8

BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC

The Mishnah Yoma as a Case Study

SOPHIA AVANTS

Philosophy, as Plato develops the term throughout numerous dialogues, is a way of living and thinking: a person’s actions should be the result of thinking correctly. This sort of thinking, Socrates proposes in Phaedrus, is the result of knowing the truth.¹ As Charles Young interprets Plato in the Crito, persuasion is the presentation of proofs that a person’s reasons are right.² In contrast, Aristotle, in The Art of Rhetoric, develops a theory of argument “where certainty and conclusive truth are not to be had.”³ As opposed to working toward an ideal through a presented dialogue, Aristotle differentiates types of audience engagement, whether they are meant to judge past events, deliberate on courses of action, or merely listen and be persuaded (epideictic). He calls the logical proof of a proposition ἐνθύμημα, enthymeme, which is defined as a συλλογισμός. Classical philosopher Myles Burnyeat cautions that this term should not be translated as syllogism, as that word undergoes a transformation from ancient Greek to Stoic philosophy. Burnyeat offers “considerations for the audience to think about,” leaning on the etymology of enthymeme, ἐν θυμός, in thought, to access Aristotle’s meaning.⁴ Consideration allows for arguments that may not be logically sufficient, but they allow the hearer to give or withhold assent.⁵ But Burnyeat finds that Cicero (106–43 BCE) and Quintilian (̴ca. 35–100 CE) shift the meaning of enthymeme to be incomplete syllogism—likening the openness of consideration to a formal three-part logic exercise that is missing its middle part, its proof. This means that if one were to state a certain position that was contrary to the fact presented, the conclusion is foregone. Burnyeat notes the ironic twist that Stoic rhetoricians created arguments not to engage thinking but rather to demonstrate a conclusion.⁶

Alongside Quintilian were small groups of Jewish teachers who discussed a variety of topics in Roman Palestine. These teachers, or rabbis, set themselves apart from other groups and outsiders, the am ha’arets, in how they practiced purity and established and maintained sacred space. Collations of many of their traditions were recorded by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi at the end of the second century and the beginning of the third as the Mishnah. This six-tractate collection contains narratives, debates, and rulings on various matters. The expression of differing viewpoints, unlike Platonic works such as the Crito, are not lengthy expositions but rather are short, reported statements of rabbis’ varying opinions. These rabbis are depicted as not interacting with each other and were often historically distant from each other. Further, a conclusion or resolution of the difference is not explicit, although traditions in which rabbis’ opinions were accepted as authoritative developed within the movement. The inclusion of these contrasting opinions, and even the lack of a resolution, resonates with Aristotle’s proposals for rhetorical purpose, especially considering past cases. Richard Hidary and others have placed rabbis within their broader cultural setting, especially as witnesses of and participants in civic and social institutions. Even if members of rabbinic associations were never formally trained in the Greek or Roman classroom, they absorbed the techniques of the Second Sophistic.⁷

Many questions arise after noting the location of rabbis within this context. First, can we understand the disputes recorded in rabbinic texts within the context of Israelite and Second Temple Jewish writings? Second, are there echoes within that tradition of philosophical and rhetorical elements that clarify the Mishnaic process of thinking? In the following paragraphs, I look at one small disagreement between R. Eliezer and R. Akiva in the section on the Day of Atonement, Mishnah Yoma. This dispute is interesting in that it stems from conflicting reports in the biblical corpus and with a tradition of differences in Second Temple sources. However, more than just the record of the conflicting opinions of two rabbis in Yoma, one opinion would shift the entire order of the day’s sacrifice so that the editor’s choice of the placement of the dispute created a third party of engagement. For this reason, this particular mishnah stands in its own unique place between a philosophy that reaches for the ideals of God’s word and the location of the holy and a rhetoric that recognizes a certain autonomy of positions, including an editor who acts as a participant within the debate. If we focus on and—that space between truth and persuasion—this Mishnah situates itself as a presenter of views, available for engagement.

The Mishnaic dispute that concerns us here does not “teach logic,” as some have observed of Talmudic discussions.⁸ The Babylonian Talmud presents extended points and counterpoints not included in the surface of Mishnah Yoma. It is only through the deep structure of intertextual references that a historiography emerges in this mishnah. This places Yoma (and perhaps Mishnah more broadly) in a unique position, namely, the Talmudic texts of this volume. As a stand-alone text and not the point of demarcation for later Talmudic discussions, the editor can be viewed as an engaged player, not just a shaper of traditions. This moves beyond dialectic and Sophistic interpretations of Aristotle because the contrasting position has its own traditions and proofs.

