משנה: הֱבִיאוּהוּ לְבֵית הַפַּרְוָה וּבַקּוֹדֶשׁ הָֽיָתָה. פֵּרְסוּ סָדִין שֶׁל בּוּץ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הָעָם. קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וּפָשַׁט. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר פָּשַׁט קִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו. יָרַד וְטָבַל עָלָה וְנִסְתַּפָּג. הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ בִגְדֵי לָבָן וְלָבַשׁ וְקִידֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו׃ בַּשַּׁחַר הָיָה לוֹבֵשׁ פִּילּוּסִין שֶׁל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְנָה וּבֵין הָעַרְבַּיִם הִינְדְּווָן שֶׁל שְׁמוֹנֶה מֵאוֹת זוּז דִּבְרֵי רֵבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בַּשַּׁחַר הָיָה לָבוּשׁ פִּילּוּסִים שֶׁל שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר מְנָה. וּבֵין הָעַרְבַּיִם שֶׁל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְנָה הַכֹּל שְׁלשִׁים מְנָה. אֵילּוּ נוֹטֵל מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ וְאִם רָצָה לְהוֹסִיף מוֹסִיף מִשֶּׁלּוֹ׃ MISHNAH: They brought him to the Parwa house48A subterranean cave inside the walls enclosing the sacred domain. The Babli declares “Parwa” to be the name of a magus or sorcerer., which was in the sacred domain. They spread a byssus sheet61The same material from which the white garments are made which the High Priest wears for the special functions on the Day of Atonement. between him and the people; he sanctified hands and legs and undressed; Rebbi Meïr says, he undressed and sanctified hands and legs. He stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments96The four garments (coat, slacks, belt, and turban) made of byssus required for all expiatory acts on the Day of Atonement, Lev. 16:4., he dressed and sanctified hands and legs.
In the morning he was wearing Pelusian132Linen manufactured in Pelusium, the most expensive kind on the market. worth twelve mina, and in the evening Indian133A mina was 100 denar (drachma); 30 mina = 3’000 silver denar. For first Century prices, this seems excessive, but the examples given later exclude the possibility that the data might be second Century re-interpretations. In Mishnah Peah 8:8 it is stated that a fortune of 200 denar disqualifies its owner from receiving welfare. of 800 denar, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in the morning he was wearing Pelusian worth eighteen mina and in the evening of twelve mina, all together thirty mina134Then why does the Mishnah not require second quality Pelusian linen for the afternoon service?. This he takes from Temple property; if he wants to add, he adds from his own.
הלכה: מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. פָּשַׁט וְקִידֵּשׁ וְרָחַץ וְקִידֵּשׁ. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרַבָּנִן. וּפָשַׁ֨ט וְלָבַשׁ֭. הִקִּישׁ פְּשִׁיטָה לִלְבִישָׁה. מַה לְבִישָׁה מְקַדֵּשׁ אַף פְּשִׁיטָה מְקַדֵּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוּדָן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר רְחִיצָה חוֹצֶצֶת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִסְבּוֹר אַתְּ סְבוֹר. עַל דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. וּפָשַׁט וְקִידֵּשׁ וְרָחַץ וְקִידֵּשׁ. אֵינָהּ כֵּן אֶלָּא וּפָשַׁ֙ט וְקִידֵּשׁ וְרָ֙חַץ וְלָבַשׁ֭ וְקִידֵּשׁ. HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.97The argument is about Lev. 16:23–24, where at the end of the expiatory service Aaron is commanded first to take off his byssus garments, then to wash (immerse himself), and then to dress in the High Priest’s garb for the ordinary afternoon service.. What is the rabbi’s reason? And he undressed, and he dressed. It tied undressing to dressing98The argument is more explicit in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 6(6) and here in Halakhah 7:3, Babli 71a. It says in Lev. 16:23, he shall take off the linen garments which he wore. Since nobody can take off clothing which he does not wear, the reference is taken to v. 4 where Aaron is commanded to wash his flesh in water and wear them. Therefore all procedures connected with dressing are required for undressing, in the same order.. Since for dressing he sanctifies, so for undressing he sanctifies. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, does washing separate in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion99As formulated at the beginning, the second sanctification is tied to washing, not to dressing. This is unreasonable.? He said to him, you think that Rebbi Meïr’s reason is, and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. It is not so, but and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and dressed and sanctified.
שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אַחַת פִּשּׁוּט וְאַחַת לְבוּשׁ שְׁתֵּיהֶן לָבֹא. בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר. אַחַת לָבֹא וְאַחַת לְשֶׁעָבַר שְׁתֵּיהֶן לְבוּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּקִידּוּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהוּא לָבֹא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּקִידּוּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהוּא מְעַכֵּב. מַה טָעֲמָא. חוּקַּת עוֹלָם לְדוֹרוֹתֵיכֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּקִידּוּשׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁהוּא לְשֶׁעָבַר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מַתְנִיתָה אָֽמְרָה כֵן. הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ בִגְדֵי עַצְמוֹ וְלָבַשׁ. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מְקַדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגָלָיו לִלְבּוֹשׁ בִּגָדֵי חוֹל. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. וּלְבֵשָֽׁם. לְבִישָׁה מְעַכֶּבֶת. וְאֵין קִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגָלַיִם מְעַכֵּב. וְדִכְווָתָהּ. לְבִישָׁה מְעַכֶּבֶת. וְאֵין קִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגָלַיִם מְעַכֵּב. Samuel said, both for undressing and for dressing are for the future100The sanctifications at a change of dress are not biblical. According to the reason given for the rabbis’ position, both are intended for the next step in the service.. Bar Qappara said, one for the future and one for the past, both for dressing101For him, each step in the service needs sanctification before and after. The second sanctification is not for taking off the garments but for the garments he is wearing at the moment of sanctification.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is for the future102The first sanctification at the start of the morning service is a biblical requirement, Ex. 30:21. Therefore there is no requirement of sanctification when the High Priest takes off his profane clothing.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is obstructive103Without this sanctification, the High Priest would be disqualified from serving.. What is the reason? An eternal law for your generations104A misquote from Ex. 30:21.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the last sanctification is for the past. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah105Mishnah 7:4. says so. “They bring him his own clothing and he dresses.” Does anybody sanctify his hands and legs to wear profane clothing? Rebbi Joḥanan said, and he shall wear them106Lev. 16:4.. The dressing is obstructive107Obviously he cannot serve naked, but the emphasis is on wear them: all four garments enumerated in the verse form an inseparable unit., but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive. And similarly, the dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive108All changes of dress during the day are biblical prescriptions but the accompanying sanctifications (except the first, as stated) are required but their omission does not disqualify. Babli Zevaḥim 19b..
כדי. שֶׁיְּהוּ כְפוּלִים. וְקִייָמִינָהּ דְּלָא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק לָא נְחַת לְבֵית ווַעֲדָא. קָם עִם רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַה חַדְתּוֹן [הֲוָה לְכוֹן בְּבֵי מִדְרָשָׁאַ] יוֹמָא דֵין. [אָמַר לֵיהּ.] בַּ֖ד. שֶׁיְּהוּ כְפוּלִים. וְקִייָמִינָהּ דְּלָא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּתַנֵּי. וְלִבְנֵ֤י אַֽהֲרֹן֙ תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה כֻתֳּנוֹת. רַבָּנִן אָֽמְרֵי. שְׁתֵּי כֻתֳּנוֹת לְכָל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ כֻתּוֹנֶת אַחַת לְכָל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרַבָּנִן. וְלִבְנֵ֤י אַֽהֲרֹן֙ תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה כֻתֳּנוֹת. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לְמֵאָה בְנֵי אַהֲרֹן תַּעֲשֶׂה כֻתּוֹנֶת. בַּ֖ד. שֶׁיְּהוּ חֲדָשִׁים. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ שֶׁלֹּא יִלְבַּשׁ שְׁחָקִים. וְהָא תַנֵּי. וּלְבֵשָֽׁם׃ אֲפִילוּ שְׁחָקִים. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. כְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. כדי109This is misspelled for בד “linen cloth”. that they should be double110This is a discussion of a bardita reported in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 1(5), Babli Zevaḥim 18b. The word “linen cloth” is repeated four times in Lev. 16:4. One of these is necessary to establish that the High Priest has to wear four linen garments; the other three are read to imply that the garments should be of byssus (expensive), new, and double (not transparent, in the Babli’s version, woven from entwined thread.). We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac did not come to the assembly hall. He met Rebbi Zeˋira and asked him, what did you newly find [was for you in the house of study]111The text in brackets was added by a corrector who did not understand the text. The addition is in the usual Babli style in this situation. on that day? He told him, linen cloth, that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose112Since the discussion centers on a baritta, the discovery of the Amoraim was that the baratta cannot be R. Yose’s.. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats113Ex. 27:40.. The rabbis say, two coats for each one; Rebbi Yose says, even one coat for each one. What is the rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Make coats for 100 sons of Aaron. Linen cloth, that they should be new110This is a discussion of a bardita reported in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 1(5), Babli Zevaḥim 18b. The word “linen cloth” is repeated four times in Lev. 16:4. One of these is necessary to establish that the High Priest has to wear four linen garments; the other three are read to imply that the garments should be of byssus (expensive), new, and double (not transparent, in the Babli’s version, woven from entwined thread.). If you are saying that they should not be worn out, was it not stated, and he shall wear them106Lev. 16:4., even if they are worn out? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement114R. Yose (the Tanna) does not accept that the garments have to be new every year. The Babli 12b attributes the disagreement to other Tannaim..
עוֹר שֶׁעִיבְּדוֹ לְשֵׁם קַמֵּיעַ מוּתָּר לִכְתוֹב עָלָיו מְזוּזָּה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹסֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הֲוִינָן סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. מַה פְלִיגִין. לְהֶדְיוֹט. הָא לַגְּבוֹהַּ לֹא. מִן מַה דְתַנֵּי. אַבְנֵי קוֹדֶשׁ צָרִיךְ שֶׁתְּהֵא חֲצִיבָתָן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וּבַקּוֹדֶשׁ יֵחְצָבוּ. בִּגְדֵי קוֹדֶשׁ צָרִיךְ שֶׁתְּהֵא אֲרִיגָתְן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וּבַקּוֹדֶשׁ יֵאֶרְגּוּ. וְאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת הִיא. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. אַף לַגָּבוֹהַּ פְּלִיגִין. דְּתַנֵּי. הָעוֹשֶׁה כְלִי לַגָּבוֹהַּ. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ גָבוֹהַּ מוּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ הֶדְיוֹט. מִשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ גָבוֹהַּ אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ הֶדְיוֹט. וְהָא תַנֵּי. הָעוֹשֶׁה כְלִי לַגָּבוֹהַּ אַל יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ הֶדְיוֹט. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. כְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. דְּתַנֵּי. הָעוֹשֶׁה כְלִי לְהֶדְיוֹט. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ הֶדְיוֹט מוּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ גָבוֹהַּ. מִשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ הֶדְיוֹט אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ גָבוֹהַּ. וְהָא תַנֵּי. הָעוֹשֶׁה כְלִי לַהֶדְיוֹט. אַל יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ גָּבוֹהַּ. רִבִּי חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁבָּא מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּישְׁכָּה. וְלֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם. Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids115Rabban Simeon requires that the parchment on which the mezuza is written be especially prepared for sacramental use.. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried116The duplication means that the stones (of the High Priest’s breastplate) have to be quarried (and later, the priestly garment to be woven) with the intention to produce sacred utensils.. Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven117For use in the Temple. Tosephta Menaḥot9:21., as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:]118The text in parentheses was added by a corrector who did not understand the text. The following text is not quoted as support of the prior statement but is discussed in its own right; the question is whether it is a parallel to the earlier statement or not. If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax119Therefore it is Temple property and any non-sacramental use is larceny committed on Heaven’s property. and you cannot infer anything.
כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת מֵאֵימָתַי הֵן קְדֵישִׁין. מִיַּד אוֹ בִשְׁעַת הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ. אִין תֵּימַר. מִיַּד. נִיחָא. אִין תֵּימַר. בִּשְׁעַת הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ. כְּאַחַת הֵן קְדוֹשִׁין. נִיחָא שֶׁלְמֹשֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשׁוּ בְשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה. בְּרַם שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה כְּאַחַת הֵן קְדֵישִׁין וּמִתְקַדְּשִׁין. בִּכְנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ הָיוּ מְפַנִּין מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה. לֹא הָיָה שָׁם שֶׁלְמֹשֶׁה כְּאַחַת הֵן קְדֵישִׁין וּמִתְקַדְּשִׁין. וּבָעֲלִייָתָן מִן הַגּוֹלָה הָיוּ מְפַנִּין מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלָּהֶם. לֹא הָיָה שָׁם שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה כְּאַחַת הֵן קְדֵישִׁין וּמִתְקַדְּשִׁין. 120The same text is in Megillah 3:1 (ל). From which moment on are vessels of Temple service holy? Immediately121Is a declaration of intent to use the vessel in the Temple the equivalent of a formal dedication and donation to the Temple, or not? Since the contents of a sacred vessel automatically become holy, in the second case the holiness of the vessel and its power to convert profane to sacral start at the same moment. or at the moment of use? If you are saying immediately, it is understandable. If you are saying at the moment of use, simultaneously they become holy {and make holy}122Added from Megillah, necessary for understanding the sentence.. One can understand for those of Moses which became holy by the anointing oil123Before they were actually used. This is an action, not a declaration of intent.. But those of Solomon simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they entered the Land they transferred from Moses’s to Solomon’s124But first to the Tabernacle at Shiloh.. If none of Moses was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they returned from the Diaspora, they transferred from Solomon’s125The vessels given by Cyrus from the treasury of Babylon. to theirs. If none of Solomon was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy.
אֲבָנִים שֶׁחָֽצְבָן לְשֵׁם מֵת אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָייָה. לְשֵׁם חַי וּלְשֵׁם מֵת מוּתָּרִין בַּהֲנָייָה. הַזּוֹרֵק כְּלִי לִפְנֵי מִיטָּתוֹ שֶׁל מֶת לְתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת אָסוּר בַּהֲנָייָה. כָּל־חוּץ לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָייָה. Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct126Since a grave and its appurtenances are forbidden for usufruct.. For a corpse or a living person127Babli Sanhedrin 48a: A mausoleum built for a person still living is permitted for usufruct. they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct
נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר. חָמֵשׁ טְבִילוֹת וַעֲשָׂרָה קִידּוּשִׁין טוֹבֵל וּמְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ ביּוֹם. מְנָיִין שֶׁשְּׁנֵי קִידּוּשֵׁי יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם עַל כָּל־טְבִילָה וּטְבִילָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּפָשַׁט֙ וְרָחַ֨ץ וְרָחַ֨ץ (וּפָשַׁט֙) [וְלָבַ֖שׁ.] אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְדִין הוּא. מַה אִם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ טָעוּן טְבִילָה טָעוּן קִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם. כָּאן שֶׁהוּא טָעוּן טְבִילָה לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן יְהֵא טָעוּן קִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם. טוּל לָךְ מַה שֶׁהֶבֵאתָה. אִי מַה לְהַלָּן אַחַת כָּל־הַיּוֹם אַף כָּאן אַחַת כָּל־הַיּוֹם. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּפָשַׁט֙ אֶת־בִּגְדֵ֣י הַבָּ֔ד. שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁ֥ר לָבַ֖שׁ. וְכִי עָלָת עַל דַּעְתֵּינוּ כְּלוּם הוּא פּוֹשֵׁט אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁהוּא לוֹבֵשׁ. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר אֲשֶׁ֥ר לָבַ֖שׁ. הִקִּישׁ פְּשִׁיטָה לִלְבִישָׁה. מַה לְבִישָׁה בְקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם אַף פְּשִׁיטָה בְּקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא (דְלָא) [אֶלָּא] חִילּוּפִּין. הִקִּישׁ לְבִישָׁה לִפְשִׁיטָה. מַה פְּשִׁיטָה בְּקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם אַף לְבִישָׁה בְּקִידּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם. 128One returns to the discussion of the Mishnah. Most of this paragraph is a baraita in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 6(6).”You find that by five immersions and ten sanctifications he immerses and sanctifies himself on that day. From where that there are two sanctifications for every immersion? The verse says97The argument is about Lev. 16:23–24, where at the end of the expiatory service Aaron is commanded first to take off his byssus garments, then to wash (immerse himself), and then to dress in the High Priest’s garb for the ordinary afternoon service., and he undressed, and he washed, and he washed, (and he undressed) [and he dressed]. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, it is an argument de minore ad majus. Since at a place where he does not need immersion he needs sanctification of hands and legs129During all other days of the year, there is only one sanctification at the start of the day’s service., here where he needs immersion not so much more that he should need sanctification of hands and legs? Take away your argument. Since there it is once for the entire day, also here it would be once for the entire day130Since the consequence of a logical argument cannot be stronger than the premise.. The verse says, and he shall take off the linen garments, why does the verse say, which he wore? Could we ever think that he took off what he was not wearing? Then why does it say, which he wore? It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs98The argument is more explicit in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 6(6) and here in Halakhah 7:3, Babli 71a. It says in Lev. 16:23, he shall take off the linen garments which he wore. Since nobody can take off clothing which he does not wear, the reference is taken to v. 4 where Aaron is commanded to wash his flesh in water and wear them. Therefore all procedures connected with dressing are required for undressing, in the same order..” Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable the opposite way. It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs131Since “washing” is mentioned after undressing and before dressing. Only the corrector’s text is correct..”
וְאֵין שֵׁינִי שֶׁל פִּילוּסִין יָפֶה מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלְהִנְדְּוְין. מִשֵׁם מִילָּה דְשָֽׁמְעָה פַרוטֵי. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבָּרִאשׁוֹן אֵין לְמַעְלָה מִמֶּנּוּ. [הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבָּרִאשׁוֹן וְהָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבַּשֵּׁנִי שָׁוִין.] וְאֵין שֵׁינִי שֶׁבָּרִאשׁוֹן יָפֶה מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבַּשֵּׁינִי. מִשֵׁם מִילָּה דְשָֽׁמְעָה פַרוטֵי. מַאי כְדוֹן. רִבִּי נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי מָנָא. בְּשַׁחַר כְּתוּב בַּד בַּד אַרְבָּעָה פְעָמִים. וּבְמִנְחָה כָתוּב בַּד. But is not second quality of Pelusian better than first Indian134Then why does the Mishnah not require second quality Pelusian linen for the afternoon service?? A formulation which is an exaggeration135Arabic فرط “excess, exaggeration”. The Mishnah is formulated to give leeway in the choice of materials.. There, we have stated136Mishnah Menaḥot8:5, about the oil qualified for the lamp and the flour sacrifices in the Temple. Since the Mishnah is known, the corrector’s addition is not absolutely necessary.: “Nothing is better than the best of first quality. [Second tier of the first and first tier of the second are equal.]” But is not the second tier of first quality better than the first of second quality? A formulation which is an exaggeration. What about it? Rebbi Nahman in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the morning, linen is written four times. In the afternoon, linen is written137In Lev. 16:23 linen is mentioned only once, in contrast to 4 times in v. 4..
מַעֲשֶׂה בֵירִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן פִיאַבִּי שֶׁלָּבַשׁ כֻּתָּנוֹת בְּמֵאָה מְנָה וְעָלָה וְהִקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן חַרְסוֹם שֶׁלָּבַשׁ כּוּתָּנוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי רִיבּוֹא וְעָלָה וְהִקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְהוֹרִידוּ אוֹתוֹ אֶחָיו הַֹכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁהָיָה נִרָאֶה מִתּוֹכָהּ עָרוּם. מֶה עָשָׂה. מִילֵּא אוֹתָהּ מַיִם וְסָבַב אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים. It happened that Rebbi Ismael ben Phiabi wore coats worth 100 mina, he went up and sacrificed on the altar138First he cannot serve without first donating his garments to the Temple and second they will become unusable by the bloodstains that are unavoidable.. It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Hartom wore coats worth 20’00013920’000 denar = 200 mina., he went up and sacrificed on the altar, but his brothers the Cohanim took him down since he was seen naked under it. What did he do? He drenched it with water and circled the altar seven times140He made his garment opaque by soaking it with water and then drying it by circling the flames on the altar..