Daf Ditty Yoma 41: ‫שׁל ְזהוֹ ִרית‬

ֶ ‫ָלשׁוֹן‬

Wool dyed with the scale insect Kermes echinatus. The wool was dyed by the
ancient traditional method, boiling the dried insects and using alum as a
mordant.

1
2
MISHNA: The High Priest tied a strip of crimson wool upon the head of the scapegoat and
positioned the goat opposite the place from which it was dispatched, i.e., near the gate through
which it was taken; and the same was done to the goat that was to be slaughtered, opposite the
place of its slaughter.

Steinzaltz

3
4
He comes and stands next to his bull a second time, and places his two hands upon it, and
confesses. And this is what he would say: Please God, I have sinned, I have done wrong, and
I have rebelled before You, I and my family and the children of Aaron, your sacred people.
Please God, grant atonement, please, for the sins, and for the wrongs, and for the rebellions
that I have sinned, and done wrong, and rebelled before You, I, and my family, and the
children of Aaron, your sacred people, as it is written in the Torah of Moses, your servant:

‫ ְלַטֵהר‬,‫ַביּוֹם ַהֶזּה ְיַכֵפּר ֲﬠֵליֶכם‬-‫ל ִכּי‬ 30 For on this day shall atonement be made for you, to
,‫ ִלְפֵני ְיהָוה‬,‫ ַחטּ ֹאֵתיֶכם‬,‫ ִמֹכּל‬:‫ֶאְתֶכם‬ cleanse you; from all your sins shall ye be clean before
.‫ִתְּטָהרוּ‬ the LORD.
Lev 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” And they, the priests and the people in the Temple courtyard, respond
after him upon hearing the name of God: Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever
and all time.

Jastrow

5
GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before them: The Mishna teaches two halakhot with regard
to the scapegoat: A strip of crimson is tied to it, and it is positioned opposite the place from which
it will be dispatched. When the Mishna continues: And the same is done to the slaughtered one
opposite its place of slaughter, is it referring to the tying of a strip of crimson, and it is teaching
that a strip is also tied on the goat being sacrificed around the place of its slaughter, i.e., its neck?
Or, is it referring to the positioning of the goat, and it is teaching that the goat being sacrificed
should be stood opposite the place where it will be slaughtered?

Come and hear a resolution from a baraita that Rav Yosef taught: He ties a strip of crimson
to the head of the scapegoat and positions it opposite the place from which it will be sent;
and the same is done to the slaughtered one, opposite its place of slaughter. This is done for
two reasons: So that each goat, i.e., the goat for God and the goat for Azazel, cannot become
mixed up with the other one, and so that the goats cannot become mixed up with other goats.

The Gemara explains the proof from the baraita. Granted, if you say that the baraita is referring
to tying, it works out well. Since both goats have a strip tied to them and to different places upon
them, they will always be distinguishable both from one another and also from any other animals.
But, if you say that it is referring to positioning the goat being sacrificed, but no strip of crimson
is tied to it, granted, each one cannot be mixed up with its counterpart, since this one, the goat
to be sent away, has a strip of crimson tied to it, and that one, the goat being sacrificed, does not

6
have a strip of crimson tied to it. However, the goat being sacrificed could still be mixed up with
other animals, since it has no strip tied to it. Rather, must one not conclude from the baraita that
it is referring to tying? The Gemara confirms: Indeed, learn from it that it is so.

The Gemara discusses halakhot pertaining to the strip of crimson wool: Rabbi Yitzhak said: I
heard a teaching that there is a distinction between two strips of crimson, one of the red heifer
and one of the scapegoat. One of them requires a minimum amount, and one does not require
a minimum amount. But I do not know to which of them the requirement to have a minimum
amount pertains.

7
Rav Yosef said: Let us see and examine the matter. It is logical that since the strip of the
scapegoat, which requires division, it requires a minimum amount to be able to achieve this.
Before the goat descends into Azazel, the strip is cut into two; half of it is tied between the goat’s
horns and half of it is tied to a nearby rock. However, the crimson strip of the heifer does not
require division, therefore it does not require a minimum amount.

8
Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

A strip of wool must be tied to the neck of the goat designated to be a sacrifice to Hashem.

The Mishna says that the goat designated to be sent to the wilderness has a strip of wool tied to his
horn, and must be placed next to the gate leading to the wilderness. When the Mishna speaks about

9
the goat designated as a sacrifice, however, it is unclear whether it means it has to be placed near
the place it will be slaughtered, or a strip of wool has to be tied to its neck, the place of slaughter.

The Gemora brings a proof that the wool has to be tied to the goat’s neck. The Baraisa says the
purpose of this procedure was to ensure that the goats do not get mixed up with each other or any
other goat. If this is referring to placing the animal in the place where it will be slaughtered, the
animals would not become mixed up with each other, because one has a tie and one does not.
There, however, is no guarantee that the goat designated as a sacrifice would not become mixed
up with other animal since it has no tie. Therefore, it must be that a strip of wool was tied around
the goat’s neck.

THE "LASHON SHEL ZEHORIS"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Mishnah teaches that after the two Se'irim were selected, a "Lashon Shel Zehoris" (a strip of
crimson wool) was tied to the head of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, the goat designated by the lots to
be sent out to the wilderness. The Gemara quotes Rav Yosef who says that another Lashon Shel
Zehoris was tied to the neck of the Sa'ir la'Shem, the goat designated by the lots to be offered as a
Korban Chatas.

How many Leshonos of Zehoris were there?

Even though the Mishnah says that one Lashon Shel Zehoris was tied to the head of the Sa'ir
ha'Mishtale'ach and the Gemara says that another was tied to the neck of the Sa'ir la'Shem,
the RAMBAM (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 4:1) makes no mention of the second Lashon
Shel Zehoris. Apparently, he understands the words in the Mishnah differently from the Gemara's
conclusion. When the Mishnah says that "ul'Nishchat k'Neged Beis Shechitaso," it does not refer
to where on the body of the second goat a Lashon Shel Zehoris was tied (as the Gemara concludes),
but it describes where (and how) that goat must stand.

Why does the Rambam not accept the Gemara's conclusion?

The SI'ACH YITZCHAK and PRI CHADASH (in Mayim Chaim on the Rambam) suggest that
the Rambam is bothered by the question of TOSFOS (DH Shalosh). Tosfos asks why Rebbi
Yitzchak and Rav Dimi, who enumerate the number of Leshonos Shel Zehoris, count only one that
was used on Yom Kippur -- the one tied to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, and not the one tied to the
Sa'ir la'Shem. The Rambam understands that Rebbi Yitzchak and Rav Dimi argue with the
conclusion of Rav Yosef in the Gemara earlier, and they maintain that no Lashon Shel Zehoris was
tied to the Sa'ir la'Shem.

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-041.htm

10
The straightforward reading of the Gemara clearly implies that a second Lashon was tied to the
Sa'ir la'Shem. The Mishnah later (67a) discusses the Lashon Shel Zehoris that was tied to the Sa'ir
ha'Mishtale'ach. The Mishnah says that immediately before the Kohen pushed the Sa'ir off the
mountain, he tore the Lashon Shel Zehoris into two pieces and tied one between the horns of the
Sa'ir and the other to a nearby rock. The Lashon on the rock would turn white when Hash-m
forgave the sins of the Jewish people.
The Mishnah later (68b) states that a Lashon Shel Zehoris was tied to the door of the Heichal. It,
too, would turn white when the Sa'ir was pushed down the mountain. Is this a third Lashon Shel
Zehoris?

The Gemara (67a) cites a Beraisa which clarifies the latter practice. Originally, a Lashon Shel
Zehoris was tied to the outer door of the Ulam. This Lashon would turn white as a sign that Hash-
m forgave the sins of the Jewish people. In the event that it did not turn white (an unfavorable sign
for the Jewish people), the people would become ashamed and depressed. Therefore, the
Chachamim instituted that the Lashon be tied to the inside of the door of the Ulam so that it would
not be visible to the people. Nevertheless, the people still peeked through and were able to see
whether it turned white or not. The Chachamim then instituted that part of the Lashon be tied to a
rock near the place where the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach was pushed off the cliff, and part of it be tied
between the horns of the Sa'ir.

TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER explains (apparently based on the Gemara's description) that
the Lashon that was tied to the door of the Heichal was the other half of the one that was tied to
the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. Later it was instituted that this Lashon be tied to a rock near the cliff.
(The TIFERES YISRAEL here suggests that perhaps the Lashon that was tied to the neck of the
Sa'ir la'Shem was removed after the Sa'ir was slaughtered, and it was then tied to the door of the
Ulam. Later, the Chachamim instituted that this Lashon not be used at all after the Sa'ir has been
slaughtered. Instead, the Lashon on the neck of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach was tied to a rock, and
that was the Lashon that would turn white.)

The Mishnah in Shekalim (4:1) discusses how the money of the Terumas ha'Lishkah was spent
and how the money of the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah was spent. The Mishnah (according to the Girsa of
our text) says that "the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach and the Lashon Shel Zehoris come from the Terumas
ha'Lishkah," and "the Lashon she'Bein Karnav comes from the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah."

What is the "Lashon Shel Zehoris" that the first part of the Mishnah there mentions? There seems
to be no Lashon to which it can refer other than the Lashon she'Bein Karnav, the Lashon that was
tied between the horns of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. However, the second part of the Mishnah there
clearly contradicts this when it says that the Lashon she'Bein Karnav is purchased with money of
the Sheyarei ha'Lishkah.

Even more difficult is the Girsa of some Rishonim in the first part of the Mishnah there. Their
Girsa reads "Lashon Shel Zehoris sheb'Rosh Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach," the "Lashon Shel Zehoris on
the head of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach." How can both the Reisha and the Seifa refer to the same
Lashon (that of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach) and say that it was purchased with money from two
different Lishkos?

11
TOSFOS YESHANIM (67a) explains that two Leshonos were tied to the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.
One Lashon, as the Mishnah here mentions, was tied to its head when it was selected. A second
Lashon was brought, before Yom Kippur (so that it would not be carried on Yom Kippur), to the
place where the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach would be brought. That second Lashon was the one which
was tied between the Sa'ir's horns just before it was pushed down the mountain. The first Lashon
was removed as the Sa'ir was taken out of the Azarah (so that the animal would not be carrying it
on Yom Kippur). Accordingly, there were three, and not two, Leshonos Shel Zehoris.

