Daf Ditty Yoma 71: Linum usitatissimum

Flax tissues, Tacuinum sanitatis, 14th century

1
§ It was taught in the mishna: The people escort the High Priest to his house. And he would make
a feast for his loved ones. The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving one
High Priest who exited the Holy Temple and everyone followed him. When they saw
Shemaya and Avtalyon, the heads of the Sanhedrin, walking along, in deference to them they
left the High Priest by himself and walked after Shemaya and Avtalyon.

Eventually, Shemaya and Avtalyon came to take leave of the High Priest before returning to
their homes. Envious of the attention they received, he angrily said to them: Let the descendants

2
of the gentile nations come in peace. Shemaya and Avtalyon descended from converts, and he
scornfully drew attention to that fact. They said to him: Let the descendants of the gentile
nations come in peace, who perform the acts of Aaron, who loved and pursued peace; and let
not a descendant of Aaron come in peace, who does not perform the acts of Aaron and who
speaks condescendingly to descendants of converts.

3
MISHNA: Throughout the year the High Priest serves in eight garments, and the common
priest serves in four: In a tunic and trousers and a mitre and a belt. The High Priest adds
another four garments beyond those worn by the common priest: A breastplate, and an ephod,
and a robe, and a frontplate. When dressed in these eight garments, the High Priest may be
consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim. And he may be consulted for the decision
of the Urim VeTummim only on behalf of the king, or on behalf of the president of the court,
or on behalf of one whom the community needs. Individual inquiries are not posed to the Urim
VeTummim.

4
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to those items of the priestly vestments
about which it is stated they must be made with linen [shesh], their threads are spun six-fold, as
suggested by the use of the term shesh, which also means six. When the Torah states that certain
items are twined, it means their threads are spun eight-fold. Threads used to weave the robe were
spun from twelve strands. The threads of the curtain were spun from twenty-four strands. The
threads used to weave the breastplate and ephod were spun from twenty-eight strands.

The Gemara asks: That the threads made from shesh are spun six-fold, from where do we derive
this? The verse states:

,‫ ַמֲﬠֵשׂה ֹאֵרג‬,‫ַהָכְּת ֹנת ֵשׁשׁ‬-‫ כז ַוַיֲּﬠשׂוּ ֶאת‬27 And they made the tunics of fine linen of woven work
.‫ וְּלָבָניו‬,‫ ְלַאֲהֹרן‬for Aaron, and for his sons,

‫ַפֲּאֵרי‬-‫ ְוֶאת‬,‫כח ְוֵאת ַהִמְּצֶנֶפת ֵשׁשׁ‬ 28 and the mitre of fine linen, and the goodly head-tires
‫ ֵשׁשׁ‬,‫ִמְכ ְנֵסי ַהָבּד‬-‫ ְוֶאת‬,‫ַהִמְּגָבֹּעת ֵשׁשׁ‬ of fine linen, and the linen breeches of fine twined linen,
.‫ָמְשָׁזר‬
Ex 39:27-28

“And they made the tunics of linen [shesh] of woven work for Aaron and for his sons. And the
mitre of linen, and the adorning mitres of linen, and the linen [bad] trousers of twined linen”

Five mentions of the word linen are written; four times as “shesh” and an additional instance of
“bad,” both meaning linen. One mention is stated for that halakha itself, to teach that they should

5
be made of linen. And one mention is written to teach that the threads should be spun six-fold,
shesh being interpreted as six.

And one mention teaches that the six strands should be spun together into one. And one mention
teaches that this also applies to the other garments, even though the term shesh is not stated
with regard to them. And one mention teaches that this requirement is indispensable and that
garments not made this way are invalid.

6
The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term shesh means linen? Rabbi
Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: As the verse also states: “Bad,” and uses it interchangeably
with shesh. And bad refers to something which sprouts from the ground stalk by stalk [bad
bad], each one by itself. This is a fitting description of flax, the plant used to produce linen, as
opposed to other plants, such as cotton, whose fibers grow meshed together.

The Gemara asks: And say that it refers to wool, since when it grows from the animal, each hair
grows separately.

The Gemara answers: Wool splits, with each hair dividing into several hairs, so it does not fully
fit the description of sprouting stalk by stalk.

The Gemara asks: But flax also splits into individual hairs.

The Gemara answers: Flax, unlike wool, splits only when beaten.

7
Summary

8
 THE RESPONSE OF SHEMAYAH AND AVTALYON TO THE
KOHEN GADOL'S INSULT

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1

The Gemara relates that on one Motza'i Yom Kippur, as the people escorted the Kohen Gadol to his
home from the Beis ha'Mikdash they saw the two great sages, Shemayah and Avtalyon. In deference
to the Torah sages, they left the Kohen Gadol to accompany Shemayah and Avtalyon.

When Shemayah and Avtalyon came later to the Kohen Gadol to take leave of him, he said to them,
"Let the descendants of the [gentile] nations go to peace," a derogatory reference to their status as
converts. They responded, "Let the descendants of the [gentile] nations, who perform the act of Aharon,
go to peace, and let not the descendant of Aharon, who does not perform the act of Aharon, go to
peace."
In what way did Shemayah and Avtalyon feel that they "performed the act of Aharon" more than the
Kohen Gadol?

RASHI explains that Shemayah and Avtalyon meant that they acted in accordance with the attribute
of Aharon, who always pursued peace and brotherhood (Avos 1:12). They told the Kohen Gadol that
his insult to them was not in accordance with the attribute of Aharon who pursued peace.

KOZHNITZER MAGID (the "Avodas Yisrael," cited by RAV TZADOK HA'KOHEN in PRI
TZADIK, Erev Yom Kippur #3) suggests an original interpretation for this incident. The Kohen Gadol
had become arrogant after he performed the Avodah of Yom Kippur; he viewed himself to be of great
importance for having entered the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and achieved atonement for the Jewish people.
A consequence of this arrogance was his insult to Shemayah and Avtalyon. He derided their status as
converts and implied that it was because of his lofty familial descent that he was privileged to enter
the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and perform the Avodah, which they, as converts, could never do.

They responded that his pride was inappropriate. It was not a result of his Avodah in the Beis
ha'Mikdash that the Jewish people were granted atonement, for the Avodah of an insolent Kohen
certainly is not effective. (Indeed, it was unlikely that he lived past that year, as the Gemara says on
9a.) Rather, the atonement was granted as a result of their Avodah: through their prayers on Yom
Kippur and their recitation of the order of the day's Avodah with all of the proper intentions, they

1
https://dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-071.htm

9
effected atonement for the Jewish people. The Kohen Gadol's Avodah alone was not effective because
it was done without proper intent, sanctity, and purity. The Tzadikim performed the real Avodah of
Yom Kippur.
This is what Shemayah and Avtalyon meant when they said, "Let the descendants of the nations, who
perform the Avodah of Aharon, go to peace, and let not the descendant of Aharon, who does not
perform the Avodah of Aharon, go to peace." It was the descendants of the nations, Shemayah and
Avtalyon, who performed the Avodah that attained atonement for the Jewish people, and not the
descendant of Aharon who did not properly perform the Avodah.

