The **Masechet Zevachim** of the Talmud, dedicated by **Binyamin HaKohen**, also known as **Bani Kohen** or **Bani Sih**, begins its discussion with the priestly garments. With God's help, may he find success and abundance, and as a Priest, may he serve in the **Beit HaMikdash** when **Mashiach** comes, in the merit of his dedication of this tractate, which specifically addresses the service of the Priests in the **Beit HaMikdash** concerning the sacrifices.
Our study begins on the sixth line of the text, where it discusses the Priests' garments. A biblical verse states that the garments of the High Priest must be made of "flax linen." This word, "flax linen," appears several times in the Torah, seven times in total, and from these repetitions, we derive various laws regarding the High Priest's attire.
Initially, it seems that all these requirements are invalidating, meaning if any are missing, the service is invalid. The garments must be of flax linen, a requirement that is clearly understood. They must also be new garments. Furthermore, the flax linen must be spun, with each thread composed of six individual strands spun together. Finally, from another instance of the word "flax linen," we learn that the Priests should wear nothing else with these garments; they must be worn alone.
However, a challenge arises regarding the requirement for new garments. We learned previously that worn-out garments are valid. So, while flax linen is an invalidating requirement, newness is not. The garments do not always have to be brand new; they can be worn out. The Gemara clarifies this apparent contradiction by explaining that the word "flax linen" itself implies that the threads must be spun six-fold. Yet, "flax linen" can also imply "alone," meaning each thread is individual, not six spun together. This leads to a deeper analysis.
The Gemara then states that we are not deriving these laws directly from the word "flax linen" itself. Rather, any garment described with the word "flax linen" in the verse must meet certain criteria: it should be new, spun, and have six threads in each strand. Some of these requirements are merely optimal, meaning it is a commandment to fulfill them optimally, but their absence does not invalidate the service post-facto. Other requirements are invalidating even post-facto. The fact that the garment must be made of flax linen is invalidating, as the word "flax linen" implies this material. Similarly, the requirement for the threads to be spun six-fold is also invalidating, even though this is not directly derived from the simple meaning of "flax linen" as "alone." However, the requirement for the garments to be new is not derived specifically from the word "flax linen," and therefore, it is not an invalidating factor post-facto. Thus, a garment that is not new is still valid.
**Rashi** explains this further. The requirements that are not learned specifically from the word "flax linen" are not invalidating. For example, the newness of the garments is not derived from "flax linen" but from an additional word or phrase. Conversely, the requirements for the garment to be flax linen and to be spun six-fold are derived from the word "flax linen" itself. Flax linen grows from the ground as individual stalks, hence the implication of "alone" or "individual." Since this is learned from the actual word, it is an invalidating factor. The spinning of six threads is also implied by the word "flax linen" because flax linen is typically referred to as "six-spun." Therefore, being spun six-fold is also an invalidating factor.
The **Gemara** then asks how we know that "flax linen" refers to a material that grows individually from the ground, as opposed to wool, where each hair also grows individually. The distinction is that wool naturally splits on the animal, whereas flax linen requires pounding to split its fibers, thus it naturally grows as one straight piece. Therefore, it is considered "flax linen" in the sense of growing individually.
**Rabina Amar** offers another source for identifying "flax linen" as flax. A verse in **Yechazkel** explicitly states that Priests will wear flax linen breeches. This clarifies that the "flax linen" mentioned in the Torah refers to flax. However, the **Gemara** questions how this was known before **Yechazkel** came. It answers that certain laws, like the prohibition against an uncircumcised individual serving in the **Beit HaMikdash** (which is also derived from a verse in **Yechazkel**), were known through tradition even before **Yechazkel** recorded them. **Yechazkel** merely put an existing tradition into a verse. Similarly, the identification of "flax linen" as flax was a tradition that **Yechazkel** later confirmed in a verse.
