Zevachim 18

תלמוד לומר חוקה חוקה לגזירה שוה

The verse states “statute” with regard to those who drank wine, and it likewise states “statute” 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.

אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי עבודה דזר חייב עליה מיתה אבל עבודה דאין זר חייב עליה מיתה אימא לא קא משמע לן

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.

אשכחן מחוסר בגדים שתויי יין מנלן אתיא חוקה חוקה ממחוסר בגדים

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 (10:9–10) addresses only rites for which a non-priest receives the death penalty? The Gemara responds: It is derived by verbal analogy between the word “statute” used there and the word “statute” from the verses discussing one lacking the requisite vestments.

והא תנא ולהבדיל בין וגו׳ קא נסיב לה מקמי דליקום גזירה שוה

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the tanna of the aforementioned baraita derive that the rites of those who drank wine are disqualified from the verse: “That you may put difference between the holy and the common” (Leviticus 10:10), and not by verbal analogy to a priest lacking the requisite vestments? The Gemara responds: “That you may put difference between the holy and the common” 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.

והא תנא מחוסר בגדים הוא דקא יליף משתויי יין הכי קאמר מנין שלא נחלקו בין מחוסר בגדים לשתויי יין ושלא רחוץ ידים ורגלים תלמוד לומר חוקה חוקה לגזירה שוה

The Gemara challenges: But doesn’t 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: “Statute,” “statute,” in order to derive a verbal analogy.

אלא להבדיל למה לי לכדרב דרב לא מוקים אמורא עליה מיומא טבא לחבריה משום שכרות

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: “That you may put difference between the holy and the common”? 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: “And 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” (Leviticus 10:10–11), indicating that one who drank wine may not issue a halakhic ruling.

אכתי מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן בכיהונו לימד על כהן גדול שלבש בגדי כהן הדיוט ועבד עבודתו פסולה

The Gemara asks: Still, is the disqualification of rites performed by one lacking the requisite vestments derived from here, i.e., from the verse: “And you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons” (Exodus 29:9)? It is derived from there: “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:7). The superfluous term “the priest” 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.

אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי עבודה דמעכבא כפרה אבל עבודה דלא מעכבא כפרה לא

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.

ואכתי מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא וערכו בני אהרן הכהנים את הנתחים וגו׳ הכהנים בכיהונן מכאן לכהן הדיוט שלבש בגדי כהן גדול ועבד עבודתו פסולה

The Gemara asks: But still, is the halakha derived from here, i.e., from all of the previous sources? It is derived from there: “And 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” (Leviticus 1:8). The superfluous term “the priests” 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.

אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי חיסור אבל ייתור לא קא משמע לן

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.

תנו רבנן היו מרושלין מסולקין משוחקים ועבד עבודתו כשירה לבש שני מכנסים שני אבנטים חסר אחת יתר אחת או שהיתה לו רטיה על מכת בשרו תחת בגדו או שהיו

§ The Sages taught: If the priest’s 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

מטושטשין או מקורעין ועבד עבודתו פסולה

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

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מרושלין כשרין מסולקין פסולין והתניא מסולקין כשרין אמר רמי בר חמא לא קשיא כאן שסילקן על ידי אבנט כאן דליתניהו מעיקרא כלל

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’t it taught in the above baraita that even if the vestments were raised up they are fit? Rami bar Ḥama 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’s feet at all.

רב אמר אחד זה ואחד זה פסולין

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

רב הונא איקלע לארגיזא רמא ליה בר אושפיזכניה מי אמר שמואל מרושלין כשרין ומסולקין פסולין והתניא מסולקין כשרין אמר ליה בר מינה דההיא דשנייה רמי בר חמא

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’t 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 Ḥama already answered that it does not contradict Shmuel’s statement, as it applies only to vestments that were initially the proper length.

אלא לרב קשיא וכי תימא מאי מרושלין מסולקין על ידי אבנט ואבנט מיגז אגיז אלא מסולקין קשיא

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t 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’t they be unfit as the belt trims them?

אמר רבי זירא רב חדא תני מרושלין שסילקן על ידי אבנט כשרין

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.

