## Zevachim Daf 18b

###### Zevachim 18b:1
[Zevachim 18b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:1)

מְטוּשְׁטָשִׁין אוֹ מְקוֹרָעִין – וְעָבַד; עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**soiled or ripped, and he performed** sacrificial **rites, his service is disqualified.**


###### Zevachim 18b:2
[Zevachim 18b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:2)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְרוּשָּׁלִין – כְּשֵׁרִין, מְסוּלָּקִין – פְּסוּלִין. וְהָתַנְיָא מְסוּלָּקִין כְּשֵׁרִין! אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן שֶׁסִּילְקָן עַל יְדֵי אַבְנֵט, כָּאן דְּלֵיתְנִיהוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** If the vestments are **dragging** on the ground, **they are fit,** but if they are **raised up** above the ground, **they are unfit.** The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in the above *baraita* that even if the vestments were **raised up they are fit? Rami bar Ḥama says:** This is **not difficult. Here,** the *baraita* deems them fit in a case **where** the priest **raised them up by** his **belt,** although they were initially the proper length; **there,** Shmuel deems them unfit in a case where **they do not initially** cover the priest’s feet **at all.**


###### Zevachim 18b:3
[Zevachim 18b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:3)

רַב אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – פְּסוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav says:** In **both this** case **and that** case, whether they were dragging or raised up, **they are unfit.**


###### Zevachim 18b:4
[Zevachim 18b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:4)

רַב הוּנָא אִיקְּלַע לְאַרְגִּיזָא, רְמָא לֵיהּ בַּר אוּשְׁפִּיזְכָנֵיהּ: מִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מְרוּשָּׁלִין כְּשֵׁרִין וּמְסוּלָּקִין פְּסוּלִין?! וְהָתַנְיָא: מְסוּלָּקִין – כְּשֵׁרִין! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּר מִינַּהּ דְּהַהִיא, דְּשַׁנְּיַיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara recounts: **Rav Huna happened** to come **to Argiza. The son of his innkeeper [*oshpizekhaneih*] raised a contradiction** before **him: Did Shmuel** actually **say** that if the vestments are **dragging** on the ground, **they are fit, but** if they are **raised up** above the ground, **they are unfit? But isn’t it taught** in the *baraita* that even if the vestments were **raised up they are fit?** Rav Huna **said to him:** Raise a contradiction from any source **apart from this** *baraita*, **as Rami bar Ḥama** already **answered** that **it** does not contradict Shmuel’s statement, as it applies only to vestments that were initially the proper length.


###### Zevachim 18b:5
[Zevachim 18b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:5)

אֶלָּא לְרַב – קַשְׁיָא! וְכִי תֵּימָא: מַאי מְרוּשָּׁלִין – מְסוּלָּקִין עַל יְדֵי אַבְנֵט, וְאַבְנֵט מֵיגָז אָגֵיז; אֶלָּא מְסוּלָּקִין קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** doesn’t the *baraita* pose **a difficulty for Rav,** who deems the vestments unfit even if they were dragging? **And if you would say: What** is the meaning of the word: **Dragging,** in the *baraita*? It means that they would initially drag but were **raised up by a belt** to the proper length, **and** they are fit since the **belt** effectively **trims** them, **but** then the term: **Raised up,** in the *baraita* poses **a difficulty.** Why should the *baraita* deem raised vestments fit? If the *baraita* is referring to vestments that were initially the proper length and were then raised up by a belt, then shouldn’t they be unfit as the belt trims them?


###### Zevachim 18b:6
[Zevachim 18b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, רַב חֲדָא תָּנֵי: מְרוּשָּׁלִין שֶׁסִּילְּקָן עַל יְדֵי אַבְנֵט – כְּשֵׁרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira says: Rav taught** the *baraita* not as referring separately to both dragging and raised vestments, but as **one** statement referring to vestments that are simultaneously dragging and raised, i.e., **dragging** vestments **that** the priest **raised up by** his **belt** to the proper height **are fit.** But if they were above or below their proper height for any reason, they are unfit.