Perhaps their statement also included a response to the Kohen Gadol's remark about the difference
between his lineage and theirs. The Gemara in Horayos (13a) teaches that the lineage of Talmidei
Chachamim who toil in Torah is greater than the lineage of "a Kohen Gadol who enters the Kodesh
ha'Kodashim."

THE "BIGDEI KEHUNAH" OF THE KOHEN GADOL

The Mishnah lists the four garments of the Bigdei Kehunah which an ordinary Kohen wears when he
performs the Avodah and the additional four garments which the Kohen Gadol wears. The priestly
garments are an integral part of the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Just as the various types of
Korbanos atone for different sins of the people, the various garments atone for different sins, as the
Gemara in Zevachim (88b) describes.
A closer look at the significance of each garment reveals allusions in the Torah to its role in the Avodah
in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The following two examples are culled from the work of Rav Mordechai Aran,
the author of NIFLA'OS MI'TORASECHA.

(a) The Gemara in Zevachim (88b) relates that the Choshen, which is referred to as the "Choshen
Mishpat," atones for "Ivus ha'Din" -- the corruption of justice by the judges. The word "Choshen"
appears as an acronym in the Roshei Teivos (the first letters of consecutive words) in the verse, "Hash-
m scrutinizes the righteous one, and He despises the wicked and the lover of theft" (Tehilim 11:5). The
last three words in that verse are "Chamas San'ah Nafsho," the Roshei Teivos of which spell "Choshen."
This is most appropriate, as that verse discusses Hash-m's abhorrence for the wickedness of theft, the
sin which is the basis for the corruption of justice for which the Choshen atones. (There are only two
other occurrences of the word "Choshen" as Roshei Teivos: in Yirmeyahu 23:32 and Nachum 2:1.)

(b) The Gemara teaches that the Me'il atones for Lashon ha'Ra, because the Pa'amonim and Rimonim
(the bells and pomegranate-shaped forms) on the hem of the Me'il make noise as the Kohen walks. The
sound that they make atones for man's misuse of his voice when he speaks Lashon ha'Ra.

The Midrash teaches that man's first sin, eating the fruit of the Etz ha'Da'as, originated with the sin of
Lashon ha'Ra. When the Nachash convinced Adam and Chavah to eat from the Etz ha'Da'as, it spoke
Lashon ha'Ra about Hash-m.2 Those were the first words of Lashon ha'Ra ever spoken, and they are
the basis for all subsequent words of Lashon ha'Ra. The Gemara in Erchin (15b) adds that the snake
symbolizes the person who speaks Lashon ha'Ra: just as the snake derives no benefit from its bite, the
person who speaks Lashon ha'Ra causes damage with his mouth but derives no personal benefit from
it.

2
Midrash Tanchuma, Bereishis 8:8, and Rashi to Shemos 4:3

10
The verse commands that Rimonim be placed on the hem of the Me'il: "Al Shulav Rimonei Techeles
v'Argaman" (Shemos 28:33). The Sofei Teivos (the last letters of consecutive words) of those words
spell, "Livyasan." (This is the only occurrence in all of Tanach of the word "Livyasan" as an acronym
in a verse, either as Roshei Teivos or Sofei Teivos.)

The Zohar relates that when the prophet says that in the future Hash-m will kill the "Livyasan Nachash
Akalason" (Yeshayah 27:1), the prophet refers to the original Nachash. The Nachash is identified as
the Yetzer ha'Ra, and also as "Lilis," the force of evil which is aroused whenever a person speaks
Lashon ha'Ra (Zohar, Pekudei 265a; Rav Moshe Cordavero in Sefer ha'Pardes, Sha'ar ha'Temuros
25:5). Accordingly, it is appropriate that the word "Livyasan" appears in the verse which discusses the
Pa'amonim and Rimonim on the hem of the Me'il, for they atone for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra. The
atonement they effect repeals the power of the Livyasan which is aroused when a person speaks Lashon
ha'Ra. (When a word appears as an acronym of Sofei Teivos, it represents the end, or repeal, of
something.)

Rav Aran adds that when the verse describes the people's fulfillment of the command to place the
Rimonim on the Me'il, it says, "Al Shulei ha'Me'il Rimonei Techeles" (Shemos 39:24). The Sofei
Teivos of those words spell "Lilis." This allusion also demonstrates that the Pa'amonim and Rimonim
repeal the power of "Lilis" which is aroused by the sin of Lashon ha'Ra. (There is only one other
occurrence in all of Tanach of the word "Lilis" as Sofei Teivos: Divrei ha'Yamim II 17:10.)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

The Mishnah on our daf teaches about the bigdei kehunah – the special clothing worn by
the kohanim and the kohen gadol. The kohen gadol wears eight special garments, of which four of
them were the standard attire of a regular kohen. The bigdei kehunah included:

Kohen:

• Kutonet (tunic)
• Mikhnasayim (pants)
• Mitznefet (turban)
• Avnet (girdle).

Kohen gadol:

• Choshen (breast plate)

• Ephod,
• Me’il (robe)
• Tzitz (head plate).

With regard to the mitznefet we find a disagreement among the commentaries. According to
the Rambam, both the regular kohen and the kohen gadol wore the same type of head covering,
which was made of a long strip of fabric 16 amot long. The difference between them was in the
3
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_6571/

11
way in which it was wrapped, with the kohen making it into a tall turban and the kohen
gadol would wrap it around his head and beard. The Ra’avad understands that only the kohen
gadol wore a mitznefet, while the regular kohanim wore tall, thin hats.

The Gemara derives from passages in Shemot 39 that the basic material used in the fabric for
the bigdei kehunah was linen, derived from flax – Linum usitatissimum. It is an erect annual plant
growing between 30 and 100 cm tall, with slender stems. The flowers are pure pale blue, 1.5-2.5
cm diameter, with five petals. The fruit is a round, dry capsule from which oils are derived. Flax
is one of the oldest cultivated crops on record; its growth is mentioned in ancient Egypt. Today it
is cultivated mainly in tropical areas. The main product of flax is the fibers from which linen is
made.

Flax fiber is extracted from the bast or skin of the stem of flax plant. Flax fiber is soft, lustrous and
flexible. It is stronger than cotton fiber but less elastic.

It is removed via a lengthy process whereby the plant is dried out and then soaked until almost
rotten. At that point they are once again dried out and the fibers combed out.

12
The Torah tells us (Shemos 28:2) that the special clothing of the Kohen was to be “for his honor
and glory.” 4

The uniform of the Kohen served to have him stand out with distinction among his fellow men.
Yet the subsequent verse (3) highlights the significance of the garments in different terms. There,
we find “They shall make the garments of sanctity for Aharon...to sanctify him to minister to Me.”
Here, the unique raiments of the Kohen are described in terms of the service of the Kohen in the
Mikdash.