The dispute in question is between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer over the burnt or עולָה offering. In general, Yoma follows Leviticus 16’s depiction of the High Priest’s actions on Yom Kippur. However, while seeming to agree with the biblical account, the compiler of this mishnah adds a number of challenges to it.⁹ The dispute between the two rabbis presents a dialectical moment where the account of Yom Kippur in Leviticus seems to conflict with the account in Numbers, but it is resolved because the placement of their exchange favors one of the disputants. However, as Mikhail Bakhtin points out in a landmark essay on Dostoevsky, the inclusion of this dispute reveals a character who stands up against the editor so that the presumed audience also finds that they have standing.¹⁰ Authority is shifted to an interpretive, dialogical process, placing the text in contradistinction to Stoicism.¹¹

Mishnah Yoma draws on other biblical texts to fill in Leviticus’s procedural gaps, and the dispute between R. Akiva and R. Eliezer highlights the difficulty (קושיא) provided by the sacrificial description of the עולה in Numbers 29. Leviticus distinguishes between the purification, or חטאת offering, and the עולה, Numbers includes the חטאת הכפורים within a set of rituals comprising the עולה. This not only implies a conflicting number of animals but also indicates a different time of day. However, the positions of R. Akiva and R. Eliezer both have a deep structure of proof-texts that act as premises for their propositions. These unspoken texts, well known and implied in the position, are the considerations, or enthymemes, in the Aristotelian sense. The editor is well aware of these points and proofs, as he provides his stance via his structuring of the Mishnah. The following will present this dispute, its place in Yoma—important as a time marker for the עולה, and then the background texts of Leviticus and Numbers. A second component, as it adds a discourse layer that takes place before the early (Tannaitic) rabbis, is the Temple Scroll. This Second Temple text aligns with the Numbers account but also includes elements of Leviticus. It is interesting to note the different theological perspectives of its author(s), especially in light of Yoma’s stance. A further comparison is made on the level of discourse by way of the Tosefta on this topic, which amplifies Tannaitic voices. It was probably composed a bit later than the Mishnah: it complicates the stated opinions in Yoma but proves, by doing so, that this is not a closed dialectic but a community process, open to further considerations.

THE עולה OFFERING

The dispute between R. Akiva and R. Eliezer occurs at Mishnah Yoma 7.3:¹²

ג ואם בבגדי בוץ קרא קידש ידיו ורגליו ופשט ירד וטבל עלה ונסתפג הביאו לו בגדי זהב ולבש קידש ידיו ורגליו יצא ועשה את אילו את איל העם שבעת כבשים תמימים דברי ר אליעזר ר עקיבא אמ’ עם התמיד של שחר היו קריבים אבל פר העולה ושעיר הנעשה בחוץ היו קריבים עם התמיד של בין הערבים.

3. And if he reads in linen clothing, he sanctifies his hands and his feet and undresses, goes down and immerses, goes up and dries himself. They brought him gold clothing and he washes, sanctifying his hands and feet. He went out and sacrificed his ram and the people’s ram, the seven unblemished male sheep: the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva said: they used to be sacrificed with the daily morning offering but the burnt offering ox and the male goat, done outside, was sacrificed with the daily afternoon offering.

This debate can be found within a broad outline of the High Priest’s activities:

Table 8.1 High Priest’s Activities for the עולה Offering

The Mishnah’s narrative of Yom Kippur can be compared with Leviticus 16:

Table 8.2 The Mishnah’s Narrative of Yom Kippur

R. Eliezer’s claim situates the עולה after the combined bull and goat blood is applied to the altar in the same order as Leviticus. As a logical statement, it follows Leviticus 16, which has the truth value of reported divine speech. R. Akiva, however, also presents a statement that has truth value, but it is from a different biblical text. This text, found in Numbers 29, draws on other biblical texts as well. Numbers, as a Second Temple composition, may also have a relationship with remembered practices, a point discussed shortly. Following syllogistic structures, passages from Exodus are understood as the proofs that make the Numbers 29 account true. Thus R. Akiva can hold that the seven male sheep are sacrificed with the daily or תמיד offering (a sacrifice not mentioned in Leviticus 16’s account) because these animals are mentioned in Numbers 29:8–11, which also stipulates what should be done on the tenth day of the seventh month:

⁸ והקרבתם עולה ליהוה ריח ניחוח פר בן בוקר אחד איל אחד כבשים בני שנה שבעה תמימים יהיו לכם ⁹ ומנחתם סלת בלולה בשמן שלשה עשרונים לפר שני עשרונים לאיל האחד 10 עשרון עשרון לכבש האחד לשבעת הכבשים ¹¹ שעיר עזים אחד חטאת מלבד חטאת הכפרים ועולת התמיד ומנחתה ונסכיהם

8. And your burnt offerings for YHWH will be a pleasing odor: one bull of the herd, one ram, seven yearling unblemished sheep for you. 9. And their meal offering [is] choice flour with oil: three tenths for the bull, two tenths for the one ram. 10. One tenth for each of the seven lambs. 11. One goat is a חטאת offering in addition to the חטאת הכפרים and the daily עולה, with its meal and libation offerings.

While Leviticus stipulates only two rams for the עולה, Numbers 29 increases the animals and provides grain and oil supplements. A חטאת (Exod. 29:36) and חטאת הכפרים offering (Exod. 30:10), plus the עולת תמיד (Exod. 29:38–42 and Num. 28:3–8) expands the definition of an עולה for this day even more. While Exodus 30:10 does not specify the animals for the חטאת הכפורים, Baruch Levine sees a clear reference in Exodus to Leviticus 16, which calls for a double sin offering of a bull and goat. He thus defines the atoning purification as a complex set of rituals at the incense altar, the Holy of Holies, and the Courtyard.¹³

Ritual theorists break down descriptions such as the preceding ones to grasp a certain internal logic that would make a member of a group recognize proper procedures or be able to innovate proper new ones. Naphtali Meshel posits that sacrifices, as rule-based systems, are “generative, rigorous, amenable to concise formulation, partially unconsciously internalized, and have some relation to meaning.”¹⁴ He locates generativity in “the interface of the ‘agent,’ ‘object,’ and ‘target’ components.”¹⁵ While not identical to languages, rituals can be mapped for their syntactical structures. Meshel suggests that texts that report the same sacrifice differently reveal meaning points for the respective authors.