(The BARTENURA in Shekalim does not have the text, "sheb'Rosh Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach," in the
Reisha of the Mishnah there. He explains that the Lashon Shel Zehoris mentioned in the Reisha of
the Mishnah refers to the Lashon that was used during the burning of the Parah Adumah.
The RAMBAM's text does not have the words "Lashon Shel Zehoris" at all in the Reisha of that
Mishnah.)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

We learned previously (see daf 39) that a number of miracles took place in the Temple during the
time that Shimon HaTzaddik was serving as the Kohen Gadol. One of them was that the lashon
shel zehorit – the red ribbon that was tied around the head of the scapegoat and the neck of the
goat that was to be sacrificed – always turned white after the scapegoat was sent off to Azazel,
indicating that the Yom Kippur service has been successful in obtaining atonement for the people.

The Mishna on our daf describes how the lashon shel zehorit was placed on the two animals. In
the Gemara, Rav Dimi quotes Rabbi Yohanan as teaching that there were two other occasions
where a lashon shel zehorit was used, in the case of a metzorah (someone suffering from Biblical
leprosy), where it was used as part of the purification process (see Vayikra 14:4), and in the case
of a parah adumah (the red heifer) where it was used as one of the ingredients for making ashes
that would be used in the purification process (see Bamidbar 19:6).

In both of those cases, the Biblical sheni tola'at is identified with the lashon shel zehorit. This
lashon shel zehorit (literally "a tongue [strip] of crimson") was a bundle of combed wool that was
rolled into the shape of a tongue and dyed red (carmine) with a crimson pigment derived from
cochineal insect. These insects are found infesting various types of wood, and its blood is the
source of this dye.

3
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

12
Chayim VaChessed, zt”l, explains that everyone is sent to this world with a “strand” tied to his
head, just like the scapegoat described in our Gemara. This strand is the Torah, and if it turns
“white”—if he learns Torah for its own sake—then his learning atones for all of his sins. But if his
learning is not ‫ לשמה‬, it is deeply flawed.4

The Chida, zt”l, explains that although everyone naturally starts out learning for ulterior motives,
the ones who ultimately attain the level of ‫ לשמה‬are different. Even when they are not learning
‫ לשמה‬,they still aim to achieve the goal that someday they will reach the level of ‫ לשמה‬.But those
who do not have this intention before they learn never reach the level of ‫ לשמה‬at all. Sometimes,
as the following anecdote from the Zohar HaKadosh illustrates, a person’s intentions evolve as his
learning develops.

Rav Abba, zt”l, proclaimed: “He who wants wealth and long life should come and learn Torah!”
One young man approached the Rav and said, “Rebbi, teach me so that I will become wealthy.”
Rav Abba accepted this new student named Yossi. Some time passed, and Yossi asked Rav Abba:
“Where is the wealth you promised?”

Rav Abba said to himself, “He still seeks material reward and isn’t satisfied with the riches of
insight he has gained! He must not even want to attain Torah ‫ !“ לשמה‬Rav Abba grew angry with
Yossi and nearly brought Divine judgment upon him. Just then, a heavenly voice called out: “Do
not cause his ruin, because one day he will be a great man!”

Rav Abba obeyed the voice, and approached Yossi, instead. “My son,” he said, “If you continue
to sit and learn, I will see to it that eventually you will gain wealth.” Soon afterward, a stranger
entered the beis midrash carrying a golden vessel and offered it in exchange for private teaching.
Yossi was assigned to tutor the rich man and became quite wealthy himself. But one day, the desire
for Torah for its own sake entered him, and Rav Abba found him crying, regretting his mercenary
motivations. “How could I have diminished my Olam Haba for mere money!”

According to the Gemara’s conclusion, the red string was also tied to the goat that will be offered
as a korban to serve as a sign to avoid confusing that goat with other goats. The Gemara further
(‫ ) סז‬gives more details regarding the use of the red string.

4
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20041.pdf

13
The Gemara there relates that the Rabbis enacted that half the red string should be tied to a rock at
the top of the cliff and the second half should be tied to the goat that is pushed off the edge of the
cliff. It is logical (1) to assume that the string tied to the goat is not removed. One can therefore
ask, how could Chazal institute the practice of making a permanent knot (2) on Yom Kippur which
constitutes a violation of a Biblical prohibition?

Maharil Diskin (3) proves from this enactment that the Biblical prohibition against making a
permanent knot is violated only when the use and the benefit of the knot will be ongoing. If,
however, the knot is made for a single use and following that use the knot no longer serves a
purpose, as is the case regarding the knot around the goat’s horns, it is not categorized as a
permanent knot. In this case, it therefore does not violate the Biblical prohibition. Accordingly,
there are those (4) who maintain that it is permitted to attach a needle to a syringe for use on
Shabbos even though it will remain attached when it is thrown in the garbage.

All opinions (5) , however, agree that it is best to attach the needle to the syringe before Shabbos
or to have in mind (6) when attaching the two parts to take it apart after the injection, and to in fact
take it apart before it is thrown into the garbage.

Mark Kerzner writes:5

The two goats having been designated earlier, the High Priest now ties a strip of red wool on the
horns of the goat designated to be sent to Azazel, and positions this goat next to the eastern gate
( Gate of Nikanor ), through which it will be sent. The goat that stands to be slaughtered he
positions opposite the place of slaughter.

The last words "opposite a place of slaughtered" are intentionally ambiguous: it may mean next to
the area where it is slaughtered, or it may mean that the strip of wool is tied next to the place of

5
http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma41.html

14
the cut in slaughter. The Talmud concludes that it is the latter; this was done so that the High Priest
can tell this goat apart from all the other ones.

There were two strips of red wool: one here, on Yom Kippur, and another was thrown into the fire
while burning the red heifer. Rabbi Yitzhak said that he heard from his teachers that one of them
had a minimal weight, while the other one did not, but he did not remember which one. On the one
hand, the Yom Kippur strip was cut in pieces, with one piece remaining on the horns of the goat,
and the other placed for observation in the Temple. When the remaining piece became white,
people knew that they were forgiven. So it is reasonable to say that this strip needed to have at
least some weight. On the other hand, the one thrown in the fire had to land inside of it, not be
burned on first contact, so maybe it needed to be heavy. This remains unresolved.

Rabbi Josh Mikutis writes:6

For several days now, we have been learning the ritual of the scapegoat — a high point of the Yom
Kippur service. Two goats are selected and then a lottery determines which will be “for God” and
become a sin offering and which will be designated “for Azazel” (the scapegoat) and sent to
wander in the wilderness. According to the mishnah on today’s page, the goat that is selected by
lot for Azazel is then marked with a strip of crimson wool:

The high priest tied a strip of crimson wool upon the head of the scapegoat and positioned it
opposite the place from which it was dispatched.

To learn more about this crimson strip, the rabbis turn to another ritual that involves a piece of red
cloth: the red heifer. Occasionally, as dictated by the Book of Numbers, the high priest would
slaughter a perfectly red and perfectly pure heifer, one that had never been worked in the field, and
burn it entirely. The ashes were used to reverse corpse impurity. Numbers 19:5–6 gives the
following instruction: “The cow shall be burned in his sight — its hide, flesh, and blood shall be
burned, its dung included — and the priest shall take cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson stuff, and
throw them into the fire consuming the cow.”

The rabbis ask a simple question: Why is the crimson cloth used to tie up the cedar wood and
hyssop before the whole bundle is burned in the fire along with the red heifer? A beraita (early
rabbinic source) offers two possibilities. The first answer is: so that they will all be in a single
bundle. Straightforward, but unhelpful. Rabbi Elazar offers a more helpful answer: so they will
have weight and fall in the fire.

Later post-talmudic rabbinic interpreters are not satisfied and offer additional explanations. In
three separate analyses, we get three distinct answers which each suggest a different and important
dimension to effective ritual.

6
Myjewishlearning.com

15
Rashi’s explanation is clear and direct: the hyssop and cedar wood are bundled together with the
crimson strip to make the lot easy to carry. Rashi makes a functional argument: in order for rituals
to be successful, they cannot be overly complicated to perform. If they have too many moving
pieces, there are more opportunities for something to go awry. And with more ways for things to
go wrong, you risk losing people who might stay away out of fear of error.

Yosef Tov Elem, an 11th-century French talmudist known as Rabbeinu Yosef, suggests that
because they are all small objects, the bundling of the hyssop and cedar with the crimson strip
makes for a more beautiful mitzvah. Rabbeinu Yosef goes the aesthetic route: rituals benefit from
being pleasing to the eye. It makes them more compelling and engages both the performer and the
viewer more deeply.

Rabbi Isaac ben Asher HaLevi, or the Riba, also an 11th-century talmudist but based in Germany,
compares this bundling to the bundling involved in the paschal lamb during Passover (whose
organs were bundled together so that the whole could be roasted by fire) and the bundling involved
in Sukkot, where we bundle the four species together. Riba takes an historical angle: rituals cannot
stand on their own, but they must root us in a larger story and connect us back to the past.

All of these serve as helpful models for how Jewish ritual can function. Taken together, they
suggest to us that the best rituals are uncomplicated (Rashi), beautiful (Rabbeinu Yosef) and rooted
in history and tradition (Riba). These days, with growing interest in how rituals can enrich our
lives, more and more people are looking to craft their own rituals. For the innovators and dreamers
out there, these three rabbis provide a blueprint for new rituals imbued with functionality, beauty
and tradition.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

The Mishna (Yoma 2:4) in today’s daf (Yoma 41b) makes reference to a crimson thread that was
tied to the se’ir hamishtaleach (the scapegoat) on Yom Kippur, and in the subsequent discussion,
reference is also made to the crimson thread used within the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer) ceremony
(see Bemidbar 19:6) and the crimson thread used within the Metzorah ceremony (see Vayikra
14:4). However, what is not clear is the relationship between all three.

Significantly, both the Parah Adumah and the Metzorah ceremony involved cedar wood, hyssop
and a crimson thread. For the Parah Adumah, these three items were thrown into the fire where
the Parah Adumah was burning. However, in contrast to this, the Metzorah ceremony – which has
significant parallels to the Yom Kippur avodah as it involves two birds, of which one was
slaughtered and one was let loose – requires that the bird which is to be let loose be dipped into
the blood of the slaughtered bird, along with the cedar wood, hyssop and a crimson thread.

And this brings us back to the crimson thread placed on the se’ir hamishtaleach and its relationship
with the Parah Adumah and the Metzorah ceremony. Specifically, does the crimson thread tied to

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon writes:

16
the se’ir hamishtaleach represent sins which we wish to destroy (like the Parah Adumah)? Or sins
which we simply want to get away from us (like the Metzorah)?