###### Zevachim 18b:7
[Zevachim 18b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:7)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי: מְרוּשָּׁלִין שֶׁלֹּא סִילְּקָן – תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״עַל אַרְבַּע כַּנְפוֹת כְּסוּתְךָ״ – אַרְבַּע וְלֹא שָׁלֹשׁ. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע וְלֹא חָמֵשׁ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אֲשֶׁר תְּכַסֶּה בָּהּ״ – הֲרֵי בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ אָמוּר; הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים אַרְבַּע? אַרְבַּע וְלֹא שָׁלֹשׁ. וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ וּלְהוֹצִיא בַּעֲלַת שָׁלֹשׁ? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ – שֶׁיֵּשׁ בִּכְלַל חָמֵשׁ אַרְבַּע, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי בַּעֲלַת שָׁלֹשׁ – שֶׁאֵין בִּכְלַל שָׁלֹשׁ אַרְבַּע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti says:** The case of **dragging** vestments **that** the priest **did not raise is** the subject of a dispute between ***tanna’im*. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“On the four corners of your garment”** (Deuteronomy 22:12), from which it can be inferred: **Four, but not three,** i.e., a three-cornered garment is exempt from the obligation of ritual fringes. One may ask: **Or** perhaps **it is only** specifying **four, but not five? When it says** in the same verse: **“With which you cover yourself,”** a garment **of five** corners **is mentioned** as obligated. If so, **how do I realize** the meaning of: **“Four** corners”? It means **four, but not three. And what did you see** that led you **to include** a garment **of five** corners **and to exclude** a garment **of three** corners? **I include** a garment **of five** corners **as four is included in five, and I exclude** a garment **of three** corners **as four is not included in three.**


###### Zevachim 18b:8
[Zevachim 18b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:8)

וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״עַל אַרְבַּע כַּנְפוֹת כְּסוּתְךָ״ – אַרְבַּע וְלֹא שָׁלֹשׁ, אַרְבַּע וְלֹא חָמֵשׁ. מַאי, לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: יָתֵר כְּמַאן דְּאִיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: כְּמַאן דְּלֵיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in **another** *baraita* that the verse states: **“On the four corners of your garment,”** from which it may be inferred: **Four, but not three,** and also **four, but not five,** i.e., only a four-cornered garment is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes. Rabbi Yirmeya continues: **What, is it not** that these *tanna’im* **disagree with regard to this: That** one **Sage,** who deems a five-cornered garment exempt, **holds** that **an extra** item **is considered as though it exists** and cannot be ignored, **and** one **Sage,** who deems it obligated, **holds** that it **is considered as though it does not exist** and the garment has only four corners? Accordingly, the first Sage deems a dragging priestly vestment unfit, since one cannot ignore the extra fabric, while the second Sage deems it fit since the extra fabric is treated as immaterial.


###### Zevachim 18b:9
[Zevachim 18b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:9)

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּמַאן דְּאִיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי; וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא: ״אֲשֶׁר תְּכַסֶּה בָּהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No, everyone** agrees that an extra piece of a garment **is considered as though it exists,** and therefore dragging vestments are unfit. **And** according to the *tanna* of the second *baraita*, it **is different here,** with regard to ritual fringes, **as the Merciful One amplifies** the *halakha* to obligate even five-cornered garments with the words **“with which you cover yourself.”**


###### Zevachim 18b:10
[Zevachim 18b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:10)

וְאִידַּךְ, הַאי ״אֲשֶׁר תְּכַסֶּה בָּהּ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ״ – פְּרָט לִכְסוּת לַיְלָה. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא פְּרָט לִכְסוּת סוֹמֵא? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר תְּכַסֶּה בָּהּ״ – הֲרֵי כְּסוּת סוֹמֵא אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ״? פְּרָט לִכְסוּת לַיְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the other** Sage, who deems five-cornered garments exempt, **what does he do with this** verse: **“With which you cover yourself”?** The Gemara responds: **He requires it for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And it shall be unto you for a fringe, **that you may look upon it”** (Numbers 15:39). The phrase: “That you may look upon it,” serves to **exclude a night garment** from the obligation of ritual fringes, as the fringes on such a garment cannot be seen. One might ask: **Or is it only** to **exclude the garment of a blind person,** who is unable to see the ritual fringes? **When it states** in the verse: **“With which you cover yourself”** (Deuteronomy 22:12), the obligation of ritual fringes for **the garment of a blind person is mentioned.** If so, **how do I realize** the meaning of the phrase: **“That you may look upon it”?** It serves to **exclude a night garment.**