We can say that, in fact, the garments encompassed both of these functions. There were some
garments which contained gold, while there were others which were of pure white linen. Whenever
the Kohen entered into the Kodesh Kodoshim on Yom Kippur, he would not wear the garments
which contained gold, for this would recall the memory of the sin of the Golden Calf. At the
auspicious moment on Yom Kippur when the Kohen was praying for the welfare of the Jewish
nation, it was hardly the time for such an accusatory thought to be present. This is the reason that
he wore only the white, linen garments as he entered the Kodesh Kodoshim.

We may ask, however, how Aharon himself could enter the inner sanctum at all. After all, gold or
not, Aharon himself was instrumental in fashioning the Golden Calf. Although he tried to delay
the matter, he was the leader of the nation during this great sin. We must conclude, therefore, that
Aharon did not sin at all during that episode.

The commentators concur that Aharon bore no guilt at all in terms of the debacle of the Golden
Calf. Accordingly, although Aharon possessed garments which contained gold, yet it was
specifically the garments which were disallowed from entering the Kodesh Kodoshim, while
Aharon himself was allowed to enter. This clearly demonstrated that it was the gold that was
objectionable, while Aharon's presence was not problematic.

This situation served not only as a service to Hashem, but also as an honor and for the glory of
Aharon as the verses state. It was in this manner that his integrity was sustained and promoted as
being totally holy and saintly, and his character was clear and free from sin in the episode of the
Golden Calf.

Mark Kerzner writes:5

4
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20071.pdf
5
https://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma71.html

13
The High Priest is ready to close the Yom Kippur service. He again washes his hands and feet
before removing his white linen vestments, undresses, descends, immerses, ascends and dries
himself. This is his fifth and final immersion of the day. They bring him the golden vestments, he
dresses and sanctifies his hands and feet. Then he enters the Sanctuary to burn the afternoon
incense and to lights the lamps of the Menorah.

He exits, sanctifies his hands and feet before removing his golden vestments, then undresses. They
bring him his personal clothing, and he puts them on. They would escort him to his house, and he
makes a feast for his friends, upon exiting the Sanctuary safely. If he deliberately performed any
part of the service improperly, he was liable with his life, and thus emerging unscathed was a cause
for celebration.

The regular vestments of a Kohen consisted of four items: a tunic, breeches, a turban and a belt.
The High Priest had eight, adding the breastplate, the "ephod" (apron), the golden plate worn on
the forehead. When they needed to know God's advice by consulting Urim VeTumim, these
vestments were required.

Rabbi Elliot Goldberg writes:6

After a full day of costume changes, ritual immersions, lotteries, sacrifices, blood sprinklings,
confessions, mysterious moments in the Holy of Holies, and much more, the high priest’s day
comes to an end. The mishnah on yesterday’s daf tells us that the high priest would mark the end
of Yom Kippur with a feast for his loved ones -- probably the earliest reference to the
traditional break fast.

On our daf, the Gemara relates an incident that occurred on the way to the feast that caused a bit
of a stir.

There was an incident involving one high priest who exited the Holy Temple and everyone
followed him. When they saw Shemaya and Avtalyon, the heads of the Sanhedrin, walking
along, in deference to them they left the high priest by himself and walked after Shemaya and
Avtalyon.

Eventually, Shemaya and Avtalyon came to take leave of the high priest. He said to them, “Let
the descendants of the gentile nations come in peace.”

Underlying Tractate Yoma is an assumption that it is the sages who are in charge and not the
priests. This story reinforces that notion and shows that, at the close of Yom Kippur, the people in
the streets honored rabbinic leadership over the priestly caste.

Out of anger (or perhaps frustration) at this, the high priest’s parting words refer to the fact that
Shemaya and Avtalyon were both converts. This comment is especially sharp coming from the

6
Myjewishlearning.com

14
high priest, who comes to his position based upon his lineage. Language like this, especially when
directed at converts, is expressly forbidden by both the Torah and the rabbis.

The story continues:

Shemaya and Avtalyon said to him, “Let the descendants of the gentile nations, who perform
acts of Aaron, come in peace; and let not the descendent of Aaron, who does not perform the
acts of Aaron, come in peace.”

Aaron is Moses’s brother and the original high priest. In rabbinic literature, he is also described as
a lover and pursuer of peace. In response to the insult, Shemaya and Avtalyon call out the high
priest for not living up to the standards set by his ancestor.

The story reinforces a common rabbinic theme -- it’s not where you come from, but what you have
learned and how you behave that is the true measure of a person. These qualities earn you a spot
in the halls of Torah, which ultimately, to the rabbis, is a far more honorable place to be than in
the priesthood.

More than what it has to say about the relative honor due to rabbis and priests, this story also
suggests something about human nature. You might think that the Day of Atonement would have
had some impact on the way rabbis and priests interact, at least for the time it takes them to walk
home. Lucky for them, they’ll all have an opportunity to atone for their actions -- on the following
Yom Kippur.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

Our daf (Yoma 71a) includes what I believe to be a stunning insight about what it means to live a
life that is guided by Torah laws and values.

As you may know, many of the verses in Mishlei (Proverbs) are understood to refer to our
relationship with Torah wisdom, and it is there where we are taught that: ‫ִכּי ֹאֶר• ָיִמים וְּשׁנוֹת ַח ִיּים‬
•‫“ – ְוָשׁלוֹם יוִֹסיפוּ ָל‬for length of days, years of life, and peace will be bestowed upon you” (Mishlei
3:2).

The Gemara, in our daf, raises an interesting question relating to the meaning of the phrase ‫וְּשׁנוֹת‬
‫“ – ַח ִיּים‬and years of life”, for “are there years of life, and years that are not of life?”. To this, Rabbi
Elazar then explains that “this refers to the years of someone’s life that have become transformed
from being bad to good.”

Reflecting on this teaching, the Ben Ish Chai (Ben Yehoyada on Yoma 71a) suggests that Rabbi
Elazar derived his interpretation from the fact that the word ‫( וְּשׁנוֹת‬literally ‘and years’) is
etymologically related to the word ‫( שינוי‬change). Thus, the verse can be re-read to mean: “for
length of days, life-changing transformations and inner peace is bestowed upon those who follow
the laws and values of the Torah.”

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

15
Personally, I am enamored by the transformational quality of Torah. Still, I think that in order for
us to understand and appreciate how Torah can be life-changing for us and how a life of Torah can
bring us to inner peace, we need to read the next two verses from the book of Mishlei which state:
“May lovingkindness (‫ )חסד‬and truth (‫ )אמת‬never leave you; tie them on your neck and inscribe
them upon the tablet of your heart, and find grace and favour in the eyes of God and humanity.”
(Mishlei 3:3-4).

What this means is that the Torah that is life-changing and which can transform bad into good, is
an expression of Torah where there is a fusion of lovingkindness and truth; where there is a balance
of the intellectual (tie them on your neck) and the emotional (inscribe them upon the tablet of your
heart), and one which emphasizes the relationships we must maintain both with God and with other
human beings.

Unfortunately, there are those who have encountered expressions of Torah which have been
oppressive rather than redemptive for them. For example, some experienced too much emphasis
on ‫ אמת‬but too little on ‫חסד‬, or too much on the intellectual, and too little on the emotional.