Upon reflection, I believe that both these elements feature - at least in some capacity - within the
ritual of the se’ir hamishtaleach which is both cast away (like the Metzorah), and which is then
plunged to its death and is destroyed (like the Parah Adumah). And why is this done? As the
Rambam explains (see Moreh Nevuchim 3:46), to symbolize how we wrestle with sin which we
should remove from us as far as possible.

Oftentimes we think that the only thing we need to do to overcome a sin is to cast it away from
our day-to-day life (like the Metzorah). But in actual fact, this is often not enough, and we actually
need to destroy it as an option in our life (like the Parah Adumah).

Conversely, we may well destroy the option of a particular sin in our life (like the Parah Adumah),
but if we confront it, we are still tempted, which is why we must do all we can to make life choices
so that this sin is far away from our day-to-day life (like the Metzorah).

Thus, by combining the notion of sending away and destruction in the se’ir hamishtaleach, we
learn how to wrestle and overcome the temptation of sin.

The Seder Avodah of Yom Kippur

What is the meaning of the Seder Avoda that we recite on Yom Kippur? Why do we
say it and what are we to learn from it?

Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff writes:8

Rav Goldberg was discussing the tefilos of Yom Kippur with the shul’s chazan, Reb Hershel.

"Probably the least understood part of the Yom Kippur davening is the Seder Avodah recited in
the repetition of Musaf." The Rav began. "Although it is one of the most important parts of the
Yom Kippur davening, I have seen many shuls race through it at a pace too fast for
comprehension."

"Let me quote you the Me’am Loez," continued Rav Goldberg, pulling a sefer off the shelf. "He
writes, ‘Many people doze off during the recital of the Avodah. They don’t realize that the most
important part of Yom Kippur is during the repetition of the Sh’moneh Esrei when the Seder
Avodah is recited.’"

"I didn’t realize it was that important," admitted Reb Hershel, "but the poetic language it is written
in is very difficult to understand."

8
https://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/7684

17
"Dozens of piyutim (liturgical pieces) have been written describing the Seder Avodah," explained
Rav Goldberg. "Most shuls that daven Nusach Ashkenaz recite the piyut that begins with the words
Amitz Koach, which is indeed a very difficult, poetically-written piyut. The piyut used in Nusach
S’fard, Atah Konanta, is much easier to comprehend."

"So why do we recite Amitz Koach?"

"That is an excellent question that I cannot answer fully. Already in the time of the Gemara we see
that the Seder Avodah was recited, presumably from some type of piyut, although the text they
used is long lost. The Geonim and Rishonim refer to many different piyutim that they had in their
times. Amitz Koach was authored by Rabbeinu Meshulam ben Klonymos, who is quoted by Rashi
with the greatest respect (see Rashi, Bava Metzia 69b s.v. Mafrin; Zevachim 45b s.v. h.g.). In the
course of time, Minhag Ashkenaz accepted the use of Amitz Koach."

"Why is it so important to recite the Seder Avodah? Is it a Takanas Chachomim?"

"There is no specific Takanah requiring the recital of the Seder Avodah. However, reciting it
fulfills the concept of ‘U’neshalma Parim Sefaseinu,’ ‘And let our lips replace the (sacrificial)
bulls’ (Hoshea 14:3). The Midrash teaches that when we are unable to offer korbanos, our recital
of the Avodah is accepted by Hashem as a replacement for the korbanos (Midrash Rabbah, Shir
HaShirim 4:3). This implies that we can effect kaparah (atonement) by reciting the Seder Avodah
with kavanah. Therefore, a person who recites the viduy of the Seder Avodah and truly regrets his
sins can accomplish atonement; this would be similar to the viduy recited by the Cohen Gadol.

THE ATONEMENT OF YOM KIPPUR

Reb Hershel was curious. "What did the viduy of the Cohen Gadol accomplish?"

"Different korbanos offered by the Cohen Gadol atoned for different sins (see Gemara Yoma 61a).
However, the greatest atonement was accomplished by the goat sent to Azazel that atoned for all
the sins of the Jewish people (Rambam, Hilchos Tshuvah 1:2; Mishnah Shavuos 2b)."

"Do you mean that a person could be atoned even if he did not do Tshuvah?"

"Although there is such an opinion in the Gemara, the halacha is that Yom Kippur’s kaparah is
only effective for those who do Tshuvah (Gemara Shvuos 13a). A person who does complete

18
Tshuvah, which means that he regrets his sins, makes a decision that he will never do this sin again,
and recites viduy is forgiven for his sins."

"Does this mean that he will never be punished for them?"

"No. For very serious sins, including Chilul Hashem (desecrating Hashem’s name) he may still be
punished in this world. But someone who completely repented his sins in this world (as described
above) is guaranteed that he will suffer no punishment in the next world (Rambam, Hilchos
Tshuvah 1:3-4)."

"At the time of the Beis HaMikdash, did people know when their sins were forgiven?"

"When the Cohen Gadol was a tzadik, part of the Yom Kippur Avodah included a procedure that
showed Klal Yisrael whether they were forgiven. Let me provide some background. The Beis
HaMikdash treasurers purchased two goats at the same time that were identical in height,
appearance and value (Mishnah Yoma 62a). One of these goats was a Yom Kippur korban offered
in the Beis HaMikdash, and the other, the goat sent to Azazel, was thrown off a desert cliff.

CHOOSING THE GOAT FOR AZAZEL

"The Cohen Gadol drew lots to determine which goat would be the korban for Hashem and which
would be sent to Azazel. This was an elaborate procedure. The Cohen Gadol stood in the courtyard
of the Beis HaMikdash near the courtyard’s entrance facing the two goats, one opposite his right
hand and the other opposite his left. The S’gan, the Associate Cohen Gadol, stood on the Cohen
Gadol’s right and the Rosh Beis Av, the Head of the family unit of Cohanim on duty that week,
stood on the Cohen Gadol’s left.

"The Cohen Gadol thrust his hands into a small wood box containing two gold lots, one marked
‘for Hashem’ and the other ‘for Azazel,’ and removed the lots, one in each hand. He then raised
his hands, exposing the lots to the S’gan and Rosh Beis Av. If the lot saying ‘for Hashem’ was in
his right hand, the S’gan announced, ‘Master Cohen Gadol, raise your right hand.’ If it was in his
left hand, the Rosh Beis Av announced, ‘Master Cohen Gadol, raise your left hand.’

"The Cohen Gadol then placed each lot on the head of the goat nearest that hand, and decreed, ‘For
Hashem, a Chatos offering.’ The Cohen Gadol used the Ineffable Name of Hashem in this
declaration, and everyone assembled responded by shouting ‘Baruch Shem K’vod Malchuso
L’Olam Vo’ed’ (Mishnah Yoma 37a and 39a).

19
THE RED THREAD

"The Cohen Gadol then tied a red thread to the horn of the Azazel goat, and another red thread
around the neck of the Chatos goat (Mishnah Yoma 41b). Much later in the
procedure, the Cohen Gadol rested his hands and full weight on the head of the Azazel goat, and
recited aloud a viduy on behalf of the entire Jewish people. He concluded his viduy by stating,
‘Because on this day He will atone and purify you from all your sins. Before Hashem shall you
become pure (Vayikra 16:30),’ once again using the Ineffable Name of Hashem. When the
assembled people heard the Name uttered in purity and holiness by the Cohen Gadol, they all
bowed and prostrated until their faces were pressed to the ground. They then recited again ‘Baruch
Shem K’vod Malchuso L’Olam Vo’ed’ (Mishnah Yoma 66a).

"At one point in the procedure, the red thread tied to the Azazel goat was removed from its head,
torn in half, and one part tied again onto its horns. At the exact moment that the Jews were forgiven,
both halves of the thread turned white. (Yoma 67a)"

"You mentioned that the red thread was torn in half," Hershel asked. "What happened to the other
half?"

"This depends on the period of Jewish history. When the Cohen Gadol was a great tzadik, the Jews
were forgiven on Yom Kippur and the red thread turned white. During those years, the thread was
left displayed in a prominent place in the Beis HaMikdash for everyone to see the miracle.
However, in the later years of the Second Beis HaMikdash, when the Cohanim gedolim were often
not appropriate to the position, the thread did not turn white. To save themselves embarrassment,
the thread was placed where it would not be seen (Yoma 67a).

"How frequently did the thread turn white?"

"Apparently, during the period of the Bayis Rishon and the early period of the Bayis Sheni the
thread always turned white. However, after the Cohanim gedolim in the Bayis Sheni began
purchasing the position, the thread often did not turn white."

THE COHANIM GEDOLIM OF THE SECOND BEIS HAMIKDASH

"You mentioned that there was a vast difference between the Cohanim gedolim of the First Beis
HaMikdash and those of the Second. Could you explain this better?"

"Yes, indeed. The Cohanim gedolim of the First Beis HaMikdash were all great tzadikim who

20
were appropriate to their exalted position. Most of them had long tenures as Cohen Gadol. In
contrast, most of the Cohanim gedolim of the Second Beis HaMikdash bribed the government for
the position. Because they lacked the kedusha the position required, they died within a year of
securing the appointment (Yoma 8b; 9a)."

"And yet they were eager to bribe the government for the job?"

"People do very strange things for kavod. As Chazal teach us, it is one of the three things that
remove a person from this world."

WHAT PART OF YOM KIPPUR SERVICE MUST BE DONE BY THE

COHEN GADOL?

Reb Hershel had many other questions. "What part of the Avodah of Yom Kippur was the Cohen
Gadol obligated to perform himself?"

"Certain procedures took place in the Beis Hamikdash every day, such as clearing the two
mizbeichos (altars); bringing the daily offerings (Korban Tamid); burning k’tores (incense) twice
a day; and cleaning, setting up and lighting the Menorah. In addition, on Shabbos and Yom Tov
there were special korbanos called Korban Musaf, the origins of our Musaf prayers. The Torah
mentions these korbanos in Parshas Pinchas. All these could be performed by any Cohen.

"On Yom Kippur, in addition to the daily and Musaf korbanos, there was a special procedure
unique to Yom Kippur, which is called the Seder Avodah, or the Seder Avodas Yom Kippur. This
Avodah, involving the offering of several special korbanos and a unique offering of incense, is
described in Parshas Acharei, the Keriyas HaTorah for Yom Kippur morning and in great length
in Mesechta Yoma. For this Avodah the Cohen Gadol wore special white garments that were worn
no other time. The Cohen Gadol was supposed to do all the avodas done in the Beis HaMikdash
on Yom Kippur himself. However, the only part absolutely mandatory for him to perform was the
special Yom Kippur Avodah."

WERE LOTS USED ON YOM KIPPUR?

