Zevachim 18A

תלמוד לומר: ״חוקה״–״חוקה״ לגזירה שוה.

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 3 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.

אי מהתם, הוה אמינא: הני מילי עבודה דזר חייב עליה מיתה, אבל עבודה דאין זר חייב עליה מיתה ⁠– אימא לא; קא משמע לן.

The Talmud 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.

אשכחן מחוסר בגדים, שתויי יין מנלן? אתיא ״חוקה״–״חוקה״ ממחוסר בגדים.

The Talmud 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 Talmud 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.