But just like the solution to a bad diet is not the cessation of eating but, instead, the recalibration
of one’s food-intake to a better and more balanced diet, what we learn from these beautiful verses
in Mishlei is that personal redemption and spiritual self-transformation can occur through Torah –
but only when the balance is right.

Of Hats and Belts

REUVEN CHAIM KLEIN WRITES:8

The Torah teaches us about the special garments to be worn by the kohanim(priests) while
performing the ritual duties in the Tabernacle/Holy Temple. The regular kohen wears four such
garments: pants, a belt, a hat, and a tunic. The kohen gadol (high priest) wears an additional four
articles of clothing: a breastplate, an apron, a robe, and a head-plate (see Mishna Yoma 7:5).
Nonetheless, some explain that the kohen gadol’s clothes slightly differ from the regular kohen’s
in that they do not wear the same type of hat, and according to some opinions they do not wear the

8
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/titzaveh-of-hats-and-belts/

16
same type of belt. In the following paragraphs we will discuss three words found in the Bible that
mean “hat”, and three words which mean “belt”.

The Torah calls the hat of a regular kohen a migbaat, while the hat of the kohen gadol is referred
to as a mitznefet. However, the common word in the Bible for “hat” is — like in Modern Hebrew
— a kova. So what is the difference between these three seemingly synonymous words for “hat”?
Rabbi Menachem Meiri (1249-1310) writes that the word migbaat is closely related to the
word kova (the former’s root is gimmel-bet-ayin and the latter’s root is kaf-bet-ayin) because the
regular kohen’s hat is indeed a simple hat. On the other hand, he explains that the kohen gadol’s
hat is known as a mitznefet because it is made from an especially long cloth which the kohen
gadol wraps (tzonef) around his head. The Vilna Gaon also explains that a migbaat is a pre-sewn
hat, while a mitznefet is wrapped by its wearer.

Others explain that both a migbaat and mitznefet are wrapped around the wearer’s head, but
the mitznefet also reaches his beard. Abarbanel explains that the word migbaat is related to the
Hebrew word givah (hill) because it had two mountain-like humps on top, and would be tied with
a string underneath the kohen’s chin. According to Maimonides, the kohen gadol’s “hat” simply
surrounds the perimeter of his head, but does not cover it, while the regular kohen’s hat actually
covers his head.

Rashi and Nachmanides maintain that migbaat and mitznefet were both the same type of hat and
are indeed synonyms. Interestingly, Josephus writes that the regular kohen wore a
“Masnaemphthes” (an Anglicization/Greekization of mitznefet), which he describes as a cap that
does not come to a point (i.e. is not conic), nor does it encircle the entire head. Rather, he explains,
this crown-like bonnet covered most of the kohen‘s head, but not all of it. According to this view,
we can argue that even though migbaat and mitznefet refer to the same type of hat, they recall
different elements of this hat. The word migbaat denotes the hat-like form of the item,
while mitznefet specifically focuses on the honor that wearing such a hat brings (see Tosefot

17
HaRosh to Yoma 71b who writes that mitznefet is related to the word tznif, which alludes to the
“honor” of wearing a royal diadem).

If we analyze all six appearances of the word kova in the Bible (I Samuel 17:5, Isaiah
59:17, Jeremiah 46:4, Ezekiel 27:10; 38:5, and II Chronicles 26:14), we will notice that it is always
part of a warrior’s dress, and possibly should not be translated as “hat”, but rather “hard hat” or
even “helmet”.

Now, we turn our attention to the three words for belt. The Torah refers to the belt used by
all kohanim as an avnet. But there are another two words that also mean
“belt”: chagor/chagorah and aizor. Malbim explains that the word avnet refers to a belt used for
ritual purposes; therefore, it is fittingly used in references to the belt of the kohanim.

The word chagor (in male-gendered form) or chagorah (in female-gendered form) is a general
term used to refer to anything which covers the circumference of one’s body, whether it encircles
his torso, heart, waist or feet. Aizoris specifically a belt which surrounds one’s waist. Such a belt
is generally fastened tightly, so the girdling of an aizor is also used metaphorically to refer to the
performance of a feat that requires notable strength. Because an aizor is a belt specifically
associated with physical strength, it is only found in the Bible as something worn by mighty men,
not by women or children. Interestingly, in post-Biblical writings, the word sinar refers to a special
belt that Ezra instituted should be worn by women and was something like a chastity belt.

Funny foreheads

After detailing how to fashion the Kohen Gadol’s tzitz, the Torah commands that the tzitz be
placed on Aharon’s meitzach* (Ex. 29:38). The word meitzach is commonly translated as
“forehead,” although we will see below that this is not universally agreed upon. Targum pseudo-
Jonathan (there) translates meitzach as padachta, a word that is also used in later Hebrew. In this
essay we will attempt to distinguish between the Hebrew word meitzach — forms of which appear
some thirteen times in the Bible — and the later padachat, which does not appear in the Bible but

18
is found in rabbinic literature. In doing so we will explore several etymological theories regarding
the origins of the word padachat and where it comes from.

Contrary to popular belief, most commentators understand that the Kohen Gadol’s tzitz ought to
be placed above the forehead in the same space where the tefillin is laid. These commentators will
encounter difficulty in rendering the word meitzach as “forehead” because they maintain that
the tzitz is not placed on the forehead, but higher up. How, then, do they explain the Torah’s
requirement to place the tzitz on Aharon’s meitzach?

Chiddushei HaRitva and Tosafos Yeshanim (to Yoma 71b) explain that although the Torah literally
says that the tzitz should be “on Aharon’s meitzach” (Ex. 28:38), this actually means “on top
of Aharon’s meitzach.” Thus, they understand that while meitzach means “forehead,” the Torah
never says that the tzitz should be placed on the forehead, but rather above the forehead.
Alternatively, these two sources explain that while in Rabbinic Hebrew the term meitzach refers
to the “forehead,” in Biblical Hebrew it actually means the “top of the head” (or at least includes
the top of the head along with the forehead). According to this explanation, the
word meitzach cannot accurately be translated as “forehead.” (See also Tosafos HaShaleim to Ex.
39:28 which states that meitzach does not mean padachat.)

Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim of Breslau (1740-1814) connects the

word meitzach to netzach/nitzachon (“victory”), explaining that the forehead is the most
noticeable and visible part of the body, such that it seems to “overpower” the rest of one’s person.
Rabbi Pappenheim connects both words back to the biliteral root TZADI-CHET (tzach), although
his way of explaining that connection may seem a bit farfetched. Rabbi David Chaim Chelouche
(1920-2016), the late Chief Rabbi of Netanya, offers a more direct connection
between meitzach and tzach. He explains that a person’s forehead is generally smooth and devoid
of hairs, so it can appropriately be described as tzach (“clean,” “pristine”).

As we mentioned in the beginning, another word for “forehead” in Hebrew is padachat. This word
appears in the Mishna (Niddah 3:5), which states that a child is, according to halacha, considered
“born” once his or her padachat has already exited the mother. Similarly, the Talmud
(Yevamos 120a) rules that a corpse can be positively identified (to allow his widow to marry
someone else) only if the padachat and face are intact. Of course, the Mishna and the Talmud do
not explain what padachat means, so how do we know that it is a “forehead”?

