Daf Ditty Yoma 32: Sequences

Jews Praying in the Synagogue on Yom Kippur,

by Maurycy Gottlieb (1878)

1
 Where Does the Temple Begin, Where Does It End?

There are things you can’t reach. But

you can reach out to them, and all day long.

The wind, the bird flying away. The idea of God.

And it can keep you as busy as anything else, and happier.

The snake slides away; the fish jumps, like a little lily,
out of the water and back in; the goldfinches sing
from the unreachable top of the tree.

I look; morning to night I am never done with looking.

Looking I mean not just standing around, but standing around

as though with your arms open.

And thinking: maybe something will come, some

shining coil of wind,
or a few leaves from any old tree–
they are all in this too.

And now I will tell you the truth.

Everything in the world
comes.

At least, closer.

And, cordially.

Like the nibbling, tinsel-eyed fish; the unlooping snake.

Like goldfinches, little dolls of goldfluttering around the corner of the sky

of God, the blue air.

Mary Oliver1

1
Where Does the Temple Begin, Where Does It End?.. http://www.paintedpath.org/2008/07/where-does-temple-begin-where-
does-it.html?m=1

2
3
4
5
§ The Sages taught the following with regard to the verse:

‫ וָּפַשׁט‬,‫ֹאֶהל מוֵֹﬠד‬-‫ ֶאל‬,‫כג וָּבא ַאֲהֹרן‬ 23 And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall
-‫ ֲאֶשׁר ָלַבשׁ ְבֹּבאוֹ ֶאל‬,‫ִבְּגֵדי ַהָבּד‬-‫ֶאת‬ put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into
.‫ ָשׁם‬,‫ַהֹקֶּדשׁ; ְוִה ִנּיָחם‬ the holy place and shall leave them there.
Lev 16:23

“And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting” Why does he come there? He already
completed the service in the Sanctuary. He comes only to remove the spoon and the coal pan
that he left in the Holy of Holies, as the entire Torah portion in which the Yom Kippur service is
discussed was stated in the order in which it is performed in the Temple except for this verse,
which should have been written after the sacrifice of the burnt-offering in the following verse. The
High Priest does not remove the spoon immediately after he places it in the Holy of Holies. Rather,
after placing it there, he emerges and performs certain services outside the Sanctuary and changes
his garments again. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the High Priest interrupts the inner
rite of the incense to offer his ram and the people’s ram before removing the spoon and the coal
pan?

Rav Ḥisda said: We learned as a tradition that five immersions and ten sanctifications the High
Priest immerses and sanctifies his hands and feet, respectively, on the day of Yom Kippur; and
if the service is performed in the order that appears in the Torah, you find only three immersions
and six sanctifications. The first immersion is before sacrifice of the daily morning offering; the
second is between the daily offering and the rest of the service of the day, including the removal
of the spoon and the coal pan from the Holy of Holies. The High Priest immerses a third time
between removal of the ladle and the coal pan from the Holy of Holies and the sacrifice of his ram
and the people’s ram, which were part of the additional offering and the daily afternoon offering
that follow. According to the revised sequence, the High Priest performs a service outside the
Sanctuary after placing the spoon and the coal pan in the Holy of Holies, and then he reenters the

6
Holy of Holies to remove those vessels. The High Priest immersed and changed his garments both
before entering and after exiting the Holy of Holies, for a total of five immersions.

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: From where are derived the five immersions
and ten sanctifications that the High Priest immerses and sanctifies his hands and feet,
respectively, on the day of Yom Kippur? They are derived from the verse that states:

‫שׂרוֹ ַבַמּ ִים ְבָּמקוֹם‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬-‫כד ְו ָרַחץ ֶאת‬
,‫ְבָּגָדיו; ְוָיָצא‬-‫ ְוָלַבשׁ ֶאת‬,‫ָקדוֹשׁ‬
,‫ֹעַלת ָהָﬠם‬-‫ֹעָלתוֹ ְוֶאת‬-‫ְוָﬠָשׂה ֶאת‬
.‫ וְּבַﬠד ָהָﬠם‬,‫ְוִכֶפּר ַבֲּﬠדוֹ‬
24 And he shall bathe his flesh in water in a holy place and
put on his other vestments, and come forth, and offer his
burnt-offering and the burnt-offering of the people and
make atonement for himself and for the people.
Lev 16:24

“And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting and he shall remove the linen garments that
he put on when he entered the Sanctuary and leave them there. And he shall wash his flesh in
water in a sacred place and put on his garments, and he shall go out and perform his own
burnt-offering and the burnt-offering of the people” (Leviticus 16:23–24). From this you learned:
Anyone who moves from an inner service, in the Holy of Holies, to an outer service, and vice
versa, requires immersion. According to the order of the services there are a total of five
immersions.

And they are five services: The sacrifice of the daily morning offering, performed in golden
garments; the service of the day, the sacrifice of the bull and the goat, which is performed in

7
white garments; the sacrifice of his ram guilt-offering and the ram of the people in golden
garments. After that he removes the spoon and the coal pan from the Holy of Holies in white
garments. He emerges from the Holy of Holies and sacrifices the daily afternoon offering in
golden garments.

And from where is it derived that each and every immersion requires two sanctifications of
the hands and the feet? It is derived from the verse that states: “And Aaron shall come into the
Tent of Meeting and he shall remove the linen garments that he put on when he entered the
Sanctuary and leave them there. And he shall wash his flesh in water” (Leviticus 16:23–24). And
it says: “And he shall wash his flesh in water in a sacred place and put on his garments”
(Leviticus 16:24). This indicates that one sanctifies his hands and feet when he removes garments,
and one likewise sanctifies his hands and feet when he dons garments.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

The Braisa introduces a verse, stating that Aharon comes to Ohel Moed. [This is a bit vague, for it
does not specify what he should do there, and especially because all of the Yom Kippur services
has been completed!?] The reason that he goes to Ohel Moed is to remove the ladle and the fire-
pan (which was left behind in the Holy of Holies).

The entire episode of the Yom Kippur service is sequential, with the sole exception of this verse.
[In truth, the ram offerings of the Kohen Gadol and the people occurred before the removal of the
ladle and the fire-pan; nevertheless, the Torah writes it out of sequence.] Rav Chisda explains that
we have an oral heritage from Moshe Rabbeinu that the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur immerses
himself five times and does ten acts of sanctification. Had our verse been in the correct place of
the service, there would only be three immersions and six acts of sanctifications.

[The three immersions would have been:

1) before the morning Tamid,
2) before the Yom Kippur service,
3) before the service of the rams. Now that this verse is not in the right place, all five immersions
are accounted for.]

The Gemora will now cite a braisa which brings various sources that five immersions and ten
sanctifications were done. Rabbi Yehudah cites this same verse: “Ahron will come to Ohel Moed

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Yoma_32.pdf

8
and will remove his linen garments. He will wash his flesh in water in a holy place and wear his
garments. He will exit and do (the other korbanos)." From here we see that whenever a change of
service (from one that is performed inside to one that is performed outside) is necessary, an
immersion is required.

Rebbe cites a different verse: "He will wear a linen shirt and linen pants will be on his flesh. He
will gird himself with a linen belt and will cover his head with a linen hat. They are holy garments,
and he will wash his flesh in water." From here we see that whenever a change of service (from
one that is performed inside to one that is performed outside) is necessary, an immersion is
required. The verse says that they are holy garments, which means that all the garments share
inherited properties. [The Gemora below will explain this.]

The braisa continues: There are five distinct services:

1) the morning Tamid, performed with the golden garments.
2) the special Yom Kippur service, performed with the white garments.
3) The Kohen's ram and the people’s ram, performed with the golden garments;
4) The removal of the ladle and the fire-pan, performed with the white garments;
5)The afternoon Tamid, performed with the golden garments How do we know that each
immersion requires two acts of sanctifications?

This is derived from the combination of verses, "He shall remove his garments and wash," and,
"He shall wash and don his garments." Rabbi Elozar the son of Rabbi Shimon derives it from a kal
vachomer: The Torah does not require an immersion prior to any service throughout the year (the
Rabbis added one as a reminder for an old tumah,) but yet requires sanctifications.

It would stand to reason then that on Yom Kippur, when the Torah does require the immersion, a
sanctification would also be required. But if that were true, we would only require one
sanctification on Yom Kippur. This is not true, since the verse says, "And Ahron will come to Ohel
Moed and remove the garments that he wore."

It is understood that he can only remove the garments that he wore. The Torah is hinting to us to
compare the removal of garments to their donning. Just as when he dons his garments he must
wash his hands, so too when he removes them.

Kohen Gadol Dries himself off after the Mikveh.

Our Gemora says that the five immersions of the Kohen Gadol are halachah l’Moshe MiSinai. The
difficulty is that a previous Gemora said the first immersion is only derabanan, in order to remove
a possible previous tumah which was forgotten.

The Kehilas Yaakov addresses this question. According to the Kehilas Yaakov, this question
prompted Rashi to interpret the previous Gemora as referring to immersion on an ordinary day but
not on Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur, even the first immersion is a Biblical requirement. This
viewpoint is reasonable since remembering a previous tumah shouldn’t be applicable for the
Kohen Gadol who had immersed himself in a mikvah on Erev Yom Kippur.

9
What kind of tumah could have been forgotten if he had just purified himself the previous day?
Therefore, according to Rashi, the first immersion of the Kohen Gadol is also Halachah LeMoshe
MiSinai.

The Rambam, however, says that the first immersion of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur is to
separate from a previous tumah. How does this fit with the Gemora which says that the five
immersions were halacha l’Moshe MiSinai?

One has to say that the Gemora is not exact and it only meant to establish that there are five
immersions and that the four that are not standard every day are halachah l’Moshe MiSinai. The
question remains, however, why was the first immersion necessary if the Kohen Gadol was pure
from the previous day?

The answer lies in an extra word the Rambam adds. The Rambam says that the Kohen Gadol must
separate from tumah Lishma (for its sake). The Kehilas Yaakov understands that the Rambam
requires not only immersion in a mikveh, but also intent to purify oneself from a specific tumah.
The immersion on Erev Yom Kippur was standard procedure, and, therefore, did not cause the
Kohen to remember if he became impure.

