Siman 605
1

מנהג כפרות בערב יום כפור ובו סעיף אחד:
מה שנוהגים לעשות כפרה בערב יום כפורים לשחוט תרנגול על כל בן זכר ולומר עליו פסוקים יש למנוע המנהג: הגה ויש מהגאונים שכתבו מנהג זה וכן כתבו אותו רבים מן האחרונים וכן נוהגין בכל מדינות אלו ואין לשנות כי הוא מנהג ותיקין ונוהגין ליקח תרנגול זכר לזכר ולנקבה לוקחין תרנגולת (ב"י בשם תשב"ץ) ולוקחין למעוברת ב' תרנגולים אולי תלד זכר ובוחרין בתרנגולים לבנים על דרך שנאמר אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים כשלג ילבינו ונהגו ליתן הכפרות לעניים או לפדותן בממון שנותנים לעניים (מהרי"ל) ויש מקומות שנוהגין לילך על הקברות ולהרבות בצדקה והכל מנהג יפה ויש להסמיך שחיטת הכפרו' מיד לאחר שהחזירו עליו וסמך ידיו עליו דמות הקרבן וזורקין בני מעיהם על הגגות או בחצר מקום שהעופות יכולין לקחת משם (טור): “The custom of “kapprot18Kapparot, כפרות, which is plural for Kapparah, meaning expiation. This is a custom where the sins of a person are symbolically transferred to a fowl. This practice is mostly done on the day before Yom Kippur and in some congregations it is also performed on the day before Rosh HaShanah or on Hoshana Rabba. During the ceremony Psalms 107;10,14,17-21 and Job 33:23-24 are recited. Following this a cock is taken for a male and a hen for a female, the fowl is swung around one’s head three times while the person says: “This is my substitute, my vicarious offering, my atonement; this cock (or hen) shall meet death, but I shall find a long and pleasent life of peace”. It is thought by some (erroneously) that the fowl assumes the punishment for sins that the person would normally receive. Often the fowl is donated to the poor minus the intestines which are given to the birds. Some people substitute the monetary value of the fowl and donate that to the poor.
The custom is not a talmudic one. It first appears in the writings of the geonim (see footnote 19) in the ninth century. The connection between a man and a cock is that both can be referred to as a gever, so a gever (man) can transfer his sins on to another gever (cock). Another reason for the use of a cock or a hen was due to the fact that after the destruction of the Temple, no animal used in the sacrificial rite could be used for a similar purpose outside the Temple. The cock and the hen had no Temple cultic connection. Caro, along with R. Solomon b. Abraham Adret and Naḥmanides opposed this custom but Isserles included it because of its practice in the Ashkenazi community where it had taken on mystic interpretations from the Kabbalists.
Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 10, pp. 756-57.
The basic Hebrew sources and comments on Kapparot are the following:
Tur, טור, (see footnote 23) 605 - There are places where it is customary to slaughter a rooster as atonement (for Kapparah). And thus it is (related) in geonic (see footnote 19) responsa: “You asked; we customarily slaughter a rooster on the Eve of Yom Kippur, and we do not know the reason for this custom. If it is an “exchange” (substitute) for a sacrifice (if it symbolizes a sacrifice), then what is the difference between a rooster and cattle or a beast, but certainly there is a problem. However, there are two reasons: (1) a rooster is found more commonly in a household than any cattle, beast, or fowl; (2) There are places of wealthy people who substitute rams; and the main horned animal (for the Yom Kippur ceremony) is analogous to the ram of our father Isaac (which was substituted for him (Isaac) as a sacrifice), therefore the matter (of using a rooster) is not established (determined).”
