Professional Documents
Culture Documents
in 27,9 the letter <m> in h kytwbçwm “from their residences” (pl. instead of sg.)
m
(1) Cf. E. QIMRON, The Temple Scroll. A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstruc-
tions. Florentino García Martínez: Bibliography (Beer-Sheva – Jerusalem, 1996) 39-41.
(2) Cf. QIMRON, The Temple Scroll, 41 and Y. YADIN, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem
1983) II, 121-122.
252 David Volgger
II wb hmtbrqhw
?µymymt¿ h[bç hnç ynb µyçbk dja lya dja rp hwhyl (13) hlw[
~ µyrwpkh tafjm dbl tafjl dja µyz[ (14) ry[ç
ry[çlw µyçbklw lyal rpl hmfpçmk (15) hmksnw hmtjnmw
IV ? .. ¿ ?a¿mfy ? .. ¿ (26,3)
?twlrwg µyry[çh ynç¿ (4) ?l[ lwdg¿h ˆh?wkh ˆtnw¿
hwhyl dj¿a lrwg
?lazz[l dja lrwgw
VI ? .. ¿h l? .. ¿h µwyb m? .. ¿ (1)
? .. ¿hmhl jlsnw larçy ynb lwk l[ (2)
hmfp?çmk µyçbk¿h taw l?ya¿h taw rph ta hç[y rja (3)
hlw[h jbzm l[ (4)
larçy ynbl hlw?[¿h htxrnw
hmhytwrwdl (5) ~µl?w¿[ twqwj
hnçb tja µ[p
The Day of Atonement according to the Temple Scroll 253
(3) Cf. YADIN, The Temple Scroll, I, 132: “The laws of the Day of Atonement comprise
an introductory section with the injunction to observe the fast on the tenth of the seventh
month, the enumeration of sacrifices, the order of the ritual, and a closing section repeating
the injunction to observe the day as a Sabbath of Sabbaths and a fast day”.
(4) L.H. SCHIFFMAN, “The Case of Atonement Ritual”, Biblical Perspectives.Early Use
and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First
International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Associated Literature, 12-14 May, 1996 (eds. M.E. STONE – E.G. CHAZON) (STDJ 28;
Leiden 1998) 184, points to some later books of the Bible (Ezra 8,21; Dan 10,12, cf. Ps
107,17). These interpret the verb hn[ Hit. as abstention from eating and drinking.
254 David Volgger
for the one who contravenes this rule: he should be exterminated from his
people: “Anyone who does not humble himself on this very day shall be cut
off from its people” hym[m htrknw hzh µwyh µx[b hn[tt awl rça çpnh lwk. Both
sentences are connected by the conjunction yk “for”; so the prescription to
humble oneself on the tenth day of the seventh month is clearly underlined as
a fundamental norm for the entire people of Israel.
The final section returns to the topic of humbling oneself in 27,6-7 and
repeats the sentence from 25,11-12 in a new context.
25,11-12 27,6-7
çpnh lwk yk çyah lwk
hkalm wb hç[y rça
hzh µwyh µx[b hn[tt awl rça wb ˆn[ty awl rça wa
hym[m htrknw hmm[ ˆwtm wtrknw
and it shall be forgiven to them”. When we also consider the time particle rja
“afterwards” in 27,3, a certain sequence of cult acts emerge from the text (6).
First, the cult person offers the sin-offering, “then he offers the bullock, the
ram, and the lambs according to their prescription on the altar of the burnt-
offering” hlw[h jbzm l[ hmfp?çmk µyçbk¿h taw l?ya¿h taw rph ta hç[y rja (cf.
27,3-4). Then, the author emphasizes the effect of the entire burnt-offering:
“it causes pleasure for the sons of Israel” larçy ynbl hlw?[¿h htxrnw. Whereas
the sin-offering makes the Israelites experience reconciliation and
forgiveness, the burnt-offering in 27,1-5 imparts pleasure. The concept
“burnt-offering” hlw[ includes the sin-offering. This becomes especially clear
in this section. The agenda of the sin-offering is developed merely up to the
offering on the altar. It is parallel to the agenda of the ‘normal’ burnt-offering
(27,4).
The concluding clause in 27,5, in fact, underlines the prescriptions for the
Day of Atonement. They apply “once a year” hnçb tja µ[p (cf. 27,5).
