Zevachim 18a — the Talmud in English

the verse says

“statute, statute”

for a gezerah shavah.

Concerning those intoxicated by wine [Leviticus 10:9], the verse says “statute,” and likewise the verse says concerning one lacking garments [Exodus 29:9] and concerning the washing of hands and feet [ibid. 30:21] “statute” [the reference is to “an eternal statute,” which is stated in all three of them], to teach by a gezerah shavah: just as those intoxicated by wine invalidate the service, so too one lacking garments, or one who has not washed his hands and feet, invalidates the service.

And once we have learned concerning one lacking garments that he invalidates the service by a gezerah shavah from those intoxicated by wine, why was it necessary for the verse to say, “And it shall be for them an eternal priesthood

And we answer

if

we were to derive it

from there,

by a gezerah shavah from those intoxicated by wine alone,

I would have said, this applies only

that one lacking garments invalidates his service only in a case where he performed

a service for which a non-priest is liable to death

[such as sprinkling, or burning, or pouring the wine and water],

but concerning a service for which a non-priest is not liable to death, say that he does not

invalidate it, for concerning those intoxicated by wine, who are the source of the derivation, it is said, “lest they die,” and I would have said that only those services concerning which death is stated are derived by the gezerah shavah from those intoxicated by wine.

it teaches us

the verse, “And it shall be for them a priesthood, an eternal statute,” that in all the services which a priest performs while lacking garments, he thereby invalidates the service, because one lacking garments is like a non-priest, and in the case of a non-priest there is no distinction between a service involving death and a service not involving death; rather, in all of them he disqualifies .

We have found this concerning one lacking garments

that he invalidates in all services.

Those intoxicated by wine,

concerning whom the law of death is stated,

from where do we know

that they invalidate the service even in those services for which a non-priest is not liable to death?

It comes

by a gezerah shavah,

“statute, statute,”

from one lacking garments!

And we raise an objection:

But the tanna

in the beraita

from

“and to distinguish between

the sacred and the profane,” which is said concerning those intoxicated by wine,

derives it.

And he does not require a gezerah shavah for this. How can we disagree with this and derive a gezerah shavah on our own?

And we answer: The tanna in the beraita learned from “and to distinguish between the sacred and the profane” only

before the gezerah shavah

of “statute, statute” from one lacking garments was established for him! That is to say, initially the tanna of the beraita did not remember this gezerah shavah of “statute, statute.” But afterward, once he remembered it, he abandoned the derivation from “and to distinguish between the sacred and the profane,” and his conclusion was that the teaching that those intoxicated by wine invalidate the service is a gezerah shavah from one lacking garments.

And we raise an objection:

But the tanna,

even according to the conclusion,

is deriving one lacking garments from those intoxicated by wine,

and not as we have now said, that he learned the law of those intoxicated by wine by a gezerah shavah from one lacking garments!?

And we answer: In truth, according to the conclusion, the tanna learns the law of invalidation concerning those intoxicated by wine by a gezerah shavah from one lacking garments. And what we find—that the gezerah shavah teaches the reverse—

this is what he means,

the tanna in the beraita:

The derivation from “to distinguish between the sacred and the profane,” which is said concerning those intoxicated by wine, teaches only about the invalidation of services involving death, since concerning those intoxicated by wine it is said, “lest you die.”

But

from where do we know that we should not distinguish between one lacking garments and

between

those intoxicated by wine and

between a priest who served

without washing his hands and feet,

but rather equate one lacking garments, all of whose services are invalid, even those services that do not involve liability to death, with those intoxicated by wine and one who has not washed his hands and feet, so that all their services will be invalid—

the verse says

“statute”

“statute”

for a gezerah shavah!

And we consider the matter: According to the conclusion, that the tanna retracted and learned the law of those intoxicated by wine by a gezerah shavah from one lacking garments,

but

“to distinguish”

why do I need it?

And we answer:

for that of Rav.

Rav

would refrain from expounding matters of halakha while he was drinking wine, and therefore

he would not appoint a public reciter for himself

he would not appoint the “public reciter,” whose task was to proclaim Rav’s words aloud to the public,

from the festival day

from the time that he ate, drank, and made the day a festival, he would neither issue rulings nor expound matters of halakha publicly, until

the following day,

until the day of his fellow, the next day,

because of intoxication.

As it is said, “Wine and strong drink you shall not drink—when you enter the Tent of Meeting ... and to distinguish between the sacred and the profane.” That is to say, at the time when one comes to distinguish and instruct concerning a sacred matter and a profane matter, there should not be intoxication!

But still

we consider the matter: Is it indeed

from here,

from the verse “And it shall be for them an eternal priesthood,”

derived

the law of one lacking garments?

But

it is derived from there,

as it is stated:

“And the sons of Aaron the priest shall place

fire upon the altar,” and we derive from the superfluous word “the priest” that the verse comes to say: When is he called “Aaron the priest”? Only when he is

in his priestly capacity,

when he is wearing the garments of the High Priest, and not when he is wearing the garments of an ordinary priest—

it taught

the verse

concerning a High Priest who wore the garments of an ordinary priest and served,

that

his service is invalid,

because he is lacking the garments of a High Priest! And apparently it is difficult: Why was it necessary to say “Aaron the priest,” once we already have the derivation from the verse “And it shall be for them an eternal priesthood”?

And we answer:

if from there,

if only “And it shall be for them” had been stated,

I would have said, this applies only

that one lacking garments disqualifies only

a service that prevents atonement.

But

placing fire upon the altar, which is

a service that does not prevent atonement,

but is merely for the sake of the mitzva, since the fire already existed upon the altar, having descended from Heaven, except that there is a mitzva to bring fire also from an ordinary person—and had it not been explicitly stated concerning it, “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall place,” I would have said that this service

does not

need to be performed in priestly garments. Therefore the verse teaches us that even a service that does not prevent atonement must be performed in priestly garments!

But still

one can refute: Is it indeed

derived from here?

But

it is derived from there,

as it is stated:

“And the sons of Aaron the priests shall arrange the limbs,”

and we derive from the superfluous word “the priests” that their service is valid only if

the priests are in their priestly capacity—

from here, concerning an ordinary priest who wore the garments of a High Priest and served,

that

his service is invalid,

because he wears garments that are unsuitable for the priesthood of an ordinary priest. And apparently it is difficult: Why are both this exposition and the exposition from “And it shall be for them an eternal priesthood” necessary, which teach that their service is valid only when they wear the garments of their priesthood?

And we explain:

If [it were derived] from there

from “And they shall have the priesthood as an eternal statute,”

I would have said: these words apply

to a disqualification of the service through

the lack

of garments.

But an excess

of garments—where a common priest wore the garments of the High Priest, which include within them the garments of the common priest— I would say

not

disqualify his service. Therefore,

it teaches us

the verse, “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall arrange the pieces,” that even an excess of garments disqualifies his service, because they are not fit for his priesthood as a common priest !

The Sages taught: If the

garments of the priesthood that the priest wore at the time of his service were

dragging,

dragging along the ground, or

raised

above the ground, because they were higher than the ground on account of being short, or if they were

worn

and old,

and he performed the service—

his service is valid!

For the mitzva that the garments should be precisely the priest’s measure is only for the mitzva, and is not indispensable.

If he wore

the priest

two pairs of trousers

or

two belts,

or

lacked one

of all the garments, or wore one garment

in excess , or if he had a patch on his flesh, beneath his garment, and that patch interposed between his flesh and the garment of the priesthood,

or had a bandage on his flesh beneath his garment, and that bandage formed an interposition between his flesh and the priestly garment,