In addition we have heard from the early scholars that even though the price of a cattle is higher than that of a rooster, nevertheless a rooster is chosen because its designation is gever (man, rooster) as is said in (Yoma 20a): What is the meaning of Kara Gavra, R. Sila says the meaning is that the rooster crows and since its designation is gever and the exchange is of one gever (rooster) for another gever (man), therefore it (using a rooster) is effective and superior (to any other animal). And this is the custom here, the congregational reader holds the rooster and lays his hand on its head (in the manner in which a sacrifice was performed in the Temple) and then he takes it (the rooster) and lays it upon the head of the one seeking atonement and says (the verses in the Prayer Book used in this service (Oẓar ha-Tefillot, volume 2, pp. 1090-91)). “This (gever, rooster) for this (gever, man), this substitutes this, this is in exchange for this,” and he (the reader) returns it upon him once (swings it around his (the one seeking atonement’s) head one time) and says (psalms 107:10,14,17,19-21) “Such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron…He brought them out of darkness and and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder…Fools because of their transgression, and because of their iniquities are afflicted… Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble and He saves them out of their distress. He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. Oh, that men would praise the Lord for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men.” “Thou shalt give life for life”, (Exodus 21:23). And he (the reader) does this according to this order three times, and after this he lays his hand on the head of the rooster in the way of the Semikhah, putting the hands on it (the animal’s head before slaughtering) and slaughter it immediately after the Semikhah, and they customarily give it (the slaughtered rooster) to the poor so there would be atonement for his own soul (for the one who gives it).
That it was customary to throw the insides of it (the rooster) on the roof in order to give them to the birds, there is some proof (indication, justification) for this from the Talmud tractate Ḥulin (95a) 110a: “Rami b. Tamri… once happened to be in Sura on the Eve of Yom Kippur. When the townspeople took all the udders (Tur: Liver and Kidneys) (of the animals) and threw them away, he immediately went and collected them and ate them”.
In the Prayer Book Oẓar ha-Tefillot, אוצר התפילות Published by Sefer, New York, 1946, page 1089, there is an extensive, detailed note with Rashi’s (description of) the custom of the Kapparot ceremony on the Eve of Yom Kippur. Rashi already described this custom meaning it was a common practice during his time.
The Kapparot ceremony is not mentioned in the Talmud, only in Rashi. It is mentioned in Maḥzor Vitry by R. Shimḥa bar Samuel, a disciple of Rashi who quotes the ceremony from the Pesikta, פסקתא, but our text of the Pesikta does not have it. The first mention of the Kapparot ceremony is by the geonic Sheshna in Sha’are Teshuvot, Responsum 299, and by Natronai Gaon in Bet Nekhot ha-Halakhot 50a. paragraphs 15 and 16.” (atonement ceremony) on the Eve of Yom Kippur” - Containing one paragraph.
The custom regarding the “kapparah” (atonement ceremony) on the Eve of Yom Kippur by slaughtering a rooster for each male and to say biblical verses over it should be stopped.
Hagah: There are some geonim19Geonim, (singular gaon) is the formal title for the heads of the academies in Sura and Pumbedita in Babylonia from around the end of the sixth century until the middle of the eleventh century. The geonim were the highest Jewish authorities. In the tenth and eleventh centuries heads of academies in Ereẓ Israel were also called geonim. The geonic period proper ended in 1040. The heads of the academies in Baghdad, Damascus, and Egypt were also called geonim and later it became a term applied as an honor to any rabbi who had great toraitic knowledge.
It cannot exactly be determined when the term gaon came into use. Prior to its use generally the term rosh yeshivah shel golah, the head of the academy of the Diaspora, was used. The heads of these academies were appointed by the exilarchs, the political leaders of the Jewish people in exile. People rose to the office of gaon often through an hierarchy of offices, thus not always did the most learned reach the position. Often the office was used for political purposes by the exilarch. An assistant to the gaon was referred to as the av bet din. The position of gaon usually fell upon an elderly man who could only serve for a rather short period of time, and therefore did not always make a great impression.
Babylonia was the center of world Jewry and the Jews looked to the geonim as a source of instruction for Jews and also as the deciders of Jewish law. The geonim formed many new halakhic decisions which evolved in the Diaspora. They formulated takkanot or ordinances which altered Jewish law according to the new situations. The geonim and their academies were supported by taxes levied against the people for this purpose.
