Zevachim 18b (יח:) — the Talmud in English

Or if the priestly garments were

soiled

with mud, or

torn,

and he performed the service—the service is invalid! For garments soiled with mud or torn are unfit for the service, since it is stated concerning the priestly garments that they shall be “for honor and for glory,” whereas garments of this kind are neither for honor nor for glory.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Garments that are too long—

are valid; garments that are too short—

are invalid!

And we raise an objection:

But was it not taught in a beraita: Garments that are too short are valid?!

And we answer:

Rami bar Ḥama said: It is not difficult.

Here,

where we learned in the beraita, “Garments that are too short are valid,” the case is

when he shortened them

[raised them from the ground, so that they appear short]

with a belt,

meaning that the garments themselves were appropriate according to the priest’s required length, but by means of the belt he made them short on his body.

Here, in Shmuel’s statement that “garments that are too short are invalid,” the case is

where they were

not there at all originally, meaning that the garments were inherently shorter than the measurement of the priest who wore them.

Rav said: Both this one and that one—

garments that are too long and garments made too short not by means of a belt—

are invalid.

Rav Huna happened to come to Argiza

[a place-name].

The son of his innkeeper challenged him

[he raised an objection to him]:

Did Shmuel say, “

Garments that are too long are valid, and garments that are too short are invalid,”

but was it not taught

in the earlier beraita,

“Garments that are too short are valid”?!

He said to him: Set that one aside!

The earlier beraita cannot be raised as an objection to you,

for Rami bar Ḥama resolved it: he already explained that the beraita stating that garments made too short are valid refers only to a case in which they were shortened with a belt; but if they are short because they are inherently shorter than the required measure, they are invalid. It was in this latter manner that Shmuel invalidated them.

And we raise an objection: This works well according to Shmuel.

But according to Rav,

who said, “Both garments that are too long and garments that are too short are invalid,”

it is difficult

what we learned in the beraita,

“Garments that are too long are valid”?!

And if you would say: What is meant by ‘garments that are too long’

that the beraita declared valid? It does not mean that they were too long and dragged along the ground; rather, they were

made shorter with a belt

to the priest’s measure, and therefore it does not matter that they were longer than the priest’s measure, because the

belt

that raises them to the length of the priest is considered as though the garment

had been cut away,

and it is not considered too long, since it does not drag on the ground. Rav invalidated them only when they were too long and dragged on the ground, so there is no difficulty from the beraita to Rav’s statement.

Rather,

what Rav says concerning

garments made too short is difficult

from the beraita, which declares them valid.

It is impossible to explain Rav’s opinion as we explained Shmuel’s: that the beraita deemed garments that were lifted by means of a belt fit, whereas Rav deemed garments that had lifted on their own unfit. For we have already proven that Rav considers lifting the garment by means of a belt as though the garment had been cut. If so, even if the beraita is speaking of garments lifted by means of a belt, Rav’s difficulty still remains: why did the beraita deem lifted garments fit?

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said: Rav

understood that the beraita was dealing with a different situation, and explained that the terms “trailing” and “lifted”

are taught as one,

and the intention is not that they were either “trailing” or “lifted”; rather, it is one and the same matter:

trailing garments that he lifted by means of a belt,

up to the measure of the kohen,

are fit!

But trailing garments that he did not lift, or garments that were lifted, are unfit.

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: Trailing garments that he did not lift

are the subject of a dispute

between tannaim!

As it is taught in a beraita: “You shall make for yourself twisted threads

on the four corners of your garment”—a garment that has

four corners

is

obligated in tzitzit,

but not

a garment that has

three

corners בלבד.

Or perhaps

the verse came to exclude

only four and not five

corners, but a garment with three corners is obligated in tzitzit?

When

the verse adds

and says

later in the verse,

“with which you cover yourself,”

this is

an amplification to obligate an additional garment, and it follows that a garment

with five

corners

is included.

How, then, do I understand

“four”?

To tell you:

four and not three!

And what did you see to include a garment with five and exclude a garment with three,

rather than the reverse?

I include a garment with five, because

it

contains four within the five.

And I exclude a garment with three, for three does not contain four!

And another beraita was taught: “On the four corners of your garment”—

four and not three.

Four and not three.

Four and not five.

Only a garment with four corners is obligated in tzitzit!

Is that not the point of their dispute,

the tannaim in these two beraitot:

that one

who exempts a garment with five corners from tzitzit

holds

—an extra part is considered as though it exists,

and I cannot apply to it the phrase “on the four corners,” since the fifth corner must be taken into account and cannot be ignored.

And the other

who obligates a garment with five,

holds that an extra part is considered as though it does not exist,

and the garment is considered to have “four corners” despite having five, since it contains four corners within it.

And just as they dispute whether an extra part in a garment with five corners is considered as though it exists or as though it does not exist, so too they dispute with regard to trailing garments: whether the excess is considered as though it exists, and they are unfit, or whether the excess is considered as though it does not exist, and we are unconcerned that the trailing extends the garment beyond the measure of the kohen, since whatever exceeds the required length is considered as nonexistent, and the garments are fit.

And we reject this:

No,

the tannaim did not dispute whether an excess is considered as existing or as nonexistent. Rather,

everyone

held that an excess

is considered as existing,

and therefore trailing garments are unfit.

But here it is different,

for the one who obligates a garment with five corners in tzitzit holds that

the Merciful One amplified

“with which you cover yourself,”

so that even a garment with five corners is obligated in tzitzit.

And the other

the tanna who obligates in tzitzit only a garment with four corners,

what does he do with

the amplification stated in

“with which you cover yourself”?

