Linen Breeches and the Garments That Make the Priesthood

"And make for them linen breeches" (Exodus 28:42). It was taught: To what are the priests' breeches comparable? To the riding-trousers of horsemen: above, up to the loins; below, down to the thighs; and they have cords. They have neither an opening behind nor an opening in front. "And they shall be upon Aaron and upon his sons" (Exodus 29). Any offering whose blood was received by a priest lacking his garments is invalid. From where do we know this? As it is written, "And you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons" (Exodus 29:9): when their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them; when their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them. But is this derived from here? It is derived from there, as it was taught: From where do we know that a priest who served while intoxicated with wine has profaned his service? Scripture states, "Drink no wine nor strong drink... that you may distinguish between the holy and the common" (Leviticus 10:9-10). And from where do we know the same of one lacking his garments, or one whose hands and feet were not washed? Scripture uses the word "statute," "statute," for an analogy of equal wording [gezeira shava: the shared term links the cases]. Were it derived only from there I would have said this applies only to a service for which a non-priest is liable to death, but a service for which a non-priest is not liable to death, say it does not apply; therefore it teaches us otherwise. And still, is it derived from here? It is derived from there: "And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire" (Leviticus 1:7), a priest in his priesthood, teaching that a High Priest who wore the garments of an ordinary priest and served, his service is invalid. Were it derived only from there I would have said this applies to a service that is indispensable for atonement, but not to a service that is not indispensable. And still, is it derived from there: "And the sons of Aaron the priests shall arrange the pieces" (Leviticus 1:8), the priests in their priesthood, teaching that an ordinary priest who wore the garments of a High Priest and served, his service is invalid. Were it derived only from there I would have said this applies to lacking a garment, but not to wearing an extra one; therefore it teaches us otherwise. Our Rabbis taught: If his garments were drawn up, trailing, or worn thin, and he served, his service is valid. If he wore two tunics, two pairs of breeches, two sashes, or lacked one, or added one, or had a bandage on his flesh beneath his garment, or they were soiled or patched, and he served, his service is invalid. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: trailing garments are valid, drawn-up garments are invalid. But it was taught that drawn-up garments are valid! Rami bar Chama said: this is not difficult; here it means he drew them up by means of the sash, there it means they were too short from the outset. Rav said: both this and that are invalid. Rava inquired: if wind entered his garment, what is the law? We require it to be "upon his flesh" (Leviticus 6:3), and here it is not; or perhaps, since nothing interposes, it is acceptable. Another version: a louse, does it interpose? A dead louse need not be asked about, for it certainly interposes; what of a living one? Do we say that since it crawls about it is part of his bodily life and does not interpose, or, since he is fastidious about it, it does interpose? Dust, does it interpose? Dust certainly interposes; but what of a film of dust? The armpit, does it interpose? We require "upon his flesh," and here it is not; or perhaps that is the normal manner of wearing. If he put his hand into his bosom, what is the law: does his body interpose or not? A loose thread certainly interposes; what of a dangling one? Mar Rav, Rabbi Ashi, inquired: if his hair came out through his garment, what is the law? Is hair like his body or not? Rabbi Zeira inquired: do tefillin interpose? According to the one who says night is not the time for tefillin, do not ask, for if they interpose at night they interpose by day too; ask rather according to the one who says night is the time for tefillin: what then? Does a commandment performed on the body itself interpose or not? The matter circulated and came before Rabbi Ammi. He said: it is an established teaching; the hand-tefillin interpose. Why specifically the hand? Because it is written, "he shall put upon his flesh" (Leviticus 6:3), that nothing interpose between it and the flesh. And of the head is it not also written, "And you shall set the turban upon his head" (Exodus 29:6)? It was taught: his hair was visible between the frontplate and the turban, and there he placed the head-tefillin. How did he clothe them? What was, was. Rather, how will he clothe them in the time to come? In the time to come too, when Aaron and his sons and Moses our teacher come with them, they will say. Rather, how did he clothe them? To understand the verses. The sons of Rabbi Chiyya and Rabbi Yochanan: one said Aaron and afterward his sons; one said Aaron and his sons together. Abaye said: regarding the tunic and the turban all agree it was Aaron and afterward his sons, for both in command and in performance Aaron came first; they disagree about the sash. The one who said Aaron and afterward his sons cites "and he girded him with the sash" and then "and he girded them with sashes." The one who said Aaron and his sons together cites "and you shall gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons" (Exodus 29:9). [Each then reconciles the opposing verse by distinguishing the High Priest's sash from the ordinary priest's, or by noting the order of precedence.] It was taught: when they gird themselves, they gird neither below their loins nor above their elbows, but level with their elbows, as it is said, "they shall not gird themselves in a place that sweats" (Ezekiel 44:18). Abaye said: in a place where they sweat.