The halakhic decision of a gaon generally had the effect of law and it was binding. Due to the new situation which the Diaspora provided many halakhic decisions of the geonim were based on minhagim, or customs, that took on the force of a law (the principle under which Isserles operated). Their responsa to halakhic questions were followed as law. The goal of the gaon in the Diaspora was mainly to interpret the Babylonian Talmud for the Babylonian Jews and to lessen their emotional attachment to Ereẓ Israel. This created much political animosity between the Jews of Babylonia and those left in Ereẓ Israel. Since the major scholars of the time where exiled to Babylonia, the center of Jewish leadership was in the hands of the gaon for a long period of time, more than four centuries.
The goanate, though, did lose its power even though some of the greatest geonim were among the later ones. From the late ninth century onward, most of the geonim did not live in the cities of the academies, Sura and Pumbedita, they lived in Baghdad along with the exilarch. Competition between the two academies and political disagreements over the appointment of geonim lessened their effectiveness as did the rise of new academies and their leaders. Scholars stopped sending them halakhic questions preferring their own ability to arrive at a decision. Jewish communities outside of Babylonia began taking on independence from the original center of the Diaspora. As the caliphate in Baghdad weakened, financial support from other Jewish communities ceased for the Babylonian academies. The gaonate ended as an institution around 1040.
The religious leaders of Baghdad and later Ereẓ Israel took on the title of gaon after the fall of the gaonate in Babylonia. The position of the gaon in Ereẓ Israel was one passed on by heredity. The geonim in Ereẓ Israel had to manage all Jewish affairs in addition to heading the academy. They ordained rabbis, appointed judges, and managed the economic affairs of the Jews. The title of gaon finally spread to Damascus and Egypt where it eventually died out in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Simha Assaf and Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 7, pp. 315-24. who listed this custom (as a proper custom) and likewise many of the aḥronim listed it thusly. And likewise it is the custom in all these lands,19aThe following is a comment to the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, found in the Turei Zahav Magen David, or for short the Taz by David ben Samuel ha-Levi who lived from 1586 until 1667. David ben Samuel was born in the Ukraine. He married the daughter of Joel Sirkes, the author of Bayit Ḥadash (see footnote 20b.) in whose yeshivah he studied. The commentary Turei Zahav is found to all four parts of the Shulḥan Arukh. It is not a running commentary, but includes discussions of various points found in the Tur of Jacob Asher (see footnote 23) and in the Talmud and its commentators. The Turei Zahav is found in the inside margin of the Oraḥ Ḥayyim section of the Shulḥan Arukh opposite the commentary of Abraham Abel Gumbiner called Magen Avraham (see footnote 33), which is a running commentary but which has a closer relationship to the material found in the Tur than it does to the Shulḥan Arukh;
Shmuel Ashkenazi, E. J., v. 5, pp. 1354-55.
605:1 - “And so is the custom in all these lands”: In the Tur, טור, (see footnote 23 and the translation to this section of the Tur found in footnote 18) are written the verses that are recited and the following verse is mentioned there (in addition to the verses found in Psalms 107:10,14,17,-21), “Thou shalt give life for life” (Exodus 21:23).. and it is not to be changed because it is a custom of the pious. It is customary to take a rooster for each male, and for each female (to) take a hen, (בית יוסף בשם תשב״ץ).20Beit Yosef, in the name of Tashbaẓ, בית יוסף בשם תשב״ץ.
