Zevachim 19a — the Talmud in English

And in the Book of Collections [in the Frenkel edition] it was brought in the name of the Gri z who investigated whether this thereby establishes a place for the belt, or whether it is a law concerning the act of girding—that one may not gird in the place of sweat. The practical difference is with regard to the breastplate and the ephod, which involve girding: if it is a law concerning girding, then even the breastplate and the ephod may not be girded in the place of sweat, [and he proved this from Rashi on Exodus 28:7]; but if it is a law concerning the belt, he could have girded the breastplate and the ephod in the place of sweat. However, from the words of the Rambam, who learned the place of the belt from the translation, he proved that it is a law concerning the place of the belt, that it be upon his heart, and this law is not heard from the beraita. [See the Rambam there, in halakha 1, who says that he would gird his trousers above his navel; but this is no proof that it is not a law concerning girding, for with trousers girding was not stated.] And apparently this issue depends upon the doubt of the Zevach Todah here: if one girded in the place of sweat, is he considered lacking garments because it is not in its place, that is, because a specific place was established for the belt; or is it only for adornment, meaning that the act of girding must be performed in the proper place, but this is not a deficiency in the wearing of the garment itself? However, the substance of the explanation is puzzling, for the Rambam [9:11] wrote that the ephod’s belt was tied upon his heart, and the Raavad objected to him that it was only below his navel; and the Kesef Mishneh wrote that the Rambam gave the reason for his words in this halakha concerning the belt. According to the Gri"z, it is impossible to learn the law of the ephod from “they shall not gird themselves in a place of sweat,” which was said specifically concerning the belt and not concerning every girding. It is possible that two laws were stated here: one, that this is not a proper place for girding; and the other, that the place of the belt is established as the proper place for girding. Therefore, with the belt it is disqualifying, and if he girds it in the place of sweat he is considered lacking a belt. But with the breastplate and the ephod, he violates only the words of the Sages, who said “they shall not gird themselves in a place of sweat”; the wearing is not invalidated, and he is considered clothed in them. [Therefore he wrote concerning the belt, “And regarding the belt it is explicit in tradition,” unlike the ephod. And see the writings of the Gri z part IV, section 42.] It requires examination whether the prohibition “they shall not gird themselves in a place of sweat” was said only concerning wearing that he is obligated to wear, or whether even when he wears it without performing the service [as in the view of the Raavad, Hilchot Kilayim 10:2, cited above, 17b, note 7], he is prohibited from girding in the place of sweat; and regarding establishing the place of the belt, it is reasonable that it applies only during the service. It follows that the practical difference in this issue concerns wearing the belt in the place of sweat when it is not during the service. Because the rubbing of the arm against the body causes perspiration]

Rather ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the folio")

opposite the upper arms,

on the ribs opposite the elbow.

Rav Ashi said: Huna bar Natan said to me: One time I was standing before King Izgeder,

the Persian king, and my belt was girded above, opposite the arm.

And he would raise my belt, and dress it for me

[and the Persian king would lower my belt to a lower place so that I would appear handsome, and arrange my clothes in a handsome manner].

And he said to me,

Behold,

“a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”

is written concerning you,

and you are obligated to conduct yourselves in the wearing of your garments like the priests, concerning whom it is stated: “They shall not gird themselves with sweat.”

When

Huna bar Natan

came before Amemar, he said to him

Amemar to Huna bar Natan:

The Persian king fulfilled in you

the prophecy of the prophet Isaiah:

“And kings shall be your guardians”!

We learned there: A priest who injured his finger

on Shabbat, and needs to conceal his injury, and also wishes to heal it—

wraps a reed mat around it,

if he is

in the Temple.

But he may not

wrap a reed mat around it if he is

in the country,

because the reed mat heals, and it is forbidden to be healed on Shabbat, as a decree lest he grind medicinal substances. But in the Temple they did not decree concerning things forbidden only on account of shevut, by rabbinic enactment.

And if

his intention is to wrap the reed mat in order

to bring blood out of it, in both places

both in the Temple and outside it,

it is forbidden,

for he is making a wound, which is forbidden by the Torah!

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, said: They taught

that it is permitted for a priest to wrap a reed mat around his wound and perform the service

only with a reed mat,

which is not considered a garment at all. But if he wraps around the wound

a small belt,

a small girdle,

it is

an excess of garments,

and his service is disqualified.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: They said

“an excess of garments”

disqualifies

only in a place

on the body upon which one wears

garments.

But not in a place of garments,

for example, if he put a garment on his finger,

it is not an excess of garments.

And we object: How did Rabbi Yohanan permit

a person to have any garment whatsoever worn on his finger during the service? Although there is no excess of garments here, since it is not in a place of garments,

let it also go out

to the prohibition

because of an interposition,

for the garment upon his finger interposes between the priest’s hand and the service vessel in his hand; and it is written: “And the priest shall take,” and we derive from here that the taking must be by the priest himself, and there must not be an interposition between them!?

