We begin from where we left off yesterday. The tractate opens with the following teaching: If a priest has a wound on his finger, he may wrap a bandage around it in the Temple. A bandage is a reed-like item that provides healing.
What is the novelty of this ruling? After all, healing is generally prohibited on Shabbat because the Sages instituted a decree lest one grind spices for medicinal purposes. The novelty here is that rabbinic decrees were waived in the Temple. Therefore, a priest may place the bandage on his wound even on Shabbat. This is why the teaching specifically says “in the Temple.” We will later learn from another source that the bandage is genuinely medicinal and effective.
This permission applies only in the Temple, not in the rest of the country, because the bandage is medicinal. However, if the priest places it on the wound in order to draw out blood, that is prohibited in every location. Drawing blood is a biblical prohibition, because it constitutes the creation of a wound. We are certain that this would also be prohibited in the Temple.
The teaching therefore says that the permission applies specifically to a bandage. A small belt, however, is considered an additional garment. We discussed yesterday that additional garments can create a problem. Even though this belt is small and is not a significant item, it is still considered an additional garment.
Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Judah in the name of Rabbi Hiyya that the distinction is as follows: A bandage is permitted, but a small belt is prohibited. Rabbi Yohanan added that the rule concerning an additional garment applies only when the item is placed in a location where a garment is normally worn. If it is placed somewhere other than a normal location for a garment, it is not considered an additional garment.
For example, if a small belt is placed on a finger, it may not be considered an additional garment, since a garment is not normally worn there. The Gemara will clarify the matter further. If it is placed in the location where a garment normally rests, it may instead be considered an obstruction between the priest and his service. In that case, we would not need to invoke the law of an additional garment.
For instance, if the item is placed on the right finger, where the garment is supposed to touch the priest’s body, or on the finger involved in the service of receiving blood, the item may prevent the priest’s body or finger from coming into contact with what it must touch. That would be a problem of obstruction. The question is therefore whether the item is on the left hand, which is not used for that service, or whether it is on the right hand but not in a place where it interferes with the service.
The Gemara offers two answers. First, the case may involve the left hand. Since the priest does not perform the relevant service with that hand, there is no obstruction; the issue is only whether the item constitutes an additional garment. Alternatively, the case may involve the right hand, but not the palm. The priest performs the service with his fingers rather than with the back of his hand, so the item does not interfere with the service and is not an obstruction.
The discussion concerns a dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and another sage regarding the size of an additional garment. According to one view, when the item is placed in a location where a garment normally rests, even a single thread is an obstruction, because the garment is supposed to rest directly on the priest’s flesh. However, when the item is placed somewhere other than the normal location of a garment, it is not an obstruction unless it measures three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. Anything smaller than that is not significant enough to be considered an obstruction.
The expression “three” is in the feminine form, while the corresponding masculine form is “three” in a different grammatical form. This is one of the familiar grammatical distinctions in the language of the Sages.
At this point, the Gemara’s use of the term “obstruction” requires clarification. The issue is not necessarily an obstruction in the usual sense. The Gemara uses that language because the earlier part of the discussion used it, but the actual issue here is the law of an additional garment. When the item is outside the normal location of a garment, the relevant measure is three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths.
This creates a dispute. Rabbi Yohanan appears to say that anything placed outside the normal location of a garment is not considered an additional garment, without mentioning a minimum size. The other sage, however, distinguishes between an item smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths and an item of that size. Thus, according to that view, a significant item can create a problem even outside the normal location of a garment.
One might ask about the earlier statement that a small belt is prohibited. A small belt is certainly smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, and yet it was described as an additional garment. The answer is that a small belt is considered significant because it is a decorative item. Although it does not have the required dimensions, it is still an important object and is treated as a garment.
Accordingly, Rabbi Yohanan and the other sage may not necessarily be disputing the case of a small belt. They may both agree that a small belt is significant and therefore prohibited as an additional garment. The disagreement may concern an ordinary, insignificant item placed outside the normal location of a garment.
A second version of the discussion is brought. Rabbi Judah said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya that the only item the priest may wear over his wound is a bandage, because a bandage is a medicinal item. A small belt, however, is considered an additional garment.