In short, both sections II and VI refer to the same sacrifice. However, they
do so from different perspectives. Lines 25,12-15 analyse the common
festival sacrifice on the Day of Atonement (wb “on it”; cf. 25,12) in its
elements and list them according to a usual pattern of the TS. Lines 27,1-4, on
the other hand, arrange them according to the sequence of their offering. Both
cult agendas, however, conclude their analysis with the burning of the
relevant sacrificial portions on the altar.
(5) On this point cf. SCHIFFMAN, “The Case of Atonement Ritual”, 185.
(6) The exact sequence of these acts is not clear from the text; cf. also the sacrifical
agenda on the feast of the Wood Offering in 23,9–24,11; against YADIN, The Temple Scroll,
I, 146-148.
256 David Volgger
(7) The high priest appears once more in 26,3 when he places ballots upon the two he-
goats; cf. 2.5.1.
(8) On this point see the text on the “ordination” ceremony of the high priest in 16,5:
He shall not defile himself, for he is holy.
The Day of Atonement according to the Temple Scroll 257
high priest “outside the camp (or city) of the sanctuary, at a separate place
for the sin-offerings” twafjl ldbwm µwqmb ?çdwqh hnjm¿l ≈wjm (9). In this
context, lines 26,5-10 draw more attention. Twice they mention a bullock that
should serve as a model for the offering of the he-goat. First, the rite of
blood should be identical for both sacrifices as 26,6-7 underlines:
wl rça rph µdl h?ç[ rçak wm¿dl hç?[w¿ “and he treats its blood as he did the
blood of the bullock which was for himself”. Second, some portions of the
he-goat should be burnt beside his bullock as 26,9 orders: wrp lxa wpwrçy “they
burn it beside his bullock”. Furthermore, in addition to the he-goat for
YHWH, the agenda refers to a bullock that belongs to the category “sin-
offering”. Subsequently it must be distinguished from the burnt-offering in
25,13-14. The text of 26,5-10 does not indicate further details on how to offer
the bullock (10). However, its offering is structurally comparable to the burnt-
offering belonging to the sin-offering of atonement in section III and V (11).
Several cult persons may slaughter the first he-goat and burn special
portions of it. But only the high priest is authorized to perform the blood rite
and to offer the fat, the cereal offerings, and libations (26,5-8). Regarding the
blood rite, lines 26,5-6 offer more details. “And the priest will receive its
blood in the golden sprinkling bowl which he has in his hand”
?wd¿yb rça bhzh qrzmb wmd ta ?ˆhwkh lbqw¿. Subsequently, the lines 26,6-7 refer
to the treatment of the blood in a rather general way: “and he treats its
blood as he did the blood of the bullock which was for himself”
wl rça rph µdl h?ç[ rçak wm¿dl hç?[w¿. Line 26,7 also emphasizes that “he will
atone with it for all the people of the assembly” lhqh µ[ lwk l[ wb rpkw. The
phrase most probably indicates the blood that brings atonement (12). The same
phrase is repeated in 26,9. However, this time it is done in the context of “the
sin-offering of the assembly” lhqh tafj (26,9). So the effect of atonement is
ascribed to the entire sin-offering.
The high priest must perform not only the blood rite. He also
must perform “the burning of the he-goat’s fat and the cereal offering
of its libation on the altar of burnt-offering” (cf. 26,7-8): tjnm taw wblj taw
hlw[h jbzm l[ ryfqy wksn. The phrase wksn tjnm in 26,7-8 refers to the cereal
offering and libation that the Calendar has already fixed for every sacrificial
(9) Cf. J. MILGROM, “Further Studies in the Temple Scroll”, JQR 71 (1980) 89-90.
(10) YADIN, The Temple Scroll, I, 134 defines the chronological sequence of the ritual
as following: “... first, the bullock is offered and all procedures involving it are completed:
sprinkling the blood, offering the sacrificial portions and burning the flesh; the male goat
is then disposed of in the same manner; then the priest laves himself and approaches the
living goat, and only at the very end are the burnt-offerings sacrificed”. Yadin hardly pays
attention to the change of actors in the cult since the high priest acts exclusively in the inner
courtyard, never outside the camp or the city where the remaining portions of the sin-
offering must be burned. Moreover the text of the TR requires the priority of the bullock
only for two particular actions, namely for the blood rite and the burning of the sin-offering
outside the camp or the city.