The immersion on Yom Kippur, however, was designated for the purpose of jogging his memory
and, was therefore likely to cause him to remember the previous tumah. He then could immerse
himself with the specific intention of removing the tumah of which he had become aware.

Rabbi Tzvi Akiva Fleisher writes:

Lev 16: 4: "V'rochatz bamayim es b'soro ulveishom" - And he shall cleanse his body in the water
and then wear them - The Gemora says that not only when the Kohen Gadol changed from his
regular eight garments into the Yom Kippur four garments or reverse, was he required to immerse
in a mikveh, but also at the end of Yom Kippur, when he took of his priestly garments he was
required to immerse in a mikveh, before dressing himself in his regular weekday clothes.

This teaches us that not only when the Kohen Gadol was about to embark upon doing holy service
was he to elevate himself through immersion in a mikveh, but also when he was about to bring
himself back to worldly physical activities he should prepare himself in sanctity to invest holiness
even in his mundane activities. (Rabbi Shimshon R'foel Hirsch)

A VERSE OUT OF SEQUENCE

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

In the Torah's description of the Avodos which the Kohen Gadol must perform on Yom Kippur, one
of the Avodos seems to be out of sequence. The Torah (Vayikra 16:23) states that Aharon (the Kohen

10
Gadol) is to return to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim to remove the incense shovel (Kaf u'Machtah), and only
afterwards does the Torah describe the sacrifices that Aharon is to offer on Yom Kippur.

The Gemara points out that while all of the other verses that describe the Avodah of Yom Kippur are
in the correct order, this verse is not. According to the correct order of the Avodah, Aharon is to bring
the Musaf offering and the afternoon Tamid first, and only afterwards is he to don the linen garments
again and return to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim to remove the Kaf u'Machtah. This order of events is
based on a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai which says that five Tevilos and ten Kidushin must be done by
the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. Only if the Avodah of this verse (the removal of the Kaf u'Machtah)
is placed after the offering of the Korbanos will there be five Tevilos and ten Kidushin.

If the correct order of the Avodah requires that the Korbanos be offered before the removal of the Kaf
u'Machtah, then why does the Torah itself place the verse out of the proper sequence?

VILNA GA'ON explains as follows. The Midrash (Vayikra Rabah 21:6) relates that Hashem told
Moshe that Aharon shall not be prohibited from entering the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. Rather, he may
enter whenever he wants. However, when he does enter he must perform the Avodos just as they are
performed on Yom Kippur. Although no other Kohen Gadol is permitted to enter the Kodesh
ha'Kodashim at any time other than Yom Kippur, Aharon was permitted to enter on any day of the
year, provided that he performs the Avodah as it is done on Yom Kippur. (This is in contrast to the
words of Rashi to Vayikra 16:3 and 32.)

The Vilna Ga'on explains that if Aharon chose to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on any other day of
the year, he was required to remove the incense shovel from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim
immediately before he performed the Avodah of the afternoon Tamid. The words of the Torah here do
not describe the Avodah specific to Yom Kippur, but rather it describes the Avodah that is performed
on any day that Aharon chose to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. "This is how Aharon shall enter the
Sanctuary" (Vayikra 16:3) -- any day of the year.

(This also may explain why the Torah makes no mention of the Musaf offerings of Yom Kippur in this
Parshah. Those offerings were brought only on Yom Kippur and not on any day that Aharon chose to
enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.)

Therefore, the Torah lists the removal of the Kaf u'Machtah immediately after the Avodah of the
Ketores and the sprinklings of Dam in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and Heichal. The verse is out of
sequence only insofar as the services of Yom Kippur are concerned; on that day, the Kohen Gadol must
remove the Kaf u'Machtah at a later time in the day, after he brings the offerings. (KOL
ELIYAHU #83. A similar idea is proposed by the NETZIV in HA'AMEK DAVAR to Vayikra 16:2,
23, and 34.)

The logic for this sequence is clear. The Gemara teaches that there is a specific reason for why the
Divine will on Yom Kippur requires that the Kaf u'Machtah remain in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim until
later: the Kohen Gadol must perform five Tevilos on Yom Kippur, each accompanied by a change of
clothing. If the Kohen Gadol must remove the Kaf u'Machtah from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim (which
he does while he wears the linen garments) immediately after he performs the Avodah of the Ketores
and the sprinklings of Dam in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and Heichal (which he also does while he
wears the linen garments), then he misses one opportunity to change from the linen garments into the
gold garments. He changes clothing only three times (gold-linen-gold) and misses two Tevilos.

11
In order to perform an additional two changes of clothing, he is commanded to don the gold garments
after he performs the Avodah of the Ketores and the sprinklings of the Dam, offer the Korbanos in
those garments, and then don the linen garments again later and perform the Avodah of the removal of
the Kaf u'Machtah. He then changes back to the gold garments, so that he has a total of five changes
of clothing (and five Tevilos).

This requirement, however, is unique to Yom Kippur. The reason for why five Tevilos and ten
Kidushin are required on Yom Kippur is not because of the Kohen Gadol's entry into the Kodesh
ha'Kodashim. Rather, they are performed in order to arouse Hashem's mercy to forgive the Jewish
people on the Day of Atonement ("Mikveh Yisrael Hashem, Mah Mikvah Metaher..."; Yoma 85b).
Accordingly, when Aharon chose to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on any other day of the year, when
five Tevilos and ten Kidushin are not necessary, there was no need for him to change clothing five
times. Therefore, the Torah commands him to remove the Kaf u'Machtah from the Kodesh
ha'Kodashim immediately after he offers the Ketores and sprinkles the Dam.

Why was Aharon, and no other Kohen Gadol, given the special privilege of entering the Kodesh
ha'Kodashim whenever he wanted? The MESHECH CHOCHMAH (Vayikra 16:3) offers an insight
based on the words of the SEFORNO. The Seforno (Vayikra 24:3) explains that while the Jewish
people were in the Midbar, only the Kohen Gadol was allowed to perform the Avodos of lighting the
Menorah and offering the incense. The reason for this was because the holiness that the Jewish people
experienced in the years of wandering through the desert was comparable to the holiness of Yom
Kippur. The holiness of Yom Kippur comes from the unique occurrence on that day when Hashem
"appears in a cloud upon the Kapores" (the cover of the Aron ha'Kodesh). During the Jewish people's
sojourn in the desert, "Hashem's Presence rested upon the Mishkan by day, and there was fire therein
by night" (Shemos 40:38). Just as all parts of the Avodah of Yom Kippur must be done by the Kohen
Gadol (Yoma 32b), so, too, the lighting of the Menorah and the incense offering performed in the
Mishkan in the desert had to be performed by the Kohen Gadol, Aharon ha'Kohen.

(Even during that period, Aharon's sons were allowed to participate in Avodos that were performed in
the courtyard of the Mishkan, such as the offering of private sacrifices, because those Korbanos were
not part of the obligations of the Mishkan but were done for the benefit of those who offered them.
Avodos that were not integral to the Mishkan did not require a Kohen Gadol even on Yom Kippur.

This explains why Aharon was permitted to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on any day of the year.
Every day in the Midbar during which the Divine Presence rested on the Mishkan was as holy as Yom
Kippur. Consequently, on every day of the year Aharon experienced the same sanctity that any other
Kohen Gadol experienced only on Yom Kippur itself.

THE FIRST OF "TEVILOS" OF THE KOHEN GADOL

In the Beraisa, Rebbi derives from the words, "u'Pashat... v'Rachatz," "v'Rachatz... v'Lavash" (Vayikra
16:23-24), that before and after each change of clothing the Kohen Gadol must perform Kidush
Yadayim v'Raglayim. Even though the word "v'Rachatz" normally refers to Tevilah and not to Kidush
Yadayim v'Raglayim, here it refers to Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim, and it teaches that just as Kidush
must be done in a sanctified area ("b'Makom Kadosh"), so, too, the Kohen Gadol's Tevilah must be
done in a sanctified area.

12
RASHI (DH Mah Kidush) asks that the first of the five Tevilos of the Kohen Gadol is performed in a
non-sanctified area. According to Rebbi's understanding of the verse, the first Tevilah should also be
performed in a sanctified area.

Rashi answers that the first Tevilah is not mid'Oraisa, since it is not done between changes of clothing
of Bigdei Kodesh, but only after the Kohen Gadol changes from non-sanctified garments to sanctified
garments.

Rashi implies that the Gemara here follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah (30a), who maintains that
the obligation of Tevilah before entry into the Azarah is only mid'Rabanan (because of "Serach
Tevilah"; see also Rashi to 32a, DH Mah Makom).

Rashi's words are difficult to understand. The Gemara earlier (32a) says that the Halachah l'Moshe
mi'Sinai teaches that there must be five Tevilos on Yom Kippur (and, consequently, the removal of the
Kaf u'Machtah must be done in an order different from the order mentioned in the Torah; see previous
Insight). Even if the obligation of Tevilah before entry into the Azarah is mid'Rabanan, on Yom Kippur
it certainly is mid'Oraisa. Why does Rashi say that the first Tevilah on Yom Kippur is not mid'Oraisa?
(TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER on the Mishnayos)

REBBI AKIVA EIGER suggests an answer based on his understanding of the TOSFOS
YESHANIM (32a, DH Gemiri). He explains that the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai does not mention the
number of Tevilos. It says only that the Kaf u'Machtah must be removed from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim
after the ram offerings are brought. The number of Tevilos (the four that are mid'Oraisa) is derived as
a consequence of that order of the Avodah. Since the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai does not explicitly
address how many Tevilos are to be done, it is possible that only four Tevilos are mid'Oraisa.
This answer is difficult to understand, because the Gemara's wording clearly implies that the Halachah
l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches the number of Tevilos, and that number is five.

Perhaps Rashi does not mean that the first of the five Tevilos of Yom Kippur is mid'Rabanan. He
certainly agrees that it is mid'Oraisa as the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches. When Rashi says that
the first Tevilah is not mid'Oraisa, he means that it is not derived from the verse ("u'Pashat...
v'Rachatz...") like the other four Tevilos, for the verse discusses only the Tevilos performed between
changes of clothing of Bigdei Kodesh. It is, however, a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.

