Wyjścia 30:21 Odniesienia do Talmudu: Jerusalem Talmud Yoma

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..