According to this version, Rabbi Yohanan explicitly distinguishes between an item smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths and an item of that size. When the item is outside the normal location of a garment, an item measuring three by three is an obstruction, while one smaller than that is not. This makes Rabbi Yohanan’s position correspond to the view that distinguishes between the two measurements.
The question then returns: Does Rabbi Yohanan disagree with Rabbi Hiyya, who said that a small belt is an additional garment even though it is smaller than three by three? The answer is that a small belt is different because it is significant. Since it is a decorative item, it is considered important even without the required dimensions. Therefore, Rabbi Yohanan can agree that a small belt is prohibited.
One could ask why the teaching mentioned a bandage rather than a small belt. If a small belt is significant but nevertheless smaller than three by three, then allowing a small belt would be the greater novelty. The answer is that the teaching wanted to teach an additional point: The bandage is medicinal and effective. The wording therefore teaches that a medicinal bandage may be used in the Temple, even though medicinal treatment is ordinarily restricted.
The Gemara then raises a series of questions concerning obstructions between the priest’s garments and his body. What is the law if air enters the priest’s garment and causes it to lift away from his flesh? Is the garment still considered to be on his body, or must it be in direct contact with him? Perhaps this is simply the normal way a garment rests, since wind occasionally moves it away from the body.
What is the law concerning a louse? A dead louse is certainly an obstruction, because the person wants to remove it. The question concerns a live louse. Since it moves about, perhaps it is considered part of the normal condition of the person’s body and is therefore like his flesh. People in those circumstances had lice, and the louse’s movement may be considered normal.
On the other hand, perhaps the person is particular about the louse and wants it removed. If he is particular about its presence, then it is an obstruction. The question is whether something that naturally grows or moves on a person’s body is automatically considered part of the body, or whether the person’s attitude toward it determines the matter. A dead louse is certainly an obstruction, while the status of a live louse remains uncertain.
The Gemara asks about dust. Ordinary dust is an obstruction. What, however, is the law regarding extremely fine dust, the kind that is barely significant? Is such dust considered an obstruction, or is it disregarded?
The Gemara also asks about the priest’s armpits. A loose garment may not touch the armpits at all. Is that considered a problem, since the garments should be on the priest’s flesh? Or is it simply the ordinary manner in which a garment is worn? The garment does not have to be tight-fitting; sometimes clothing naturally leaves a space between itself and the body.
Another question concerns a priest who places his hand inside the sleeve or opening of his garment. His hand then separates the garment from his flesh. Is the priest’s own body considered an obstruction? On the one hand, it is his body and therefore should not be considered a foreign substance. On the other hand, it is physically separating the garment from the body.
The Gemara asks about a loose thread. An ordinary loose thread is certainly an obstruction, whether it came from the garment itself or from elsewhere, because the person wants to remove it and it is not an integral part of his body or clothing. What is the law, however, when the thread is still attached to the priest’s garment but hangs loosely? Is it still considered attached to the garment, or is it treated as something that will eventually be detached?
This is the question raised by Mar bar Ashi. The thread came from the garment, so it is attached to it. Nevertheless, because it is hanging loose and is likely to be removed, perhaps it is no longer considered part of the garment.
Mar bar Ashi raises another question concerning long hair. If some of the priest’s hair extends beneath the garment, is the hair considered part of his body or an obstruction? Perhaps hair is like the priest’s body and does not create an obstruction. Alternatively, hair may be different because it extends from the body and can be treated as a separate entity.
The Gemara then raises a related question concerning phylacteries. May a priest wear phylacteries during the Temple service? Perhaps phylacteries are an additional garment and therefore create a problem. Alternatively, because wearing phylacteries is a mitzvah, the priest desires to have them on his body, and the attachment created by the mitzvah causes them to be considered part of him rather than an additional garment.
This reasoning would apply only according to the view that the night is a time when phylacteries are worn. According to the view that the night is not a time for phylacteries, there is no question regarding service performed at night: Since wearing them at night is not a mitzvah, they are certainly an additional garment. The question would then concern daytime service.
One cannot say that the phylacteries are a mitzvah during the day but an obstruction at night without qualification, because that would make the nighttime service more stringent than the daytime service. The primary Temple service takes place during the day, so it would be unreasonable to impose a greater stringency on the nighttime service. Even if one reason does not apply at night, we do not want to make nighttime service more stringent than daytime service in this respect.