When the verse teaches that the Tevilos are like Kidush and must be done in a sanctified area, it refers
only to the Tevilos mentioned in the verse. The first Tevilah, even though it is mid'Oraisa, does not
need to be done in a sanctified area because it is not included in the verse. (The comparison that the
verse makes between Tevilah and Kidush does not apply to a Tevilah derived from a Halachah l'Moshe
mi'Sinai.)

TOSFOS (30a, DH u'Mah) argues with Rashi and says that even the first Tevilah (when the Kohen
Gadol changes from Bigdei Chol to Bigdei Kodesh) is required mid'Oraisa. The reason why that
Tevilah may be done in a non-sanctified area is because it is logical that before the Kohen becomes
"Niskadesh" (sanctified) by wearing the Bigdei Kodesh, there is no need for him to immerse in a
sanctified area. The verse that requires Tevilah in a sanctified area does not refer to that type of Tevilah.
The verse refers only to the Tevilos which the Kohen Gadol performs after he has already donned the
Bigdei Kodesh.

13
 Finding a textual source for the ritual immersions on Yom Kippur

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

In presenting the source for the five tevilot (ritual bath immersions) that the kohen gadol performed
as part of the Yom Kippur avodah (service), Rav Hisda uses the expression gemiri, which usually
indicates that the issue under discussion is a halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai - an oral tradition handed
down from Mount Sinai by Moshe Rabbeinu and thus has the authority of a Biblical law.
Immediately following this statement, the Gemara quotes a series of sages who look through the
pesukim of the parasha about the avodah of the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur (see Vayikra 16) for
indications that these five tevilot are mandated by the Torah. Tosafot ask why it is necessary to
find a textual source for this halakhah, if we have already been told that it is a halakhah le-Moshe
mi-Sinai? They answer that the halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai only indicated that there was a need
for five tevilot, but did not specify when they were to be done - perhaps they could have been done
one after the other. The search in the pesukim is an attempt to see where they belong in the course
of the avodah. Several other answers are given, as well:

• Some explain that it is common to find in the Gemara that a halakhah which has been
derived from one source is still looked for in other source texts, as well.
• The Tosafot Yeshanim argue that the halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai simply taught that there
were five changes of venue (between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodashim) in the course
of the avodah on Yom Kippur. The search in the pesukim is for a source that teaches that
tevilot were necessary between each part of the avodah.
• The Havot Ya'ir explains that, according to the Rambam, the term gemiri does not always
mean that the tradition is a halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai. Sometimes it simply means a
tradition was derived based on passages in the Torah and their hermeneutic interpretations.

Before a kohen enters the Temple to serve, the Torah commands him to “sanctify” (i.e., wash) his
hands and feet, even if he is already tahor. The Sages further require that he immerse his entire
body (in accordance with R. Yehuda in Yoma 30a; MT, Laws of the Yom Kippur Service 2:3).5
He need not wash or immerse again as long as he serves continuously. If he urinates, he must wash
his hands and feet again. If he defecates or leaves the Temple environs for a significant amount of

4
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446
5
https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/15-10-06/

14
time, he must immerse his body and wash his hands and feet again (MT, Laws of Entering the
Temple 5:3-5).

For immersing, there was a mikveh adjacent to the Temple courtyard (azara), and for washing the
hands and feet water was used that came out of the faucets affixed to the kiyor (laver), located
between the Sanctuary and the outer altar. The kohen would place his right hand on top of his right
foot and wash them together, and then place his left hand atop his left foot and wash them together.
A kohen who served in the Temple without first washing his hands and feet was liable to
punishment by death at the hands of heaven, as we read:

Make a laver of copper and a stand of copper for it, for washing; and place it between the Ohel
Mo’ed (Tent of Encounter) and the altar. Put water in it and let Aharon and his sons wash their
hands and feet from it. When they enter the Ohel Mo’ed they shall wash with water, that they may
not die; or when they approach the altar to serve, to turn into smoke an offering by fire to the
Lord… (Shemot 30:18-20)

On Yom Kippur, in addition to immersing and washing before beginning the avoda, the Kohen
Gadol also had to immerse each time he changed from the golden vestments into the white
vestments, and vice versa, as we read, “They are sacred vestments; he shall bathe his body in water
and then put them on” (Vayikra 16:4), and “Aharon shall go into the Ohel Mo’ed, take off the linen
vestments that he put on when he entered the holy place, and leave them there. He shall bathe his
body in water in the holy precinct and put on his vestments…” (ibid. 23-24). Additionally, it is a
mitzva from the Torah for the Kohen Gadol to wash his hands and feet twice with each change of
vestments: once before removing the old set and once after putting on the new. Thus, the Kohen
Gadol immersed five times and washed his hands and feet ten times on Yom Kippur (Yoma 32a).
During the year, he used the laver like the rest of the kohanim. On Yom Kippur, in his honor, the
water was brought to him, in a golden ewer, so that he would not have to return repeatedly to the
laver (Yoma 43b).

The idea behind immersing is to become pure and to extricate oneself from an existing state to rise
to a new, more elevated state. The white vestments were of a higher rank in that they could bring
one to a higher, more abstract plane, and the golden vestments were higher in that they revealed
sanctity within the full variety of this world. In order to transition to new, higher states, as
expressed in the changing of clothes, the Kohen Gadol had to immerse.

The sanctification (by washing) of the hands and feet was meant to elevate and unite all the
energies of the kohanim in service of the divine. The focus was on the hands and feet because they
express the actualization of a person’s potential – working with his hands and entrenching his work
in the world with his feet. The ten fingers hint at this as well. They correspond to the ten statements
with which God created the world (Avot 5:1). Human beings, created in the divine image, use their
ten fingers to repair and improve the world.

On Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol had to sanctify his hands and feet twice with each change of
clothing. The first time was before removing the vestments he had worn during the most
recent avoda, because when a person is privileged to engage in especially holy and uplifting work,
it invigorates him and amplifies all his drives, positive and negative. An intense divine light

15
courses through him, protecting him from the amplified desires which might lead him astray. But
when he finishes the work, those same desires may snare him. To protect him from them, the
Kohen Gadol was commanded to wash his hands and feet before removing the garments. This
allowed him to seal in all his energies with holiness, which he tapped into during the avoda. The
second time he sanctified his hands and feet was after he put on the new garments. This was to
purify all his energies prior to undertaking the next element of the avoda, and to ensure that they
were not still preoccupied with his previous avoda (based on Orot Ha-teshuva 14:33).

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:6

While discussing the bigdei kahuna (priestly clothes) worn by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur
and the changes of clothing performed by a Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur, today’s daf (Yoma 32a)
refers to Vayikra 16:23 which states how “Aharon shall then go into the Ohel Moed (Communion
Tent), and take off the white linen vestments that he had worn when he entered the [inner]
sanctuary.”

But as the Gemara then states, this verse seems to be overly verbose, and the words “that he had
worn” appear extraneous. As it then asks: ‫“ – כלום אדם פושט אלא מה שלבש‬can a person remove
anything other than what they had been wearing?”.

To this, the Gemara the responds by saying that we extrapolate from this verse how donning
clothes and removing them are connected, and that both require an accompanying sanctification
by the Kohen Gadol.

However, I would like to offer a second answer to this question of “can a person remove anything
other than what they had been wearing?” which, though always relevant, has certainly been on my
mind in the past few days while my house has been physically shaking each time rockets fall in
the south (I live approximately 25km from Gaza) and while I and my family have had to rush to
the bomb shelter in response to air raid sirens in the area.

To explain, it should be clear that beyond the clothes that we wear, we also wear biases and
presumptions. In fact, every single one of us have our own subjective biases or what Rabbi Yisrael
Salanter calls ‫כוחות הנפש‬, (literally, ‘soul-forces’). In fact, as R’ Salanter explains (Or Yisrael Ch.
30), “a human being, by virtue of being a human being, even if they have the ability to remove
these soul-forces from affecting their mind… are still a human being. Their soul-forces still remain
within them, and they cannot fully rid themselves of them, which means that a human being can
never reach a truly objective truth in their judgement that has not, in some way, been influenced
by their own soul-forces.”

Given this, what does Rabbi Salanter suggest especially when dealing with matters of judgment?
He suggests that when called to judge a situation, rather than pretend that they don’t have their
own ‫כוחות הנפש‬, a person should, instead, try and put to the side the influence of those ‫כוחות הנפש‬
and instead, rely on evidence rather than opinion; on facts rather than on perception. At the same
time, it is also important to note that not all of us are called upon to fill the role of judge, and like

6
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

16
a parent who one would not expect to be truly objective about their children, sometimes we need
to recognize that our task is not to judge but simply to support.

And this brings me back to the question of the Gemara: “Can a person remove anything other than
what they had been wearing?”, to which I believe a further answer is that each person needs to
know that they wear more than their clothing, and they wear their own ‫ כוחות הנפש‬which, though
capable of being reduced, is mostly not able to be removed.

Thus it is important that all those who judge what is currently taking place in Israel should first
acknowledge these ‫ – כוחות הנפש‬their personal, subjective, soul-forces - and if they do need to make
judgements, their words should be based on evidence rather than opinion; on facts rather than on
perception. At the same time, the very act of acknowledging our own ‫ כוחות הנפש‬should make a
person think more than twice before offering their judgement, and though judgement has its place,
so too does unconditional support – especially to those feeling fragile and vulnerable and those
innocent men and women who are now mourning their dead.

How do we know what we know?

SARA RONIS WRITES:7

There are certain things that “everybody” knows. If you go out with wet hair, you’re likely to catch
a cold. An apple a day keeps the doctor away. Life isn’t fair. And while some of these statements
are scientifically grounded (doctors are unlikely to come near you if you throw fruit at them!),
others are outright false (so there’s no need to invest in a hairdryer to prevent the common cold).
But how do we know what we know? When “everybody” knows something, where does that
knowledge come from? Today’s daf explores this issue in depth.

Rav Hisda said: We learned in a tradition — five immersions and ten sanctifications the high
priest immerses and sanctifies on the day (of Yom Kippur).

