Zvachim Daf 18 - Sacrifices - priestly garments
Sacrifices page YH - priestly garments
Gemara pages XVII - YH engaged priestly clothes. Page XVII Page in the Talmud explains, Cohen's work for lack of clothing is unacceptable, because:
"During their tenure on them their clothes, no clothes on them is not tenure them."
That is, disadvantage affects clothes, one level or another, the sanctity of the priests.
Did the priest's tenure did void if we do not wear the clothes? Discussion is known based on this question is that brings Mordecai Bahgihuatio mask Gittin (sign Atas"a)
"And the priest poured water by Rabbeinu Tam. Difficult to both Yerushalmi first student user priesthood over! Answered him, as they have no Articles at this time, Edakeimea Len their clothes on them sacred, and not No. difficult then all kinds of equity shall not sacred ! veteran Rabbeinu Tam. "
Student Maksne led the Rabbeinu Tam exploring the question above: Is lack of clothes does expropriates completely the position of the priest for all things, and therefore allowed to use them and where all kinds of holiness, or lack of clothes and only touches the temple worship, but not bone status of the priest. It seems really complicated question, and Rabbeinu Tam also choose to be silent and not answer it.
To refine the supplier presents Mordecai, please refer to the nature of the obligation to wear priestly garments. Maimonides (Book of Commandments, positive commandment to ") wearing priestly garments is a positive commandment. Ramban Bahsagoatio tell Commandments dispute that, claiming that the clothes are "device" to work. I mean, to work in the temple priest had to fulfill several conditions, including the wearing of clothes, but not be considered a true positive commandment.
Seemingly simpler words of Maimonides Maimonides: Torah sets a certain order of the Temple's work: how it is done, where she is, and wear clothes as she is. All these together are the specific details in relation to work. Apparently, in the opinion of Maimonides wearing clothes is not only a work detail, but carries independent content and meaning. Mitzvah book title commandments that Maimonides wrote:
'Commandment to "She had been ordered priests to wear special clothes and work for the glory of the temple."
Maimonides quotes the language of Scripture "for glory", and it seems that language is the foundation of the definition of the mitzvah. It seems the bar, the priests were chosen not only to work in the temple, but His Divine Presence unto representation of God on earth. Special attire, that constitutes a royal manner ( Ramban clearly see the Torah at the beginning of Parashat Tetzave "), the priests declare that they agents of God, and their role in publishing the world's reign. Indeed, priests who do not work in the temple do not wear the priestly garments, but when as priests in the temple, dress carrying a special message to all the island temple, then all living things.
Perhaps the dispute between the Rambam and Ramban reflected another point Vsogyitino. Baraita YH page reads:
"There were Mtostashin or Mcouraen and worked - his work is unacceptable."
Note Din Ramban wrote torn clothes (Bahsagoatio tell commandments of Maimonides, do not do X"ed)
"Torn clothes are as not, Eve lack of clothing to him."
Ie, torn clothing is not a garment, and can not be wearing at work. Compared to the Ramban, Rambam Laws wrote Temple artifacts (Chapter VIII went D.; and also interpreted Rashi Vsogyitino)
"With their staff of office clothes and have nice new clothes as large triangles, said:" To the glory "; were Mtostashin or Mcouraen ... his work is unacceptable."
According to Rambam small tear is not expropriated the definition of the garment, but it is not because the "honor and glory." Again, quoting Maimonides, the written language, and it seems he meant to highlight the existing independent content wearing priestly garments, even though no direct link work The Temple itself.
Rabbi Avihud Schwartz