Numbers 28 can thus be contrasted with Leviticus 16. Numbers 29:8 identifies a task for the עולה—it produces “a pleasing odor”—while the following lines (9–11) indicate that this is a complex that includes an עולה of a bull, ram, and seven sheep; the חטאת הכפרים of a goat and bull; and the עולת התמיד, which is the sacrifice of a lamb that takes place in the morning and the evening. The author does not indicate whether the עולה (of the bull, ram, and sheep) and the חטאת הכפורים are done with the morning or evening lamb. By incorporating the חטאת into the עולה, how can a sacrifice that is made to obtain blood to apply to the altar (the חטאת) be included in a “whole burnt” complex? Meshel resolves this by suggesting that the חטאת blood was applied but that the remaining animal carcass was burned in the manner of an עולה.¹⁶

The differences between Leviticus and Numbers are at the heart of the dispute between R. Eliezer and R. Akiva. Leviticus 16, with far fewer animals mentioned, places the עולה of two rams after the bull and goat blood application, the חטאת הכפורים. It does not mention a daily offering, either in the morning or in the evening, so it, too, is ambiguous in this regard. Leviticus 16 seems to regard the חטאת as distinct from the עולה.

Israel Knohl has proposed that the Yom Kippur segment of Numbers 29 consists of several strata. Verse 11 notes that the חטאת הכפרים and the goat are in addition (מלבד) to the עולה מלבד חטאת הכפרים ועולת התמיד ומנחתה ונסכיהם. Knohl says this indicates an editorial hand from the Holiness School, dating to either the exile or later.¹⁷ Jan A. Wagenaar offers a different perspective on how the Numbers calendars were composed, noting that Exodus 29:38–42 and Numbers 28:3–8 both stipulate two burnt offerings per day, whereas Ezekiel 46:13–15 and 2 Kings 16:5 only prescribe one עולה.¹⁸ Using Wagenaar’s thesis that the increase marks the difference between preexilic and exilic or postexilic, it is noteworthy that Leviticus 16 only mentions one burnt offering, the two rams, without supplements. Wagenaar also characterizes the Leviticus 23 calendar as a ‘principle’ on which other lists are based.¹⁹ Baruch Levine goes further in proposing that “Ex 29:38–42 lines were introduced to provide a basis for Num 28:3–8.”²⁰ He reads both these sections as designed to enhance late-afternoon or evening rituals and as evidence that the עולה was developing in prominence.²¹ He and Wagenaar agree that Numbers 28 and 29 were written later than Leviticus 23, positioning them in the postexilic period.²² Levine’s theory that the sacrifices occur later in the day, however, would mean that the חטאת would not be done until after the blood was needed for the altar applications. The Temple Scroll, analyzed as follows, seems to “solve” the problem by positioning the עולה in the morning.

Milgrom dates Leviticus 23 as exilic, while also claiming that its composition was to preserve the (preexilic) cultic calendars.²³ His opinion on the calendric portion of Numbers seems to be a minority position. He supports his position by observing that the specifics of the offerings are not mentioned, indicating that the audience already knew the details because they are spelled out in Numbers 28. But as Christophe Nihan argues, while Leviticus 23’s delineation of three pilgrimage festivals is similar to other Torah calendars, Leviticus 23 differs in that it conflates those traditions with the one reported in Ezekiel 45:18–25. The latter divides the year into two, celebrating festivals in the first and seventh months.²⁴

The text-critical scholarship supports a change from preexilic sequencing of the עולה (after many other rituals, so probably occurring in the afternoon) to a postexilic sequence where additional offerings are stipulated. Levine counters that the Numbers rite would occur late in the day, marking a shift from Ezekiel 46:13–15 and 2 Kings 16:5, where the עולה is a morning offering. If Numbers 29 were written during the Second Temple, it was done so with knowledge of actual Temple practices. Ezekiel, however, was a text based on memory, perhaps idealized. It is hard to say how much of Leviticus 16 expresses observed or idealized representations. The significant point to consider, however, is that the practical text exhibits modifications of the “language” of what constitutes a “pleasing odor.”

The rabbis’ knowledge of these texts was not so stratified. But their knowledge of Tanakh and oral memories of Temple operations was consistent with the Greek ἐν θυμός, which can be further translated as “spirit,” “feeling,” or “passion.” Aristotle’s full definition of enthymeme in Prior Analytics also clarifies how a reference to the עולה can point to the deeper structure: Ἐνθύμημα μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ συλλογισμὸς ἐξ εἰκότων ἢ σημείων (an enthymeme is a “syllogism” from probabilities and signs. APr. 70a11). In the Temple Scroll, the sign, עולה, can have multiple significations.

THE עולה IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL

Three versions of this scroll were found in Qumran Cave 11. The best, 11Q19 (11QT^a), can be dated to the first century CE and has sixty-seven columns. The earliest edition of the scroll, or possibly a source of the scroll, 4QRT, can be dated to 150 BCE. The current consensus is that it originated outside of Qumran, however, the community that created it is still a topic of debate.²⁵

The Temple Scroll presents itself as divine direct speech and provides a detailed account of the Temple’s construction, furnishings, and sacrifices. This authoritative account would seem to be the work of priestly circles, but it describes theologies that counter the priestly narrative. As we will see, certain of these views correspond to those found in rabbinic debates.