###### Zevachim 18b:11
[Zevachim 18b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:11)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת כְּסוּת סוֹמֵא וּלְהוֹצִיא כְּסוּת לַיְלָה? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי כְּסוּת סוֹמֵא – שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָהּ בִּרְאִיָּה אֵצֶל אֲחֵרִים, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי כְּסוּת לַיְלָה – שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְאִיָּה אֵצֶל אֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And what did you see** that led you **to include the garment of a blind person and to exclude a night garment** and not the reverse? **I include the garment of a blind person because it is** at least **visible to others, and I exclude a night garment because it is not visible,** even **to others.**


###### Zevachim 18b:12
[Zevachim 18b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:12)

וְאִידַּךְ – נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אֲשֶׁר״. וְאִידַּךְ – ״אֲשֶׁר״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the other** Sage, who derives that a five-cornered garment requires ritual fringes from the phrase: “With which you cover yourself,” from where does he derive that the garment of a blind person requires ritual fringes? The Gemara responds: **He derives it from** the word **“which”** in the phrase, as that term itself connotes an amplification of the *halakha*. The Gemara asks: **And** what does **the other** Sage do with this word? The Gemara responds: **He does not interpret** the word **“which”** as an amplification.


###### Zevachim 18b:13
[Zevachim 18b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:13)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בַּד – שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שֶׁל בּוּץ; ״בַּד״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ חֲדָשִׁים; ״בַּד״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁזוּרִים; ״בַּד״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ חוּטָן כָּפוּל שִׁשָּׁה; ״בַּד״ – שֶׁלֹּא יִלְבַּשׁ שֶׁל חוֹל עִמָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** with regard to the priestly vestments that the term: “Linen [*bad* ]” (Leviticus 6:3), used in the verse indicates several properties of the garments: The verse states **“linen”** to indicate **that they** must **be** made **of fine linen [*butz*]; “linen,” that they** must **be new; “linen,” that** their thread must **be twisted** of several plies; **“linen,” that their thread** must **be folded six** times; **“linen,” that** the priest may **not wear non-sacred** clothes along **with them.**


###### Zevachim 18b:14
[Zevachim 18b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: בִּשְׁלָמָא שֶׁיְּהוּ שֶׁל בּוּץ – הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: בּוּץ אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא. אֶלָּא ״בַּד״ שֶׁיְּהוּ חֲדָשִׁים – חֲדָשִׁים אִין, שְׁחָקִין לָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: מְשׁוּחָקִין – כְּשֵׁרִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted,** the statement **that they** must **be of fine linen** is understood; **this** requirement **teaches us** that if they are of **fine linen** they **are** fit, but if they are of **something else** they are **not. But** with regard to the statement: **Linen, that they** must **be new,** one can infer that if they are **new** they **are** fit but if they are **frayed** they are **not. But isn’t it taught** in the *baraita* (18a) that even if they were **frayed** they **are fit?**


###### Zevachim 18b:15
[Zevachim 18b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, ״בַּד״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ חוּטָן כָּפוּל שִׁשָּׁה?! ״בַּד״ – חַד חַד לְחוֹדֵיהּ מַשְׁמַע! אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: בְּגָדִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״בַּד״ – צְרִיכִין שֶׁיְּהוּ שֶׁל בּוּץ, חֲדָשִׁים, שְׁזוּרִין, שֶׁיְּהֵא חוּטָן כָּפוּל שִׁשָּׁה; יֵשׁ מֵהֶן לְמִצְוָה, יֵשׁ מֵהֶן לְעַכֵּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to him: And according to your reasoning** that the *baraita* intends to derive all of these requirements from the word linen, such that all of these requirements are indispensable, how can one understand the requirement: **Linen, that their thread** must **be folded six** times? The word ***bad*** itself **means each one on its own** (see Exodus 30:34). **Rather, this** is what the *baraita* **is saying:** Those **garments with regard to which it is stated: Linen, must be** made **of fine linen,** and they must be **new** and **twisted,** and **their thread** must **be folded six** times. **Some of** these requirements constitute **a mitzva** *ab initio*, and **some of them are indispensable.**