A tradition going back to the Geonic period explains that the words meitzach and padachat are
synonyms, but that the former is Biblical Hebrew and the latter is Rabbinic Hebrew. This idea is
found in Rabbeinu Hai Gaon’s commentary to the Mishna (Niddah 3:5) and in his student’s
commentary to the Talmud (Shabbos 80b). It is also cited by Rabbi Zecharia Aghmati (1120-1195)
in Sefer HaNer (to Shabbos 80b) in the name of Rav Hai Gaon. This idea is later repeated by
Rabbeinu Chananel (to Shabbos 80b) and Sefer HaAruch. According to
this, meitzach and padachat mean the same thing, just in different versions/dialects of the Hebrew
Language.

Indeed, Rashi (Shabbos 151b, Yevamos 120a, Kesubos 75a, Bechoros 46b) always

19
 defines padachat as meitzach, suggesting that he too understood them to be perfectly
synonymous. (My Belgian friend Rabbi Yosef de Jong suggests that meitzach refers specifically
to the front of one’s forehead, while padachat includes even the temples, although he concedes
that he has no source to support this suggestion. That said, the Academy of the Hebrew Language’s
official anatomical dictionary defines padachat as glabella — a Latin term which refers to the
smooth part of the forehead above and between the eyebrows, thus seemingly excluding the
temples.)

Now that we have essentially established that meitzach and padachat mean the same thing, we can
begin to explore the etymological basis of the word padachat. Its root seems to be PEH-CHET-
DALET, but such a root is not attested to anywhere else in Hebrew. Dr. Alexander Kohut (1842-
1894) writes in Aruch HaShaleim that the word padachat is of Persian origin. Indeed, according
to the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project (known to scholars as CAL), the few places in
which the word padachat appears in the Talmud and Rabbinic literature are the only instances of
this word in Aramaic texts. This suggests that it is not really an Aramaic word, supporting Kohut’s
theory that the word is originally Persian, because if it is not from Hebrew or Aramaic, then Persian
would be the next logical candidate.

Nonetheless, some learned rabbis argue for a Semitic or even Hebrew basis for the
word padachat. By way of metathesis, Rabbi Yaakov Yehuda (Zilberberg) de Kassif (1914-2003)
connects three different Hebrew roots which use the consonants PEH, DALET, and CHET in
various orders: dachaf (“push”), pachad (“fear”), and padachat.

He explains that haste and confusion oftentimes “push” their way to the forefront of a person’s
emotions, thus causing “fear” to become one’s dominant feeling. One’s internal sense of fear is,
in turn, “pushed” outwards and is oftentimes physically manifest on his or her “forehead.”

Rabbi Chelouche argues that since the letters MEM and PEH are interchangeable (because both
are pronounced by the lips), and the letters TZADI and DALET can be interchangeable (as
evidenced by their orthographic similarity in Arabic), padachat can actually be understood as a
cognate of metzach.

Similarly, Rabbi Yehoshua Steinberg of the Veromemanu Foundation suggests connecting the root
PEH-DALET-CHET with PEH-REISH-CHET because of the interchangeability of the letters
DALET and REISH. The latter means “flowering” or “blossoming” and thus refers to something
that protrudes or sticks out. This somewhat echoes Rashi’s (to Shabbos 151b) comment about
the padachat/metzach, that it is the smoothest and shiniest part of the face, such that it sticks out
the most.

The Arabic word fadiha (or fadichah) has entered Modern Hebrew slang and is commonly used to
refer to a “shameful occurrence,” a “scandal,” or an instance of “public shaming.” When asked
about an etymological connection between fadiha and padachat, Rabbi Shaul Goldman suggested
two possible ways of understanding the word fadiha. Firstly, he suggests that the word fadiha is
related to the Aramaic root BET-DALET-CHET, which means “happiness” or “joking” (and is the
etymological basis for the Hebrew word bedichah, “joke,” and the Hebrew/Yiddish

20
word badchan, “joker”). Because synonyms for joyous expressions are often used to also refer to
“ridicule,” the BET morphed into a PEH to become fadiha.

Alternatively, Rabbi Goldman supposes that padachat and fadiha are related in that both imply
“exposure” (noting that the verb fadah in Arabic means “to expose”): The forehead is the
most exposed part of the body, and a fadiha is an embarrassing incident which exposes one’s
foibles. Although totally anachronistic, we may perhaps add that Jean-Luc Picard’s memetic
facepalm is a very human reaction to an embarrassing situation, which further cements the
connection between padachat and fadiha.9

The Hebrew language has several words to refer to

“linen”: pishtah/pishtan/pishtim (“flax”), butz, sheish (Yoma 71b), and bahd (Zevachim 18b). In
fact, the Talmud explicitly defines the last two words as “linen” — which is known in the Talmud
as kitna (see also Targum to Ex. 9:31). The word kitna refers to “linen” in several other Semitic
languages (like Akkadian and Arabic), and is possibly even the basis of the Biblical Hebrew
word ketonet (“tunic”). As Professor Edward Yechezkel Kutscher (1909-1971) explains, the
Greeks borrowed the Aramaic word kitna as chiton (“linen shirt”), which, by way of metathesis,

9
Cognates of this word in the Bible are always in the possessive/construct form, so they are vowelized with a TZEIRI (or CHIRIK)
under the MEM to become meitzach. That said, there is a controversy over how the word should be vowelized when not in the
construct form. Some argue that the MEM should still have TZEIRI and the word remains meitzach, while others maintain that the
MEM should be vowelized with a SEGOL and becomes metzach. This dispute has practical ramifications in the Yom Kippur liturgy
in which we confess sin committed with a “brazen forehead,” as some prayer books read “azut metzach” and some read “azut
meitzach.”

21
became the Latin word “tunic”. In this essay we will explain the differences between these
ostensible synonyms for “linen,” and we will explore whether the English word “cotton” is also
derived from kitna.

Gersonides and Abarbanel (to Ex. 25:4) explain that pishtim/butz refers to linen as a material,
while sheish and bahd refer to specific types of linen threads. Sheish refers to a thread comprised
of six fibers (as the Hebrew word sheish also means “six”), and bahd refers to a linen thread made
up of one individual fiber (as the Hebrew word bahd refers to something “alone,”
like levad or hitbodedut). See also Maimonides’ Laws of Klei HaMikdash 8:14, where such a
distinction is made.

Some say that sheish is actually an Egyptian word which refers to the choicest type of linen
(see Daas Zekanim to Gen. 41:42), and that butz is the Aramaic/Hebrew translation of that
Egyptian word. Interestingly, byssus — a Latin word for a thin silk-like linen — is said to be
directly derived from butz.

Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim of Breslau (1740-1814) explains that these different words refer to
different stages in the production of linen items. Pishtah/pishtan refers to the flax plant while it is
still attached to the ground. Sheish refers to combed strings of linen which have not yet been spun
into threads. This word is related to shayish (“marble”/”limestone”) on account of its
smoothness. Bahd refers to an article of clothing made from linen. He explains that in ancient times
linen fabric did not have threads of any other type of fabrics mixed in because no other material
could retain its dyed color in the same way that linen could. For this reason, linen is
called bahd (“alone”).