Many commentators have noticed that Deuteronomic views underlie the composition of the Temple Scroll.²⁶ Michael Wise, in his form and redaction critical study of the scroll, lists 179 citations from Deuteronomy 12–23, with several from Deuteronomy 15, 16, and 28. Almost all of the citations occur in columns 55 and 59–66.²⁷ While the cited chapters from Deuteronomy are mostly halakhic, some material, such as Deuteronomy 19–20, prescribes how the new nation should be formed and the extended functions of the Levitical priesthood, such as Deuteronomy 18. Wise and others have labeled these the “Deuteronomic paraphrase.”

Distinct from the Deuteronomic material, Wise identifies the calendar section, which includes Yom Kippur columns 25:10 to 27:10 as a redactional layer. He posits a proto–Temple Scroll that was modeled on Leviticus 23, which he calls “Deuteronomized,” but this was replaced with details found in Numbers 28–29.²⁸ Indeed, the redactor’s systemization of scattered biblical laws is a hallmark of the whole scroll and has been noted by many.²⁹ The Yom Kippur columns thus comprise Leviticus 16, 23:26–32 and Numbers 29:7–11, but while these are from the Priestly source, Aharon Shemesh notes that the scroll redactor rejects the Priestly theology of holiness.³⁰

Shemesh points to the concluding lines of the Festival section (29:2–10), which characterizes “the house” where the sacrifices just delineated will be performed as the place where “I will cause my name to dwell.”³¹ The “name” or שם dwelling in the house is a mark of Deuteronomic literature, distinct from כבוד, commonly translated as “Presence,” but more properly “body,” dwelling within the tabernacle or משכן.³² The Priestly source develops a concern for how this Presence is maintained in the face of airborne transgressions that accumulate within the Temple. The Deuteronomists, in contrast, locate God’s body in the heavens. If the Temple Scroll uses sacrificial accounts developed from a theology of tension between transgression and Presence but also proposes that “only” the Name dwells in the Ark, then there are questions about how this document represents a particular Second Temple discourse.

In some ways, competing ideologies open a text to interpretation, but because this text positions itself as direct divine speech, it also closes discussion. It opens thought by heightening readers’ engagement. The redactor seemingly inserts Priestly material to rethink the order of sacrifices and their components. Once his audience is engaged with reported divine speech, he uses it as a proof for the theology of the Name. This type of proof resembles the syllogism of the Stoic philosophers. There, as Burnyeat reads arguments from incompatibility, by positing a contrary situation—A. The Name is in the House, God is in the House (the Priestly sources), B. The Name is in the House, therefore C. God is not in the House—the truth of the conclusion is known from the beginning.³³ The premises, the sacrifices are not an argument for Presence but rather show that they were directed to the Name all along.

Within the presentation of the Priestly material, however, the Temple Scroll privileges the עולה. As mentioned previously, three parts of the Temple Scroll were discovered at Qumran, one of which was extensive (11Q19). This scroll is missing sections, and scholars working with it have used the other scrolls and made assumptions that partially cited lines from Leviticus and Numbers can be used to reconstruct gaps in the scrolls. Column 25, line 10 begins the section on Yom Kippur. It follows a description of the festival for the first day of the seventh month where the עולת תמיד is listed (25.7). Lawrence Schiffman concludes that the עולה for Yom Kippur follows the same pattern, after the תמיד.³⁴ There are no gaps from the beginning of the Yom Kippur section to the end of the column. It provides us with its account of the עולה.³⁵

ובעשרה בחודש הזה יום כפורים הוא ותענו בו את נפשותיכמה כי כול הנפש אשר לוא תתענה בעצם היום הזה ונכרתה מעמיה והקרבתמה בו עולה ליהוה פר אחד איל אחד כבשים בני שנה שביה (תמימים)³⁶ שעיר עזים אחד לחטאת לבד מחטאת החפורים ומנחתמה ונסכמה כמשפטמה לפר לאיל ולכבשים ולשעיר ולחטאת הכפורים תקריבו אלים שנים לעולה אחד יקריב הכוהן הגדול עליו בית אביהו

10 And on the tenth of this month 11 is Yom Kippur. And you shall afflict yourselves on it because every person who does not 12 afflict themselves on this day will be cut off from his nation. And you shall offer on it a burnt offering 13 to YHWH—one bull, one ram, seven (unblemished) yearling lambs. 14 One male goat—for expiation. Additionally, the purification offering of expiation, and the meal and drink offering, 15 according to its law, for the ox, ram, goat, and for the purification offering of expiation, 16 two rams, one for the High Priest and one for his father’s house.³⁷

These lines are a collection of עולה citations from Numbers 29:8–11 and Leviticus 16:3 and 5. The section ends at the bottom of column 25, and the next column is blank for a number of lines. Based on the words that are visible, it can be understood that what follows the preceding quoted passage is a description of the חטאת, using language from Leviticus 16:11–14.³⁸ The first two reconstructed lines, following Schiffman, command a bull and two goats for expiation. One goat is the Azazel goat, and the other goat is paired with the bull. As noted, Levine understands this pair to be the חטאת הכפורים. The Temple Scroll adds the two rams to the goat/bull pair (but separately), and, as before, the חטאת הכפורים is part of the complex set that achieves the task of producing a “pleasing odor.” This aroma is produced in the place where the Name dwells.