"I am confused," admitted Hershel. "The Piyutim of Seder Avodah mentions drawing lots to
determine which Cohanim will bring korbanos on Yom Kippur. But why draw lots if the Cohen
Gadol was doing everything anyway?"

"A lottery system was used each day to determine which Cohanim would perform the different
tasks in the Beis HaMikdash. Most poskim contend that the Cohen Gadol performed ALL the
service in the Beis HaMikdash by himself on Yom Kippur (even though he was only required to

21
perform the special Yom Kippur Avodah). In their opinion, there was no lottery on Yom Kippur
to determine who performed any tasks.

Other poskim contend that although the Cohen Gadol should perform all the tasks in the Beis
HaMikdash himself, if he was unable to perform the entire Avodah himself, other Cohanim could
do them in his place. When this happened, the lottery system would determine which Cohen was
appointed to perform the avodah."

CHANGING CLOTHES

"It is interesting to note," continued the Rav, "that to perform every part of the special Seder
Avodah of Yom Kippur, the Cohen Gadol was required to wear his special Yom Kippur vestments
(described in Parshas Acharei). However, for every part of the service that was not part of the Yom
Kippur Avodah, he wore the eight vestments described in Sefer Shmos. Thus, the Cohen Gadol
changed his clothes five times during Yom Kippur. According to a special commandment received
by Moshe Rabbeinu (Halacha l’Moshe mi’Sinai), he immersed himself in a mikveh each time he
changed his clothes and also performed a special procedure involving washing his hands and feet
twice each time."

"I understand that when the Cohen Gadol entered the Kodesh HaKodoshim (The Holy of Holies),
no one was allowed to be inside the entire Beis HaMikdash building, even the Kodesh (Vayikra
16:17)," interjected Hershel.

"Not only were no humans allowed in, but even angels could not enter (Yerushalmi Yoma 1:5,
cited by Tosafos Yeshanim Yoma 19b)."

THE COHEN GADOL SWEARING

"I remember learning that the Cohen Gadol had to swear an oath before Yom Kippur," queried
Hershel. "Why was that?"

"The first time the Cohen Gadol entered the Kodesh HaKodoshim he did so with a ladle of
specially refined k’tores (incense) and a censer, a type of coal pan for burning k’tores. According
to Halacha L’Moshe M’Sinai, he had to first enter the Kodesh HaKodoshim and then burn the
k’tores inside. However, the Tzedukim, who did not accept Torah she-bal peh, believed that he
should set fire to the k’tores first and then enter the Kodesh HaKodoshim. In the period of the
Second Beis HaMikdash when the position of Cohen Gadol was often purchased, there was
concern that the Cohen Gadol might be a clandestine Tzeduki. Since no one could enter the Beis
HaMikdash building while the k’tores was offered, there was no way of knowing what the Cohen

22
Gadol actually did while inside. Therefore, he was required to swear before Yom Kippur that he
would perform the service as instructed by the Gedolei Yisrael."

"Were there any recorded instances of a Cohen Gadol who was a Tzeduki?"

"The Gemara records two such instances. In one case, the Cohen Gadol proudly told his father,
who was also a Tzeduki, that he had offered the k’tores according to their practices. The Gemara
records that this Cohen Gadol soon died a very ignominious death."

"What happened in the other instance?"

"The Gemara records that the Cohanim heard a loud sound in the Beis HaMikdash. They raced in
to find the Cohen Gadol dead with obvious signs that he had been killed by an angel (Yoma 19b)."

"But I thought even angels could not enter the Beis HaMikdash while the Cohen Gadol offered the
k’tores?"

"This is an excellent question, and it is asked by the Gemara Yerushalmi. The Gemara answers
that since the Cohen Gadol had performed the service incorrectly, the angels were permitted to
enter.

HOW MANY TIMES DID THE COHEN GADOL ENTER THE KODESH
HAKODOSHIM?

"How many times did the Cohen Gadol enter the Kodesh HaKodoshim on Yom Kippur?" asked
Hershel.

"Most people don’t realize that the Cohen Gadol entered the Kodesh HaKodoshim four times on
Yom Kippur. The first time was with the special Yom Kippur k’tores, the second time to sprinkle
the blood of his special Yom Kippur bull offering, and the third time was to sprinkle the blood of
the goat offering. During each of these last two visits he sprinkled the blood eight times. These
sprinklings have a significant place in the piyutim. These are the places when the chazan, followed
by the congregation, shouts out, ‘Achas, achas v’achas, achas u’shtayim,’ until ‘achas va’sheva’
to commemorate this part of the Avodah."

"You said that the Cohen Gadol entered the Kodesh HaKodoshim four times, but we mentioned
only three?"

"Much later in the day, the Cohen Gadol changed into a different set of special Yom Kippur white
garments and entered the Kodesh HaKodoshim to pick up the censer and the ladle that he had

23
brought in earlier. This was a required part of the Yom Kippur service."

"I reviewed the description of the Avodah mentioned in Parshas Acharei," asked Hershel. "I notice
that the Torah does not mention Yom Kippur until the twenty-ninth pasuk of the discussion. Why
is this?"

"Although Aaron and the later Cohanim Gedolim never entered the Kodesh HaKodoshim except
on Yom Kippur, the Midrash says that Aaron was permitted to enter it at other times, provided he
followed the procedure described in Parshas Acharei. On Yom Kippur, he was obligated to offer
these korbanos and enter the Kodesh HaKodoshim. Thus, the beginning of the reading explains
how Aaron could enter the Kodesh HaKodoshim, whereas the end teaches that this procedure must
be performed on Yom Kippur." (Note that Rashi on Chumash seems to disagree with this
approach.)

"Is it true that a rope was tied around the Cohen Gadol’s waist before he entered, so that they could
pull him out if he died?"

“, the source, which is a Zohar, mentions that a rope was tied around his foot," responded Rav
Goldberg
.

"Thanks a lot for all your time," Reb Hershel concluded. "I now understand the importance of
reciting the Seder Avodah carefully and why some people study the mishnayos of Meseches Yoma
before Yom Kippur."

"You are absolutely correct. Indeed, the Mateh Efrayim maintains that one’s main learning during
the entire Elul should be to understand the Seder Avodah properly. So don’t forget to study the
mishnayos and gemaros we’ve just been discussing yourself."

24
Kermes dye is of ancient origin; jars of kermes have been found in a Neolithic cave-burial at
Adaouste, northeast of Aix-en-Provence.
In the Middle Ages, rich crimson and scarlet silks dyed with kermes in the new silk-
weaving centers of Italy and Sicily exceeded the legendary Tyrian purple "in status and
desirability".The dyestuff was called "grain" in all Western European languages because the
desiccated eggs resembled fine grains of wheat or sand, and textiles dyed with kermes were
described as dyed in the grain.
Woollens were frequently dyed blue with woad before spinning and weaving, and then piece-dyed
in kermes, producing a wide range colours from blacks and grays through browns, murreys,
purples, and sanguines. By the 14th and early 15th century, brilliant full grain pure kermes scarlet
was "by far the most esteemed, most regal" colour for luxury woollen textiles in the Low
Countries, England, France, Spain and Italy.
Following the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire, Mexican cochineal, which produced a
stronger dye and could thus be used in smaller quantities, replaced kermes dyes in general use in
Europe.

The Scarlet Dye of the Holy Land9

ZOHAR AMAR, HUGO GOTTLIEB, LUCY VARSHAVSKY, AND DAVID ILUZ write:10

9
BioScience, Volume 55, Issue 12, December 2005, Pages 1080–1083,
10
Zohar Amar and David Iluz (e-mail: iluzda@mail.biu.ac.il) work in the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archeology,
and Hugo Gottlieb works in the Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel. Lucy Varshavsky and
Iluz are on the Faculty of Life Sciences at the university. © 2005 American Institute of Biological Sciences.

25
The use of natural colors for dyeing precious and sacred fabrics occupied an important place in
ancient cultures, including those of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome. One of the known
dyes of the ancient world was the scarlet dye produced from coccoid scale insects (Forbes 1964,
Koren 1993).

The most ancient finding of this dye was in woven fibers found in a burial cave dating from the
late Neolithic age in Adaouste, in southern France, where these coccoid scales grow on oak trees
(Barber 1992). The scarlet dye—known as shani in Hebrew—was used in the Holy Land during
the biblical period. This dye was widely used for religious rituals in the second temple until the
temple’s destruction in AD 70 (Feliks 1966).

According to a source from the same period, only the best shani dye product should be used, and
it should come “from the worm in the mountain area” (Zuckermandel 1970). Whereas for other
Jewish rituals it was explicitly written that goods such as sheep, corn, and oil were brought from
Israel, it is not clear from which mountains the “worm of the shani” was obtained: was it brought
from Israel or from abroad?

According to the writings of Roman authors of the period (e.g., Dioscorides, Plinius) and later
texts, there is no doubt that the scarlet dye was produced from a species of coccoid scale (Donkin
1977) living on oaks. Until the present study, however, knowledge regarding the coccoid species
used in the Holy Land in ancient times had been lost, and no scarlet dye–producing coccoid scale
from Israeli oak trees had been found (Forbes 1964, Zeiderman 1986, Koren 1993).

Therefore, it has been assumed that in ancient times the dye was produced from the “Armenian
red” (Porphyrophora hameli) or from Kermococcus vermilis (also called Kermes vermilis; Donkin
1977, Sandberg 1997), and it was concluded that the dye must have been imported. However, we
present evidence based on chemical analysis that Kermes echinatus (Coccoidea), a parasite of the
Kermes oak (Quercus calliprinos), was the source of the shani dye used toward the end of second
temple period (AD 70).

Historical background
The most ancient text that mentions the shani worm was discovered in Nuzi, Iraq. In that document,
dated to the 14th or 15th century BC, there is mention of a Phoenician trader who introduced to
the palace in that area many precious products, among them a woolen fabric colored with
tekhelet(blue), argaman (purple), and “red which was produced from worms” (Pfeiffer and Speiser
1936). The scarlet dye is mentioned in the Old Testament 25 times, either alone or along with other
precious and expensive pigments, including the blue and purple dyes obtained from marine snails
(e.g., in the book of Exodus and the second book of Samuel, 1:24). Shani was used in the Holy
Land during the biblical period both for secular purposes (such as coloring expensive weavings)
and for ritual purposes (for instance, for the purification of lepers [Leviticus 14:6] and as a
component of red cow ash—from the burnt offering of a red heifer—which was also used for
purification [Numbers 19:6]).

