at the level of their elbows.

Rav Ashi says: Huna bar Natan said to me: Once, I was standing before Izgadar, king of Persia, and my belt was raised above its appropriate height, and he lowered it into place and said to me: “A kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6), is written about you; therefore, you should always look dignified. When I came before Ameimar and recounted this incident, he said to me: With regard to you, God’s promise to Israel: “And kings shall be your foster fathers” (Isaiah 49:23), was fulfilled.

§ With regard to the priestly vestments, we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Eiruvin 103b): A priest who was injured on his finger on Shabbat may temporarily wrap it with a reed so that his wound is not visible while he is serving in the Temple. This leniency applies in the Temple, but not in the rest of the country, as the reed also heals the wound, and medical treatment is prohibited on Shabbat by rabbinic decree. But if his intention is to draw blood from the wound, it is prohibited both here and there.

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: They taught only that a reed is permitted. But a small sash [tziltzul] as a bandage is considered an extra garment and is therefore forbidden, since it is prohibited for a priest to add to the priestly vestments prescribed by the Torah. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They said that wearing extra garments is prohibited only if the extra garment is worn in a place on the priest’s body where the requisite vestments are worn. But if the sash is in a place on his body where the vestments are not worn, e.g., on his hand, it is not considered an extra garment.

The Gemara challenges: And let Rabbi Yoḥanan derive that a sash is prohibited because it acts as an interposition between the priest’s hand and the sacred vessel he grips, which disqualifies the service. The Gemara rejects this: Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to a case where the wound is on the priest’s left hand. Since the entire service is performed exclusively with his right hand, a bandage on his left hand is not an interposition. Alternatively, the wound is on the priest’s right hand, but not in a place used for the service, such that the bandage does not interpose between his hand and the sacred vessel.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with the opinion of Rava, as Rava says that Rav Ḥisda says: In a place on the priest’s body where the vestments are worn, even one extra thread interposes and is prohibited, whereas in a place on his body where the vestments are not worn, if the fabric is three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths it interposes, but if it is less than that it does not interpose.

The Gemara notes: Rava certainly disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that fabric of any size that is in a place on his body where the vestments are not worn is not considered an interposition. Shall we say that he also disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who deems any sash an interposition, even one smaller than three by three fingerbreadths?

The Gemara responds: Even according to Rava, a small sash is different, as it is significant, and it is therefore considered a garment even if it is less than three by three fingerbreadths.

Some say that there is another version of the dispute: Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says that they taught only that a reed is permitted, but a small sash interposes. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They said that an item acts as an interposition when it is less than three by three fingerbreadths only in a place on the priest’s body where the vestments are worn. But in a place on his body where the vestments are not worn, the following distinction applies: If the fabric is three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it interposes, but if it is less than this, it does not interpose. And this is the same ruling that Rava says that Rav Ḥisda says.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rava disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who deems any sash an interposition, even one smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. The Gemara rejects this: This is not necessarily so, as a small sash is different, since it is significant. It is therefore like a vestment, even if it is smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths.

The Gemara raises a question: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, why does the mishna teach the halakha specifically with regard to a reed? Let the mishna teach us that a priest may wrap his wounded finger with a small sash, since this would teach the greater novelty that although a sash is significant, it does not constitute an interposition. The Gemara responds: It teaches us a matter in passing, that a reed heals.

§ Rava raises a dilemma: If a gust of wind entered the priest’s vestment, raising it slightly off his body, what is the halakha? Do we require that the vestment be: “Upon his body” (Leviticus 6:3), in a literal sense, and this is not the case when the wind raises his vestment? Or perhaps the service is valid because this is the normal manner of wearing clothes.

Furthermore, what is the halakha with regard to a louse found under the priest’s vestments? Does it interpose between the vestments and his body, disqualifying the service?

The Gemara clarifies: Do not raise a dilemma with regard to a dead louse, as it certainly interposes, like any other item. Rather, what is the halakha with regard to a live louse? Do we say that since it comes and goes, i.e., it moves around on his body, it is like a growth and does not interpose? Or perhaps, since he objects to its presence, it interposes?

Furthermore, what is the halakha with regard to dirt found under the priest’s vestments? Does it interpose? The Gemara objects: But dirt certainly interposes. The Gemara clarifies: Rather, the question is: What is the halakha with regard to dust of dirt, i.e., a minute amount of dust?

Furthermore, what is the halakha with regard to the gap between the underarm of the vestment and the priest’s armpit? Does it interpose? Do we require that the vestment is “upon his body” in a literal sense, and this is not the case? Or perhaps the service is valid since this is the normal manner of wearing clothes.

Furthermore, if the priest inserted his hand into his vestments and touched his chest, what is the halakha? Does his body interpose or not?

Furthermore, what is the halakha with regard to a thread [nima]? Does it interpose? The Gemara interjects: But a thread certainly interposes. Rather, the question is: What is the halakha with regard to a thread that hangs off the vestment itself and will soon fall off? Is such a thread considered as though it has already detached from the vestment, in which case it interposes?

Mar bar Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If his hair emerged from his head and extended into his vestment and separated it from his skin, what is the halakha? Is his hair considered like his body, in which case it does not interpose, or is it not considered like his body?

Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to phylacteries? Do they interpose? The Gemara clarifies: According to the opinion of one who says that night is not an appropriate time to don phylacteries, do not raise the dilemma. Since they interpose at night, they also interpose during the day. Rather, when you raise the dilemma, do so according to the one who says that night is an appropriate time to don phylacteries. According to this opinion, what is the halakha? Does a mitzva that one fulfills with his body interpose, or does it not interpose?

This matter circulated and eventually came before Rabbi Ami, who said to him: It is a settled tradition in our possession that phylacteries interpose.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Priests in their service; and Levites on their platform in the Temple, where they recite songs; and Israelites at their watches, where they observe the sacrifice of the daily offering, are all exempt from prayer and from donning phylacteries. What, is it not that the term: Exempt, indicates that if they donned phylacteries anyway, they do not interpose? Apparently, priests may wear phylacteries while performing the Temple service. The Gemara responds: No, if they donned phylacteries, they interpose.

The Gemara asks: If so, why does the baraita use the word: Exempt? It should have used the word: Prohibited, since wearing phylacteries disqualifies the priests’ service. The Gemara responds: Since there are also Levites and Israelites mentioned in the baraita, concerning whom the baraita could not teach the word: Prohibited, as it is permitted for them to don phylacteries, due to that reason the baraita taught the word: Exempt, which is applicable to all.

The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a priest donned phylacteries they do not interpose? The Gemara responds: That is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that phylacteries interpose is referring to the phylacteries of the hand, whereas that baraita, which teaches that they do not is referring to the phylacteries of the head.

The Gemara asks: What is different about the phylacteries of the hand that only they interpose? The verse indicates the difference, as it is written with regard to the vestments covering the body: “Shall he put upon his body” (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that nothing may interpose between the vestment and his body. The Gemara challenges: But there is also a verse written with regard to the head: “And you shall set the mitre upon his head” (Exodus 29:6), indicating that there must be no interposition between the mitre and the head. If so, the phylacteries of the head should be considered an interposition as well.

The Gemara responds: The Sages taught: The hair of the High Priest was visible between the frontplate and the mitre. The frontplate was set on the forehead, below the hairline, while the mitre was set above it;