Cana Werman makes a different argument for placing the עולה at the beginning of the day. She notes that the second mention of the עולה animals, in column 27.3–4, reads אחר יעשה את הפר ואת ה[א]יל ואת ה[כבשים כמש]פטמה על מזבח העולה ונרצתה ה[ע]ולה לבני ישראל but is a combination of the aforementioned Numbers and Ezekiel 43:18.³⁹ Ezekiel reports that when the Sanctuary altar was constructed, it was to be purged via חטאת and עולה sacrifices for a week (Ezek. 43:25). On the eighth day onward, burnt and well-being offerings would be accepted (רצי) by Adonai, meaning that the Temple Scroll author added this to indicate that the עולה is necessarily first, to sanctify the altar.⁴⁰

There was the previous question of how the blood manipulations of the חטאת could fit with an עולה. The Temple Scroll answers this in column 26.1–8. The goat and bull’s fat, along with its meal and libation offerings, is to be burned on the עולה altar. The חטאת, by itself, would not have meal and libation subordinate offerings, so it is interesting that the text goes further than Numbers 29 in its incorporation of the bull and goat into the עולה category. Schiffman determines that what is seen in the Yom Kippur ritual is true for the other Temple Scroll festivals: the author of this section has worked to extend the עולה into various new festivals. Milgrom posits that the עולה is the more ancient ritual, but it was “usurped” by the sacrifices devised to purge the tabernacle of contaminations.⁴¹ This fits with Leviticus 16, where the חטאת is the principal ritual. The evidence of the Temple Scroll, then, provides evidence of a shift in worldview. Interestingly, it accomplishes this shift within a rhetorical structure current during the Second Sophistic.

THE MISHNAIC DISPUTE

The author of the Temple Scroll uses his audience’s knowledge to establish the authority of his position. If the scroll dates to about 150 BCE, then it was composed at the dawn of the Hasmonean age. Mishnah Yoma, however, was composed in the third century CE, after the destruction of the Temple. The repetition of the sacrificial procedures thus carried the authority of divine rules “God said to Moses” while also being rites that could only be imagined. This did not detract from their significance; instead, they were the vehicle through which new ways of atonement were thought.

The dispute between R. Akiva and R. Eliezer, while engaging in the ambiguities between Leviticus and Numbers, has more to do with the composer’s positioning of the debate—in the place where Leviticus would put the עולה—and the position of R. Akiva, which would upend the carefully constructed order of the Mishnah’s depiction of the rites. Far from claiming that his text is “from Sinai,” the Mishnaic composer retains a human debate that challenges his composition.

Referring back to the tables at the beginning of this chapter, it can be seen that the Mishnah follows Leviticus 16. The asterisk signals R. Yehudah’s disagreement: he says that goat and ox blood were alternately sprinkled. This contradicts the Levitical account. The Mishnah adds the morning תמיד (the afternoon offering is noted in m. Yoma 7.4). If the dispute between R. Eliezer and R. Akiva had not been inserted, the only עולה would be the two rams, offered at the same point as the Leviticus account positions it. Thus there would have been a clear distinction between חטאת and עולה rituals, unlike Numbers 29, where the חטאת הכפורים is part of the עולה sequence. If we follow Levine, who claims the חטאת הכפורים is described in Leviticus 16:12–19, then Yoma’s narrative of blood application is also a חטאת הכפורים and differs only in that, instead of an expiation of the Tent of Meeting (Lev. 16:16), the Mishnah has the leftover blood poured on the base of the outer altar, ultimately to run into the Kidron Valley. This seems to agree with Exodus 33:7, which places the Tent outside of the camp.

The problem raised by the dispute mirrors the ambiguity of Numbers 29. R. Eliezar supplements Leviticus’s rams with Numbers’s seven lambs. It can be assumed that it is afternoon, based on the Mishnah’s description of the day’s events. But it is R. Akiva who completes the Numbers’s command by including the ox and male goat. Numbers is unclear about whether the עולה animals are added to the morning or evening תמיד lamb. R. Akiva seems to split the difference by saying that “they” (the two rams and seven lambs) were brought in the morning, as well as the ox. He then moves the Numbers’s חטאת goat—presumably an additional one, since the Yoma account already paired its חטאת goat with the bull—to the evening rites but physically separates the חטאת from the תמיד. In Yoma, R. Akiva seems presciently to concur with Schiffman and Werman that these עולה animals were done in the morning. His account could be close to the Temple Scroll in this matter, except that he retains the distinction between חטאת and עולה. Put in relation to the narrative as constructed, his tradition overturns the order that the Mishnah has established.