Rabbi Yaakov Zev Lev (1946-2018) in Me’at Tzari (to Lev. 16:4) makes a similar distinction
about the Aramaic words for “linen”. He explains that kitna refers to linen/flax when it is still
unprocessed and attached to the ground, while butz refers to processed linen.

22
Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Schulsinger (1941-2010) writes in his work Mishmar HaLevithat he was
bothered by why the Talmud needed to prove the meaning of these linen-words that appear in the
Bible. Why can’t we assume that the meaning of Hebrew words in the Bible should already be
understood through tradition? Rabbi Schulsinger mentions that he posed this question to two great
rabbis and received two different, but similar, responses.

Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky (1899-1985), known as the Steipler Gaon, wrote to Rabbi
Schulsinger that the literal meaning of the word sheish is not “linen”, but is a certain type of color.
He supports this contention by comparing the word sheish to other words used to describe fabrics
in the passages concerning the Tabernacle.

The words techeilet (roughly “blue”), argaman (“purple” or “orange”), and shnei tolaat (“red”) do
not refer to a specific type of fabric, but instead refer to a specific color. This same idea, argues
Rabbi Kanievsky, is true of sheish, which refers to the color of a whitish fabric, but does not say
what sort of fabric it is. In the case of the three aforementioned fabrics tradition tells us that they
are made of wool, and the Talmud sought to prove that sheish is different in that it refers to linen.
Similarly, the word bahd simply means “alone,” and the Talmud sought to prove that this refers to
“linen”.

Along these lines, Rabbi Dov Landau (a Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshivat Slabodka in Bnei Barak) wrote
to Rabbi Schulsinger that sheish is a general term which can refer to any type of honorable
clothing. Because of this, the Talmud needed to prove that in certain instances, when the Torah
calls for the use of sheish, it refers specifically to “linen”.

So how do you say “cotton” in Hebrew? The truth is that since cotton simply did not exist in the
ancient Near East, it makes sense that there would be no word for it. That said, some linguists
argue that the word karpas (which appears in Esther 1:3) is a loanword from Persian where it
meant a cotton garment. The Greek carbasus and the Latin karpasos also refer to a cotton garment.
In Rabbinic Hebrew the common term for “cotton” is tzemer-gefen (literally, “wool-vine”), which
happens to be quite similar to the German word baumwolle (literally, “tree-wool”).

Despite all of this, in Modern Hebrew the word for “cotton” is kotna. Is the Modern Hebrew word
for “cotton” derived from the abovementioned Semitic word kitna (“linen”)?

Professor Kutscher resoundingly answers “No”. Instead, he points to the English word cotton,
Italian word cotone, Spanish word algodon, and the French word coton. He understands that all of
these words are derived from the Arabic word qoton.

Regarding the Arabic word itself, Kutscher accepts the etymology proposed by noted linguist Sir
Godfrey Rolles Driver (1892-1975), that it is derived from the Semitic root KUF-TET-NUN, which
means “small” (like the Hebrew katan). Kutscher explains that cotton was called “small” because
its fibers tend to be smaller and thinner than wool, whose hairs are much thicker
(see Shabbat 105a concerning thin threads which are called ketini).

23
Based on this, Kutscher argues that the Modern Hebrew word kotna is ultimately derived from the
Hebrew katan. He notes that the fact that kotna and ketonet/kitna are phonetically similar is merely
coincidental, because really the former should be spelled with a KUF and TET, while the latter is
spelled with a KAF and TAV.10

Rav Dr. Yonatan Feintuch writes:11

a. The Aggada of the Chashmonaim

The aggada recounting the war among the brothers of the Chashmonai family appears in several

places in the Babylonian Talmud (Sota 49b; Bava Kama 82b; and Menachot 67b), in almost

identical form:

1. Our Rabbis taught: When the kings of the House of the Chashmonaim fought one another,

10
See also Rashi to Berachot 28b, Shabbat 21a, Shabbat 110b and Niddah 17a, in which he spells the French word coton with
a KUF and TET, as well as Maimonides’ commentary to the Mishnah Kelaim 7:2, where he correctly translates tzemer-gefen into
Arabic as al-qoton). In short, cotton is not related to kitnah (“linen”), but tokatan (“small”). [According to linguists, the Aramaic
word pekolin, which refers to “cotton tufts,” is actually borrowed from the Greek word phakelos (“bundle” or “fascicle”).]
11
https://www.etzion.org.il/en#_ftn2

24
 2. Hyrcanus was inside [the city walls] and Aristobulus outside.

3. Each day, [those within the city] would let down to the other party a basket of denarii,

4. And they [in return] would hoist up animals for them for the daily sacrifices.

5. There was an old man there who was familiar with Greek wisdom (or “told them Greek

wisdom”).

6. He said to them, ‘So long as they continue performing the [sacrificial] service, they will

not be delivered into your hands.’

7. The next day, when [those in the city] let down a basket of denarii, they sent up a pig.

8. When the pig reached halfway up the wall, it stuck its hoofs into the wall,

9. And the Land of Israel quaked over a distance of four hundred parsa by four

hundred parsa.

10. On that occasion it was proclaimed: ‘Cursed is the man who would breed swine,

11. and cursed is the man who would teach his son Greek wisdom.’

12. Concerning this time, we have learned: the ‘omer was once brought from the gardens of

Tzerifin, and the two loaves [were once brought] from the Valley of Ein Soker.”

Many scholars have approached this aggada from a historical perspective, attempting to piece

together the historical event upon which the text is based. Indeed, a similar story, with some details

changed, is recounted by Josephus in his discussion of the period in question. A full discussion of

the historical question lies beyond the scope of this shiur, since our main focus is the story itself,

its literary features, and the message that Chazal sought to convey. The story has been analyzed

comprehensively by Prof. Yona Frankel[1], and the analysis below is largely based on his work.[2]

25
b. Literary analysis of the story

Parts of the story

The story comprises three parts: a description of the situation prior to the advice by the old man

(lines 1-4); the advice (5-6); and the situation afterward (7-9).[3] There is a parallel between the

first and third parts, in terms of both language and content: in each case, one party lowers a basket

of denarii and the other party hoists an animal. This parallel serves to emphasize the contrast

between the two acts, which also pertains to the contrast in the broader situation: in the first section,

there is a siege that seems set to continue indefinitely; in the third section, there is catastrophe that

impacts all parties. The middle section provides a causal link between the sections: it is here that

we find the turning point in the actions undertaken (the hoisting of a pig instead of a sheep), causing

a change in the general situation (an earthquake).

