Zevachim 18b — the Talmud in English

Or the priestly garments were

stained

with mud or

torn ,

and he performed the service—the service is invalid! For garments stained with mud or torn are not fit for the service, since it is stated concerning the priestly garments that they shall be “for honor and for glory,” whereas garments of this sort are not for honor and for glory.

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: Garments that are too long—

are valid; garments that are raised—

are invalid!

And we object:

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

And we answer:

Rami bar Hama said: It is not difficult.

Here,

where we learned in the beraita, “Garments that are raised are valid,” it is speaking

when he raised them [

he lifted them from the ground, and they appeared short]

by means of a belt,

for the garments themselves were suitable according to the priest’s measure of length, but by means of the belt he made them short upon his body.

Here,

the words of Samuel, that “garments that are raised are invalid,” are speaking in a case

where they were not there from the outset at all,

where the measurements of the garments, as they were, were shorter than the measure of the priest who wore them.

Rav said: Both this and that,

garments that are too long and garments raised not by means of a belt,

are invalid.

Rav Huna happened to come to Argiza [

a place name].

The son of the innkeeper’s host posed to him [

he challenged him, the son of the innkeeper]:

Did Samuel say, “

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

but it was taught

in the beraita above,

“

Garments that are raised are valid”?!

He said to him: Set that one aside!

For Rami bar Hama resolved it,

for Rami bar Hama already explained that the beraita stating “garments that are raised are valid” deals only with a case in which he raised them by means of a belt; but if they are raised because they are short by their very nature, they are invalid. It was in this manner that Samuel disqualified them.

And we object: This works well according to Samuel,

but according to Rav,

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

it is difficult

what we learned in the beraita: “Garments that are too long are valid”?!

And if you should say: What are ‘garments that are too long’

which the beraita validated? It does not mean that they were too long and dragged on the ground, but that they were

raised by means of a belt

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

the belt

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

has been cut away,

and it is not considered too long, since it does not drag upon the ground. And Rav disqualified only in a case where they were too long and dragged upon the ground, so there is no difficulty with Rav’s words from the beraita.

But,

what Rav disqualifies with regard to

raised garments is difficult

from the beraita, which validates them?

It is impossible to explain Rav’s position as we explained Shmuel’s: that the beraita deemed valid garments that had been lifted by means of a belt, whereas Rav deemed invalid garments that had been lifted on their own. For we have already proved that Rav regards the lifting of the garment by means of a belt as though the garment had been cut, and if so, even if the beraita is speaking of garments lifted by means of a belt, it still presents a difficulty to Rav: why did the beraita deem garments that had been lifted valid?

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said: Rav

understood that the beraita was dealing with a different case, and explained that “hanging down” and “lifted”

are taught as one

, and the intention is not that they were either “hanging down” or “lifted,” but that it is one matter:

hanging down, which he lifted by means of a belt

, up to the measure of the priest,

are valid!

But hanging-down garments that he did not lift, or lifted garments, are invalid.

Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: “Garments that were trailing and were not lifted”

is subject to a dispute

among the tannaim!

As it was 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, the ritual fringes,

but not

a garment that has only

three

corners.

Or is it not

that Scripture came to exclude

only four and not five

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

When

Scripture adds

and says

further in the verse, “

with which you cover yourself,”

behold

this is an inclusion to obligate another garment, and it follows that even a garment

having five

corners is

spoken of.

What then do I establish “

four”?

To tell you:

four and not three!

And what did you see to include a garment having five and exclude one having three

and not the reverse ?

I include a garment having five, for

it

has four included within five.

And I exclude a garment having three, for four is not included within three!

And another [beraita was taught: “

on the four corners of your garment.” —

Four and not three.

Four and not five.

For only a garment having four corners is obligated in tzitzit!

Is it not with this that they disagree

the tannaim in these two beraitot,

that one master

who exempts a garment having five corners from tzitzit

holds —

an excess is considered as though it exists

, and I cannot read in it “on the four corners,” for one must take the fifth corner into account and it cannot be disregarded.

And one master

who obligates a garment having five

holds: an excess is considered as though it does not exist

, and the garment is considered to have “four corners” even though it has five, for it contains four corners.

And just as they dispute whether an excess is considered as though it exists or as though it does not exist with regard to a garment having five corners, so too they dispute regarding hanging-down garments: whether an excess is considered as though it exists, and they are invalid, or whether an excess is considered as though it does not exist, and we do not care about the hanging that makes the garment extend beyond the measure of the priest, for whatever exceeds the measure of the length is considered as though it is not there, and the garments are valid.

And we reject this:

No

, the tannaim did not dispute whether an excess is considered as though it exists or as though it does not exist; rather,

everyone

held that an excess

is considered as though it exists

, and therefore hanging-down garments are invalid.

But here it is different

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

the Merciful One included “

with which you cover yourself,” so that even a garment having five corners is obligated in tzitzit.