The Tosefta is another text within the field of Tannaitic discourse. Tosefta Kippurim 3.19 reports that both rabbis couple the ox and goat, implying a חטאת הכפורים. While Akiva placed the ox and goat in the afternoon עולת תמיד in the Mishnah version, the Tosefta version relates that Eliezer understands the ox and goat to be offered during the morning עולת תמיד. The Tosefta thus has Eliezer increasing the goat/ox pairs. The Tosefta’s account of R. Eliezer uses the word נעשה, “prepared,” not קריבין, “sacrificed,” raising the question of whether his morning goats are the same goats that will later be designated as “for YHWH” and “for Azazel.”⁴² Here is the Tosefta:⁴³

ר’ ליעזר או’ כך סדר הקרבנות היו הקריבין פר העולה ושעיר הנעשה בחוץ היו קריבין עם תמיד של שצר ואחר כך פר ושעיר הנעשה בפמים ואחר כך אילו ואיל העם ואחר כך שבעת כבשים תמימים

R. Eliezer says, this is the order of sacrifice: an ox for burnt offering, and a goat which is done/prepared outside, are sacrificed with the daily morning offering. After that, an ox and goat are done/prepared inside [the Temple], and after that, his ram and the ram of the people, and after that, seven unblemished sheep.

The Tosefta goes on to report R. Akiva’s opinion:

ר’ עקיבא או’ פר העולה ושבית כבשים תמימים היו קריבין עם תמיד של שחר. שנאמר: מלבד עולת הבקר אשר לעולת התמיד ואחר כך פר ושעיר הנעשה בפנים ואחר כך שעיר הנעשה בחוץ. שנאמר: מלבד חטאת הכפורים ועולב התהיד ומנחתה ונסכיהם ואחר כך אילו ואיל העם.

R. Akiva says: an ox for a burnt offering and seven unblemished sheep were sacrificed with the daily morning offering. As it says: “in addition to the morning burnt offering which was for the daily burnt offering” (Num. 28:23). After that an ox and a goat were prepared inside, and after that a goat was prepared outside. As it says: “besides the purification offering of expiation and the burnt offering of the daily and meal and their drink offerings” (Num. 29:11), after that his ram and the people’s ram.

A third opinion is added by Kippurim, who does not specify which animals are meant:

ר’ יהודה או’ בשם ר’ ליעזר: אחד קרב עם תמיד של שחר וששה קריבין עם תמיד של בין הערבים

R. Yehuda says in the name of R. Eliezer: one is offered with the daily morning sacrifice and six offered with the daily evening sacrifice.

Except for the quote from Numbers 29:11, none of these opinions mention the supplementary offerings, what the Temple Scroll referred to as the law or rule. It is unclear in the Tannaitic texts whether jugations are trace elements understood at the mention of an עולה animal or whether this is being deliberately deemphasized. Still, these rabbinic traditions stand in sharp contrast to other texts, particularly the Aramaic Levi Document, for whose author the sacrificial accompaniments seem paramount.

Ritual theorist Seth Kunin proposes that ritemes, the ritual equivalent of phonemes, act as signals when they emphasize or deemphasize.⁴⁴ We have seen, for instance, how in the Temple Scroll, the fat of the חטאת offering was added to the regular עולה pairings. More broadly, Numbers incorporated the חטאת into the sequence for the עולה, while Leviticus maintains a distinction. The rabbis turn their attention from the offerings’ manipulation to the offerings’ sequencing. This shift reveals that sequencing conveys a certain significance in their grasp of the ritual. Although we do not know what that is, Akiva’s position upends the Mishnah’s account.

Rabbi Akiva’s assertion, across the Mishnah and Tosefta, that eight lambs should be sacrificed in the morning, holds a particular meaning. In commenting on the Temple Scroll, Werman points to Ezra 43 as requiring sacrifices for sanctifying the altar. Akiva’s Tosefta statement aligns most closely with this by requiring both the ox and the lambs in the morning. In this regard, his thinking is closer to Priestly traditions. At the same time, his statement that the rams should be sacrificed in the morning contradicts Leviticus, and by upholding a separation between the חטאת and עולה, as Yoma does more generally, he rejects the Second Temple trend toward an emphasis on the עולה. Mishnah Yoma, while keeping the Levitical tradition, challenges itself by also including Akiva’s position. By placing the challenge at the juncture where Leviticus 16 locates the עולה, the Yoma adds narrativity to its account.

Of the texts reviewed, the Temple Scroll is the most innovative in privileging of the עולה. It positions itself as Sinaitic revelation and says that its innovation is actually the halakhah that was given at Sinai. By claiming a divine origin, this discourse tries to silence any response from those who hear it. The author of Mishnah Yoma constructs a narrative sequence that actively elicits response, demonstrated by the fact that it includes views contrary to its sequencing, such as R. Akiva’s. R. Eliezer, whose view on the time of the עולה follows the presentation of the Levitical order that the Mishnaic narrative presents is given a voice that challenges not the timing but the animals. In Eliezer’s view, at least some of the Numbers 29 animals should be added to the rams. Authority is relocated from Sinai to dialectic—a dialectic that openly challenges its own presentation. But it is through this challenge that “dialectic” turns into “dialogism”: each voice—Akiva, Eliezer, the compiler—presents an independent interpretation of the sources.

Bakhtin suggests that the mark of dialogism is in “the intensification of someone else’s thought” so that a “relationship to that other consciousness” is established.⁴⁵ The compiler, working after the generation of Rabbis Akiva and Eliezer, seems to take on such a relationship of consciousness, but the Tosefta, with its development of the positions, shows that the material remains in the community as an issue to consider. Since Kippurim is not written in the narrative style of Yoma, its compiler does not undertake the same role of participant. We see through the Tosefta that there was not a resolution, as a classic Platonic dialogue would strive to accomplish, but a relocation of thought from characters to community.