The idea that the high priest immerses his whole body five times and sanctifies his hands and feet
ten times on Yom Kippur is then repeated several times over the course of today’s daf. It is stated
not only by the Amora Rav Hisda (a rabbi of the later generations that followed the closing of the
Mishnah) but also by the Tannas Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (who belonged to
earlier generations before the Mishnah was closed). And throughout the course of the daf, even
more rabbis pick up and run with the idea. But where does this tradition come from?

Rabbi Yehuda suggests: They are derived from the verse that states: And Aaron shall come
into the Tent of Meeting and he shall remove the linen garments that he put on when he entered
the sanctuary and leave them there. And he shall wash his flesh in water in a sacred place and

7
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/yoma-32/

17
put on his garments, and he shall go out and perform his own burnt-offering and the burnt-
offering of the people. (Leviticus 16:23–24)

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi offers another origin: They are derived from that which is stated: He
shall be dressed in a sacred linen tunic, and with linen trousers next to his flesh, and he shall
be girded with a linen belt, and he shall wear a linen mitre; they are sacred garments, and he
shall wash his flesh in water and then put them on. (Leviticus 16:4)

Both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi assert that the high priest’s five immersions and
ten sanctifications derive from a biblical verse which states that the high priest shall “wash his
flesh” — though they point to different verses with that language. Both prooftexts suggest that the
high priest must immerse himself before putting on the ritual clothing necessary for each part of
the service, so their debate is really just about which verse is the true origin of the practice.
Knowing the origin doesn’t change the rabbis’ conclusion that the high priest requires five
immersions, but it is important to them nonetheless! These two teachings then spark a further
rabbinic discussion of why each immersion requires two sanctifications (the answer comes in the
form of more biblical verses).

In his explanation of Rav Hisda’s original statement, the medieval commentator Rashi states that
this tradition of five immersions and ten sanctifications is a “halakhah le-moshe mi-sinai,” a piece
of the Oral Torah transmitted directly by God to Moses at Sinai, with no explicit — or even
implicit! — biblical origins. But today’s daf seems to offer a different approach. According to the
rabbis of today’s daf, “everybody” knowing something is not adequate — we must know exactly
how and why it is the case.

From Sacred Garments to Everyday Clothes

Rabbanit Nomi Berman writes:8

The details are dizzying. First in the Torah and then mapped out in seven chapters of
Mishnah. Beginning seven days before Yom Kippur, the schedule of the Kohen Gadol is
regimented and intense. In the world of Halacha, the most mundane of details is laden with
significance.

The Torah tell us that, before beginning the Yom Kippur services, the Kohen Gadol “shall be
dressed in a sacred linen tunic, with linen breeches upon his flesh, he shall gird himself with a
linen sash and cover his head with a linen turban, they are sacred vestments, he shall immerse
himself in water and then don them (Vayikra 16:4). Subsequently, several sacrifices later, we are
told that “he shall remove the linen vestments that he had worn when he entered the Sanctuary,

8
https://ots.org.il/sacred-garments-everyday-clothes/

18
and leave them there. He shall immerse himself in the water in the sacred plan and don his
vestments…” (Vayikra 16:24).

Chazal understand from these verses that each time the Kohen dons “sacred vestments” he is
required to immerse himself in a mikveh. On Yom Kippur, the Kohen changes his clothing
multiple times, wearing the more ornate priestly garments for the avoda in the outer sanctuary, and
the simpler white garments for the avoda in the inner sanctuary. Throughout the year – and Yom
Kippur is no exception – the avodot in the Mikdash are preceded by sanctification of the hands
and feet. The wearing and removing of the sacred clothing is part and parcel of the avoda of the
day, and therefore the Kohen must not only immerse himself each time he changes, but also must
sanctify his hands and feet.

The net result, the Mishnah tells us, is that “The Kohen Gadol immersed himself five times and
sanctified himself ten times on that day… (Yoma, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3).”

The Mishnah elaborates: “They spread a linen sheet between him and the people. He undressed,
went down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself. They brought him the gold
vestments and he put them on and he sanctified his hands and his feet. They brought him the daily
Tamid… (Chapter 3, Mishnah 4).”

After the description of the Tamid sacrifice, the Mishna tells us that once again, “They spread a
linen sheet between him and the people. He sanctified his hands and feet, and he stripped off. He
went down and immersed, he came up and he dried himself. They brought him white garments,
he donned, and he sanctified his hands and his feet (Chapter 3, Mishnah 6).”

Our Daf (Yoma 32a) points out a lacuna in the Mishnah. In Mishnah 6, there is a sanctification
“sandwich.” The Kohen Gadol sanctifies his hands and feet both before and after the
immersion. In Mishnah 4, however, for the first immersion of the day, there is only one hand and
feet sanctification. If this is the case, the math simply does not add up. At the outset, the Mishnah
calls for five immersions and ten sanctifications, but in reality the total in only nine!

The Rabbanan of the gemara reply: the final sanctification takes place when he removes the sacred
garments and wears his daily clothing. The long day of avodat Hashem is over and the exhausted
Kohen Gadol dresses in his own regular clothing, leaving the Mikdash behind and heading
home. Before that final change he sanctifies his hands and feet for the tenth time that day.

The gemara has not only resolved the mathematical “error,” but has also, in its inimitable subtle
way, taught us something critical about the nature of avodat Yom HaKippurim. Sanctification of
hands and feet always precedes avodat Hashem.

On Yom Kippur, the last avoda is wearing daily clothing. As Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch
writes, “The thought to be taken away by the final word of the whole great day is… that the whole
life inside the Sanctuary and all the rituals which are performed in it only have meaning and value
in the concrete life outside the sanctuary … that which is striven for in the sacred clothing must
wait for its true meaning for what is accomplished in the regular, daily clothing.”

19
It’s true in our public lives; there are campaign promises and then there is the presidency. And it’s
also true in our private lives: there are the New Year’s resolutions and then there is the year that
follows.

The final avoda of Yom Kippur is to return to our “daily clothing.” The real work is not in how
we spend Yom Kippur, but how we live the moments after, how we bring the inspiration into our
daily lives.

How the Day of Atonement was marked before the destruction of the
Second Temple.

Rabbi Dr. Reuven Hammer writes:9

Unlike the first day of the seventh month [which became known as Rosh Hashanah], the 10th day
has a specific designation and purpose in the Torah , with elaborate rites connected to it:

“Mark, the 10th day of the seventh month is the Day of Atonement. It shall be a sacred occasion
for you; you shall practice self-denial, and you shall bring an offering by fire to the Lord; and you
shall do no work throughout that day. For it is a Day of Atonement, on which expiation is made
on your behalf before the Lord your God… Do no work whatever; it is a law for all time,
throughout the generations in all your settlements. It shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you,
and you shall practice self-denial; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to
evening, you shall observe this your Sabbath” ( Lev. 23:27-32 ).

When is Yom Kippur 2021? Click here to find out.

The designation of this day is reiterated in Numbers:

“On the 10th of the same seventh month you shall observe a sacred occasion when you shall
practice self-denial. You shall do no work” ( Num. 29:7 ).

Self-denial–inui nefesh in Hebrew (literally, afflicting one’s soul)–traditionally has been

understood to refer to fasting. For the Israelites, this Day of Atonement was therefore a day for
fasting and complete cessation of work, observed by individuals in their homes and settlements.

While observed today as a time for individual atonement, the biblical Yom Kippur is primarily a
priestly institution:

9
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/yom-kippur-observances-through-the-second-temple-period/

20
“The priest who has been anointed and ordained to serve as priest in place of his father shall make
expiation. He shall put on the linen vestments, the sacral vestments. He shall purge the inmost
Shrine; he shall purge the Tent of Meeting and the altar; and he shall make expiation for the priests
and for all the people of the congregation ” ( Lev. 16:29-33 ).

Since Yom Kippur rites were performed in the sanctuary by the High Priest, the presence of the
common people was not required. Individual observance was merely an accompaniment to the
work of the High Priest, who was engaged in “rites of purgation” or “rites of riddance,” in the
sanctuary.

The Torah emphasizes these rituals of purging or cleansing the sanctuary and the altar, and the
priests’ atonement for themselves and for the people. Kaparah (atonement) means to cleanse that
which has been defiled or contaminated. The sanctuary was a place of holiness and of ritual purity,
which was tainted over the years by human beings who entered it in states of ritual impurity. If the
sanctuary was to function as a holy place, as the dwelling place of the Holy One, it had to be purged
of this impurity.

The rites of purgation described in Leviticus 16 resemble those found in other ancient religions.
In fact, the entire biblical ritual of kaparah can best be understood against the background of
ancient Near Eastern religions. The fifth day of the 10-day Babylonian new year festival, for
example, included a rite called kuppuru, in which a ram was beheaded and its body used to absorb
the impurity of the sacred rooms of the temple. Other parts of the animal were thrown into the
river, while the officiants were quarantined in the wilderness. The temple was doused and
fumigated. Later, sins were confessed and a criminal was paraded and beaten.

The biblical ritual contains many similar features but, as Theodor Gaster points out, has
transformed its pagan antecedent. Carried out “before the Lord,” it is no longer “a mere mechanical
act of purgation.… The people had to be cleansed not for themselves but for their God: ‘before the
Lord shall you be clean’ ( Lev. 16:30 ). Sin and corruption were now regarded as impediments not
merely to their material welfare and prosperity but to the fulfillment of their duty to God”
[Festivals of the Jewish Year, 1952, p. 144].

The priest was to bring a sin offering that would “make expiation for himself and his
household” ( Lev. 16:11 ), to enter the Holy of Holies and place sacrificial blood on the cover of
the ark, known as the “atonement seat” ( Lev. 16:12-14 ), and thus to “make expiation in the
Shrine” ( Lev. 16:17 ). He then purged the altar by applying sacrificial blood to it: “Thus he shall
cleanse it of the uncleanness of the Israelites and consecrate it” ( Lev. 16:18-19 ). Thus, although
similar concepts existed in all religions of the time, the Torah eliminated the demonic and magical
elements of impurity from the Yom Kippur ritual. Instead, it emphasized that the closer the
worshiper came to the presence of God–that is, to holiness–the more restrictions there were in
order to ensure ritual cleanliness.