And we answer: Rabbi Yohanan’s permission concerns wearing it on a finger of the

left

hand, with which no service is performed.

Alternatively,

Rabbi Yohanan’s permission concerns wearing it on the back of the finger or on the back of the hand, which is

not a place of service,

and there is no interposition with regard to it.

And this disagrees

with the ruling

that

said

Rava

in the name of Rav Hisda nearby,

with regard to Rabbi Yohanan:

Where clothing is not worn— there is no deficiency of interposition; there is only the deficiency of an excess garment. However, not every garment of any size is considered an excess garment. It is so only if it measures at least three fingerbreadths by three

For Rava said in the name of Rav Hisda: In a place of garments—

even a single thread

that is found between his flesh and the garment

interposes!

Outside a place of garments—

there is no deficiency of interposition, but there is a deficiency of an excess of garments. However, not every garment of any size is considered an excess of garments; rather, only one that has at least the measure of

three fingers

пальцев

by three

fingers, in which case its wearing

interposes

[is considered a disqualification on account of an excess of garments . The tanna used the language of interposition because at the outset he used this language with regard to a single thread in a place of garments, which interposes]. But wearing a garment whose measure is

less than this does not

the wearing

interpose

[as explained, for this is not considered an excess of garments].

And in this Rav Hisda disagreed with Rabbi Yohanan, and held that even outside a place of garments there is the deficiency of an excess of garments.

And we inquire about this: It is obvious that Rav Hisda, who said that even outside a place of garments there is the deficiency of an excess of garments,

with regard to Rabbi Yohanan,

who said that there is no such deficiency outside a place of garments—

certainly disagrees.

But there is still a matter to consider:

with regard to Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya,

who said that a small belt is considered an excess of garments even though it is not three by three—

can one say that he disagrees?

And the Gemara resolves:

A small belt is different, for it is significant.

Therefore, it is considered an excess of garments even though it is not three by three.

Another formulation was stated:

Rav Hisda disagreed with Rabbi Yohanan on this matter and held that even where clothing is not worn, there is the deficiency of an excess garment.

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, said: They taught

that it is permitted for a priest performing the service in the Temple to wrap his finger

only with a reed mat.

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that Rav Hisda, who said that even where clothing is not worn there is the deficiency of an excess garment,

But a small belt interposes

[and this means an excess of garments]!

And Rabbi Yohanan said: They said that an interposition of less than three by three applies only in a place of garments,

where the deficiency is on account of interposition, and this deficiency exists in any amount, for even a single thread interposes.

But outside a place of garments,

where there is no deficiency of interposition but rather a deficiency of an excess of garments, only the wearing of

garments

that have the measure of

three by three

fingers

interposes

[that is, it is considered the wearing of excess garments]. But wearing a garment that is

less

than three by three,

does not interpose,

even if it is significant like a small belt.

And this is

that which Rabbi Yohanan said:

that Rava said in the name of Rav Hisda!

And we raised it: It is obvious that Rabbi Yohanan's words refer to the words of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rav Hiyya, and that he disagrees with him concerning a small bell, for Rabbi Yohanan's view is that anything which is not three by three [handbreadths] is not considered an excess garment.

But it still needs to be discussed:

shall we say

that also what Rava said elsewhere in the name of Rav Hisda, that outside the place of the garments only three by three [handbreadths] interposes,

disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya,

and that Rav Hisda's view is that anything which is not three by three [handbreadths], even a small bell, is not considered an excess garment?

And we conclude: Concerning a small bell, Rav Hisda agrees with Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, because

a small bell is different, for it is significant!

And we object: And according to Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that anything which is not three by three [handbreadths], even if it is a small bell, is not considered an excess garment,

why specifically

did our Mishna need to teach us that he wraps around it

a gami?

For it was possible

to teach us

a greater novelty than this: that even

a small bell

is not called an excess garment?

And we answer:

It teaches us something incidentally, in passing, that gami heals

[that gami possesses a healing property].

Rava raised a problem: If wind entered his garment

and the wind separated the garment from the flesh of the body during the service,

what is [the law]? —

And the sides of the doubt are:

“On his flesh”

literally

we require, and this is not present,

for the wind separated it from the flesh,

or perhaps the manner of wearing

is what we require, and this is the manner of wearing

in this case?!

Rava further raised a problem:

a louse

which is found on his flesh,

what is the law: does it interpose between the flesh and the garment? And we say: If the louse was

dead

—

you need not ask about it, for it certainly interposes!

Rather, if the louse was

alive,

you should ask about it:

what [is the law]?

Do we say: Since it moves about, it is part of him,

as it is considered like his flesh,

and it does not interpose,

or perhaps, since he objects to it

being on his flesh, it is not considered like his flesh, and therefore

it interposes?!

And Rava further discussed:

dust

which is found on his flesh,

what is the law: does it interpose

between the flesh and the garment?

And the Gemara wondered how he was uncertain about this; surely

dust certainly interposes?!