The famous historian Flavius Josephus noted that the shani dye symbolized fire, one of the four
basic elements of the world (Flavius Josephus 1966). One of the latest instances of the use of shani

26
dye in ancient Israel is from the end of the second temple period, when, in the wake of the
destruction of the temple, the Jewish sages decreed customs of national mourning and forbade
guests at marriage ceremonies from wearing crowns made of shani or gold threads, as had been
popular until then (Zuckermandel 1970). Research history The first scientific research on coccoid
scales in Israel was done by Bodenheimer, who described three kermes species that grew on
different species of oak (Bodenheimer 1924, 1931). Balachowsky (1953) illustrated those species
and renamed them in his research on kermes species of the Mediterranean. This created a great
deal of confusion, because these coccoids were illustrated in different ways and had two different
names. As a result, six species appeared in the literature, whereas only three species actually
existed.

Sternlicht (1961) suggested in his dissertation a new method for classifying coccoids, and he
illustrated three kermes species found in Israel: Kermes biblicus = Kermes palestinensis, K.
echinatus, and Kermes spatulatus. Later he identified another species with the name Kermes
bytinskii (Sternlicht 1969). In effect, Sternlicht’s 1969 article is the most recent scientific source
on these species. A few researchers proposed that a dye can be produced from the oak coccoids in
Israel, but no proof existed for this hypothesis (Dor 1997, Sandberg 1997).

Attempts to produce a dye from the K. biblicus coccoid, considered the most likely source for a
dye, were unsuccessful. After four years of new field surveys, we located the four kermes species
in Israel and tested the ability to produce dye from each coccoid. We discovered that K. echinatus
contains a significant amount of bright red pigment and is a parasite of the local evergreen kermes
oak (Q. calliprinos Webb), a dominant component of all Mediterranean mountain areas in Israel
and surrounding countries.

The biology and life cycle of a coccoid scale Kermes echinatus larvae are cleaved during summer
from their mother coccoid, which dies thereafter. In their first stage, the larvae have legs and
antennae. During this stage they migrate and settle on the host plant and spend the summer and
winter in a deep sleep. The larvae wake up the following spring and draw nourishment from the
sap, which they suck with their maxillipeds. They then undergo several moltings. In the third
molting stage, the male undergoes a pupation process (full metamorphosis) that continues for two
weeks.

A winged, red-colored, 1.5-millimeter (mm)-long male emerges from the cocoon. The male does
not eat; his only function is to find the female by means of the pheromones that she releases. He
fertilizes her and dies afterward. By contrast, the female larva molts two or three times without a
pupation process (lack of metamorphosis), and her limb movements degenerate. The adult female
has no wings or eyes, but she has a maxilliped with which she sucks the sap of the host plant, and,
with a wax that she secretes, she attaches to the plant’s branches or trunk. The adult female is 3 to
7 mm long and 2 to 4 mm wide, and she has a camouflage color of gray-brown. The active life
cycle (excluding deep-sleeping time), from the first stage of the awakened larva until the spawning
stage, is 3 to 3.5 months (Sternlicht 1961).

The female produces dye, in both her body and her eggs, only at the peak of her adulthood, which
continues for no more than one month, around July and August. We assume that we have identified
the original indigenous source of the biblical scarlet dye in Israel. We tested the dye on wool using

27
processes described in historical literary sources (Fahd 1993). These processes include drying the
coccoids, boiling them in water, and using alum as a mordant.

The dye obtained from K. echinatus has a bright red-orange hue, which matches the descriptions
of shani in the historical literature. Sampling Coccoid scales were collected throughout the active
period of the adult scale, from July through August (figure 2). Following collection, they were
dried for a week in the shade and extracted in water for 45 minutes at 60 degrees Celsius (ºC) to
80ºC.

Separation and analysis

A LaChrom chromatography system equipped with DAD (diode array detector, LaChrom L-7450)
was used with HSM (hierarchichal storage management) software for data analysis. For analytical
separation, we used a LiChrocart 125-4 column packed with Lichrospher 100, RP8, 5 micrometers.
For semipreparative separation, we used column 250-10, packed with the same resin. For gradient
elution, we used two solvents: (a) 0.1 percent TFA (trifluoroacetic acid) in water and (b)
acetonitrile. Separations were achieved with the following gradients of B: 0–50 percent per 10
minutes, 50 percent per 10–13 minutes, and 50–70 percent per 13–15 minutes. For analytical
separations, flow rate was maintained at 1 milliliter (mL) per minute. The same gradient was used
for the semipreparative separations, but at a flow rate of 3 mL per minute. The peaks were collected
after separation on the semipreparative column, purified by repeated high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) on the same column, and analyzed with nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR).

28
The scientific evidence for the scarlet dye of the Holy Land

A typical chromatographic profile viewed at 432 and 480 nanometers (nm) (figure 3) reveals three
main peaks, numbered 1, 2, and 3, which were usually found in all samples. Peaks 1 and 3 had a
deep orange color, whereas peak 2 had a light-yellow color. Peak 3 consisted of at least two
substances (3a and 3b).

29
Ultraviolet spectra of these substances are represented in figure 4. The spectrum of substance 3a
was similar to that of kermesic acid (Ka; maximum at 480 nm). The Ka dye was brick red (Mayer
1943) or dark red (Budavari 1989) and imparted an orange-red hue when it was used to dye wool
in an acid bath (Mayer 1943). The spectrum of substance 3b was like that of flavokermesic acid
(Fk; maximum at 432 nm).

The Fk dye was a yellow-orange that produced a golden yellow hue when dyeing was performed
in acid baths (Mayer 1943). The same spectra of Ka and Fk were seen in the work of Koren (1999),
who pointed out that this brick red dye (Ka), which was extracted from textiles, is found only in
an oak-kermes coccoid scale species and is not present in any plant or cochineal insect. All three

30
peaks were collected after separation on the semipreparative column and purified by repeated
HPLC on the same column.

NMR analysis of peak 3 confirmed the presence of Fk (Wouters and Verhecken 1987) as well as
Ka (Gadgil et al. 1968). The former was the major constituent (55 percent) of the peak, whereas
Ka contributed 17 percent. A third set of signals is attributed to the 7-OH derivative of Ka (28
percent), a substance that has not been described in the literature. The relative amount of the latter
acid varied somewhat, depending on the sample. These results confirm the presence of Ka in K.
echinatus extracts. The fact that this scale is found in Israel suggests that the origin of the shani
color mentioned in the Bible could have been local and not an import from abroad, as most scholars
have assumed (Zeiderman 1986, Cardon 1990, 1999). Our hypothesis is supported by the color
quality of Ka, the relative concentration of the pigment in K. echinatus, and the abundance of the
K. echinatus scale in Israel.

31
32
 Scapegoat: The Origins of the Crimson Thread

During the Second Temple period, the scapegoat was tied with a crimson thread. While the

Torah requires a crimson thread as part of the purification ritual for tzaraʿat (skin disease), it

does not mention it by the scapegoat. Nevertheless, parallel practices found in

2nd millennium B.C.E. Hittite texts of Luwian origin imply that the use of a crimson thread is

not a late innovation but an ancient part of the rite.

33
Dr. Noga Ayali-Darshan writes:11

Upon being cured of ‫( צרעת‬tzaraʿat), some kind of skin disease,[1] the Torah mandates an unusual
ritual of purification:

‫ה‬:‫יד‬ ‫ ד‬: ‫ויק ר א י ד‬

‫ְוִצָוּה ַהֹכֵּהן ְוָשַׁחט ֶאת‬ .‫ְוִצָוּה ַהֹכֵּהן ְוָלַקח ַלִמַּטֵּהר ְשֵׁתּי ִצֳפּ ִרים ַחיּוֹת ְטֹהרוֹת ְוֵﬠץ ֶא ֶרז וְּשׁ ִני תוַֹלַﬠת ְוֵאֹזב‬
‫ו ֶאת ַהִצֹּפּר ַהַחָיּה ִיַקּח ֹאָתהּ ְוֶאת ֵﬠץ ָהֶא ֶרז ְוֶאת ְשׁ ִני ַהתּוַֹלַﬠת ְוֶאת ָהֵאֹזב‬:‫ יד‬.‫ַהִצּפּוֹר ָהֶאָחת ֶאל ְכִּלי ֶח ֶרשׂ ַﬠל ַמ ִים ַח ִיּים‬
‫ז‬:‫יד‬
‫ְוִהָזּה ַﬠל ַהִמַּטֵּהר ִמן ַהָצּ ַרַﬠת ֶשַׁבע ְפָּﬠִמים‬ .‫ְוָטַבל אוָֹתם ְוֵאת ַהִצֹּפּר ַהַחָיּה ְבַּדם ַהִצֹּפּר ַהְשֻּׁחָטה ַﬠל ַהַמּ ִים ַהַח ִיּים‬
.‫ְוִטֲהרוֹ ְוִשַׁלּח ֶאת ַהִצֹּפּר ַהַחָיּה ַﬠל ְפֵּני ַהָשֶּׂדה‬

Lev 14:4

The priest shall order two live clean birds, cedar wood, scarlet wool, and hyssop to be brought for
him who is to be cleansed. 14:5 The priest shall order one of the birds slaughtered over fresh water
in an earthen vessel; 14:6 and he shall take the live bird, and also the cedar wood, the scarlet wool,
and the hyssop, and dip them together with the live bird in the blood of the bird that was
slaughtered over the fresh water. 14:7 He shall then sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be
cleansed of the eruption and cleanse him; and he shall set the live bird free in the open country.[2]
This ritual of choosing two animals, slaughtering one and sending away the other, is paralleled in
the Yom Kippur scapegoat ritual (Lev 16), in which one animal is sacrificed as a ḥaṭṭā’t (‫)חטאת‬, a
“purification” offering to YHWH,[3] while the other is sent into the wilderness to Azazel, a kind of
demonic counterpart to YHWH:[4]

‫י‬: ‫ויק ר א ט ז‬
.‫ְוַהָשִּׂﬠיר ֲאֶשׁר ָﬠָלה ָﬠָליו ַהגּוֹ ָרל ַלֲﬠָזאֵזל ָיֳﬠַמד ַחי ִלְפֵני ְי־הָוה ְלַכֵפּר ָﬠָליו ְלַשַׁלּח ֹאתוֹ ַלֲﬠָזאֵזל ַהִמְּדָבּ ָרה‬

Lev 16:10

And the goat designated by lot for Azazel shall be left standing alive before YHWH, to make
expiation with it, and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel.

11
https://www.thetorah.com/article/scapegoat-the-origins-of-the-crimson-thread

34
This too is a cleansing ritual, but noticeably absent are the materials used to purify the metzora,
the person suffering from skin disease. However, in the Mishnah’s depiction of this ritual, one of
these materials, the scarlet wool (‫—)ְשׁ ִני תוַֹלַﬠת‬crimson thread (‫ )לשון של זהורית‬in Mishnaic
Hebrew—appears.

