The verse states “statute” with regard to those who drank wine, and it likewise states “statute” with regard to the priestly vestments (Exodus 28:43) and with regard to the washing of the hands and feet (Exodus 30:21). One therefore derives by verbal analogy that the halakha in all three cases is the same. If so, there is already a source for the halakha that one who lacks the requisite priestly vestments disqualifies the service.

The Gemara responds: If one derived the halakha only from there, I would say: This matter, i.e., that the rites of one who lacks the requisite vestments are disqualified, applies only to a rite for which a non-priest is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, since that is the topic of the passage discussing those who drank wine. But with regard to a rite for which a non-priest is not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, I will say that they are not subject to this halakha. Therefore, the verse (Exodus 29:9) teaches us that the halakha applies to all rites.

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha that one lacking the requisite vestments disqualifies all rites, even those for which a non-priest is not liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven; from where do we derive that the halakha is the same for those who drank wine, as the passage in Leviticus (10:9–10) addresses only rites for which a non-priest receives the death penalty? The Gemara responds: It is derived by verbal analogy between the word “statute” used there and the word “statute” from the verses discussing one lacking the requisite vestments.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the tanna of the aforementioned baraita derive that the rites of those who drank wine are disqualified from the verse: “That you may put difference between the holy and the common” (Leviticus 10:10), and not by verbal analogy to a priest lacking the requisite vestments? The Gemara responds: “That you may put difference between the holy and the common” is the source of this halakha only before the verbal analogy stands. Once the verbal analogy is derived, it is the source of the halakha with regard to those who drank wine as well.

The Gemara challenges: But doesn’t the tanna of the baraita derive the halakha with regard to one lacking the requisite vestments itself from the case of those who drank wine? The Gemara responds: Actually, the disqualification of rites performed by one who drank wine is derived from the case of one lacking vestments. And this is what the tanna is saying: From where is it derived that there is no distinction between one lacking the requisite vestments and those who drank wine and one whose hands and feet are not washed, and that all three disqualify all rites? The verses state the word: “Statute,” “statute,” in order to derive a verbal analogy.

The Gemara asks: But if the halakha that one who drank wine disqualifies the service is derived from the verbal analogy, why do I need the verse: “That you may put difference between the holy and the common”? The Gemara responds: The verse is necessary in accordance with the custom of Rav, as Rav would not place an interpreter before him, i.e., he would not lecture in public, from the time that he drank wine on one Festival day until the other, the second Festival day, due to drunkenness. Rav was concerned that he would not issue a proper ruling, because it was customary to drink wine on the Festivals, and the verse states: “And that you may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the impure and the pure. And that you may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord has spoken” (Leviticus 10:10–11), indicating that one who drank wine may not issue a halakhic ruling.

The Gemara asks: Still, is the disqualification of rites performed by one lacking the requisite vestments derived from here, i.e., from the verse: “And you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons” (Exodus 29:9)? It is derived from there: “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:7). The superfluous term “the priest” serves to indicate that he may serve only in his priestly state. The verse therefore teaches that with regard to a High Priest who wore the vestments of an ordinary priest and performed sacrificial rites, his service is disqualified.

The Gemara responds: If one derived the halakha only from there, I would say: This matter applies only to service that is indispensable for effecting atonement. But service that is not indispensable for effecting atonement, e.g., putting fire upon the altar, is not subject to the halakha. Therefore, the verse (Leviticus 1:7) indicates that the halakha applies even to rites that are not indispensable.

The Gemara asks: But still, is the halakha derived from here, i.e., from all of the previous sources? It is derived from there: “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall lay the pieces, and the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire, which is upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:8). The superfluous term “the priests” serves to indicate that the priests may serve only in their priestly state. From here one derives that with regard to an ordinary priest who wore the vestments of the High Priest and performed sacrificial rites, his service is disqualified.

The Gemara responds: If one derived the halakha only from there, I would say: This matter applies only to a lack of vestments, e.g., a High Priest who wore fewer than his requisite eight vestments, but an excess of vestments, e.g., an ordinary priest who wore more than his requisite four, is not subject to the halakha. This verse therefore teaches us that the halakha applies even to an excess of vestments.

§ The Sages taught: If the priest’s vestments were dragging on the ground, or raised up [mesulakin] far from the ground, or frayed, and the priest performed sacrificial rites while wearing them, his service is valid. If he wore two pairs of trousers or two belts, or if he was lacking one of his requisite vestments, or if he wore one extra vestment, or in a case where a priest had a bandage on a wound on his body under his vestment such that the bandage acted as an interposition between the vestments and his skin, or if he wore vestments that were