He needs it for that which is taught in a beraita:

He needs it for that which is taught in a beraita:

“And you shall see it”—

excluding a night garment,

which is exempt from tzitzit, because “and you shall see it” is not fulfilled with regard to it.

Or perhaps it is only

excluding a blind person’s garment,

for “and you shall see it” never applies to him; but with regard to a sighted person, who sees during the day, should his night garment be obligated in tzitzit?

When it says

“with which you cover yourself,”

a blind person’s garment is included,

as the verse adds this amplification to obligate it in tzitzit.

How, then, do I understand

“and you shall see it”?

As excluding a night garment!

And what did you see to include a blind person’s garment and exclude a night garment?

Why not learn the opposite: to obligate a night garment and exempt a blind person’s garment?

I include

as obligated

a blind person’s garment,

since

it is subject to seeing

by others, and “and you shall see it” is fulfilled with regard to it,

and I exclude a night garment, which is not subject to seeing by others!

And the other

the tanna who holds that the amplification “with which you cover yourself” teaches that even a garment with five corners is obligated in tzitzit—from where will he learn that a blind person’s garment is obligated?

He derives it from

“which,”

and he holds that this word is an independent superfluity.

And the other—“which”

he does not expound!

The Sages taught: “Linen”

stated with regard to the garments of the kohanim teaches us

that they shall be

the garments of the kohanim

of linen [linen],

as will be explicitly explained below. And it is likewise learned from

“linen”

that the garments shall be

new.

And likewise, “linen” -

the garments must be

new. And likewise, “linen” -

And likewise, “linen” -

That the

threads of the garment shall be

twisted, and their thread doubled sixfold,

so that each thread of the garment shall be twisted from six fine threads. And “linen” also comes to teach

that he shall not wear

a garment

of non-sacred status with them!

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted

that which the Sages learned from the meaning of “linen,”

that the

garments shall be

of linen, this teaches us

that the garments must be made of

linen, yes.

Anything else, no!

But

with regard to what he derived from “linen,”

that they shall be new,

it apparently requires explanation: is it only garments that are

new, yes, but worn garments no?

But it is taught in a beraita: Worn garments are fit!

And it is evident that “linen” includes both old and new garments!

He said to him

Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

By your reasoning,

if you assume that the Sages learned these laws from the meaning of the word “linen,” the difficulty still arises: how did they learn from

“linen”

that their thread shall be

of the garments of the kohanim doubled and twisted from

six

fine threads? After all, “linen” means one individual thread,

each one individually, is what it implies,

and not a thread twisted from several threads!

Rather,

necessarily, they did not learn it from the meaning of the word “linen.” Rather,

this is what

the tanna in the beraita

said:

Garments concerning which “linen”

is stated must be of linen, new, and twisted—

their thread shall be doubled sixfold.

Some of these are required for the mitzva

[new garments, because of the beauty of the mitzva, and not because of the meaning of the verse].

And some are indispensable

[linen and twisted, with their thread doubled sixfold].

The source for the requirement that they be “linen” is derived immediately below from “linen.” Since it is linen, it must be “twisted,” because linen is called in the Torah “sixfold twisted”; whereas the source for the requirement that it be “doubled sixfold” is expounded in Yoma 71b from the word “six.” And see note 20.

And the Gemara explains from where it is derived that the priestly garments must be made of butz [linen]:

From where is it known that this

“bad,”

like flax,

linen

is?

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said:

Bad is

something that grows from the ground one stalk at a time,

for from each flaxseed only a single stalk grows.

And we challenge this: If the meaning of bad is something that grows one stalk at a time,

say that

“bad” is

wool,

for in wool as well, each individual strand emerges separately from the animal’s skin?

And we answer:

Wool

indeed has each strand emerge independently, but once it grows,

it splits,

the strand branches and divides into two, and it is no longer called “one stalk at a time.” Flax, by contrast, remains a single stalk throughout its growth.

And we challenge this:

Flax also splits!

For after the flax stalks are harvested and one comes to spin them into threads, the stalks are beaten and divide into many fibers?

And we answer: Flax itself remains whole; only

through being beaten,

when it is crushed, does it

split,

and therefore flax is considered to grow one stalk at a time. Wool, by contrast, has strands that split and divide on their own.

Ravina said:

The source that the priestly garments must be made of flax is learned

from here:

“They shall have linen turbans upon their heads, and linen trousers upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves in a place of sweat.”

And it is thereby demonstrated that linen trousers are called “linen trousers.”

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: But before Ezekiel came, from where did we know

that bad means flax?

Ravina said to him:

In your view,

that one must find a source in the Torah itself, the following difficulty arises:

“This matter,” Rav Ḥisda said,

that an uncircumcised man invalidates the sacrificial service,

we did not learn from the Torah of Moses our teacher,

but

we learned it from the words of Ezekiel son of Buzi,

who said:

“Any foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall not enter My Sanctuary”!

According to your reasoning, the difficulty would be:

Before Ezekiel came, from where did we know it?

Rather, inevitably,

it was received as a teaching,

for the matter was learned through a tradition received at Sinai and transmitted from generation to generation,

and Ezekiel came and anchored it

to that tradition

in a verse.

Here too,

with regard to the question of from where it is known that bad means flax,

it was received as a teaching,

but Ezekiel came and supported it with a verse.

What is the meaning of

“they shall not gird themselves in a place of sweat”?

Abaye said: They shall not gird themselves in the place where one sweats ,

which is the place where flesh folds over flesh.

As it was taught in a beraita: The priests do not gird

themselves with the belt

below their waists or above their elbows

[above, opposite the elbow of the arm,