spun of sky-blue” (Exodus 28:31). And derive a verbal analogy from the term “sky-blue” used here and the same term “sky-blue” from the verse about the curtain: Just as there, with regard to the curtain, there are six strands, so too here, there are six strands. Then, since the Torah also says the threads are spun, i.e., each strand is made of two thinner strands spun together, each thread must contain twelve strands.

The Gemara suggests: Let us derive the number of strands in the robe from its hem and pomegranates: Just as there, each thread is spun from eight strands, so too here, the threads should be spun from eight strands. The Gemara rejects this: It is preferable to derive the halakhot of a utensil, i.e., the robe, from the halakhot of another utensil, i.e., the curtain, and one should not derive the halakhot of a utensil from the halakhot of something that is merely an ornament of a utensil, i.e., the pomegranates of the robe.

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, it is preferable to derive the halakhot of an object from that object itself, i.e., to assume that the halakhot of the robe and its pomegranates are similar; and one should not derive the halakhot of an object from elsewhere. The Gemara explains: This is precisely what we said in the baraita: One of the five mentions of shesh in the verse is to teach that the requirement that threads be made from six strands applies also to other garments about which shesh is not explicitly stated, such as the robe.

The baraita further states: Each thread of the curtain was made of twenty-four strands. The Gemara explains: With regard to each thread being composed of four colored threads: White, purple, scarlet, and sky-blue, and each one of them being composed of six strands, there is neither judgment nor judge, i.e., it is absolutely clear that this is how the threads of the curtain are produced.

The baraita further states: Each thread of the breastplate and ephod was made of twenty-eight strands. From where do we derive this? As it is written: “And you shall make a breastplate of judgment, the work of the skilled craftsman; like the work of the ephod you shall make it: Of gold, sky-blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen” (Exodus 28:15). There are four colored threads, each composed of six strands, which makes twenty-four. In addition, gold is spun together with each of the four colors, giving the total of twenty-eight.

But couldn’t one say the gold should be made as a thread of six strands, like the other colors? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that the verse states: “And they beat the gold into thin plates, and cut it into cords, to work it into the sky-blue, and into the purple, and into the scarlet, and into the fine linen, the work of a skilled craftsman” (Exodus 39:3). “Cord” implies a strand that is doubled over and can be twisted into a cord; “cords” is in the plural, meaning at least two of these. Accordingly, there are four strands here.

Rav Ashi said: This can be seen from that fact that the verse states with regard to the gold strands: “To work it into the sky-blue, and into the purple” (Exodus 39:3), indicating that the gold strands should be combined with the other colors. What should we do? If we make four gold threads of two strands each and combine each one with each of the colors, then there would be eight. If we make two gold threads of two strands each, and two gold threads of one strand each, it says: “And you shall make,” indicating that all its makings should be the same. Perforce, one strand of gold should be combined with each of the colors, producing a total of twenty-eight strands.

§ The Gemara discusses various halakhot concerning the priestly vestments and other sacred vessels: Raḥava said that Rav Yehuda said: One who intentionally tears any of the priestly vestments transgresses a prohibition and is flogged, as it is stated concerning the robe: “It shall have a hem of woven work around the opening of it, like the opening of a coat of mail, and it shall not be torn” (Exodus 28:32). Just as it is prohibited to tear the opening of the robe, so too, it is prohibited to tear any of the priestly vestments. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov strongly objects to this: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying in the Torah: An opening should be made in order that it not tear. In other words, the Torah was giving an explanation, not a prohibition. The Gemara rejects this: Is it written: In order that it not be torn? Clearly, the intention of the verse is to state a prohibition.

Rabbi Elazar said: One who detaches the breastplate from upon the ephod or one who removes the staves of the Ark from their rings transgresses a Torah prohibition and is flogged, as it is stated: “And the breastplate shall not be detached from the ephod” (Exodus 28:28),and it is also stated: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15). Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov strongly objects to this: But perhaps when the Merciful One said this in the Torah, the intention was to strengthen them and make them fast so that the breastplate not become detached from the ephod and the staves not be removed. He suggests that the Torah was giving an explanation, not a prohibition. The Gemara rejects this: Is it written: In order that it not become detached, and: In order that they not be removed? Clearly, the intention of the verse is to state a prohibition.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, raised a contradiction. In one verse it is written: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15), implying the staves should remain there permanently. But in another verse it is written: “And its staves shall be put into the rings” (Exodus 27:7), implying that when the Ark is used the staves are inserted, which suggests that they do not remain there permanently. How is this contradiction resolved? The staves could be removed from their position, i.e., they were loosened, but did not come out. The staves were wider at their ends and thinner in the middle. Therefore, once they had been forced into the rings, although they could be shifted, they would not be removed entirely.

That was also taught in a baraita. The verse states: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15). One might have thought that they should not move from their place at all; therefore; the verse states: “And its staves shall be put into the rings” (Exodus 27:7). If it had stated: And its staves shall be put, one might have thought that they are inserted and removed entirely; therefore, the verse states: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15). How is this? They could be removed from their position, but did not come out.

The Gemara cites other statements concerning the ark. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall make the boards for the Tabernacle of acacia wood, standing” (Exodus 26:15)? This verse teaches that the boards of wood used for the Tabernacle should stand in the same direction in which they grew from the ground as a tree. Alternatively, “standing” means that they supported their gold plating and prevented it from falling. Alternatively, “standing” is written to hint at the following: Perhaps you will say that now that the Tabernacle is no longer in use, their hope is lost and their chance is abandoned, and after being stored away the boards will no longer return to use. Therefore, the verse states “standing” to indicate that they stand forever and ever.

§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the priestly vestments: Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The plaited [serad] garments, for serving in the Sanctuary” (Exodus 35:19)? Why does the verse refer to the priestly vestments as “serad garments”?