Because ‘statute’ is written in connection with each, to serve as a gezerah shawah! (1) — If [it were derived] from that verse, I would argue that it applies [only] to a service for which a zar is liable to death; but as for a service for which a zar is not liable to death, I would say that it is not so, (2) hence we are informed [that it is not so]. We have thus found [it in the case of] one who lacks [priestly] vestments; how do we know it of one who has drunk wine? (3) - We deduce it from the word ‘statute’ [written here and] in the case of one who lacks vestments. But the Tanna deduces it from the text, That ye may put a difference, etc.? — That is before he has established the gezerah shawah. But the Tanna learns [the law for] one who lacks vestments from that of one who drank wine?’ (4) — This is what he means: How do we know that no distinction is drawn between one who lacks vestments and one who drank wine or who did not wash his hands and feet? Because ‘statute’ is written in respect of each, to serve as a gezerah shawah. (5) Then what is the need of ‘that ye may put difference’, etc.? (6) — To teach the practice of Rab. For Rab would not appoint an interpreter from one Festival day to the next, on account of drinking. (7) But still, is it deduced from this text? Surely it is deduced from elsewhere. viz., And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put [fire upon the altar]. (8) [which implies,] in his priestly state; (9) this teaches that if a High Priest donned the vestments of an ordinary priest and officiated, his service is unfit? — If [we made the deduction] from the earlier text, I would argue that it applies only to a service which is essential for atonement, but not to a service which is not essential for atonement. (10) But still, is it deduced from this text? Surely it is deduced from elsewhere, viz., And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, etc. (11) [which intimates,] ‘the priests’ in their priestly state, whence we learn that if an ordinary priest donned the vestments of a High Priest and officiated, his service is unfit? — If [we made the deduction] from the earlier text, I would argue that it applies only to an insufficiency [of vestments], (12) but not to an excess. Therefore it [the present text] informs us [that it is not so]. Our Rabbis taught: If [the priestly vestments] trailed [on the floor], or did not reach [the floor] or were threadbare, and [the priest] officiated [in them], his service is valid. But if he put on two pairs of breeches, two girdles, or if one [garment] was wanting, or if there was one too many, or if he had a plaster on a wound in his flesh, or if [his garments] were

---

(1). ↑ V. Glos. — In the present context: it shall be a statute for ever; the verse for one lacking atonement has been quoted in the text; the washing of the hands and feet: And it shall be a statute for ever to them (Ex. XXX, 21). — The use of the same word in connection with all three teaches that the same law applies to all.
(2). ↑ Scripture says, Drink no wine . . when ye go into the tent of meetings, that ye die not. The Talmud interprets this as referring to a service which if performed by those unfit to do so involves death, viz., sprinkling the blood, burning the fats, and making the libations of water or wine. Now, the conditions of the various disqualifications, such as officiating without priestly vestments or without having washed the hands and feet, are deduced from those of a zar: where a zar incurs a penalty, officiating without vestments, etc. incurs a penalty. Hence as far as the present verse is concerned, since death is mentioned, I would think that the sacrifice is disqualified only where the death penalty is incurred.
(3). ↑ That he disqualifies the sacrifice even by officiating in a service for which he does not incur the death penalty.
(4). ↑ Not vice versa, as here.
(5). ↑ But in fact the law of one who has drunk wine is learned from that of one who lacks vestments.
(6). ↑ Since we learn by a gezerah shawah that one who drank wine ‘profanes’ (disqualifies) the sacrifice, this text adds nothing.
(7). ↑ The Rabbis gave their public addresses, in the course of which they taught the law, through the medium of an interpreter. Now, once Rab had ushered in the festival and had partaken of the meal, eating and drinking, he would not appoint an interpreter, i.e., he would not give such an address, until the following day, when the effect of the wine would have worn off. He learnt this from the present verse, ‘that ye may put a difference between the holy and the profane’, which he interpreted to mean that one must not drink before he comes to teach the law, whereby the difference between the holy and the profane is taught.
(8). ↑ Lev. I,7
(9). ↑ Wearing the priestly vestments.
(10). ↑ Such as putting the fire upon the altar. Hence ‘the priest’ teaches that even for this service he must be in his priestly state. — Though the difficulty was apparently why the former verse was required, the answer shows that the real difficulty was why Scripture added ‘the priest’ in the verse now quoted.
(11). ↑ Lev. I, 8.
(12). ↑ E.g.. if a High Priest wears the vestments of an ordinary priest.