The Crimson Thread in the Mishnah

Mishnah Yoma gives a detailed cultic and literary description of the high priest’s tasks on the Day
of Atonement that closely follows the biblical source in Leviticus 16.[5] At the same time, it records
some significant differences. The most obvious example is that whereas in the Bible the animal is
simply sent into the wilderness, in the Mishnah it is pushed down a cliff and killed.[6] Another
difference is the use of a crimson thread (= biblical scarlet wool).

According to the Mishnah’s account, the thread was tied to the scapegoat twice. First, it was tied
immediately following the casting of the lot for the two goats (m. Yoma 4:2; Danby):

‫קשר לשון של זהורית בראש שעיר המשתלח והעמידו כנגד בית שלוחו ולנשחט כנגד בית שחיטתו‬

He bound a thread of crimson wool on the head of the scapegoat and he turned it towards the way
by which it was to be sent out.
It was tied on the animal again after it had been sent into the wilderness, immediately before it
was pushed off a cliff (m. Yoma 6:6):

‫חולק לשון של זהורית חציו קשר בסלע וחציו קשר בין שתי קרניו‬

He divided the thread of crimson wool and tied one half to the rock, and the other half between its
horns.

35
The Mishnah’s conception here fits with its interpretation of the metzora ritual in Leviticus 14.
The biblical text references dipping the live bird in the blood of the dead bird, together with cedar
wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool, and the Mishnah takes this one step further (m. Neg. 14:1):

‫נטל עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת וכרכן בשירי הלשון והקיף להם ראשי אגפים וראש‬... ?‫כיצד מטהרין את המצורע‬
.‫הזנב של שניה‬

How do they cleanse the leper? … He took cedar wood and hyssop and scarlet wool and bound
them together with the ends of the stripe [of wool] and attaches the tips of the wings and the tip of
the tail of the second bird (i.e., the live bird) to them.[7]
The practice of connecting the scarlet wool to the unsacrificed bird that is to be sent away parallels
the custom of attaching a thread to the scapegoat for Azazel (m. Yoma 6:7).[8]

Early Christian Sources Buttress the Mishnah’s Account

Two independent early Christian texts, which evidently drew on a common source that predates
the Mishnah, testify to the practice of the crimson thread with the scapegoat. The Greek Epistle of
Barnabas, probably composed in Alexandria sometime between the destruction of the Second
Temple (70 C.E.) and the Bar Kochba rebellion (131 C.E.), writes (7:6–8):

Note what was commanded: “Take two goats, goodly and alike, and offer them, and let the priest
take the one as a burnt offering for sins.” But what are they to do with the other? … “And do ye
all spit on it, and goad it, and bind the scarlet wool about its head, and so let it be cast into the
desert” (Loeb, Kirsopp Lake).

Similarly, the Carthaginian church father, Tertullian (ca. 160–ca. 225), in his Latin Against the
Jews, writes (14:9):

36
So, again, I will make an interpretation of the two goats which were habitually offered on the fast-
day …the one of them, begirt with scarlet, amid cursing and universal spitting, and tearing, and
piercing, was cast away by the people outside the city into perdition... (Thelwall trans.).[9]

These sources demonstrate that this part of the scapegoat ritual does not reflect rabbinic
imagination about the past, but was part of the practice in the Second Temple. While it is absent
in the Torah, it might be included among the old local traditions that were preserved by Hellenistic
Judaism—what Josephus calls the “tradition of the fathers” (παράδοσις τῶν πατέρων) (Ant.
13.297) and the Sages call a tradition or oral law that possess little or no basis in Scripture (m.
Ḥag. 1:8; cf. t. Ḥag. 1:9; Sifre Deut 335).[10]

Differentiating Between Animals: Rabbinic Explanation

What is the purpose of the crimson thread? The Talmud suggests that it was intended to distinguish
the sent-away animal from the slaughtered animal (b. Yoma 41b).[11] Yet, according to both the
biblical and the Mishnaic text, the goats are separated by the lots cast by the high priest, which are
placed on the animal:

‫ ח‬: ‫ויק ר א ט ז‬
.‫ְוָנַתן ַאֲהֹרן ַﬠל ְשֵׁני ַהְשִּׂﬠי ִרם גּוֹ ָרלוֹת גּוֹ ָרל ֶאָחד ַלי־הָוה ְוגוֹ ָרל ֶאָחד ַלֲﬠָזאֵזל‬

Lev 16:8
Aaron shall place lots upon the two goats, one marked for YHWH and the other marked for
Azazel.
The Mishnah (Yoma 4:1) states this as well, ‫נתנן על שני השעירים‬, “he places them (=the lots) on the
two goats.” Thus, the thread would be unnecessary for this purpose. Moreover, according to the
Mishnah (Yoma 4:2), after the high priest places the lots on the animals, he also moves each to
different locations, so there would be little need to add yet a third mark to distinguish between the
goats.

Ancient Anatolian Crimson Thread

37
In my “The Scapegoat Ritual and Its Ancient Near Eastern Parallels” (The Torah 2020), I noted
how the sending away of animals in the metzora and Yom Kippur rituals have parallels in ancient
Near Eastern practice, appearing in texts from Ebla (in northern Syria), Hatti (=Hittites), Ugarit,
and Assyria, from the 3rd millennium to the 1st millennium B.C.E. These rituals reflect an
apotropaic practice of sending away a live animal to an uninhabited region in order to ward off
any malevolence threatening people or a place, such as evil, impurity, or plague.

Notably, rituals from Hatti also make use of wool tied around the sent-away animal. In these texts,
which parallel the Second Temple scapegoat ritual in many particulars, the thread appears to
represent the transmission of the defilement/disease from the patient to the animal who in turn
delivers it away to other entities or into uninhabited region.[12]

Sending a Tied Mouse to Zarniza or Tarpattašši

One particularly significant equivalent is found in the Hittite ritual of Luwian origin, transmitted
to a scribe by an old woman named Ambazzi. The text describes how the exorcist ties a thread
around the right hand and foot of the “patrons” (i.e., the patients), and then around a mouse that
is sent into an uninhabited region (CTH 391.1):

She (=the exorcist) wraps a small piece of tin in a thread and binds it around the right hand and
foot of the (ritual) patron[s]. Then (she) takes it from them, binding it around a mouse, (saying):
“I have taken the [e]vil from you. I have bound it around the mouse. May [th]is [mo]use carry it
to the high mountains, to the deepest valle[ys], to the long roads.” Then they release the mouse,
(saying): “Zarni[za], Tarpattašši—You, take this for yourself, and we shall [gi]ve you
(something) [el]se to [e]at”.[13]

The thread thus facilitates the transference of the evil to the mouse, and its eventual removal. This
mouse is sent into an uninhabited place, where some divine/demonic entities are requested to take
it for themselves, thus releasing not only the patient, but all the inhabited world, from this evil.[14]

38
Sending a Tied Ram or Bull to the Enemy Camp

Another Hittite rite of Luwian origin, designed to remove plague from the camp, involves the tying
of a wreath of colored woolen threads around the head of a sent-away ram or bull.[15] Here, the
animal is sent to the “enemy camp,” and the god responsible for the plague is identified as “the
god of the enemy’s land.”[16]

Preserved in three different versions, the version transmitted by a person named Ašḫella describes
how the exorcist entwines the threads of wool, while others—apparently from among the camp
commanders, each of whom possesses his individual sent-away ram, upon which the exorcist
places his hands—are responsible for twisting the threads together (CTH 394):

When the day turns to night, all the army commanders, whoever they may be, each prepares a
ram—whether black or white, it does not matter. Then I twine a white thread, a red thread, (and)
a green thread and (each of the commanders) twists it together to make it one.[17]

The rite concludes with the release of the animal (after its neck and horns are decorated with
jewelry), together with a decorated woman, a thick loaf of bread, and a beer, each representing a
different apotropaic ritual (to better guarantee the halting of the plague).[18]

Then they lead out the rams, the woman, the thick loaf of bread, and the beer through the center
of the camp, and bring them out into the open field. They go and leave them on the border of the
enemy’s land, in a place where we never arrive. They then say as follows:

“Now, any evil of this camp that has been found in person, cattle, sheep, horses, wild asses, or
donkeys—right now, here, these rams and the woman have removed it from the camp. Whoever
finds them, may that population take this evil plague for itself.”

Although the text speaks of the border of the enemy’s land, it is identified according to the standard
terminology of the sent-away ritual as “a place we never arrive,” akin to the “high mountains,

39
deepest valleys and the long roads” of Ambazzi’s ritual, where the scape-mouse is sent, and the
“uninhabited land” in Leviticus, where the scapegoat is sent.

Another version—transmitted by Puliša (CTH 407)—states that the king is to place the woolen
threads in his mouth before tying the ox or sheep’s head with them:

Afterwards, [they bring] one bull and one e[we… of the] enemy’s [la]nd. In the (animal’s) ears,
an earring […] Red wool, yellow wool, bl[ack wool, and white wool …] from the king's mouth he
[dr]aws it forth [and pronounces as follows:] “What the [kin]g has made r[ed, yellow,] [b]lack
[and white …] th[at] … back to the en[emy’s] land […].[19]

In this ritual, the animal joins a woman and a prisoner of war that serves as a substitute for the king
(again, to better guarantee the halting of the plague). Their sending-away from the camp is
nonetheless portrayed through the standard vocabulary:

[“May] this prisoner li[ft] the plague and take (it) bac[k] [to the land of the enemy”]… May this
bull take back [this plague] to the land of the enemy.”[20]

Transference Ritual

In these Hittite rites, the contact between the patient and thread(s) prior to the tying of the latter to
the sent-away animal appears to represent—or even effect—the transfer of the malevolence from
the person to the animal. Additional Luwian-Hittite rituals that involve bringing the patient into
contact with a thread that is then tied to another object, or taken by the person to a far-off,
uninhabited place in order to affect his/her purification, strengthen this assumption.

