לא היו
מונעין ממנו מאכל ומשתה ערב יום הכיפורים עם חשיכה לא היו מניחין
אותו לוכל הרבה שהמאכל מביא את השינה ה’ מסרוהו זקני בית דין לזקני
כהונה הוליכוהו לעליית בית אבטינס השביעוהו ונפטרו והלכו להן
ואומרין לו אישי כהן גדול אנו שלוחי בית דין ואתה שלוחינו ושלוח בית
דין משביעין אנו עליך במי ששיכן את שמו בבית הזה שלא תשנה דבר
מכל מה שאמרנו לך הוא פורש ובוכה והם פורשים ובוכים’
(1:3) They gave [the high priest] elders from among the elders of the Court. They read him the order of the day [from the Torah]. And they say to him, “Sir high priest, read with your own mouth [yourself] in case you forgot or in case you never learned [it]!” On the eve of Yom Kippur in the morning, they stand him at the eastern gate and they lead the bulls and rams and sheep before him so that he will be familiar with the service.
(1:4) All seven days, they did not used to keep food or drink from him. On the eve of the Day of Atonement from when it became dark, they used to not allow him to eat much, for food leads to sleep.
(1:5) The elders of the Court handed him over to the priestly elders and led him to the bēit avṭinās upper chamber and adjured him and took leave, and left. And they say to him, “Sir high priest, we are the emissaries of the Court and you are our emissary and the emissary of the Court. We adjure you by the One who caused His Name to dwell in this house that you not make any changes from what we have told you.” He separates and cries, and they separate and cry.
The elders of the court do not appear again during the ritual of the day itself, yet they are central in the preparations. According to the narrative, their role includes instructing the high priest in the correct procedure and ensuring that he will follow their instructions precisely. As non-priests, the elders of the court are necessarily peripheral to the main ritual, but in their role in the preparatory stages, they appear to be critical to ensuring correct performance.
An identical body of elders, this time called “the elders of Israel,” plays a similar role in the red-heifer narrative in Parah. Strikingly, this narrative begins with language nearly identical to that of the Day of Atonement narrative:
שבעת ימים קודם לשריפת הפרה מפרישין כהן שורף את הפרה מביתו
ללשכה שעל פני הבירה צפונה מזרחה ובית אבן היתה נקראת
Seven days before the burning of the heifer, they separate the priest who [will] burn the cow from his house [and bring him] to the chamber [lishkāh] that is facing the northwest of the birāh [the Temple], and it was called bēit ’even [the place of the stone].7 (Parah 3:1)
The nearly identical language may suggest that one of the accounts is built upon the other or simply that the two narratives draw from a common pool of formulaic language and ritual elements. Either way, the strikingly similar opening creates a strong resonance between the two narratives. And the red-heifer narrative seems consciously aware of such a resonance when it explicitly mentions the Day of Atonement ritual and compares the ritual sprinklings for the red-heifer preparation with those of “the Day of Atonement” (3:1)—sprinklings not mentioned in the Day of Atonement narrative.
The resonance between the two narratives continues in the special role played by the “elders” in the preparatory stages of the ritual.8 In the red-heifer narrative, we are told that there was an arched ramp that led from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, where the ritual would be performed (3:6). The cow would be led along this ramp (3:7). But before the heifer is led out to the place where it was to be slaughtered and burned on a pyre, we are told, the elders become involved and perform some unusual ritual actions:
ט’ זקני יש’ היו מקדימין ברגליהם להר המשחה ובית טבילה היה
שם ומטמין היו את הכהן השורף את הפרה מפני הצדוקים שלא יהוא או’
במעורבי שמש היתה נעשית י’ סמכו ידיהן עליו ואומ’ לו אישי כהן
גדול טבול אחת וירד וטבל ועלה ונסתפג
(3:7) … The elders of Israel9 used to walk to the Mount of Olives before the heifer arrived. And a place of immersion was there. And they would render the priest who burned the heifer impure. [They did this] on account of the Sadducees—so they would not say that the ritual was performed by one whose purification included waiting until sunset.10 (3:8) They placed their hands on him and said to him: “Sir high priest, immerse yourself once!” He went down and immersed himself and came up and dried off.
It is unclear why this text uses the biblical expression “elders of Israel,” a phrase not appearing in the biblical red-heifer narrative of Numbers 19. Yet the strong parallel with the Day of Atonement narrative, together with other mishnaic uses of the term “elders”—in one instance, “elders of Israel”—to refer to the Great Court suggests that these are the same elders of the Court as in the Day of Atonement narrative.11 And as in the Day of Atonement narrative, these elders play a role in the preparation for the ritual, rather than in the ritual itself. In this case, before the cow is led to the Mount of Olives (הר המשחה), court members come to the site and perform the ritual actions of rendering the priest impure and saying a ritual utterance. Though the actions seem strange, they are a form of preparation that again ensures that the ritual is performed correctly—in this case, according to the non-Sadducean view that the priest need not wait until sunset after being purified before performing the ritual.
The Court’s role in these two rituals is different from its role in the judicial narratives. There are no witnesses and there is no courtroom, adjudication, or verdict. Here, the Court members play a role in Temple-centered ritual. Though their involvement is ultimately peripheral to the larger ritual performance, their limited role establishes and demonstrates that they have authority over the entire ritual. According to both narratives, the Court is empowered to ensure that the procedure is done correctly or according to the correct view; indeed, in both cases the narrative presumes that the priests are forced to follow the dictates of the Court. Even in the ritual actions taken, the Court’s authority is in evidence. By formulaically ordering the priest, addressing him as “Sir high priest” and ordering him, “Immerse yourself once!” (Parah 3:8) or “read with your own mouth!” (Yoma 1:3), or addressing him in a similar manner and adjuring him to perform the ritual according to what they have told him (Yoma 1:5), Court members establish their authority ritually, as the ones who determine which actions are taken and who can command the priest.12
In addition to their appearance in these two narratives, the Court and its members