The question therefore returns to the general issue: Does the mitzvah status of phylacteries cause them to be considered part of the priest’s body, or do they remain an additional garment? The discussion also asks whether the issue concerns the hand phylactery, the head phylactery, or both.
The matter was eventually brought before Rabbi Ami. He replied that there was a tradition that phylacteries are an obstruction. In other words, the issue is classified under the law of an additional garment. The term “obstruction” is being used here in the sense of an additional garment, rather than necessarily referring to an ordinary physical obstruction.
A difficulty is raised from a teaching concerning priests engaged in their service. Priests who are performing their Temple service are exempt from prayer and from phylacteries. Why are they exempt? Perhaps the reason is that wearing phylacteries would be an obstruction. If so, the teaching would appear to indicate that phylacteries are acceptable for priests, since they are exempt rather than prohibited.
The Gemara answers that the teaching is not speaking only about priests. It includes prophets and Israelites as well, and they are not performing the Temple service. Therefore, their exemption cannot be explained by the law of an additional garment. The term “exempt” must be understood as meaning that they are exempt from the mitzvah because of their occupation, not that the phylacteries would be prohibited for them.
A different teaching explicitly says that phylacteries are not an obstruction. The Gemara answers that the two sources refer to different phylacteries. The hand phylactery is an obstruction because it is placed on the arm beneath the garment and separates the garment from the priest’s flesh. The head phylactery is not an obstruction, because there is a designated space between the priest’s head covering and his head where the phylactery can be placed.
The verse says that the priest must wear the garment on his flesh. One might therefore argue that the head phylactery should also be considered an obstruction, since it separates the head covering from the priest’s head. The answer is that the priest’s hair is itself part of his head, and the phylactery is placed in a location where it can rest without creating the same kind of separation.
This discussion also raises the broader question of whether one may wear phylacteries over a garment. The subject can be discussed from this passage, although the matter is not resolved here. The hand phylactery is particularly problematic because it is placed beneath the sleeve and therefore separates the sleeve from the arm. The head phylactery, however, may have a designated place where it does not interfere with the garment.
The underlying difficulty remains: If the mitzvah causes the phylacteries to be considered part of the priest’s body, why should the hand phylactery be an obstruction? The priest’s arm is the place of the mitzvah, and the phylactery is intentionally attached there. The question is especially strong because the priest’s hair is not considered an obstruction, even though it also extends from the body. The Gemara leaves this difficulty for further discussion.
The discussion then turns to the laws of Yom Kippur and to a person who must bring a purification offering on the eighth day. If such a person immerses himself and then performs a Temple service before bringing his offering, how do we know that the service is invalid? Rabbi Huna cites the verse concerning a woman who brings her offering: “The priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure.” This implies that before the offering is brought, she is still considered impure. Since a person who has not yet brought the required offering is treated as impure, he is disqualified from the service.
How do we know that the failure to bring the offering invalidates the service? Whenever the Torah uses the term “statute,” the term can indicate that the requirement is essential. The Torah uses this language both regarding the priest’s garments and regarding the washing of his hands and feet. The requirement of washing is therefore essential to the service.
The Sages teach that a High Priest who did not immerse himself or wash his hands and feet is disqualified. On Yom Kippur, the High Priest changes from the golden garments to the white garments and back again. Each change of garments requires an immersion and two washings: one before the immersion and one after the immersion.
For an ordinary priest, however, the failure to wash his hands and feet throughout the year does not necessarily invalidate the service in the same way. The first washing of the day is essential, and this is learned through a comparison. The other washings on Yom Kippur, apart from the first one, do not have the same status.
Rashi explains that the High Priest performs five services on Yom Kippur, changing between the golden garments and the white garments according to the order of the day. For every change of garments, he immerses himself and performs the required washing. Thus, there are five immersions and ten washings.
One interesting consequence is that the High Priest is the only person permitted to wash his hands on Yom Kippur in this manner. His washing is not a form of pleasure or indulgence; it is part of the Temple service. Therefore, it does not violate the prohibition against bathing on Yom Kippur. If a person were merely washing for comfort, that would be a different matter. The High Priest, however, is washing as part of the ritual service.