The changes that took place in the observance of Yom Kippur during the Second Temple period
were significant. Philo describes the day as one in which it was customary to spend the entire time,

21
from morning to evening, in prayer. Regarding the ritual of the Temple itself, the descriptions that
we have in the Mishnah and Tosefta were not edited in their present form until a century or more
after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. There is little doubt, however, that they reflect an
authentic tradition dedicated to preserving the rituals of the Temple in the hope that they would
one day be restored.

The most significant changes were:

1. the expansion of the confessions made by the High Priest;

2. the expansion of the role of the people in the Temple ritual;

3. the inclusion of prayer both by the priest and by the people;

4. changes in the ceremony of the scapegoat.

Most of these changes can be ascribed to the general trend of democratization within Judaism. The
people came to participate more and more in the rituals so that the Temple became less the realm
of the priests than the center of national worship. The role of verbal prayer also increased at that
time. And people became more aware of their need to attain forgiveness and atonement for their
own sins as opposed to focusing on purely ritual matters.

These changes mark an overall trend toward inwardness and ethical-moral concern within Jewish
spiritual practice. What had begun as a problem of ritual impurity developed into a concern with
human decency. The Prophets’ focus upon moral concerns became incorporated into ritual
observance. Isaiah’s words challenging the value of fasts, incorporated later by the Rabbis into the
Yom Kippur services as the prophetic reading, took on new significance:

Is such the fast I desire, A day for men to starve their bodies? Is it bowing the head like a bulrush
and lying in sackcloth and ashes? Do you call that a fast, A day when the Lord is favorable? No,
this is the fast I desire: To unlock the fetters of wickedness and untie the cords of the yoke to let
the oppressed go free; To break off every yoke. It is to share your bread with the hungry, and to
take the wretched poor into your home; When you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to ignore
your own kin. Then shall your light burst through like the dawn. And your healing spring up
quickly. ( Isaiah 58:5-8 )
Despite this change in focus, the ancient rituals of the day were in no way devalued or minimized.
On the contrary, ceremonies in the Second Temple were much more magnificent than those in the
wilderness Tabernacle or the First Temple, as was the building itself. Rituals in the Second Temple
were carried out with great splendor. if anything, the presence of so many pilgrims at these rites
made them more solemn and impressive than ever before.

Yom Kippur’s Seder Avodah Begins with God’s Creation of the World

22
Arguably, the highlight of the prayer service on Yom Kippur is the Seder
Avodah, a type of piyyut (liturgical hymn) that poetically reenacts in every
detail the ritual service performed by the high priest on Yom Kippur in the
Jerusalem Temple. But why do these poems begin with the creation story?

Prof. Rabbi Dalia Marx writes:10

The prayer ʾAtah konanta ʿolam me-rosh said on Yom Kipur.

Or 10476, Date of origin: 1800-1899 CE. The British Library

10
https://www.thetorah.com/article/yom-kippurs-seder-avodah-begins-with-gods-creation-of-the-world

23
Following the sudden death of his two sons, Nadav and Avihu, Aaron is commanded to purify the
Tabernacle through a complex set of rituals, including sending out a goat to Azazel in the
wilderness,[1] over which he confesses the sins of the people. This ritual becomes the standard for
the annual service of Yom Kippur in the Temple:

‫ כ ט‬: ‫ויק ר א ט ז‬
‫שֵׁתיֶכם ְוָכל ְמָלאָכה ל ֹא ַתֲﬠשׂוּ ָהֶאְז ָרח‬
ֹ ‫ְוָה ְיָתה ָלֶכם ְלֻחַקּת עוָֹלם ַבֹּחֶדשׁ ַהְשִּׁביִﬠי ֶבָּﬠשׂוֹר ַלֹחֶדשׁ ְתַּﬠנּוּ ֶאת ַנְפ‬
.‫ל ִכּי ַביּוֹם ַהֶזּה ְיַכֵפּר ֲﬠֵליֶכם ְלַטֵהר ֶאְתֶכם ִמֹכּל ַחטּ ֹאֵתיֶכם ִלְפֵני ְי־הָוה ִתְּטָהרוּ‬:‫ טז‬.‫ְוַהֵגּר ַהָגּר ְבּתוְֹכֶכם‬

Lev 16:29
And this shall be to you a law for all time: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the
month, you shall practice self-denial; and you shall do no manner of work, neither the citizen nor
the alien who resides among you. 16:30 For on this day atonement shall be made for you to cleanse
you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the LORD.
This is also the one time every year when anyone—in this case, the high priest—would enter the
Holy of Holies, where he would fill the room with the smoke from a pan of incense (lest he
accidentally see something he should not and die), and sprinkle blood on the kappōret, the ark’s
cover.[2] If conducted properly, the day's rituals should succeed in cleansing (‫ר‬.‫פ‬.‫ )כ‬the sacred
precinct,[3] the people, the priests, and the high priest himself of any sinful taints accumulated over
the previous year.[4]

The destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. put an end to this remarkable ritual, which was perceived
as a yearly opportunity for purification from sins. The rabbis strived to emphasize other ways of
receiving atonement, such as prayer or repentance, but they also created an innovative way of
remembering the ancient Temple service and reenacting it through the composition
of piyyutim (liturgical hymns) of a genre called the Seder Avodah.[5]

The Origins of the Seder Avodah Genre

The Seder Avodah, literally, “the order of the service,” which depicts the ritual of the high priest
in its entirety, is arguably the most fundamental liturgical piece on Yom Kippur.[6] It is recited

24
during the repetition of the Amidah (the standing prayer), the central prayer of every Jewish
liturgical service, as part of the Mussaf (additional) service,[7] as an expansion of the middle (i.e.,
fourth) benediction, the “Sanctification of the Day” (‫)קדושת היום‬.

The core of the Seder Avodah is a play by play description of the high priest’s ritual, using not
only the details from Leviticus 16 but primarily the extended description of his activities found in
the Mishnah, Tractate Yoma, chapters 1–7. The purpose of such a liturgical recitation of a ritual,
to quote Michael Swartz, is “not to recapitulate a historical event by ritual recognition, but to recall
a ritual by recounting it verbally.”[8]

Earliest Evidence of a Seder Avodah

The kernel of what becomes the Seder Avodah may be traced to the last chapters of the apocryphal
book, Wisdom of Ben Sira (early second century B.C.E.), which contain what could be an early
form of the text, describing how the Temple service was still executed.[9] But evidence of a
liturgical recitation of the Avodah during Yom Kippur does not appear until the fourth
century C.E., well after the Temple was destroyed.

The Babylonian Talmud twice makes reference to a public recitation of the Avodah, but does not
quote it at length. We only know small snippets of what points the Talmud was discussing.

First, in the context of a debate between Rabbi Meir and the Sages about the proper order of
confessions, the Talmud (b. Yoma 36b) states:

'‫ההוא דנחית קמיה דרבה עבד כר' מאיר א' ליה שבקת רבנן ועבדת כר' מאיר א' ליה כר' מאיר סבירא לי דא‬
(293 ‫כדכת' באוריתא דמשה )פירקוביץ‬

A certain person descended [to lead the prayer] before Rabbah, and did so following Rabbi Meir’s
[order]. [Rabbah] said to him: “You abandoned the rabbis and followed Rabbi Meir?!” [The man]

25
said to him: “I think Rabbi Meir is correct, for [the order] he advocates is like that which was
written in the Torah of Moses.”
According to this, the prayer leader in the time of Rabbah bar Nachmani (late 3rd early
4th cent., C.E.)[10] would recite the order of the high priest’s activities in sufficient detail that the
word order in his confession would have been quoted verbatim.

Later in the same tractate (56b), a similar story is told in the context of debates about where
different containers of sacrificial blood should be placed and in what order taken, etc.

‫ההוא דנחית קמיה דרבא אמ' יצא והניחו על כן השני שבהיכל ונטל דם הפר והניח דם השעיר א"ל חדא כרבנן‬
(95 ‫וחדא כר' יהודה אימ' הניח דם השעיר ונטל דם הפר )מינכן‬

A certain person descended [to lead the prayer] before Ravah, he said: “[The high priest] went out
and put it (=the blood) on the second stand in the Temple, and he picked up the blood of the bull
and put down the blood of the billy goat.” [Ravah] said to him: “In one case you follow the rabbis
and in the other Rabbi Judah?! [Instead] say: ‘He put down the blood of the billy goat and picked
up the blood of the bull.”
This story, set only a generation after the previous one, has Ravah (early to mid
4th cent. C.E.)[11] correcting the person leading the Yom Kippur prayers to make sure his recitation
is consistent with at least one view of how the high priest’s activities were to proceed.

These anecdotes show that according to the Bavli such recitations were taking place in Babylonia
already in the 4th century. Our earliest poetic compositions for synagogue, however, come from
Yosi ben Yosi (4th –5th century C.E.), who wrote multiple sidrei avodah (plural of Seder
Avodah).[12]

One of the earliest such poems, which is still used by Sephardic and Chassidic communities, is
the Atah Konanta ‘Olam Me-Rosh (‫)אתה כוננת עולם מראש‬, literally, “You established the world of

26
old” after the opening words of the piyyut (liturgical poem).[13] The name of the author is unknown,
but it likely dates from around the same period as Yosi ben Yosi.

Other payṭanim, including the author of Atta Konanta, followed the same poetic guidelines and
composed their own Seder Avodah versions,[14] the most famous of which would be the Amitz
Koach (‫)אמיץ כוח‬, “O Vigorously Strong One” composed by Rabbi Meshulam ben Klonymus (Luca
950–Mainz 1020), which was adopted by most Ashkenazi communities. Dozens of such Seder
Avodah poems[15] have survived, differing in style and length, but all exhibiting a common
structure.