(11) This is maybe the reason why J. MAIER, Die Tempelrolle vom Toten Meer,
München 1997, 125 has put a question mark after the phrase about the two rams in 25,16.
Nevertheless, they cannot be replaced by two bullocks in this context.
(12) SCHIFFMAN, “The Case of Atonement Ritual”, 186-187 considers the verb rpk in
this cultic context as a technical term for the sprinkling of the blood (cf. Lev 16,15-16). The
relevant text of the Temple Scroll, however, does not mention cultual details but provides
only the same procedure for the blood of the he-goat as for the bullock (cf. 26,6-7).
258 David Volgger
animal. The thinking in these two lines concentrates on the portions of the he-
goat that are burnt on the burnt-offering altar (cf. the verb rfq). However, the
following statement focuses on the portions that are burnt (cf. πrç) “beside
his bullock” (cf. wrp lxa) or, according to 16,10-14, outside the sanctuary.
The section about the first he-goat finishes in 26,9. It concludes with the
remark: “it is the sin-offering of the assembly” awh lhqh tafj. This is parallel
to the end of the section that concerns the sin-offering on the occasion of the
authorization of the high priest in 16,18: awh lhq tafj (13).
The he-goat for YHWH is not the only sin-offering on the tenth day of
the seventh month. The agenda additionally demands a bullock in 26,6-7.9.
Finally, another he-goat for Azazel in 26,10-13 (14). What is the relation
between these different sin-offerings? In order to answer this question, the
analysis must focus on the second he-goat in 26,10-13.
b) The second he-goat for Azazel
Following section IV.1 about the he-goat for YHWH, section IV.2
(26,10-13) concentrates on the he-goat for Azazel. It takes away all the sins
from Israel (26,13). Before the high priest approaches it, “he shall wash his
hands and his feet from the blood of the sin-offering” (cf. 26,10):
tafjh µdm wylgr taw wydy ta ≈jrw. Thereby he excludes any physical contact
between both he-goats.
Thus the priest imposes “all the failures of the sons of Israel with all their
guilt together with all their sins” hmtafj lwkl hmtmça lwk µ[ larçy ynb twnww[ lwk
(26,11-12) on the head of the second he-goat. The emphasis of this statement
is on the totality of the offenses. The repetition of the term lwk “totality”
makes this clear.
At the end the high priest shall “send the he-goat to Azazel in the desert”
(cf. 26,12-13): rbdmh lazz[l wjlçw. Another person in charge will concretely
execute this order (cf. 26,13): yt[ çya dyb.
The agenda of the he-goat for Azazel differs from all previous agendas in
the Sacrificial Calendar in columns 13-26 in one essential point. In contrast to
the other sacrificial animals, the he-goat for Azazel does not come in contact
with the altar of burnt-offering. This is true for its fat portions as well as for
its blood. According to the agenda the high priest must charge the he-goat
with all sins of the Israelites. Then the animal shall be sent off to the desert.
It is, therefore, impossible to define the concept “sin-offering” exclusively
and primarily by means of its rites in connection with the burnt-offering altar
or the place outside the sanctuary (city). The sin-offering must be understood
above all in relation to its function: namely, to delete sins somehow or other.
The different sin-offerings, however, share something in common. They
are both removed from the sanctuary in the process of the offering. While the
living he-goat for Azazel is driven out of the sanctuary into the desert, some
SUMMARY
The Temple Scroll (11Q19) dedicates about two and a half columns to the Day of
Atonement (25,10-27,10). The present study concentrates on the content of the
transmitted text (25,10-16; 26-3-13, and 27,01-02.1-10), analyses its structure,
and explains its development of thought. The focus of the text seems to be on the
concept of the sin-offering. First, the sin-offering of a he-goat makes part of the
common festival sacrifice. Second, the two rams belong as burnt-offering to the
special sin-offering of the Feast. And third, a he-goat for YHWH is offered as a
special sin-offering on the altar of burnt-offering, whereas, a second he-goat for
Azazel bears all the sins of Israel and is sent out into the desert. Since the he-goat
for Azazel does not get in touch with the altar of burnt-offering, it cannot be
classified as a burnt-offering. Moreover, it shares only one major feature with the
other sin-offerings, namely, to remove sins.