The Gemara discusses whether the requirements of immersion and washing are biblical. The repeated wording teaches that the wearing of the garments is essential, but the exact placement of the word “statute” is analyzed carefully. One possible interpretation is that the statute applies to the wearing of the garments. However, that interpretation is challenged because another word in the verse would appear unnecessary.
Rabbi Yohanan initially gives an explanation that seems to resolve the matter. When the rabbi hears it, his face brightens, but he immediately cautions him not to be too pleased with the answer. He compares the explanation to writing a letter on a piece of wood whose natural grain makes the letter difficult to see. In other words, the answer appears attractive, but it is not actually clear or satisfactory.
Another verse is then cited: “They shall wash their hands and feet and they shall not die; it shall be a statute for them and for their descendants throughout their generations.” The reference to the priests’ descendants creates a comparison between the High Priest on Yom Kippur and ordinary priests throughout the year. Whatever is essential for ordinary priests is also essential for the High Priest.
Rabbi Yohanan derives the requirement from a different verse, which mentions Aaron and his sons. The wording connects Aaron with his sons and teaches that the requirement applies to both. The other sage does not derive the law from that verse because the verse may be teaching only that the law applies throughout the generations, rather than establishing that the washing is itself essential.
Thus, one verse teaches that the requirement applies to all generations, while the other creates the comparison between Aaron and his sons. The two verses serve different purposes.
The Gemara then explains how the priest washes his hands and feet. According to one opinion, he places his right hand over his right foot and his left hand over his left foot, and he washes them one after the other. According to Rabbi Yosef and Rabbi Judah, he places both hands over both feet and washes them together. This is a highly difficult and acrobatic procedure, since the priest must balance himself while positioning his hands and feet in this way.
The Gemara objects that such a procedure seems impossible. The priest would fall. Rabbi Yosef answers that another person supports him and helps him maintain his balance.
The practical difference between the opinions concerns the requirement that the service be performed while standing. If another person supports the priest, is that considered standing? One opinion says that the priest must be standing independently. The other may say that as long as he is physically upright, the support does not invalidate the service.
The Gemara cites the principle that Temple service must be performed while standing. The question is whether a person leaning on another person, a wall, or an object is considered to be standing. If the support were removed and he would fall, perhaps this is not considered standing. This question has implications for other services that must be performed while standing, as well as for activities that must be performed while sitting. A person leaning against a wall may sometimes be treated as standing and sometimes as sitting, depending on the requirement under discussion.
The Gemara then returns to the washing of the hands and feet. One teaching says that if the priest sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does not need to sanctify them again at night. The entire service is regarded as continuous, so the arrival of night does not interrupt it. If, however, he sanctified his hands and feet at night and continued the service into the day, he must sanctify them again in the morning.
This is the view of Rabbi. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says that once the priest has sanctified his hands and feet, he does not need to do so again, even if he continues working through the night. As long as he has not interrupted the service, the original sanctification remains effective.
A second teaching presents the same dispute in a different form. According to Rabbi, a priest who works throughout the night must sanctify his hands and feet again in the morning. According to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, once he sanctified them at the beginning of his service, he does not need to repeat the process.
Rabbi Yohanan asks why two teachings are needed if they express the same dispute. The answer is that each teaching adds a different case. The first concerns a change from one service to another, with the night separating the two services. The second concerns uninterrupted service that continues throughout the night. One might have thought that the night interrupts only when there is a change in the service, but not when the priest works continuously. The second teaching makes clear that the disagreement applies even in that case.
The Gemara then discusses whether the priest must sanctify his hands and feet every time he enters the Temple courtyard or only when he is about to perform a service. The verse indicates that the requirement is associated with approaching the service. Therefore, merely entering the Temple does not require a new sanctification if the priest is not yet approaching the service.
Another discussion concerns the order of the High Priest’s changing of garments on Yom Kippur. The dispute is whether the first sanctification of the hands and feet occurs before he removes his garments or after he removes them and immerses himself. Everyone agrees that the second sanctification occurs after the immersion, once he has put on the new garments.
The reason is that the sanctification must be close to the priest’s approach to the service. If he sanctified his hands and feet and then removed his garments before immersing himself, there would be an interruption between the sanctification and the approach. The required order is therefore analyzed in light of the principle that the sanctification must be adjacent to the priest’s entry into the service.