Speech in Place of Sacrifice

The writing of such piyyutim fits with the overall rabbinic trend after the destruction of the Temple,
perhaps clearest in the Shabbat and festival mussaf service, where the sacrifices once offered in
the Temple were turned into verbal recitation, following the rabbinic interpretation of Hosea 14:3’s
‫“ וּ ְנַשְׁלָּמה ָפ ִרים ְשָׂפֵתינוּ‬may the offering of our lips be accepted as a replacement for the sacrifice of
bulls.”[16] For this reason, the rabbis called the substitution of the sacrificial worship with speech,
“the avodah (service) of the heart” (Bavli Taanit 2:1)

According to a well-known midrashic tradition, God ordained the liturgical recitation of the
sacrificial services from ancient times. As a midrashic reading of Abraham’s request from God for
a sign showing that he will inherit the land (Gen 15:8), and God’s response to take animals and
perform the covenant between the parts (Gen 15:9), Rabbi Jacob bar Aha (4th generation Amora,
Israel) in the name of Rav Assi (3rd generation Amora, Israel) offers the following midrashic
expansion of that conversation (b. Taanit 27b):

‫ שמא חס ושלום יחטאו לפניך ואתה עושה להם כאנשי דור המבול‬,‫ "רבו]נו[ של עולם‬:'‫אמ' אברהם לפני הק'ב'ה‬
"?‫וכאנשי דור הפלגה‬

27
Abraham said to the Holy One, blessed be He: “Master of the Universe, Heaven forfend that they
(=the Israelites) might sin before you and you may do to them what you did to the generation of
the flood and the generation of the division [after the Tower of Babel]?”

".‫ "לאו‬:‫אמ' ליה‬

[God] said: “No.”

"?‫ במה אדע‬:[‫ רבו]נו[ של עו]לם‬:‫אמ' לפניו‬

[Abraham] then said to him: “Master of the Universe, 'How will I know?’ (Gen 15:8)”

".‫ "קחה לי עגלה משולשת‬:‫אמ' לו‬

[God] answered: “Take me a heifer of three years old…” (Gen 15:9).

"?‫ בזמן שאין בית המקדש קיים מה תהא עליהן‬,‫ תינח בזמן שבית המקדש קיים‬,‫ רבו]נו[ של עולם‬:‫אמ' לפניו‬

[Abraham] said to him: “Master of the Universe! This holds good whilst the Temple remains
standing, but when the Temple will no longer be standing, what will become of them?”

‫[ כבר תיקנתי להן סידרי קרבנות שכל זמן שקורין בהן מעלה אני עליהן כאילו הקריבום לפני ואני מוחל‬17][‫אמ' ל]ו‬
(400 ‫ )הספריה הבריטית‬.‫להם על כל עונותיהן‬

[God] responded: I have already long ago provided for them in the Torah the order of the sacrifices
and whenever they read it, I will deem it as if they had offered them before me and I will grant
them pardon for all their iniquities.[18]

Performative Speech

28
In his book How to Do Things with Words, the philosopher of language, John Austin (1911-1960)
characterized the type of language used in the Seder Avodah as performative speech.[19] Michael
Swartz describes it thus:

[B]y recounting a lost ritual verbally, a community develops a way of memorializing that ritual in
act which is itself ritual […] Indeed the force of recitation needs to be taken quite seriously as a
potent form of ritual behavior and as an example of the actualization of sacred space in time.
Memorialization, recitation, and performance, we must remember, are physical acts, requiring
intensive preparation, stamina, and physical powers.[20]
Paradoxically, the need to replace the Temple service, verbally reenacting it, worked both to
maintain, and to some degree, reduce its mystique long after the Temple’s destruction. In the Seder
Avodah, for instance, we witness a transition from a purely cultic orientation of a service that was
performed by an individual in solitude, to a wider form of extra-Temple religiosity where every
prayer leader may symbolically assume the place of the high priest, with the community
participating in the ceremony with prescribed responses and physical gestures.[21]

The performance of the Seder Avodah may be viewed as a mere memorialization of the history of
ancient times, but it may also be seen as a dramatic contemporary reenactment in each synagogue
service that eventually reduces the need for an actual Temple.[22]

Powerful Priests or Relics from the Past?

Why did the sidrei avodah become so prominent in the fifth century C.E.? Some scholars have
argued that the kohanim (priests) played a more important role starting in this period, which they
view as a period of revival for the priestly cult,[23] though others, such Stuart Miller, are skeptical
of this.[24] To the contrary, Miller argues, it may indicate that the Jews “understood that the role of
the kohanim primarily belonged to the past and especially to the redemptive future,” not to their
own lives.

29
If we accept Miller’s argument, then the popularity of the sidrei avodah poems may indicate an
understanding that, since the sacrificial services on the actual Day of Atonement were not possible
either then or in the near future, they were replaced by their verbal performance. By imagining the
lost Temple service in the performance of the elaborate synagogue service, the sidrei avodah may
have signaled the people that the liturgy is a proper replacement of the sacrificial worship, and
perhaps also served to confine hopes for the rebuilt of the Temple and restoration of the cultic sect.

Beginning the Seder Avodah with Creation

One might imagine that just as the Seder Avodah ends with the high priest completing the day’s
service,[25] it would begin with the high priest’s first service of the day. Nevertheless, unlike
Leviticus 16, the sidrei avodah do not start with the morning of Yom Kippur, or even or with his
actions the night before (as does Mishnah Yoma, 1-7). Instead, the sidrei avodah begin with broad
strokes, describing the history of the world, starting with the creation story of Genesis 1.

For example, the opening poem of the Atta Konanta is an alphabet acrostic that goes from the
creation of the world to the appointment of Aaron as high priest. Its opening lines read:

‫ַאָתּה כּוַֹנ ְנָתּ עוָֹלם ֵמר ֹאשׁ ָיַסְדָתּ ֵתֵּבל ְוַהֹכּל ָפַּﬠְלָתּ וְּב ִריּוֹת בּוֹ ָיַצ ְרָתּ‬

‫ א‬From the beginning, it was You who established the universe, setting the world upon its
foundations, making all things, and creating living creatures on earth.[26]

‫שׁ˜ ַﬠל ְפֵּני ְתהוֹם‬

ֶ ‫ְבּשׁוּ ְר— עוָֹלם תּהוּ ָוֹבהוּ ְוֹח‬

‫ ב‬When You looked out on a universe “without form and void and on the darkness over the face
of the deep” (Gen 1:2),

30
 …‫ֵגּ ַרְשָׁתּ ֹאֶפל ְוִהַצְּבָתּ ֹנַגהּ ֹגֶּלם ַתְּב ִניְת— ִמן ָהֲאָדָמה ָיַצ ְרָתּ‬

‫ ג‬then You dispelled the darkness and established light. In outward semblance of Your likeness
did You form man from the earth…

Why would a piyyut about the Yom Kippur service begin with creation?

An essential concept of Jewish thought, with which the Hebrew Bible begins, is that the world is
God's purposeful creation, a great and mysterious work which also serves as proof of God’s
providence and benevolence. Jewish liturgy reflects this centrality in the first blessing of the Shema
liturgy, recited daily, which describes the creation of light in all its forms, as well as God’s
continual and on-going act of creation: ‫“ המחדש בטובו כל יום מעשה בראשית‬who, in His goodness,
daily renews the act of creation.”[27]

By opening with the concept of creation, and using these themes to introduce a description of the
high priest’s service in the Jerusalem Temple on the Day of Atonement, the poet connects the Yom
Kippur Service with the creation of the world. This fits with a theme we see in many rabbinic texts,
that the High Holidays, which take place at the beginning of the year, mark the time of the creation
of the world, and is a time when God reviews that creation.

The high priest’s actions are a crucial part of how God maintains the continuity of the universe,
and the specific actions, which might otherwise appear to be random, turn out to be central to the
purpose and continued existence of God’s creation. In other words, the service of the high priest
on Yom Kippur is presented as an essential part of the world's order; it is as natural and primordial
as the world itself.

A Bridge between Creation and the Temple

31
The poem connects creation with the Temple service through a brief (and selective) retelling of
biblical history. Continuing with Atta Konanta, after describing God’s creation, the text details
three failures of humanity. The reader is encouraged to consider what was included and excluded
in this poem.

1. Adam and Eve

The first failure is that of Adam and Eve in the garden, which the poet begins to retell in the middle
of the ‫ ג‬line:

‫ג … ְוַﬠל ֵﬠץ ַהַדַּﬠת אוֹתוֹ ָפַּקְדָתּ‬

‫… ג‬and (You) charged him concerning the tree of knowledge.

[28]
—‫ְדָּב ְר— ָזַנח ְו ִנְזַנח ֵמֵﬠֶדן ְול ֹא ִכִלּיתוֹ ְלַמַﬠן ְיִגיַﬠ ַכֶּפּי‬

‫ ד‬But he spurned Your word and so himself was spurned from Eden; yet You did not destroy him,
because he was the creation of Your own hands.

‫שֶׁקט‬
ָ ‫שְׁבָתּם‬
ַ ‫ִהְגַדְּלָתּ ִפ ְריוֹ וֵּב ַרְכָתּ ַז ְרעוֹ ְוִהְפ ִריָתם ְבּטוְּב— ְוהוֹ‬

‫ ה‬You made him fruitful, blessing his seed and multiplying them in Your goodness, and causing
them to dwell at ease.
Despite their sin, God gives humanity a second chance, only to see humanity fail again.[29]

2. The Flood

The text then moves on to a brief description of the flood story:

‫ַו ִיְּפ ְרקוּ ֹעל ַויּ ֹאְמרוּ ָלֵאל סוּר ִמֶמּנּוּ ַוֲהִסירוָֹת ָיד ְכּ ָרַגע ֶכָּחִציר ֻאְמָללוּ‬

32
‫ ו‬But they threw off the yoke and said, unto God, "Leave us alone," though when You removed
Your hand for a moment they withered as grass.

‫שְׂמָתּ ְלעוָֹלם ְשֵׁא ִרית‬

ַ ‫ָזַכ ְרָתּ ְב ִרית ְלָתִמים ְבּדוֹרוֹ וִּבְזכוּתוֹ‬

‫ ז‬But You remembered Your covenant with Noah, the "perfect in his generation" (Gen 6:9), and
through his merit You saved a remnant for everlasting survival.

ֶ ‫ֹחק ְבּ ִרית ֶק‬

‫שׁת ְלַמֲﬠנוֹ ָכ ַרָתּ וְּבַאֲהַבת ִניחוֹחוֹ ָבָּניו ֵבּ ַרְכָתּ‬

‫ ח‬For his sake You made the covenant of the rainbow as a statute, and in Your loving favor to his
offering, You blessed his progeny.
Again, the paytan (liturgical poet) emphasizes humanity’s failure and God’s graciousness in
allowing them to try again.