One could argue against this reading by suggesting that the arranger of the text is expressing his personal view by way of his composition, without adding an explicitly anonymous voice. To borrow terms from recent debates in Classics scholarship, might it be possible to claim that R. Eliezer is the “mouthpiece” of this Mishnah? Debra Nails, in an article on the representation of Socrates in Platonic dialogues, argues that Socrates’s positions are distinct from Plato’s—for the express purpose of providing “exemplary philosophical discussions.”⁴⁶ She points to their display of dialectical reasoning while concluding that the complexity of the arguments opens the text “for critique.”⁴⁷ Daniel Boyarin cites Nails in his presentation of the Platonic dialectic. He notes the paradox of the presentation of the opposing opinion as a deeply dialogical move. The decision to present the rabbinic dispute allows for a consideration of the עולה’s discourse history, and the dispute, positioned at the point that Leviticus assigns it, provides a paradox. But since R. Eliezer’s opinion only partially fits the Priestly account, the inclusion of his voice eliminates him as a “mouthpiece”; it moves the dispute to the space between philosophy and rhetoric. Eliezer, Akiva, and the inclusion of Eliezer and Akiva—contrary to the order Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi decides to present—undermine the progression toward an ideal for the Day of Atonement. And the work is not crafted to persuade. The disputants present their positions within a logic that resembles Aristotle’s theory of argument, but even the editor makes an independent case. Instead, the Tosefta reveals that these positions are not meant to persuade us but rather to serve as points for us to consider. The Tannaitic project is an open one, within the bounds of its community.

Chaya Halberstam provides another view of Tannaitic discourse. She identifies the rabbinic uncertainty evidenced in debates as a hallmark of Tannaitic literature. The ambiguities noted previously between Numbers and Leviticus as a cause for the dispute between Akiva and Eliezer certainly fit her paradigm. Reading along with David Weiss Halivni and Moshe Halbertal, she observes the tension between heavenly truth and practical truth.⁴⁸ The difficulties between biblical texts, each of which claims to represent divine decree, can possibly be read against practices (lost in the destruction of the Second Temple) that privileged the עולה. Halberstam’s cases differ in structure from Yoma in that the dispute comes in a narrative of a now fictional world, while her disputants bring real-world situations to the ideal world of law. Yoma, therefore, provides a different view of rabbinic thought, where the text is structured to engage its readers.

The compiler makes a number of moves that call into doubt whether the tractate is an argument for a point of view. If the reader would be satisfied that the debate appears at the point it does, and R. Akiva’s position is not placed at the point where he would assign the עולה, that satisfaction should be short-lived. The compiler gives R. Akiva the last word, a statement that plays on the Hebrew מקוה as both “hope” and “immersion pool” and arguably upends Levitical cosmology, for the deity is not “in heaven” or “in the Tabernacle” but within the practice of purity. Indeed, Yoma as a whole provides multiple differences, seemingly shaking the assumptions of the Levitical tradition by adding immersions, composing the words to a petitionary prayer—and multiplying its recitation.

The original ambiguity of Numbers—as well as its difference from Leviticus—opens the door to inference. The question remains as to how wide this door was opened for the intended audience: The Temple is gone, but is this debate about animals a proxy for a consideration of Israel’s relationship with the Deity? The inclusion of R. Akiva’s final statement about מקוה opens the door wider. The reception history instantiates “the Mishnah” as much as it instantiates “the Talmud,” but the challenge is to recall how these layers of text argue points of theology through ritual—where Presence is located, the purification that results from fire, the need to consider how to resolve the effects of transgressions. For us, the dispute is a reminder that we are not reading a story, a mere narrative of the High Priest on Yom Kippur but instead witnessing a cultural engagement with the past to shape a future. The composition puts us on a path where neither the other versions of rhetoric nor the dominant versions of philosophy had tread before.

SOPHIA AVANTS is Visiting Scholar at Duke University and Associate Fellow at the Albright Institute in Jerusalem. She has previously published on the notion of forgiveness in rabbinic thought. She received her PhD from Claremont in 2021 on Mishnah Yoma: Narrative as Cultural Thought.

NOTES

1. Nightingale traces the development of Plato’s idea of philosophy, positioning his dialectic within Athenian culture. Young dissects Plato’s reasoning in the dilemma presented in the Crito. Young captures the issue as twofold: (1) thinking that one is correct and (2) that the reasons for thinking that one is correct are also correct. A summary of Socrates’s position can be found at 277b8f. Nightingale, Genres in Dialogue; Young, “Plato’s Crito,” 79; Plato, Phaedrus. 277.B [Fowler].

2. Young, “Plato’s Crito,” 87.

3. Burnyeat, “Enthymeme,” 7.

4. Ibid., 12. For Aristotle’s initial presentations of enthymeme, see Rhet. 1.1 1354a7: “Enthymemes are the body of proof” and A.Pr. II.27 70a11: “Enthymeme is a syllogism/‘consideration’ from probabilities or signs.”

5. For a detailed presentation of the relevant passages, see Burnyeat, “Enthymeme,” 35–36, especially note 91.

6. Burnyeat, “Enthymeme,” 44.

7. See especially the introduction and notes 18–32, where he documents schools and identities in Roman Palestine. Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric, 2–8.