Unity in the first section

The first section describes a siege which is part of the struggle waged between the brothers. The

brothers, Hyrcanus and Aristobolus, are the last scions of the Chashmonai dynasty. After them

Herod, who represents the Roman rule in Eretz Yisrael, seizes power. The Chashmonai brothers

are fighting over the throne, and as part of this struggle one brother fortifies himself in Jerusalem

while the other lays siege to the city. Despite the war, they both agree that the daily sacrifice – and

presumably the Temple service in general – must continue. To this end they engage in rather

surprising cooperation: the party that is outside the city supplies the animals, while the party inside

the city transfers payment from the Temple and offers the sacrifices. This cooperation in the

Temple service is all the more paradoxical considering the fact that an important element in the

struggle between the brothers concerns the “position” of High Priest, which has been occupied for

26
several generations by rulers of the House of Chashmonai. In any event, their cooperation in this

regard expresses a form of unity, which runs counter to their struggle. According to Frankel, their

cooperation in the matter of the sacrifices, which expresses religious unity and indicates a proper

order of priorities in this area, prevents the struggle from being decided in favor of either side and

prevents both sides from suffering catastrophe.

The literary molding of the first section likewise expresses a certain unity despite the struggle: the

story begins with the kings who “fought one another” (zeh al zeh) (line 1), which is a strange

formulation, considering that a siege is not a reciprocal action; the party outside the city lays siege

to the party inside. The expression “each day” (or “day by day”, in some manuscripts) (line 3)

expresses the fixed, ongoing nature of the agreement between them. Likewise, the expressions

“would let down” and “would hoist up”, describing the cooperation in the matter of the daily

sacrifice, are symmetrical, expressing unity.[4] In particular, the expression “would hoist up for

them” emphasizes that the party within the city felt that they were offering the sacrifices on behalf

of both sides, and this is another point emphasizing unity.

Greek view vs. Jewish view in sections 2 and 3

The second section recounts the intervention of the old man. This elder, in his wisdom, recognizes

that the continued offering of the daily sacrifice is preventing the war from being decided one way

or the other. His act – “la’az lahem be-chokhmah yevanit,” [5] is interpreted by Rashi to mean that

the old man was inside the city, and he spoke with those who were outside the city in Greek –

apparently so that those around him would not understand that he was advising to their detriment.

Frankel adds that aside from the issue of the language, the old man’s way of thinking and the

advice that he gives are characterized as “Greek wisdom”, in the sense of the culture informing

them. This elder, according to Frankel, is characterized by a Greek pagan worldview, according to

27
which a person who offers a sacrifice to a god receives personal protection, and therefore the Jews

who are inside the city cannot be defeated. The moment the daily sacrifice ceases, the battle will

be won since God – who no longer receives His due – will cease to extend protection to His former

devotees. This is a contrast to the Jewish worldview of the narrator, which views the offering of

the sacrifice as a positive act of religious cooperation that brings Divine protection to both sides,

with no harm coming to either side so long as the battle is not decided. Frankel identifies

reciprocity between the sides in this section, too, but here in the negative sense: he understand the

“Greek” advice of the old man inside the city as being reciprocated with a “Greek” initiative from

the outside – the hoisting of a pig, a typical Greek sacrifice.

According to Frankel, the third section also contains an element of reciprocity, where the pig

lodges its hoofs in the clefts in the wall. Just as the two sides were formerly partners in the positive

joint decision to continue the daily sacrifice, and this agreement prevented bloodshed for all

concerned, so the negative, “Greek” initiative on each side brings suffering to both. This is

symbolized by the pig lodging its hoofs halfway up the wall. Indeed, while it seems that the old

man’s advice has been taken, the outcome he expected does not transpire, owing to his erroneous

perception. This is symbolized he party inside the city, which has ceased to offer up the sacrifice,

has not been defeated; rather, a catastrophe befalls everyone.

In summary, according to Frankel, the central theme of the story, interwoven through all its three

sections and underlined through its literary molding, is the chasm separating the Jewish world-

view held by the narrator and the “Greek” perspective on the religious question of “how a person’s

religious actions influence reality.”[6] Both the Jewish view and the Greek view agree that man’s

actions have some impact on reality. However, there is a very significant difference of opinion as

28
to the proper religious path to attaining divine favor and influencing what happens. According to

the Greek view, as represented in the story, the main aim is for a person to appease the god – in

effect, to bribe him, by means of a sacrifice – and thereby to receive his help. The Jewish view

maintains that God is just as interested in the person’s religious and moral commitment as in the

sacrifice itself.

The Collapse of the Chashmonai Dynasty

We might add another layer to Frankel’s interpretation, paying attention to the symbols that appear

in the story. The party outside of the city adopts the old man’s “Greek” advice and wisdom

concerning the sacrifice and stops delivering sheep for the daily sacrifice. However, the matter

does not stop there. This party goes a step further and takes another “Greek” action: it hoists a pig,

as if for sacrifice in the Temple.

While we may assume that the besieging party does not really think that the besieged Jews would

offer it up (although if one were to take the Greek view above to an extreme, one might conclude

that sacrificing a pig is better than no sacrifice at all), the use of this particular animal is highly

symbolic in this aggada describing the decline of the Chashmonai dynasty.

This debacle is the mirror image of the event which, according to tradition, brought the

Chashmonaim to power in the first place: the rebellion started out as a protest against the offering

of pigs by the Greeks and Hellenists (as recounted, for example, in Makkabim I 1-2). Therefore, it

is highly ironic that the resistance to the Greek religious influence in general, and to pigs in

particular, brought the Chashmonaim to power, and the re-adoption of those same Greek religious

views and customs eventually led to their downfall. When the Chashmonaim themselves abandon

29
the ways of their forebears – Matityahu and his sons – and revert to Greek religious ideas and

practices, the justification for their reign is lost.

This is a sad account that records the tragic end of the Chashmonai dynasty and Chazal’s spiritual

interpretation of their fate. It would appear that, more than offering an exact description of the

historical events, it was important to Chazal to offer their religious and spiritual interpretation.

Their criticism of the last of the Chashmonaim who served as kohanim and as rulers is clearly

evident in this aggada.

In this regard it is worth remembering Ramban’s comment about the Chashmonai kings:

“This was the punishment of the Chashmonaim who ruled during the Second Temple Period.

For they were righteous [servants] of the Most High, and had it not been for them, Torah and

the commandments would have been forgotten amongst Israel. Nevertheless, they were

punished very severely. All four sons of the elder Chashmonai, righteous men who ruled

consecutively, despite all their valor and all their success, fell by the sword to the enemy. And

ultimately the punishment reached the stage as described by our Sages (Bava Batra 3b), “One

who says, ‘I come from the House of the Chashmonaim,’ is a slave” – since they were all

destroyed, because of this sin… And all the children of the righteous Chashmonai, Matityahu,

were deposed only for this reason – that they ruled even though they were not from the seed of

Yehuda and from the House of David, and thus they ‘removed the scepter and the lawgiver’

completely [from Yehuda]. And their punishment was measure for measure, for the Holy One,

blessed be He, caused their slaves (Herod) to rule over them, and it was they who destroyed

them. And it may also be that they sinned in ruling because they were kohanim, and had been

commanded (Bamidbar 18:7), ‘…You shall keep your kehuna for everything that concerns the

altar, and within the veil, and you shall serve; I have given your kehuna to you as a service of

30
gift, and the stranger who comes near shall be put to death.’ They had no right to rule; they

were meant only to perform the Divine service.”

