1) The Mishnah Zevachim 92a states that if the blood of the Chatos sacrifice was splashed onto clothing, the clothing must be washed. The Rash from Shantz (who was one of the authors of Tosfos) asks [in his commentary on Toras Cohanim (the latter was written by the Tanaim in the times of the Mishnah) on Parshas Tzav at the end of chapter 6] :- how is it possible to launder the garments of the Cohanim; since the Gemara Zevachim end 88a states that garments of Cohanim that became dirty may not be laundered?!

2) Rash answers that the prohibition against laundering garments of the Cohanim is only a Rabbinical one. The reason for this prohibition is because the Gemara Zevachim top 88b tells us that in the Beis Hamikdash, which is a place of wealth, one does not use clothes which have been laundered, in the way that poor people do. This suggests that the prohibition is derabanan. Since there is a Mitzvah of the Torah to wash the clothing on which the blood of the chatas has been splashed (see Vayikra 6:20) it follows that the Rabbinical prohibition of laundering Bigdei Kehunah, can be waved aside in order to fulfil the Mitzva deoarisa of removing the blood of the Chatos form the garment.

[see Mikdash Yechezkel at the beginning of the 11th chapter of Zevachim page 361-2].

Jeff, the above answer applies if blood of Chatos was splashed on the clothing, and we will have to try, bs'd, and find other explanations for different ways that the clothes of the Cohanim became dirty.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

Follow-up reply:

I found, bs'd, that the Chofetz Chaim, in his book Likutei Halachot on Zevachim 88a in Zevach Todah DH T"R Bigdei, explains this topic.

1) The Gemara there states that if the priestly garments became soiled they may not be bleached or laundered. The Chofetz Chaim writes that it is logical that when the Gemara says that they became soiled, this means that they were dirty to the extent that the owner would be embarassed to wear them in the presence of respectable people; whilst if merely a small drop of blood or oil fell on the garments, this does not invalidate the clothing. Otherwise one would have to waste every day lots of the Cohanim's clothes, since it would not be possible for a Cohen to be so careful in the courtyard of the Beis Hamikdash.

2) Chofetz Chaim writes that this is also apparent from the words of the Rambam, in Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 8:5, who writes that if any of the clothes of the Cohanim become filthy they may not be bleached or laundered. If a drop fell on the clothes we would not say that this makes them "filthy". Chofetz Chaim writes that everyone would agree that one may launder the clothing if only a drop was spilt on it.

3) He adds that it appears obvious that if there was a small amount of mud on the clothing, which dried up and was then rubbed off, this renders the beged fit fo use.

Behatzlachah Rabah

Dovid Bloom

Further reply:

1) Now to the possibility of the Cohen wearing an apron. I think that if we remember the Gemara Eruvin 103b that we learnt not long ago in dafyomi, we may see that this is a problem. The Gemara states there that if the Cohen wears a small "Tziltzul" [a beautiful small belt - Rashi] this represents "Yitur Begadim"; the Cohen is wearing too many items of clothing and is pasul.

Therefore if a Cohen wears an apron it would seem that this represents an extra garment, and is invalid.

2) Concerning carrying the wood to the altar, one learns from the sugya here 65b that this is not considered to be an Avodah, and it would not matter if the clothes were not totally clean.

Shavua Tov

Dovid Bloom