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

And the other

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

this

inclusion stated in “

with which you cover yourself,”

what does he do with it?

He needs it for that which was taught: “

And you shall see it” —

excluding a nighttime garment

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

Or is it only —

excluding a garment of a blind person

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

When it says “

with which you cover yourself,”

behold, a blind person’s garment is mentioned

, for Scripture added this inclusion to obligate him in tzitzit.

What then do I establish “

and you shall see it”? —

excluding a nighttime garment!

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

And why should we not learn the opposite: to obligate a nighttime garment and exempt a blind person’s garment?

I include

as obligated

a blind person’s garment

, since

there is seeing in it

among others, and “and you shall see it” is fulfilled in it,

and I exclude a nighttime garment, in which there is no seeing among others!

And the other

, the tanna who holds that the inclusion “with which you cover yourself” was stated to teach that a garment having five corners is also obligated in tzitzit—from where will he learn to obligate a blind person’s garment?

He derives it from “

which,”

and holds that this word is a separate superfluity.

And the other

“

which”

he does not expound!

The Sages taught: “

Linen” stated regarding the priestly garments comes to teach us

that they shall be

priestly garments

of linen [flax], as will be explained below; and likewise it is learned from “

as will be explained below, and it is likewise learned from “

linen”

that the garments shall be

the garments

new.

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 thin threads; and “linen” further comes to teach

that he shall not wear

a garment

of the secular with them!

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted

, what the Sages learned from the meaning of “linen,”

that the

garments

shall be of linen, this teaches us

, that the garments shall be made of

linen, yes.

Anything else, no!

Rather

, what he expounded from “linen,”

that they shall be new

, apparently requires explanation: is it only garments

new, yes, and worn-out ones, no?

But it was taught: Worn-out ones are valid!

And it is proven that “linen” means both old and new!

He said to him

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

And according to your reasoning

, that you assume that the Sages learned from the meaning of the word “linen,” it still presents a difficulty: how did they learn from “

linen”

that their thread shall be

of the priestly garments doubled and twisted from

six

thin threads? After all, “linen” means each and every thread,

each one individually means

, and not that a thread should be twisted from several threads!?

Rather

, necessarily, they did not learn from the meaning of the word “linen,” but

this is what he means

the tanna in the beraita:

garments regarding which it is said “

linen”

must be of linen, new, and twisted —

their thread shall be doubled sixfold.

Some of these are for a mitzva

[new ones, by the law of the beauty of the mitzva, and not because of the meaning of Scripture].

And some of them are indispensable

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

And the source that they shall be “linen” is learned shortly from “linen.” And since it is linen, they must be “twisted,” because linen is called in the Torah “six twisted,” whereas the source that they shall be “doubled sixfold” is expounded in Yoma 71b from the word “six.” And see note.

And the Gemara explains from where it is known that the priestly garments must be made of “bוץ” [linen]:

From where [do we know] that this

“bad,”

like ketana

[linen]

is it?

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said:

It is a bad,

a thing that rises from the ground one by one,

for from each flaxseed only one stalk rises.

And we raise an objection: If the meaning of “bad” is a thing that rises one by one,

say that

“bad” is

wool,

[for] in wool as well, each and every fiber emerges separately from the animal’s skin?

And we answer:

Wool

indeed has each fiber emerge independently, but after it grows,

it splits,

the fiber splits and divides into two, and it is no longer called “one by one.” Flax, however, remains as a single stalk throughout the time of its growth.

And we raise an objection:

Flax also splits!

For after the flax stalk is harvested and they come to spin threads from it, they pound the stalk, and it divides into many fibers?

And we answer: Flax itself remains whole, and only

through being pounded,

when they pound it,

does it split,

and therefore flax is considered “one by one”; wool, by contrast, whose fiber splits and divides by itself.

Ravina said:

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

from here,

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

And it is demonstrated that trousers of bad were called “trousers of linen.”

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: But, until Ezekiel came, from where do we know

that “bad” is linen?

Ravina said to him:

In your view,

that one must find a source from the Torah itself, it is difficult:

that which Rav Ḥisda said: This matter,

that an uncircumcised person invalidates the service,

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

but

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

who said:

“Every son of a foreigner, uncircumcised of heart and uncircumcised of flesh, shall not enter My Sanctuary”!

And according to your words it is difficult:

Until Ezekiel came, from where did we know it?

Rather, necessarily,

it was learned by tradition,

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

and Ezekiel came and supported it

with

a verse.

So too here,

regarding the question of from where it is known that this “bad” is flax,

it was learned by tradition,

but Ezekiel came and proved it from 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 they sweat ,

which is the place where flesh folds over flesh.

As it was taught: The priests do not gird

themselves with the belt

neither below their loins nor above their elbows

[above opposite the elbow of the arm,