3. Tower of Babel

The theme is presented a third time with a reference to the Tower of Babel story:

‫ָטעוּ ְבָﬠְשׁ ָרם ַו ִיְּבנוּ ִמְגָדּל ַויּ ֹאְמרוּ ְלכוּ ְוַנֲﬠֶלה ְו ִנְבַקע ָה ָרִקיַﬠ ְלִהָלֶּחם בּוֹ‬

‫ ט‬But in their wealth they went astray and built the tower of Babel, saying, "Come, let us climb
up, pierce the heavens and fight against Him."[30]
Here, however, instead of speaking about punishment and forgiveness, the text now moves into
the next age of humanity—from a biblical perspective—namely, when God chooses the patriarchs.

From the Patriarchs to a Single Descendant: Aaron

The description of the patriarchs begins with three lines about Abraham, culminating in a
description of the Akedah (the binding of Isaac):

33
 ˜‫שׁ‬
ֶ ‫ָיִחיד ַאב ֲהמוֹן ִפְּתֹאם ְכּכוָֹכב ָז ַרח ֵמאוּר ַכְּשִׂדּים ְלָהִאיר ַבֹּח‬

‫ י‬Then Abraham, father of a multitude of peoples, appeared suddenly from Ur of the Chaldees as
a unique star to shed light in the darkness,

‫שׂיָבתוֹ ְלָבבוֹ ָחַק ְרָתּ‬

ֵ ‫ַכַּﬠְס— ֵהַפ ְרָתּ ְבּשׁוּ ְר— ָפֳﬠלוֹ וְּלֵﬠת‬

‫ כ‬and when You saw his work You stilled Your wrath. In old age, his heart You tested

‫ִל ְוַית ֵחן ִמֶמּנּוּ הוֵֹצאָת ָטֶלה ָטֹהור ִמֶכֶּבשׂ ִנְבָחר‬

‫ ל‬when You brought forth from him a chaplet of grace, a pure lamb of select breed (=Isaac).
Abraham is an important turning point—the poet describes him as “light in the darkness,” bringing
us back to the opening theme of the creation story. Abraham is then given a son in his old age, and
the paytan alludes to the Akedah (binding of Isaac), by mentioning a test and using sacrificial
imagery (lamb), but without mentioning it explicitly.

The text then rushes through Isaac and Jacob:

‫ִמִגְּזעוֹ ִאישׁ ָתּם הוֵֹצאָת ָחתוּם ִבְּב ִריֶת— ֵמ ֶרֶחם ֻלָקּח‬

‫ מ‬From his stock You brought forth Jacob, “the perfect man” (Gen 25:27),[31] sealed with Your
covenant from the very womb.[32]

‫ָנַתָתּ לּוֹ ְשֵׁנים ָﬠָשׂר ְשָׁבִטים ֲאהוֵּבי ֶﬠְליוֹן ֲﬠמוִּסים ִמֶבֶּטן ִנְק ָראוּ‬

‫ נ‬To him You gave twelve heads of tribes, called from birth beloved of the Most High.
As in the Bible, Isaac is presented merely as a bridge from Abraham to Jacob, but more
surprisingly, Jacob is also presented as a bridge to the twelve tribes and receives only half a line

34
of complimentary material. This is because the poet wishes instead to direct our attention to one
tribe, that of Levi, and specifically, its Aaronide branch:

‫ַשְׂמָתּ ַﬠל ֵל ִוי ִל ְוַית ֵחן ָוֶחֶסד וִּמָכּל ֶאָחיו ֶכֶּתר לוֹ ִﬠַטּ ְרָתּ‬

‫ ס‬On one of them, Levi, You bound a chaplet of grace and love, and from among all his brothers
You set upon him the crown [of priesthood].

‫ַﬠְמ ָרם ִנְבַחר ִמֶזּ ַרע ֵל ִוי ַאֲהרן ְקדושׁ ה' ְלָשׁ ֶרְת— ִקַדְּשָׁתּ‬

‫ ע‬Amram was chosen of the seed of Levi, Aaron, you consecrated as holy to the Lord, to serve
you.
Once the poet arrives at the consecration of Aaron, he can turn to the underlying theme of
priesthood. In a way, the poet is presenting the high priest’s actual worship in the Temple (or, more
accurately, his symbolic service as reenacted in the poem) as a direct consequence of the act of
creation and God's benevolent providence over the world. The service of Yom Kippur is thus
presented as natural as the existence of the world.

Establishment of the Priesthood

The poet begins by setting the scene, describing the priestly vestments, which play such an
important role in the Yom Kippur service:

—‫ֵפַּא ְרתּוֹ ְבִּבְגֵדי ְשׂ ָרד וְּבָק ְרְבּנוָֹתיו ֵהֵפר ַכַּﬠְס‬

‫ פ‬With these sacred vestments You arrayed him: assuaging Your wrath through his sacrifices:

‫ִציץ וְּמִﬠיל חֶשׁן ְוֵאפוֹד ְכּתֶנת וִּמְכ ְנֵסי ַבד ִמְצֶנֶפת ְוַאְבֵנט‬

35
‫ צ‬Forehead-plate, robe, breastplate, ephod, tunic, trunk-hose of linen, mitre and girdle,[33]
Having listed these, the poet can then turn to the sacrifices:

‫ָק ְרְבּנוֹת ָפּ ִרים ְועוֹלוֹת ְכָּבִשׂים וְּשִׁחיַטת ְשִׂﬠי ִרים ְו ִניחוֵֹחי ֵאיִלים‬

‫ ק‬offerings of bullocks, burnt-offerings of sheep, the sacrifice of he-goats and the carving up of
rams,

‫ֵריַח ְקֹט ֶרת ֹרַקח ִמ ְרַקַחת וִּבעוּר ֶגָּחִלים וְּז ִריַקת ָדּם וְּסִפי ַרת ֹיֶשׁר‬

‫ ר‬the fragrant incense carefully compounded, the kindling of altar coals, the sprinkling of blood
with precise enumeration,[34]

‫שּׁתוֹ ְמַכֶפּ ֶרת ֲﬠוֹנוֵֹתינוּ‬

ָ ‫שׁוַּﬠת ְקֹט ֶרת וְּתִפַלּת ֱאֶמת וְּקֻד‬

‫ ש‬acceptance of the incense, (Aaron's) fervent prayer and his sanctity atone for our sins.
Moving from animal sacrifices, to incense, to sprinkling of blood, the poet eases us into the
dramatic features of the Yom Kippur service. God’s acceptance of the offerings, together with
Aaron’s prayer for atonement (an elements almost entirely lacking in the biblical account [see only
Lev 16:21]), effects atonement.

If the poet already suggested a means through which humanity can continue to exist when it is
sinful, in his brief retelling of the three stories of Eden, Noah, and the Tower of Babel, this passage
explains that Israel’s continued survival is made possible by the priestly ritual of Yom Kippur.
Now that the actual service is no longer possible, its recitation may bring about similar results.

This alphabet is completed, and this stanza ends, with two lines about the high priest:

‫ֹתֶּכן בּוּץ ַוֲﬠ ִריַכת ֶאֶבן ְמֻחָגּר ְבֻּכָלּם ְכַּמְלָא˜ ִמיָכֵאל ְמָשׁ ֵרת‬

36
‫ ת‬Vested in due number of robes of white linen beset with jewels, [Aaron] ministered like the angel
Michael.[35]

‫שְׂמתּוֹ ְוַﬠל ָידוֹ ְסִליַחת ֶהָﬠוֹן ָנַתָתּ‬

ַ ‫ִתַּכּ ְנָתּ ָכּל ֵאֶלּה ִלְכבוֹד ַאֲהֹרן ְכִּלי ַכָפּ ָרה ְל ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬

‫ ת‬All these You ordained for his glory, making him the instrument of atonement for Israel, and
through him you granted forgiveness of wrong-doing.
The piyyut continues with a tav–alef acrostic (i.e., reverse alphabetic), describing the actions of
the high priest preparing for and during the Day of Atonement; this comprises the bulk of the Seder
Avodah.

The Role of Yom Kippur in Maintaining the World

The message of these poems is that the high priest, whose priestly office reaches its apex once a
year on the day he enters the Holy of Holies, is as natural and ordained from days of old as the
creation of the world, and maybe even was the goal of the creation. As Michael Swartz puts it:

A major theme in these poems is that creation itself took place for the sake of the cult […] This
theme is manifest in subtle ways throughout the historical prelude, from the establishment of the
heavenly prototype of the Temple to the election of the Sons of Amram.[36]
Seder Avodah poetry, then, emphasizes the rabbinic notion that the world is centered on the
Temple. What this means is that just as the world and its existence is part of nature, so to the
Temple and its service is part of nature and maintains it. To put it another way, the world was
created so that the Temple could be built and as a result, the world’s continued well-being depends
on the annual Temple ritual.[37] This concept appears in a number of midrashim, such as:

‫ וההיכל‬,‫ ובית המקדש באמצע ירושלים‬,‫ וירושלים באמצע ארץ ישראל‬,‫ארץ ישראל יושבת באמצעיתו של עולם‬
.‫ שממנה הושתת העולם‬,‫ והאבן שתיה לפני ההיכל‬,‫ והארון באמצע ההיכל‬,‫באמצע בית המקדש‬

37
The land of Israel sits at the center of the world; Jerusalem is in the center of the land of Israel; the
sanctuary is in the center of Jerusalem; the Temple building is in the center of the sanctuary; the
ark is in the center of the Temple building; and the foundation stone, out of which the world was
founded, is before the Temple building. (Midrash Tanchuma B, 7:10)

‫ שמקיף את‬,‫ זה ים אוקיינוס‬,‫ לבן שבו‬- ‫ העולם הזה דומה לגלגל עינו של אדם‬:‫אבא חנן אומר משום שמואל הקטן‬
‫ שיבנה במהרה‬,‫ זה בית המקדש‬,‫ פרצוף שבקמט‬,‫ זה ירושלים‬,‫ קמט שבו‬,‫ זה ישוב‬,‫ שחור שבו‬,‫כל העולם כולו‬
.‫בימינו‬

Abba Hanan says in the name of Samuel the Younger: “The world may be compared to the eye of
man: the white of the eye is the ocean which surrounds the whole world; the iris is the inhabited
land; the pupil is Jerusalem; the face in the pupil[38] is the Temple—May it soon be rebuilt.” (Derek
Eretz, 7:38, 56)
Now that the actual worship at the Temple is no longer possible, it is replaced by the Seder Avodah,
its dramatic public reenactment in the synagogue.[39]

Footnotes

The meaning of this term, whether it is the name of a being or a place, is a matter of debate. .1
2. Editor’s note: For more on this object, see Rachel Adelman, "Atoning for the Golden Calf with the Kapporet," The

Torah (2019).

