Zevachim Daf 18 זבחים דַף 18

Having derived that a מחוסר בגדים invalidates avodah, the Gemara addresses other sources for this law. The passuk says: ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן – “and the sons of Aharon ‘the Kohen’ [shall place fire on the מזבח],” indicating the Kohen Gadol must be בכיהונו – in his state of Kehunah (i.e., wearing his בגדים). This teaches that if a כהן גדול only wore the בגדים of a כהן הדיוט and performed avodah, it is invalid. The Gemara explains that this derashah teaches an additional novelty, that even עבודה דלא מעכבא כפרה – an avodah which is not critical for atonement (such as lighting the fire on the מזבח) is also invalidated by a מחוסר בגדים. Another passuk says: וערכו בני אהרן הכהנים את הנתחים וגו' – and the sons of Aharon “the Kohanim” should arrange the pieces, etc. The word "הכהנים" implies בכיהונן – they must be in their state of Kehunah (wearing the appropriate בגדים), teaching that if a כהן הדיוט wears the בגדים of a כהן גדול, his avodah is invalidated. The Gemara explains that without this derashah, one might have thought that only חיסור – deficiency of בגדים can invalidate avodah, so the above derashah teaches that even יתור – wearing an excess of בגדים also invalidates avodah.

A Baraisa states: היו מרושלין – if [a Kohen’s בגדים] were dragging on the ground because they were too long, מסולקין – or suspended above the ground because they were too short, משוחקים – or were worn out, the avodah is still valid. Shmuel ruled that suspended בגדים are פסול, and Rami bar Chama explains that the Baraisa’s case is שסילקן על ידי אבנט – where he suspended them with the belt. Since they are actually the correct length, but were merely raised by his belt, the avodah is valid. Rav says that both dragging and suspended clothing invalidate avodah, and the Gemara objects that the Baraisa taught otherwise. One cannot answer that the Baraisa’s “dragging” clothing were lifted with his belt so they are not dragging, ואבנט מיגז אגיז – and the belt is considered to have “cut off” the excess material, because then the case of suspended בגדים would be difficult (since suspension with the אבנט should be invalid)!? Rebbe Zeira answers that Rav interprets the Baraisa as a single case: מרושלין שסילקן ע"י אבנט – dragging clothing which he raised to the correct length with the belt.

In a Baraisa, the passuk "על ארבע כנפות כסותך" – upon the four corners of your garment excludes a three-cornered garment from ציצית. The phrase "אשר תכסה בה" – with which you cover yourself comes to include a five-cornered garment to require ציצית. The inclusionary phrase is used for five corners (and not for three), שיש בכלל חמש ארבע – because four is included in five, but not in three. Another Baraisa argues, darshening "על ארבע כנפות כסותך" to exclude even a five-cornered garment from ציצית. Rebbe Yirmiyah from Difti said that these Tannaim argue whether יתר כמאן דאיתיה דמי – something extra is like it is present, so a five-cornered garment would not require ציצית, or if it is כמאן דליתיה – like it is not present, so it is as if it has four corners and requires ציצית. The same machlokes would apply to excessively long בגדי כהונה. However, the Gemara responds that all agree that something extra is considered present, and the Tanna who nonetheless obligates a five-cornered garment in ציצית is based on the specific derashah of אשר תכסה בה. The other Tanna darshens this phrase to include a blind person’s garment to require ציצית (in contrast to a night garment, which is exempt).