖讝讜专讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讞讜讟谉 讻驻讜诇 砖砖讛 讬砖 诪讛谉 诇诪爪讜讛 讬砖 诪讛谉 诇注讻讘

Rav Yosef said to him: And according to your reasoning that the baraita intends to derive all of these requirements from the word linen, such that all of these requirements are indispensable, how can one understand the requirement: Linen, that their thread must be folded six times? The word bad itself means each one on its own (see Exodus 30:34). Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: Those garments with regard to which it is stated: Linen, must be made of fine linen, and they must be new and twisted, and their thread must be folded six times. Some of these requirements constitute a mitzva ab initio, and some of them are indispensable.

诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讚 讻转谞讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讘专 讛注讜诇讛 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讘讚 讘讘讚

The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this material bad is produced from the flax plant? Rabbi Yosef, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: The verse is referring to an item that grows from the ground with each stalk growing on its own [bad bevad], i.e., it does not split into multiple stalks. The flax plant fulfills this criterion.

讗讬诪讗 注诪专讗 注诪专讗 诪讬驻爪诇 讻讬转谞讗 谞诪讬 诪讬驻爪诇 注诇 讬讚讬 诇拽讜转讗 诪讬驻爪讬诇

The Gemara asks: Why not say that it is wool? The Gemara responds: The individual wool fibers split into smaller fibers. The Gemara rejects this: But flax also splits. The Gemara responds: It splits only by being struck. Wool, by contrast, splits naturally.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 驻讗专讬 驻砖转讬诐 讬讛讬讜 注诇 专讗砖诐 讜诪讻谞住讬 驻砖转讬诐 讬讛讬讜 注诇 诪转谞讬讛诐 诇讗 讬讞讙专讜 讘讬讝注

Ravina says that the identity of bad is derived from here: The verse states with regard to the priestly vestments: 鈥淭hey shall have linen [pishtim] crowns upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with yaza (Ezekiel 44:18). The word pishtim is clearly referring to flax.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讛讗 注讚 讚讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪谞诇谉 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 诪转讜专转 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诪讚讘专讬 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讘谉 讘讜讝讬 诇诪讚谞讜 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 注专诇 诇讘 讜注专诇 讘砖专 诇讗 讬讘讗 讗诇 诪拽讚砖讬 诇砖专转谞讬 注讚 砖讘讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诪谞诇谉 讗诇讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜讗转讗 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜讗住诪讻讬讛 讗拽专讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讻讜壮

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: But before Ezekiel came, from where did we derive the identity of bad? Ravina responded: And according to your reasoning, one could ask the same of that which Rav 岣sda said with regard to the prohibition against Temple service by one who is uncircumcised or an apostate: We did not learn this following matter from the Torah of Moses, our teacher; we learned it from the words of Ezekiel, son of Buzi: 鈥淣o stranger, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary to serve Me鈥 (Ezekiel 44:9). Until Ezekiel came, from where did we derive this? Rather, this halakha is learned as a tradition and therefore was observed for generations, and Ezekiel came and gave it support by writing a verse. Here too, it is learned as a tradition, and Ezekiel came and gave it support by writing a verse.

诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讞讙专讜 讘讬讝注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讬讞讙专讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诪讝讬注讬谉 讻讚转谞讬讗 讻砖讛诐 讞讜讙专讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讜讙专讬谉 诇讗 诇诪讟讛 诪诪转谞讬讛谉 讜诇讗 诇诪注诇讛 诪讗爪讬诇讬讛谉 讗诇讗

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase in the verse: 鈥淭hey shall not gird themselves with yaza鈥? Abaye said: They shall not gird themselves in a place in which people sweat [mezi鈥檌n]. As it is taught in a baraita: When they gird themselves with the belt, they may not gird themselves below their loins nor above their elbows, but rather

Scroll To Top