3. Editor’s note: See discussion in Yitzhaq Feder, "Expiating with Blood," the Torah (2015).

4. Editor’s note: For more on these offerings and the day’s sacrificial ritual, see Baruch J. Schwartz, "Yom Ha-Kippurim:

The Biblical Significance," the Torah (2015). For an argument that the cleansing ritual was originally without a date and

was only later incorporated into a yearly “day of atonement,” see David Frankel, "Recasting the Temple Purification

Ritual as the Yom Kippur Service," the Torah (2014).

38
5. In fact, there is tension, and even competition, between the centrality of the Seder Avodah poems and that of the

confession, which is recited in the framework of the penitential liturgy: the first stresses the formal, the cultic and the

ancient while the second emphasizes the personal responsibility to atone on the Day of Atonement.

6. For detailed discussions of the Seder Avodah, see: Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, trans.

Raymond Scheindlin (Philadelphia: JPS / New York: JTS, 1993), 174, 217, 238–39, 249–50; idem, Studien zur

Geschichte des juedischen Gottesdienstes (Berlin: Mayer & Müller, 1907), 61–100; Daniel Goldschmidt, ed., ‫מחזור יום‬

‫[ כפור—נוסח אשכנז‬Maḥzor For Yom Kippur—Ashkenazi] (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1970), 18–25; Ezra Fleischer, ‫תפילה‬

‫ישראליים בתקופת הגניזה‬-‫[ ומנהגי תפילה ארץ‬Eretz-Israel Prayer and Prayer Rituals as Portrayed in the Geniza Documents]

(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 173–77; Zvi Malachi, ‫אופייה ותולדותיה והתפתחותה בשירה‬- ‫העבודה ליום הכיפורים‬

‫[ העברית‬The Avodah for the Day of Atonement: Its Character, History, and Development in Hebrew Poetry], Ph.D. diss.

(Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1974); Michael D. Swartz. “Ritual about Myth about Ritual: Towards an Understanding

of the Avodah in the Rabbinic Period,” The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997): 135–155; Daniel Stökl

Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from the Second Temple to the Fifth

Century (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 59–64; Joseph Yahalom, ‫ישראלי הקדום ליום‬-‫ סדר העבודה הארץ‬:‫אז באין כול‬

‫[ הכיפורים‬Priestly Palestinian Poetry: A Narrative Liturgy for the Day of Atonement] (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1996).

7. Some evidence suggests that originally it was recited on this day in the morning and afternoon services as well

(Fleischer, Priestly Palestinian Poetry, 73), though there is room to be skeptical.

8. Swartz, “Ritual about Myth about Ritual,” 137.

9. See: Dalia Marx, “Ben Sira 42–50: An Antecedent of the Seder ‘Avodah Poems?” (forthcoming).

10. MS Enelow 271 and the Venice printing have ‫ רבא‬instead of ‫רבה‬, which would set the story one generation later. British

Museum 400 has R. Abahu, who lived at the same time as Rabbah, but in Israel. Finally, MS Enelow 270 lacks this story

altogether, but that may be a haplography, with the scribes eye jumping from, ‫ מסייע ליה‬to ‫( סבירא לי‬especially since ‫ ליה‬is

often abbreviated as '‫)לי‬.

11. Munich 6 has Rabbah here, while the Venice Printing has Rabbi, which is almost certainly a mistake (perhaps '‫ רב‬was

misread for ‫)רבי‬.

12. In actual fact, the earliest Seder Avodah known to us is Shiv‘at Yamim (‫“ )שבעת ימים‬Seven Days,” which is, however, a

prose depiction of the high priest’s worship (according to m. Yoma 1–7), not a poetic one. See Yahalom, Poetry, 16–17.

13. Yosi ben Yosi is actually is the first payṭan (liturgical poet) known to us by name.

14. Yahalom, Priestly Palestinian Poetry, 13.

15. Elbogen lists thirty such piyyutim (Elbogen, Studien, 74–101); since the publication of his book, additional SA have been

found.

39
16. Alexander Rofé has shown that this is a misinterpretation of the biblical verse. See, Alexander Rofé, “‘No Ephod or

Teraphim’—oude hierateias oude delon: Hosea 3:4 in the LXX and in the Paraphrases of Chronicles and the Damascus

Document,” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume, ed., Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, Shalom M. Paul;

Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004),

135-149. Nevertheless, its use became standard as referring to the post destruction verbal recitation as replacing the

sacrificial service.

17. The British Museum 400 MS here has ‫להן‬, “to them,” which is clearly an error. Munich 140 has no words of introduction

at all, but simply moves into God’s response immediately. The rest of ‫לו‬, “to him.”

18. See parallel in b. Meg 31b; see also b. RH 17a, and a transformation of this tradition in Pirqe Rab. El., ed. Friedmann,

42E.

19. John L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962).

20. Swartz, “Ritual”, 153.

21. But this is not a case of true democratization. What is often related to “the great democratic revolution of the rabbis,”

which allowed lay people to take active part in the service, actually meant less participation for women than in the Temple

time. As I wrote in my feminist commentary on the Mishnah:

Women were welcome in the Temple: they visited it and brought statutory and voluntary offerings. They may have

entered its inner parts to perform religious duties such as bringing the first fruits and in the ceremony of the sotah (the

suspected wife). Yet rabbinic (post destruction) reality was much more excluding in terms of gender as women were all

but absent in the beit ha-midrash (the house of study), where the rabbinic-literary Temple was symbolically visited. In a

way, although it was a segregated and a highly hierarchical institution, the Temple was more inclusive of women (as well

as of uneducated men) than the beit ha-midrash.

Dalia Marx, A Feminist Commentary: Tractates Tamid, Middot and Qinnim [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013],

III; idem, "A Torah Prescribed Liturgy: The Declaration of the First Fruits," TheTorah (2016).

22. Zvi Zohar, “‘Miqveh Yisrael HaShem’: The Rationale and the Significance of the Atonement Service,” AJS Review 19.2

(1994): 1–23 [Hebrew]; idem, “‘Seder Ha'Avodah’ of the Atonement Day Service: Form, Function and Meaning,” AJS

Review, 14 (1989): 1–28 [Hebrew].

23. Oded Irshai, “The Role of the Priesthood in the Jewish Community in Late Antiquity: A Christian Model?” in Jüdische

Gemeinden und ihr christlicher Kontext, ed. Christoph Cluse, Alfred Haverkamp, and Israel Jacob Yuval (Hannover:

Hahn, 2003), 75–85; Lee I. Levine, “Caesarea's Synagogues and Some Historical Implications,” Biblical Archaeology

Today 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June-July

40
 1990 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 670–674. Others have objected to this assessment, by emphasizing

the rabbinization process, which endowed the rabbis with hegemonic position and perceived them as the de facto leaders

of the Jewish society from the fourth century onward. It is very plausible that such processes of the “comeback” of

the kohanim and the rabbinization took place simultaneously in different segments of the Jewish community in the Land

of Israel.

24. He argues that the cultic and priestly imagery in the synagogue is not necessarily indicative of priestly interests “and is

not conclusive evidence of predominant, priestly influence.” Miller, “Priests,” 400.

25. In fact, the Seder Avodah is followed by the popular piyyut, Mareh Kohen (‫)מראה כהן‬, “Appearance of the Priest” in both

the Ashkenazi and Sephardi rites. The piyyut depicts the extraordinary beauty of the high priest as he concludes the order

of ritual on the Day of Atonement and departs from the Holy of Holies, and its emotional resonance connects to the

danger the high priest was believed to face if he committed an error.

26. The English version is based on David De Sola Pool, Prayers for the Day of Atonement (New York: Union of Sephardic

Congregations, 1943), 226–228, but with the English slightly modernized.

27. This is from the daily morning blessing. Similarly, many of the festival and holy day liturgical hymns are dedicated to

the theme of the creation of the world. See for example: Michael Rand, “The ‘Seder Beriyot’ In Byzantine-era

‘Piyyut’,” Jewish Quarterly Review 95 (2005): 667–683; idem, “More on the ‘Seder Beriyot’,” Jewish Studies

Quarterly 16 (2009): 183–209.

28. Some texts read, •‫ְלַמַﬠן ֶאֶר• ַאֶפּ‬, which would mean “because of Your patience.”

29. The text here skips another ostensibly obvious example of this patter, Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and God’s

punishment yet protection of him. Notably, Amitz Koach does include this example.

30. This is the rabbinic interpretation of the story; the Bible does not say that they planned on climbing the tower or attacking

God.

31. The fact that he quotes here a verse with the word ‫תם‬, and does so as well with Noah, ‫תמים‬, is likely connected to the

sacrificial imagery implicit in that term, since animals also need to be “perfect” and without blemish in order to qualify

as offerings.

32. The poet here is referencing the midrash (Tanchuma, Noah 5) that Jacob was born circumcised.

33. Editor’s note: For a discussion of these garments, see Baruch J. Schwartz, "The Garments of the High Priest:

Anthropomorphism in the Worship of God," TheTorah (2015).

34. The mention of precise enumeration prepares the listener for the many detailed counting sequences which are the bread

and butter of any Seder Avodah.

41
35. Some texts do not have the word Michael, and the meaning would then be “ministering like an angel” or perhaps, “like

a ministering angel.”

36. Swartz, “Ritual,” 142. Amram is the father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.

37. An early scholarly account of this topic is to be found in, Raphael Patai, Man and Temple: In Ancient Jewish Myth and

Ritual (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1947).

38. The exact meaning of this phrase is difficult to discern.

39. My thanks to the TABS editors for their help in preparing this article for the site.

42