For example, in a purification rite transmitted by Tunnawiya (CTH 409.I), the old woman casts
blue and red threads onto the impure person, subsequently removing them and placing them in a
basket while uttering the words:

40
(Those) which make him/her dark (and) yellow (and who) made him/her impure; whether someone
has made him impure before the gods, or whether someone has made him impure before the dead,
or whether someone has made him impure before mankind … I am taking it away from him. The
twelve parts of his evil impurity, witchcraft, sin (and) the anger of the god I am taking. The terror
of the dead I am taking... the evil gossip of all mankind I am taking.[21]

Another example is a ritual transmitted by Allī (CTH 402), that designed to purify a person from
witchcraft. In this ritual, the old woman places woolen threads—each time of a different color—
on the knees and head of the person, makes her utterance, and then ties the threads around figurines.
When placing the red thread, for instance, she recites the words:

[Whoever] has made him blood red, whoever has bewitched him, I am taking from him blood
redness and bewitching and I am giving (them) back to its [owner]…

When placing the black thread, she says:

Whoever has made [him blac]k, whoever has be[witc]hed him, now I am [taking the [sorcery]
from him and am giving it back to its owner.

She then buries the figurines in the ground, bound with the threads taken from the sufferer’s body,
in order to ensure that the witchcraft will not return.[22]

This evidence thus strengthens the assumption that the thread tied to the sent-away animal in the
Hittite rituals symbolizes the patient’s malevolence, sins, or illness, carried off to an uninhabited
place.

Whitening the Red Sin

The idea that the crimson thread represents the malevolence is, in fact, implied also in
Mishnah Shabbat 9:3, which links the color of the thread with sin:

41
 :‫מנין שקושרין לשון של זהורית בראש שעיר המשתלח שנאמר אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים כשלג ילבינו‬

How do we know that they tie a crimson thread on the head of the scapegoat [which is sent forth]?

Since it says, “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow” (Isa 1:18).[23]

Hittite rituals made use of this same imagery. For example, the rite transmitted by Ambazzi
(another section of which we discussed above) states:

[He] also [ties] a piece of cloth [to them], (saying): “Just as the la[underers make th]is (cloth)
[smooth] and [remove/cleanse the sta]in from it [and i]t became white, likewise [may the gods]
rem[ove/cleanse the evil sickness of this m]a[n from his body].”[24]

Another ritual, transmitted by Ḫuwarlu (CTH 398), says:

She takes soap … flattens it, kneads it and it is made into a ball. She presses it against the king
and queen, over all of their bodies. She presses it onto the four corners, onto the thresholds of the
gates, above and below, (and) onto the wooden bolts, and says the following: “Just as this soap
cleanses the dirty cloths and they are made white, may it clean the bodies of the king, queen,
princes, and palace.”[25]

In close analogy to the ancient Near Eastern association of colors with malevolence,[26] and
especially their turning white with purification, the Mishnah brings the Isaiah prooftext to explain
how the crimson thread signifies sin, while the implication is that its turning white signifies
atonement. Clearly, this homily about the function of the crimson thread can’t work if the entire
thread was tied to the goat, which was then pushed down a cliff. Instead, the homily must assume
that part of the thread remains with people who can report on a change of color. Thus, according
to the homily, the crimson thread serves not only an apotropaic function, transferring the sin from
entity to entity, but also serves as an omen, communicating to people that the ritual worked.[27]

42
Ancient Traditions in the Mishnah

In light of the above, the tying of the crimson thread to the scapegoat may represent—at least in
its origin—the transferring of the tabernacle’s defilement, caused by the Israelites’ sins, to the
scapegoat, which is sent away into the wilderness and Azazel.[28] First described in the Mishnah
and its related Christian texts, this ritual belongs to a group of rituals performed during the Second
Temple period that do not derive from the biblical text nor constitute a historical development
from it.[29] Although faint traces of some of these occasionally appear in the historiographical
literature, the first reference to them generally emerges in sources relating to the Second Temple
period. Rather than representing midrashic innovation, these practices likely represent the
preservation of alternative practices by the conservative elements of the Judean priesthood.[30]

Appendix

Laying of Hands to Transfer Sin

While the crimson thread may represent, or even carry, the malevolence “loaded” onto the
scapegoat for Azazel, the act of tying it to the animal—as understood from the Luwian-Hittite
rites—in fact parallels the high priest’s laying hands upon the scapegoat in order to transfer the
Israelites’ sins to it as described in Lev 16:21–22:

‫[ ַﬠל ר ֹאשׁ ַהָשִּׂﬠיר ַהַחי ְוִהְתַוָדּה ָﬠָליו ֶאת ָכּל ֲﬠוֹֹנת ְבֵּני ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל ְוֶאת ָכּל‬31] [‫ְוָסַמ– ַאֲהֹרן ֶאת ְשֵׁתּי )ידו( ]ָיָדיו‬ ‫ כ א‬: ‫ויק ר א ט ז‬

‫ כ ב‬:‫ט ז‬
‫ְוָנָשׂא ַהָשִּׂﬠיר ָﬠָליו ֶאת ָכּל‬ .‫ִפְּשֵׁﬠיֶהם ְלָכל ַחטּ ֹאָתם ְוָנַתן ֹאָתם ַﬠל ר ֹאשׁ ַהָשִּׂﬠיר ְוִשַׁלּח ְבַּיד ִאישׁ ִﬠִתּי ַהִמְּדָבּ ָרה‬
.‫ֲﬠוֹֹנָתם ֶאל ֶא ֶרץ ְגֵּז ָרה ְוִשַׁלּח ֶאת ַהָשִּׂﬠיר ַבִּמְּדָבּר‬

Lev 16:21
Aaron shall lay both (his hand) [his hands] upon the head of the live goat and confess over it

all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting them on the head
16:22
of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness through a designated man. Thus the goat

43
shall carry on it all their iniquities to an inaccessible region; and the goat shall be set free in the

wilderness.
In other examples of the biblical ritual of laying of hands, the person offering the
sacrifice or performing the ritual laid one hand upon it in order to demonstrate ownership
of the animal in which the rite is conducted, since the ritual is performed by a priest
rather than the individual himself.[32] For example, in describing how a burnt offering
should be brought, the Torah states:

‫ ד‬: ‫ויק ר א א‬
.‫ְוָסַמ– ָידוֹ ַﬠל ר ֹאשׁ ָהֹעָלה ְו ִנ ְרָצה לוֹ ְלַכֵפּר ָﬠָליו‬

Lev 1:4
He shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, that it may be acceptable in his
behalf, in expiation for him.
The laying of both hands upon the animal is thus unique in ancient Israelite cultus, just like the
tying of a crimson thread around it, and probably represents an ancient custom too. However,
while in Leviticus 16:21 the sins are transferred to the animal through the laying on of the high
priest’s hands and his confession, according to the Mishnaic description this function was also
performed by the crimson thread.

This may explain why the tying of the thread does not form part of the ceremony of the Day of
Atonement in Leviticus 16, which already contains this function. In contrast, the Mishnaic
account, which faithfully follows the biblical source in Leviticus 16, interpolates another early,
otherwise unpreserved tradition, thereby representing two different practices possessing the same
function.[33]

1. Editor’s note: For some discussion of this illness, see Chaim Trachtman, “Tzaraat as Cancer,” The Torah (2016);
Yitzhak Feder, “Tzaraat in Light of Its Mesopotamian Parallels,” The Torah (2019).
2. The same cleansing materials appear in the ritual of the red heifer, which is used to purify a person from contact with a
corpse (Num 19). The heifer slaughtered, then burnt to ashes, after which:

‫ו‬:‫במדבר יט‬
.‫ְוָלַקח ַהֹכֵּהן ֵﬠץ ֶאֶרז ְוֵאזוֹב וְּשׁ ִני תוָֹלַﬠת ְוִהְשִׁלי„ ֶאל תּוֹ„ ְשֵׂרַפת ַהָפָּרה‬

Num 19:6
and the priest shall take cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool, and throw them into the fire consuming

the cow.

44
 In this case, the materials are part of a concoction that will be sprinkled upon the impure person.

3. Editor’s note: For some discussion of the meaning of this term, see the opening sections of Yitzhak Feder, “A Sin
Offering for Birth Anxiety,” The Torah (2016), and bibliography in fns 2 and 3.
4. Cf. ibn Ezra 16:8, 17:7.
5. As Neusner notes:
Seven of the eight chapters of this tractate consist of a narrative, retelling in the words of Mishna’s storytellers
precisely what is related at Leviticus Chapter Sixteen … the sequence of events in the account of Yoma precisely
follows the account of Leviticus.
Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1983), 134. See also Ishay Rosen-
Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, JSJSupp 160 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 240–241.