Ramban, Bereishit 49:10

Chazal were also critical of the kohanim – and especially those who served as Kohen Gadol – in

the period after the Chashmonaim. We encounter their criticism in a number of different places in

the Talmud, including the following:

“Rabba b. Bar Hana said: What is the meaning of the verse, ‘The fear of the Lord prolongs

days, but the years of the wicked shall be shortened’? ‘The fear of the Lord prolongs days’ refers

to the first Temple, which remained standing for four hundred and ten years and in which there

served only eighteen Kohanim Gedolim. ‘But the years of the wicked shall be shortened’ refers

to the second Temple, which stood for four hundred and twenty years and in which more than

three hundred Kohanim Gedolim served. Deduct from this total the forty years during which

Shimon ha-Tzaddik served, eighty years during which Yochanan Kohen Gadol served, ten years

during which Yishmael b. Fabi served (or, as some say, the eleven years of R. Elazar b.

Charsum). Count the remaining years and you will find that none of the other Kohanim

Gedolim completed his year [in office].”

Yoma 9a

This criticism relates, inter alia, to the fact that these other Kohanim Gedolim belonged to the

Sadducee sect, which had its origins at the end of the period of Yochanan Kohen Gadol, as we

know from the following well-known source (Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 11):

31
“It was said of Yochanan Kohen Gadol that he served as Kohen Gadol for eighty years, but in

the end he became a Sadducee.”

The previous source testifies to a great number of Kohanim Gedolim who “did not complete a year

in office”, and it is reasonable to assume that they were representatives of the Sadducee sect. In

this context there is another aggada that criticizes the conduct of one Kohen Gadol at the end of

the Second Temple period; we will examine it below.

b. Aggada of the Kohen Gadol and Shemaya and Avtalyon

In the seventh chapter of Massekhet Yoma (71b), we find an aggada about a Kohen Gadol who

encounters Shemaya and Avtalyon at the conclusion of Yom Kippur:

“Our Sages taught: It once happened that as the Kohen Gadol came forth from the Temple, all

the people followed him, but when they saw Shemaya and Avtalyon, they left him alone and

went after Shemaya and Avtalyon. Eventually Shemaya and Avtalyon came to him, to take their

leave of the Kohen Gadol. He said to them: ‘May the sons of the foreign nations [i.e., converts

who came from other nations] come in peace!’ They answered him: ‘May the descendants of

the foreign nations come in peace – for they do as Aharon did, but may the descendant of

Aharon not come in peace, for he does not do as Aharon did!’”

Despite the brevity of this aggada, it includes a few different subjects and messages. One subject

is the proper attitude towards proselytes, and the message that great sensitivity should be shown

towards them, including refraining from mentioning their background. Another related subject is

the supposed connection between a person’s lineage and his achievements. The message in this

regard is that greatness is not necessarily dependent on venerable lineage; rather, a person has to

32
mold himself and his behavior. The story also includes a message about the caution that the Kohen

Gadol, just like any representative of the community before God, must exercise in his performance

of the Yom Kippur service, to ensure that succeeding in his mission will not cause him to become

arrogant. Perhaps the story also conveys covert criticism of the public insensitivity towards

the Kohen Gadol, although the end of the story shows that even in this sort of situation, the Kohen

Gadol is expected to conduct himself in a more noble and forgiving manner.

All these elements are bound together within this aggada when it is read by itself, without any

context. However, a reading within its context in Massekhet Yoma places the focus on a different

subject. Let us review a discussion that appears slightly before this aggada:

“When the man who led [the he-goat] away [to Azazel, on Yom Kippur] would meet the Kohen

Gadol afterwards in the street, he would say to him: ‘Sir, Kohen Gadol, we have fulfilled your

request.’ If he met him in his house, he would say to him: ‘We have fulfilled the request of Him

Who grants life to all who live.’ Rabba said: When rabbis in Pumbedita would take leave of

each other, they would say: ‘May He Who grants life to all who live, grant you a long life […].’

R. Berekhia also said: ‘If a man wishes to offer a libation upon the altar, let him fill the throat

of Torah Sages with wine […]’.”

The story starts with the Kohen Gadol who has just finished performing the Yom Kippur service,

and the words addressed to him by the man appointed to lead the he-goat to Azazel. Immediately

thereafter, there is a sudden change of subject, recording the words with which Torah scholars part

from one another. They use the same expression that was used by the appointee over the he-goat

led to Azazael: “He Who grants life”. The sharp change of focus may be connected to Chazal’s

criticism of the Kohanim Gedolim at the end of the Second Temple Period, causing them to view

33
Torah Sages – especially after the Destruction – as a replacement (at least for as long as the Temple

would stand in ruins) for the kohanim who had not fulfilled their role properly. The view of the

Sages as an alternative is strongly emphasized in the words of R. Berakhia, near the end of the

discussion. R. Berakhia describes the wine that a person pours for the Sages as a replacement for

the wine libation on the altar, in a reality where the altar no longer exists.[7] Later on, there is

another statement by R. Berakhia concerning a person’s obligation to ensure that his progeny will

occupy themselves with Torah.

The next section in the Gemara is the story about the Kohen Gadol and Shemaya and Avtalyon. A

reading of the story in the context of the discussion preceding it focuses us on the words of

Shemaya and Avtalyon: “May the descendants of the heathen come in peace – for they act as

Aharon did but may the descendant of Aharon not come in peace, for he does not act as Aharon

did.” This Kohen Gadol is an example of Kohanim Gedolim who do not act as Aharon did. Parallel

to him are the Sages, who act as Aharon did – and therefore, as the text insinuates, might serve as

a sort of alternative to the kohanim following the Destruction.

[1] Y. Frankel, Darkhei ha-Aggadah ve-ha-Midrash, Givatayim, 1991, pp. 236-239; Midrah va-Aggadah, Tel Aviv, 1996, pp.

354-357.

[2] Frankel also addresses the parallel account by Josephus, and the historical approach; see Frankel, Midrash va-Aggadah, pp.

346-353; 357-361.

[3] Lines 10-12 are not part of the actual plot (cf. Frankel, Midrash va-Aggadah, p. 354).

[4] Cf. Frankel, ibid. p. 356. However, one might question this, since these terms are used in the third section, too, where the

unity is broken.

[5] In Sotah 49b

[6] Frankel, Darkhei ha-Aggada, p. 239

34
[7] Similarly, see Tosefta Bava Kama 7,6: “And this may be deduced as follows: If stones, which do not see and do not hear and

do not speak, and concerning the atonement that they effect between Israel and their Father in heaven, the Torah says, ‘You shall

not lift iron [weapons] over them’, then Torah scholars, who are an atonement for the world, should certainly not be harmed by

any form of danger.” In this Tosefta, Torah scholars (bnei Torah) are presented as an alternative to the stones of the altar. Perhaps

in this context, the use of the same term – “bnei Torah” – is a play on words involving the entities that are being compared to one

another: “avanim” – “banim.”

35