אמר רבי ירמיה מדיפתי מרושלין שלא סילקן תנאי היא דתניא על ארבע כנפות כסותך ארבע ולא שלש או אינו אלא ארבע ולא חמש כשהוא אומר אשר תכסה בה הרי בעלת חמש אמור הא מה אני מקיים ארבע ארבע ולא שלש ומה ראית לרבות בעלת חמש ולהוציא בעלת שלש מרבה אני בעלת חמש שיש בכלל חמש ארבע ומוציא אני בעלת שלש שאין בכלל שלש ארבע

§ Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti says: The case of dragging vestments that the priest did not raise is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “On the four corners of your garment” (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: “With which you cover yourself,” a garment of five corners is mentioned as obligated. If so, how do I realize the meaning of: “Four corners”? 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.

ותניא אידך על ארבע כנפות כסותך ארבע ולא שלש ארבע ולא חמש מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר יתר כמאן דאיתיה דמי ומר סבר כמאן דליתיה דמי

And it is taught in another baraita that the verse states: “On the four corners of your garment,” 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’im 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.

לא דכולי עלמא כמאן דאיתיה דמי ושאני הכא דרבי רחמנא אשר תכסה בה

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 “with which you cover yourself.”

ואידך האי אשר תכסה בה מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא וראיתם אתו פרט לכסות לילה או אינו אלא פרט לכסות סומא כשהוא אומר אשר תכסה בה הרי כסות סומא אמור הא מה אני מקיים וראיתם אתו פרט לכסות לילה

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who deems five-cornered garments exempt, what does he do with this verse: “With which you cover yourself”? The Gemara responds: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that you may look upon it” (Numbers 15:39). The phrase: “That you may look upon it,” 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: “With which you cover yourself” (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: “That you may look upon it”? It serves to exclude a night garment.

ומה ראית לרבות כסות סומא ולהוציא כסות לילה מרבה אני כסות סומא שישנה בראיה אצל אחרים ומוציא אני כסות לילה שאינה בראיה אצל אחרים

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.

[ואידך נפקא ליה מאשר ואידך אשר לא דריש]

The Gemara asks: And the other Sage, who derives that a five-cornered garment requires ritual fringes from the phrase: “With which you cover yourself,” from where does he derive that the garment of a blind person requires ritual fringes? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the word “which” 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 “which” as an amplification.

תנו רבנן בד שיהיו של בוץ בד שיהו חדשים בד שיהו שזורים בד שיהו חוטן כפול ששה בד שלא ילבש של חול עמהן

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

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף בשלמא שיהו של בוץ הא קא משמע לן בוץ אין מידי אחרינא לא אלא בד שיהו חדשים חדשים אין שחקין לא והתניא משוחקין כשרים

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’t it taught in the baraita (18a) that even if they were frayed they are fit?

אמר ליה וליטעמיך בד שיהו חוטן כפול ששה בד חד חד לחודיה משמע אלא הכי קאמר בגדים שנאמר בהן בד צריכין שיהו של בוץ חדשים שזורין שיהא חוטן כפול ששה יש מהן למצוה יש מהן לעכב

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.

ממאי דהאי בד כתנא הוא אמר רבי יוסף ברבי חנינא דבר העולה מן הקרקע בד בבד

The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this material bad is produced from the flax plant? Rabbi Yosef, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, 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.

אימא עמרא עמרא מיפצל כיתנא נמי מיפצל על ידי לקותא מיפציל

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.

רבינא אמר מהכא פארי פשתים יהיו על ראשם ומכנסי פשתים יהיו על מתניהם לא יחגרו ביזע

Ravina says that the identity of bad is derived from here: The verse states with regard to the priestly vestments: “They 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.

אמר ליה רב אשי לרבינא והא עד דאתא יחזקאל מנלן ולטעמיך הא דאמר רב חסדא דבר זה מתורת משה רבינו לא למדנו מדברי יחזקאל בן בוזי למדנו כל בן נכר ערל לב וערל בשר לא יבא אל מקדשי לשרתני עד שבא יחזקאל מנלן אלא גמרא גמירי לה ואתא יחזקאל ואסמכיה אקרא הכא נמי גמרא גמירי לה כו׳

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 Ḥisda 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: “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary to serve Me” (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.

מאי לא יחגרו ביזע אמר אביי לא יחגרו במקום שמזיעין כדתניא כשהם חוגרין אין חוגרין לא למטה ממתניהן ולא למעלה מאציליהן אלא

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase in the verse: “They shall not gird themselves with yaza”? Abaye said: They shall not gird themselves in a place in which people sweat [mezi’in]. 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