###### Zevachim 18b:16
[Zevachim 18b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:16)

מִמַּאי דְּהַאי ״בַּד״ – כִּתָּנָא הוּא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵף בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: דָּבָר הָעוֹלֶה מִן הַקַּרְקַע בַּד בְּבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where** is it known **that this** material ***bad* is** produced from the **flax** plant? **Rabbi Yosef, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says:** The verse is referring to **an item that grows from the ground** with **each** stalk growing **on its own [*bad bevad*],** i.e., it does not split into multiple stalks. The flax plant fulfills this criterion.


###### Zevachim 18b:17
[Zevachim 18b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:17)

אֵימָא עַמְרָא! עַמְרָא מִיפְּצֵל. כִּיתָּנָא נָמֵי מִיפְּצֵל! עַל יְדֵי לָקוּתָא מִיפְּצֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why not **say** that it is **wool?** The Gemara responds: The individual **wool** fibers **split** into smaller fibers. The Gemara rejects this: But **flax also splits.** The Gemara responds: **It splits** only **by being struck.** Wool, by contrast, splits naturally.


###### Zevachim 18b:18
[Zevachim 18b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:18)

רָבִינָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״פַּאֲרֵי פִשְׁתִּים יִהְיוּ עַל רֹאשָׁם, וּמִכְנְסֵי פִשְׁתִּים יִהְיוּ עַל מׇתְנֵיהֶם, לֹא יַחְגְּרוּ בַּיָּזַע״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina says** that the identity of *bad* is derived **from here:** The verse states with regard to the priestly vestments: **“They shall have linen [*pishtim*] crowns upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with *yaza*”** (Ezekiel 44:18). The word *pishtim* is clearly referring to flax.


###### Zevachim 18b:19
[Zevachim 18b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרָבִינָא: וְהָא עַד דַּאֲתָא יְחֶזְקֵאל – מְנָלַן? וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה – מִתּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ לֹא לָמַדְנוּ, מִדִּבְרֵי יְחֶזְקֵאל בֶּן בּוּזִי לָמַדְנוּ: ״כׇּל בֶּן נֵכָר עֶרֶל לֵב וְעֶרֶל בָּשָׂר לֹא יָבֹא אֶל מִקְדָּשִׁי לְשָׁרְתֵנִי״; עַד שֶׁבָּא יְחֶזְקֵאל מְנָלַן? אֶלָּא גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ – וַאֲתָא יְחֶזְקֵאל וְאַסְמְכֵיהּ אַקְּרָא; הָכָא נָמֵי גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to Ravina: But before Ezekiel came, from where did we** derive the identity of *bad*? Ravina responded: **And according to your reasoning,** one could ask the same of **that which Rav Ḥisda said** with regard to the prohibition against Temple service by one who is uncircumcised or an apostate: **We did not learn this** following **matter from the Torah of Moses, our teacher; we learned** it **from the words of Ezekiel, son of Buzi: “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary to serve Me”** (Ezekiel 44:9). **Until Ezekiel came, from where did we** derive this? **Rather,** this *halakha* **is learned as a tradition** and therefore was observed for generations, **and Ezekiel came and gave it support by** writing **a verse. Here too, it is learned as a tradition,** and Ezekiel came and gave it support by writing a verse.


###### Zevachim 18b:20
[Zevachim 18b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/18b:20)

מַאי ״לֹא יַחְגְּרוּ בַּיָּזַע״? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא יַחְגְּרוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמְּזִיעִין. כִּדְתַנְיָא: כְּשֶׁהֵם חוֹגְרִין, אֵין חוֹגְרִין לֹא לְמַטָּה מִמׇּתְנֵיהֶן, וְלֹא לְמַעְלָה מֵאַצִּילֵיהֶן, אֶלָּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of the phrase in the verse: **“They shall not gird themselves with *yaza*”? Abaye said: They shall not gird themselves in a place** in **which** people **sweat [*mezi’in*]. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **When they gird** themselves with the belt, **they may not gird** themselves **below their loins nor above their elbows,** but **rather**