And we answer:

Rather,

necessarily his uncertainty was concerning

dust powder,

which is very fine dust and the priest does not feel it—

what [is the law]? And Rava further discussed: Air

of the armpit:

what is the law: does it interpose?

For the arm opening of the tunic is wide, and it follows that the flesh of the armpit does not touch the tunic, but there is always air between the flesh of the armpit and the garment. Is it that

“on his flesh”

literally

we require, and this is not present,

and they must constrict and press the arm openings until they touch the armpit,

or perhaps, this is the manner of wearing,

and we do not care that in that place there is always air interposing between the body and the garment?

Rava further raised a problem:

If he inserted his hand into his bosom,

and his hand interposed between his bosom and the garment,

what [is the law]?

And the sides of the doubt are:

His body—

does it interpose?

When that part of the body is not in its place, but is found between the flesh at the place of the garment and the garment,

or does it not interpose,

for in any event the garment is on his body?

Rava further raised a problem:

What is the law concerning a thread: does it interpose?

And we object: What is he asking about? Surely

a thread certainly interposes?

And we answer: This is what he was asking about:

a thread hanging loose

from the garment, which was severed at its root but is still slightly attached to the garment: does it interpose, or is it still part of the garment and does not interpose?

Mar bar Rav Ashi raised a problem:

A priest whose head hair grew, and

his hair emerged

downward toward his body, and the hair entered

his garment,

between his flesh and the tunic ,

what [is the law]? [

And the problem is if you find it possible to say that one who inserts his hand between his garment and his flesh does not interpose,]

Does also

his hair count as his body

and just as his hand does not interpose, so too his hair,

or

perhaps his hair

does not count as his body,

and it is like a separate object and interposes?

Rabbi Zeira raised a question: tefillin

that the koen places on his arm at the time of his service,

what is their status regarding interposition [

according to Rashi, the question is whether the tefillin disqualify by virtue of extra garments, and we find above that the expression “interposition” means extra garments; whereas according to Tosafot, the question is whether the tefillin interpose between the flesh of his hand and the tunic]? And the uncertainty is whether, because of the belovedness of the mitzva, the tefillin are considered part of his body [and therefore are not extra garments—according to Rashi, and do not interpose—according to Tosafot], or whether, despite the belovedness of the mitzva, they are considered something separate from his body

According to the one who says that night is not the time for tefillin, you need not ask

certainly they interpose, since

at

the time of

night,

when he does not then fulfill the mitzva of tefillin through them,

they interpose;

they are therefore considered something separate from his body, and consequently even in the services of

the day as well they interpose.

When you ask—

according to the one who says

also

that night is the time for tefillin, and it follows that whenever he places them they are beloved to him like his body.

And it follows that whenever he places them they are beloved to him like his body.

What is the law? Does a mitzva belonging to the body interpose, or does it not interpose? The matter came around

that this question of whether tefillin interpose

and came before Rabbi Ami.

He said to them,

Rabbi Ami:

It is an established teaching in our hands—

the tefillin interpose!

An objection was raised: The kohanim

who were occupied

with their service, and the Levites on their platform, and the Israelites at their station [

for the communal sacrifices],

are exempt

at that time

from prayer and from tefillin

according to the law that one occupied with a mitzva is exempt from performing other mitzvot.

And we inferred:

Is it not that since it teaches that the kohanim are exempt from tefillin by virtue of one occupied with a mitzva, and it does not teach that they must not put on tefillin so that they should not interpose, it is proven that

if

he put them on

the koen,

they do not interpose, for although he is exempt from putting them on, the mitzva of tefillin is in his hand, and the belovedness of the mitzva makes them like his body!? And we answer:

No.

I will always say

if he put them on

at the time of the service, they

interpose.

образуют преграду.

And if this should be difficult for you,

if so, why does it teach that the kohanim

are exempt

from putting on tefillin? Surely they are

forbidden

to put them on; it should have said

must be taught

that they are forbidden to put them on, for they interpose?

Resolve it this way:

since there is

in this Mishna also the law of exemption from the mitzva of tefillin of the

Levites

on their platform

and the Israelites

at their station,

it was not taught to him

that it is impossible to change the wording to “

forbidden”

to put them on, for with regard to the Levites and Israelites there is no prohibition of interposition;

for that reason it taught, also with regard to the kohanim, the wording

“

exempt.”

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught in a beraita: If he put them on, they do not interpose.

And is this not a refutation of Rabbi Ami, who said, “It is an established teaching in our hands: the tefillin interpose”?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

in which Rabbi Ami said that they interpose is with regard to the

hand

-tefillin.

This

in which the beraita teaches that they do not interpose is with regard to the

head

-tefillin [

as it proceeds to explain]:

What is different about the

hand

-tefillin, that they interpose? Because

it is written

with regard to the tunic: “

He shall wear it on his flesh”—

so that there should not be anything interposing between him and his flesh. The

-tefillin

of the head, too, it is written: “

And you shall place the turban upon his head”—

so that there should not be anything interposing between the turban and his head?