The verse in **Yechazkel** also mentions that Priests "will not put the belt on where it sweats." This means the Priests are not allowed to wear their belts beneath their stomach, where folds and creases cause sweating. Instead, they should wear it higher, above their elbows, in a place where there is no sweat. A story is told of a rabbi who was with the Persian king, wearing his belt high on his body. The king pulled it down, praising the Jewish people by saying, "You are a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. You should not wear your belt in a place that sweats." He was effectively saying that the Jewish people, being a priestly nation, must adhere to the same standard. When the rabbi recounted this to his students, they exclaimed, "What a blessing! The verse 'kings will serve you' has been fulfilled for you!"
The discussion then shifts to the laws of interposition and extra garments. We learned in **Masechet Erubim** that if a Priest has a wound on his finger, he may wrap it with a certain medicinal reed, called a *gemi*, to heal it and to cover the wound, as it is not honorable to serve God with a visible wound. On **Shabbat**, medicinal actions are generally forbidden, but in the **Beit HaMikdash**, rabbinic decrees do not apply. Therefore, a Priest is permitted to wear the *gemi* on his finger even on **Shabbat**. This is permissible during the week to conceal the wound, and on **Shabbat** because rabbinic prohibitions are suspended in the **Beit HaMikdash**. However, he cannot wear it on **Shabbat** outside the **Beit HaMikdash** because it is for healing. If he tightens it with the intention to drain blood, that would be considered making a wound, which is a forbidden labor on **Shabbat**, even in the **Beit HaMikdash**.
The permission to wear the *gemi* on the finger is because a *gemi* is a reed, not a garment, and thus not considered an extra garment. However, a *tzitzul katan*, a small belt or band, would be considered an extra garment, which Priests are forbidden to wear during service. Therefore, wearing a *tzitzul katan* would be forbidden. This is the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda**.
**Rabbi Hanan** challenges this, stating that the prohibition of extra garments applies only to places where garments are normally worn. Since one does not normally wear garments on a finger, even a *tzitzul katan* would be permissible there. The **Gemara** objects to **Rabbi Hanan**'s reasoning, asking why he doesn't consider the *tzitzul katan* an interposition between the Priest's body and his service. An interposition is certainly a problem, regardless of whether it's an extra garment. **Rabbi Yehuda** responds that the *tzitzul katan* is on the Priest's left finger, and service is not performed with the left hand. Alternatively, it is on a part of the finger that does not come into contact with the service.
The **Gemara** then presents a dispute between **Rabbah** and **Rabbi Yochanan** regarding the measure of an interposition or extra garment. **Rabbah** holds that in a place where garments are normally worn, even a single thread can be an interposition. However, if it is not in a place where garments are normally worn, it is only considered an interposition if it is a significant measure, specifically three by three fingers. Less than three by three is not considered a garment and therefore not an extra garment. **Rabbi Yochanan**, on the other hand, holds that the prohibition of extra garments applies even to a small item like a *tzitzul katan* on the finger, if it is considered a significant item. This is a point of contention with **Rabbi Yehuda**'s initial ruling that a *tzitzul katan* is an extra garment.
In a second version of the discussion, **Rabbi Yehuda** again states that while a *gemi* is permissible on the finger, a *tzitzul katan* is an interposition. In this version, **Rabbi Hanan** then states that interposition only applies to items three by three fingers in size, or to even a single thread in a place where garments are normally worn. This aligns **Rabbi Hanan** with **Rabbah**'s view from the first version. The **Gemara** then clarifies that a *tzitzul katan* is considered a significant item, and therefore, even according to **Rabbi Hanan** in this second version, a *tzitzul katan* would be forbidden on the finger, even if it is less than three by three fingers. The **Gemara** asks why, if a *tzitzul katan* is forbidden, the **Mishnah** chose to teach the permissibility of *gemi* specifically. It answers that the *gemi* offers the additional novelty of being a healing balm for a wound, which is a distinct lesson.