8. Gibbs and Ochs, “Gold and Silver,” 101.

9. Two prominent examples are the increase in the number of immersions required of the High Priest and the report of the High Priest’s words of confession, which are said three times to Leviticus’s once. While creating a detailed narrative of the High Priest’s journey through the Temple, it omits what seems primary in Leviticus, that the חטאת blood atones. There is also the intriguing juxtaposition of the reading of Aharei Mot at the time of the Azazel goat’s trip, as if suggesting that the reading could hold an equivalent value.

10. Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, 6; “Discourse in the Novel,” 349.

11. Daniel Boyarin makes a similar observation regarding the Babylonian Talmud. While his is a broad discussion, centered on writings from Sasanian Persia, this chapter considers an earlier, Palestinian example. I owe The Fat Rabbis inspiration for insight and further reading. Boyarin, Socrates, 141.

12. All of the following excerpts from Mishnah Yoma are transcribed from the Kaufman manuscript. However, what I have identified as 7.3, following Albeck, the Kaufman scribes assign to 7.2 and 7.3. I have used Albeck’s 7.3, in accordance with most scholars. The translation of this and other texts are my own, unless otherwise noted.

13. Levine, Numbers 21–36, 388–89.

14. Meshel, The “Grammar” of Sacrifice, 207.

15. Ibid., 163.

16. Meshel, “Toward a Grammar of Sacrifice,” 549, 552; The “Grammar” of Sacrifice, 119.

17. Knohl, “The Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School,” 89.

18. Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation, 150.

19. The single quote marks are his, although he does not attribute the term. Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation.

20. Levine, Numbers 21–36, 398.

21. Ibid., 400.

22. Ibid., 47.

23. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2055.

24. Nihan, “Israel’s Festival Calendars,” 213.

25. The two other cave 11 scrolls are 11Q20 (11QT^b) and 11Q21 (11QT^c). Himmelfarb documents the dating debate in note 31 to page 93. She cites the date of the fragment 4Q524 as evidence that a presectarian composition existed. See also Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests, 93; Vroom, The Authority of the Law, 101–4.

26. Schwartz carefully separates the sources of Deuteronomy from the scroll now part of the Torah. The sources were written in conjunction with the administration of King Josiah and are Deuteronomic. The scroll is Deuteronomistic: it was written after 586. The scroll (D) was used by scribes to form a history (DtrH) that is in the books of the Former Prophets. Schwartz, “The Pentateuchal Sources and the Former Prophets,” 784.

27. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll, 239–41.

28. Besides Wise, Marvin Sweeney, in a private conversation (March 3, 2021), notes that the Temple Scroll typically puts Deuteronomy into conversation with other texts from the Torah to produce new and innovative readings of the Torah and the conceptualization of its contents. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll, 132.

29. Vroom provides a review of some of this scholarship. Vroom, The Authority of the Law, 105–7.

30. Shemesh, “Holiness according to the Temple Scroll,” 374.

31. Ibid.

32. Sommer argues against “presence” because its depictions are concrete. He notes Exodus 33:18–23, where the כבוד has a face, hand, and back. Sommer, The Bodies of God, 60.

33. Burnyeat, “Enthymeme,” 43.

34. This is an interesting point. The Temple Scroll’s excerpt from Numbers 29 does not include the daily עולה, yet, earlier in the chapter, we saw that since this sacrifice occurred in the morning and afternoon, the text was unclear about whether the preceding offerings were with the morning or afternoon lamb. Schiffman seems to propose that the Temple Scroll offers a solution to the problem. Schiffman, The Courtyards of the House of the Lord, 359.

35. Qimron, The Temple Scroll, 39.

36. Qimron adds this as most probable since it corresponds with the Masoretic text.

37. This translation follows Schiffman. He graciously replied to clarifying questions. Schiffman and Gross, The Temple Scroll, 76–77.

38. See, for instance, Schiffman and Gross, The Temple Scroll, 78–81 and Vroom, The Authority of the Law, 112 for detailed reviews of both the scrolls.

39. “After he does the ox, ram, and sheep as prescribed, on the burnt offering altar and the burnt offering is accepted for the children of Israel.”

40. Werman, “Appointed Times,” 103.

41. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 176.

42. Saul Lieberman, editing the Tosefta, seems to confirm a translation of נעשה as “prepare” because he suggests that the priest is laying his hands on the goats in blessing. Lieberman, Tosefta, II:248, n. 89. Lieberman also calls them “מוספים לתמיד” since they are the purification component of the daily offering. Lieberman discusses the rams in his commentary on the Tosefta, תוספתא כפשוטה. He says that the “ram for the people” is the one ram listed in Numbers 29:8, a claim that implies that Numbers 29 lies beneath the Leviticus text. Lieberman cites Sifra Aharei Mot, parsha ב, where Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi states that R. Eliezer has added the ram from Numbers to the ram in Leviticus. This tradition is also cited in b. Yoma 70b. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifeshutah, IV:803.

43. The citations are from Lieberman. The translation is my own. Lieberman, Tosefta.

44. Kunin, We Think What We Eat.

45. Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, 69.

46. See Nails’s article, but many of the essays in the book also argue for the philosophical merits of the debates in the corpus. Nails, “Mouthpiece Schmouthpiece,” 25.

47. Nails, “Mouthpiece Schmouthpiece.”

48. Halberstam, Law and Truth, 6.