6. For a suggestion of the development of this custom in the Second Temple period in relation to the
Greek pharmakos ritual, see Mira Balberg, “Omen and Anti-omen: The Rabbinic Hagiography of the Scapegoat’s
Scarlet Ribbon,” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 17 (2016), 30-31, and the bibliography cited there.
7. The exact meaning of ‫ והקיף להם‬is unclear. Jacob Epstein offers ‫ קרב זה אל זה‬,‫חבר והגע‬, “attached and touching, brought
close to one another” as the usual meanings of the verb ‫ הקיף‬in Mishnaic Hebrew. See, Jacob Nahum Epstein, ‫מבוא‬
‫[ לנוסח המשנה‬Introduction to the Mishnaic Text], 3rd printing (Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Magnes/Dvir, 2000; repr. of 1948),
446. My translation above follows the first meaning, while the standard translations (Danby, Blackman, Neusner)
follow the second, understanding that the wing and tail tips were “brought near to” the wood/hyssop/wool mixture but
not attached to it.
8. Recognizing the similarity between the two rites, the Sages brought the two occasions into alignment: cf. m. Yoma
6:1–2 with m. Neg. 14:5–10. Significantly, however, the pair of birds for the cleansing of the leper are not included in
the list of sacrificial pairs in m. Men. 3:6.
9. Cf. Marc 3.7.7. See Daniel Stökl, “The Christian Exegesis of the Scapegoat between Jews and Pagans,” in Sacrifice in
Religious Experience, ed. Albert I. Baumgarten (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 207–232 [209–210, 214 and nn. 26,
30]; idem (Stökl Ben-Ezra), The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second
Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 19, 29, 160–161; Lester L. Grabbe, “The
Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation,” JSJ 18 (1987): 152–167 [161–165].
10. Cf. Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The Judaean Legal Tradition and the Halakhah of the Mishnah,” 125; David Henshke, ‫שמחת‬
‫[ הרגל בתלמודם של תנאים‬Festival Joy in Tannaitic Discourse] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2007), 3–13.
11. See Naphtali Goldstein, “‫[ ”הלשון של זהורית בעבודת יום הכיפורים‬The ‘Crimson Ribbon’ in the Yom Kippur
Ritual], Tarbiz 49 (1979–80): 237–245; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1022.
12. Some scholars have also suggested that the crimson thread was a mere decoration of the scapegoat, thus making it
attractive to Azazel. See, Moshe Weinfeld, “‫ אומות העולם משיבין עליהם‬/ ‫ יצר הרע‬/ ‫[ ”דברים שהשטן‬Things Which the Satan /
Evil Inclination / Nations Criticize], in ‫ מחקרים בספרות התלמודית והרבנית לכבוד פרופסור חיים זלמן דימיטרובסקי‬:‫[ עטרה לחיים‬Atara
le-Hayim: Studies in Talmudic and Rabbinic Literature in Honor of Professor Haim Zalman Dimitrovsky], ed. Israel
M. Ta-Shma, Daniel Boyarin, Menachem Hirschman, Shamma Y. Friedman, and Menachem Schmelzer (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 2000), 105–111, 105–111; Jan N. Bremmer, “The Scapegoat between Northern Syria, Hittites, Israelites,
Greeks and Early Christians,” in Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill,
2008), 172; Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Ritual Killing and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East,” in Human Sacrifice in
Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed., Karin Finsterbusch, Armin Lange and K.F. Diethard Römheld, Numen Books:
Studies in the History of Religions (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 25. Nevertheless, this is difficult to defend since, although
Near Eastern rituals emphasize the decoration of sent-away women and animals with metal jewelry, the crimson thread
itself is not related to this; see below. While the Second Temple practice was also compared to the
Greek pharmakos ritual, it is worth noting that this Greek rite was apparently influenced by Anatolian traditions
relating to the sent-away women: see below n. 17.
13. Birgit Christiansen, Die Ritualtradition der Ambazzi: eine philologische Bearbeitung und entstehungsgeschichtliche
Analyse der Ritualtexte CTH 391, CTH 429 und CTH 463, SBT 48 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006), 38–41, and cf.
65–66; idem (ed.), hethiter.net/: CTH 391.1 (INTR 2017-02-07).
14. Cf. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 58. The affinities between this rite and 1 Sam 5–6 have also been noted; there,
the golden mice are apparently “disease carriers,” taking the illnesses to the god of the enemy’s land.
15. For a survey of this rite in its history and social context, see Billie Jean Collins, “Hittite Religion and the West,” in Pax
Hethitica: Studies on The Hittites and their Neighbors in Honour of Itamar Singer, ed. Yoram Cohen, Amir Gilan and
Jared L. Miller, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 51, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 56–59.
16. This ritual attributes both substitutionary and sacrificial aspects to the animal, but its original core seems to have
consisted of the sending-away ceremony, with the addition of the other facets designed to better guarantee the halting
of the plague. For the disparities between the various facets, see Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, 52–59. Cf.
also Strauss, Reinigungsrituale aus Kizzuwatna, 122–126.
17. See: A. Chrzanowska (ed.), hethiter.net/: CTH 394 (INTR 2016-07-13).

45
18. While the presence of the woman and various victuals is unknown in other Levantine cultures, in contrast to the sent-
away animal, they appear to have influenced the Greek pharmakos ritual: see Miller, Studies in the Origins, 446–68.
19. See: B.-J. Collins (ed.), hethiter.net/: CTH 407 (INTR 2014-07-23).
20. A third version of this ritual, transmitted by Uḫḫamuwa, is the best preserved (it is unbroken) and gives a detailed
description of the way in which the head of the ram is encircled with a wreath of woolen threads before being released
(CTH 410); see: S. Görke (ed.), hethiter.net/: CTH 410 (Expl. A, 09.12.2013):
They bring one ram, and weave blue, red, yellow, black, and white wool together, make them into a wreath, and
decorate the one ram’s head. They then lead the ram to the road leading to the enemy’s land and say to it thus:
“Whichever of the gods of the enemy’s land, who has caused this plague—we have now brought you, O god, this ram
with decorated head, in order to make peace with you. Just as this noose is tight and fits this ram, so too you, the god
who caused this plague, make peace with the land of Hatti, turning again in friendship to the land of Hatti.” So they
lead the wreathed ram to the enemy’s land.
But this version is actually the most distant from the scapegoat ritual. While scholars defined this as a “scapegoat” rite
virtually from the moment of the text’s discovery at the beginning of the twentieth century, the animal here serves as a
peace offering to the god responsible for the plague rather than carrying off the evil. See Archibald H. Sayce, “The
Scapegoat among the Hittites,” Expository Times 31 (1920): 283–284.

21. See Albrecht Goetze and Edgar H. Sturtevant, The Hittite Ritual of Tunnawi, American Oriental Society 14 (New
Haven: Harvard University Press, 1938), 8–11, 12–15. Cf. Hannah Marcuson, “Word of the Old Woman”: Studies in
Female Ritual Practice in Hittite Anatolia,” University of Chicago, 2016, 340-345. While, like the previous rituals, this
too combines many other acts in between, symbolizing several meanings, the utterance that accompanied by the
removing of the wools from the patient expresses the old woman’s understanding of this act.
22. See Liane Jakob-Rost, Das Ritual der Malli aus Arzawa gegen Behexung (KUB XXIV 9), Texte der Hethiter 2
(Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1972), 26–27; A. Mouton (ed.), hethiter.net/: CTH 402 (INTR 2016-03-23).
23. For the baraita and its occurrence in m. Yoma 6:8 (ed. Princ.) and the Talmudim, see Jacob Nahum Epstein, ‫מבוא לנוסח‬
‫[ המשנה‬Introduction to the Mishnaic Text] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001; repr. of 1964), 2.960. Cf. Balberg, “Omen and
Anti-Omen.”
24. See Christiansen, Die Ritualtradition der Ambazzi, 36–39, ll. I 25–29; cf. II 25–30; III 30–33. Cf. idem (ed.),
hethiter.net/: CTH 391.1.
25. See Bawanypeck, Die Rituale der Auguren, 26–27, ll. 39–46. Cf. idem, (ed.), hethiter.net/: CTH 398 (TX 24.03.2016).
26. See further V. Haas, “Hittite Rituals against Threats and others Diseases,” in: I.J. Finkel and M.J. Geller (eds.), Disease
in Babylonia, Leiden 2007, 108.
27. Cf. Balberg, “Omen and Anti-Omen”.
28. For the defilement of the sanctuary, See Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, Anchor Bible 3 (New York: Doubleday,
1991), 1043–1044; idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray,” Revue Biblique 83 (1976): 390–
399; David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian
Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 17–21. Scholars concur that the distinction between the atonement of the
impurities of the Temple by blood and of the Israelites’ sins by the scapegoat is late, since the people’s transgressions
obviously form the cause of the Temple’s defilement. Cf. also Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A
Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 188–193, and the references cited
therein.
29. Cf. Menachem Kister, “Some Aspects of Qumranic Halakhah,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. J. Trebolle
Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2:571–88; Vered Noam, ‫ היבטים בתפיסת‬:‫מקומראן למהפכה התנאית‬
‫[ הטומאה‬From Qumran to the Rabbinic Revolution: Conceptions of Impurity] (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2010), 323–
324. Editor’s note: For additional discussion of some of these practices, see, Shayna Sheinfeld, “Sukkot in the New
Testament: From Lulav and Hoshana to Palm Sunday,” The Torah (2018); René Bloch, “What Sukkot Meant to Jews
and Gentiles in Greco-Roman Antiquity,” The Torah (2018); Zev Farber, “Water Libation: A Sukkot Rain-Making
Ritual,” The Torah (2015); idem, “The Ritual of Hoshanah Rabbah,” The Torah (2013).
30. This piece is based on Noga Ayali-Darshan, “The Origin and Meaning of the Crimson Thread in the Mishnaic
Scapegoat Ritual in Light of an Ancient Syro-Anatolian Custom,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 44 (2013): 1-23; a
more complete argument is found there.
31. As noted here, the qere of MT reads ‫“( שתי ידיו‬both his hands”), as does the Samaritan Pentateuch, but the ketiv in MT
reads ‫“( שתי ידו‬both his hand”), which makes no sense, while LXX reads τὰς χεῖρας αὐτου (“his hands”), without the
word “both.”
32. This is also true of some of the Hittite rites; see Moshe Weinfeld, “Traces of Hittite Cult in Shiloh, Bethel and in
Jerusalem,” in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament im 2.
und 1. Jahrtausend. Akten des Internationalen Symposion, Hamburg 17.–21. März 1990, ed. Bernd Janowski, Klaus
Koch and Gernot Wilhelm, OBO 129, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1993), 457; David P. Wright, “The
Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature,” JAOS 106 (1986): 433-46; Roy E.
Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2005), 53-39. Since other Hittite rites involved the laying of the owner’s hands on a substitutionary object, some

46
 scholars have suggested that this is the meaning to be attributed to Lev 16. While no evidence can be adduced for this
claim, the possibility that the laying on of both hands in Lev 16:21 constitutes a development of the substitutionary rites
practiced in the region cannot be completely ruled out. For a review of the various proposals, see JoAnn Scurlock, “The
Techniques of the Sacrifice of Animals,” in Ancient Israel and Ancient Mesopotamia: New Insights through
Comparison, Part 1,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 44 (2006): 13–49, esp. 20–26; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16,
150–53, 1041–1042.
33. A similar phenomenon appears in the rite transmitted by Ašḫella (discussed above), in which both the laying on of
hands and the tying of a thread play a role—apparently a blending of two diverse customs: see Wright, “The Gesture of
Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature,” 446.

The Scapegoat in Other Cultures

The Golden Bough - Sir George James Frazer

Again, on one day of the year the Bhotiyas of Juhar, in the Western Himalayas, take a dog,
intoxicate him with spirits and bhang or hemp, and having fed him with sweetmeats, lead him
round the village and let him loose. Then they chase and kill him with sticks and stones, and believe
that, when they have done so, no disease or misfortune will visit the village during the year. In
some parts of Breadalbane it was formerly the custom on New Year's Day to take a dog to the
door, give him a bit of bread, and drive him out, saying, "Get away, you dog! Whatever death of
men or loss of cattle would happen in this house to the end of the present year, may it all light on
your head!"

47
Amonst the Dinkas, a pastoral people of the White Nil, each family possesses a sacred cow. When
the country is threatened with war, famine, or any other public calamity, the chiefs of the village
require a particular family to surrender their sacred cow to serve as a scapegoat. The animal is
driven by the women to the brink of the river and across it to the other bank, there to wander in the
wilderness and fall a prey to ravening beasts. Then the women return in silence and without looking
behind them; were they to cast a backward glance, they imagine the ceremony would have no
effect.

In 1857, when the Aymara Indians of Bolivia and Peru were suffering from a plague, they loaded
a black llama with the clothes of the plague-stricken people, sprinkled brandy on the clothes, and
then turned the animal loose on the mountains, hoping that it would carry the pest away with it.

48