The **Gemara** proceeds to a series of questions concerning the laws of priestly garments, specifically the requirement that the garments be directly on the Priest's flesh. The first question considers air that enters a garment and causes it to puff out from the flesh. If it is a normal occurrence for air to enter the clothes, then it is not considered an interposition. What about a louse crawling between the garment and the flesh? If it is a dead louse, there is no question of interposition. If it is a living louse, still crawling, is it considered normal to have lice on a person? If it is normal, then it is as if it is on his body. However, if the Priest is particular about it and does not want it there, then it is an interposition. What about dust or dirt on his flesh? Even a little dust is considered normal and therefore not an interposition.
Another question arises if the garment does not touch the Priest's armpits, leaving a loose space. Is this space considered an interposition? What if the Priest puts his hand under his garment, separating it from his flesh? Is his own body considered an interposition? What if a thread, still attached to the garment but hanging, rests on his hand, separating the garment from his body? Is it still considered part of the garment, or is it a separate item that interposes? What if the Priest has long hair that goes down his back, and his tunic touches his hair instead of his flesh? Is hair considered part of his body or a separate entity?
The **Gemara** then addresses the question of **Tefillin** during service. **Tosefot** understands this as a question of interposition: do **Tefillin** interpose between the garment and the body? However, **Rashi** interprets it as a question of extra garments: are **Tefillin** considered an extra garment that a Priest is forbidden to wear during service? **Rashi**'s approach is crucial here. According to **Rashi**, the question is whether wearing **Tefillin** constitutes an extra garment.
We learn in **Masechet Erubim** and **Masechet Menachot** about the time for wearing **Tefillin**. According to the opinion we follow, night is not the time for **Tefillin**. Therefore, at night, **Tefillin** would certainly be considered an extra garment and an interposition. Since it is considered an extra garment at night, it would also be considered significant during the day and thus an extra garment. We cannot say that the night service is more stringent than the day service, as the day service is primary. Therefore, if something is forbidden at night, it must be forbidden during the day. The question then becomes, according to the opinion that holds that night *is* the time for **Tefillin**, and thus wearing them at night is a commandment, are they still considered an extra garment even though they are a commandment? Or are they not considered an interposition because they are a commandment on the body?
This question reached **Rabbi Emei**, who declared, "We have a clear tradition: **Tefillin** interpose." This means **Tefillin** are considered extra garments, and a Priest cannot wear them during service. This applies to the Priests in their service, and similarly, the Levites on their platform and the Israelites standing by their platform are exempt from praying and wearing **Tefillin** during their respective services. It is not merely an exemption; it is forbidden to wear **Tefillin** for the Priests due to the prohibition of extra garments. The **Gemara** clarifies that the term "forbidden" is used for Priests, but not for Levites and Israelites, for whom wearing **Tefillin** is not forbidden, as the laws of interposition and extra garments do not apply to them. However, to simplify the teaching, a single term, "exempt," is used for all three groups.
A **Baraita** states that **Tefillin** do not interpose. This contradicts the previous statement. The **Gemara** reconciles this by explaining that the **Baraita** refers to **Tefillin Shel Rosh** (head phylacteries), while the initial statement referred to **Tefillin Shel Yad** (hand phylacteries). **Tefillin Shel Yad** are an interposition because they touch the body where the garments are worn. However, **Tefillin Shel Rosh** do not interpose because they do not come into contact with any part of the head that the turban or head-plate would normally touch. The turban of the High Priest was not in the place where **Tefillin** were worn; **Tefillin** were worn lower than the turban and higher than the head-plate, in a separate spot. Therefore, there is no interposition. According to **Rashi**'s interpretation that the question is about extra garments, the **Tefillin Shel Yad** are considered an extra garment, but the **Tefillin Shel Rosh** are not, since they do not interfere with other garments.
The **Tosefot** raises a difficulty with **Rashi**'s interpretation. If the issue is extra garments, why would it matter if the **Tefillin Shel Rosh** do not come into contact with anything? They are still an extra item. The **Tosefot** concludes that when the **Baraita** says **Tefillin Shel Rosh** do not interpose, it means they are not considered an extra garment. It is not teaching that they literally do not interpose, as that would be obvious. Rather, it teaches that they are not considered a garment at all, and therefore do not constitute "extra garments."