The Beit Yosef, בית יוסף, the companion work written by Joseph Caro (1488-1575) to the Shulḥan Arukh. Caro began writing the Beit Yosef in 1522 and completed it in 1542 in Safed. It was first published in 1555. The Beit Yosef followed the format of the four Turim established by Jacob b. Asher in his book by that title. Caro included in the Beit Yosef all the halakhic material in use during his time which included the talmudic sources and also the post-talmudic scholars which he used to reach an halakhic decision. Caro linked himself to the Turim and did not repeat halakhic material already cited in the Turim. Caro employed the method of determining halakhah by following the majority decision of his “three pillars of halakhic decisions”, Alfasi, Maimonides, and Asher b. Jehiel. If there was no majority decision by these three he consulted and decided according to the majority of another five scholars, Naḥmanides, Solomon b. Abraham Adret, Nissim Gerondi, Mordecai b. Hillel, and Moses b. Jacob of Coucy. If none of these men dealt with a particular law he decided according to the opinions of the majority of “famous” scholars. Caro consulted thirty-two works in his research. In this extensive work Caro created a book of Jewish law. He wanted to create then a companion book that would truly be a code. Therefore he wrote the Shulḥan Arukh which basically listed only the decisions that Caro reached in the Beit Yosef and not all the arguments and sources. The Shulḥan Arukh merely stated what the halakhah was and how it was practiced. (For a more extensive explanation of the Beit Yosef and how it fits into the broad scope of code literature, see the introduction to this work.)
Tashbaẓ, תשב״ץ, is an abbreviation for Teshuvot Shimon ben Ẓemaḥ, which is a collection of responsa in three parts by Simeon ben Ẓemaḥ Duran who was also known as the “Rashbaẓ”, an acronym for Rabbi Shimon ben Ẓemaḥ, who lived from 1361 until 1444. The Rashbaẓ was born in Spain and later moved to North Africa and settled in Algiers where he became a dayyan, a rabbinic judge and the Chief Rabbi of Algiers in 1408. The Rashbaẓ was against formulating strict decisions, ḥumrot, which did not have talmudical basis. He argued that one could be stringent with oneself but had to be lenient with others.
In his decisions he would exhaust all existing sources and discuss all opinions. His decisions became the authoritative laws of North African Jewry. His takkanot, his changes in the law, were followed for many centuries. He was often quoted by later halakhic scholars and was well respected. His writings were extensive and they included philosophical and liturgical works as well as halakhic literature.
Hirsch Jacob Zimmels, E. J., v. 6, pp. 302-06. For a pregnant woman to take two roosters20aThe following is a comment found in the commentary to the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim Magen Avraham by Abraham Abele Gumbiner (see footnote 33): 605:2 - “Two roosters”: That is to say a rooster and a hen. Even if the embryo is female, one hen is enough for a mother and for her daughter, because two persons (of the same sex) are allowed to take one Kapparah (see footnote 18), (Levush, לבוש; which is a code whose entire name is Levush Malkhut, The work presents the laws found in the Beit Yosef of Joseph Caro (see footnote 20) in an abbreviated form. The Shulḥan Arukh appeared which was basically a digest of the larger Beit Yosef, but the Levush was completed so as to include the laws observed by the Ashkenazi Jews of Behemia. Mordecai ben Abraham Jaffe (1535-1612) wrote the Levush. He was born in Prague and studied under Solomon Luria and Moses Isserles. While he was writing the Levush he learned that Isserles was attempting the same goal he was to include the Ashkenazi laws in the Shulḥan Arukh so he put aside his work. When Jaffe received the glosses of his teacher Isserles he thought it was too brief and therefore he set about completing his Levush. There are ten levushim in all, five are devoted to the Beit Yosef and the other five to other works; Ephraim Kupfer, E. J., v. 9, pp. 1263-64). And this is the custom even with two persons, and this is the implied meaning at the end of chapter 12 in (the Talmud Tractate) Menaḥot. And Ashkenazi R. Isaac (who was called Adoneinu R. Yitzḥak by the Ḥasidim, referring to Isaac Luria the Kabbalist) prescribed that she take three (chickens), (Shenei Luḥot ha-Berit, של״ה, “Two Tablets of the Covenant”; which is an extensive halakhic work including homily and Kabbalah giving directions as to how to live an ethical life. The vast work contains two parts, the Derekh Ḥayyim contains laws according to the order of the festivals in the calendar, and the Luḥot ha-Berit summarizes the 613 commandments in the order in which they appear in the Bible. The work was written by Isaiah ben Abraham ha-Levi Horowitz who lived from around 1565 until 1630. He was born in Prague but lived and studied mostly in Poland. He later moved to Ereẓ Israel and lead the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem. He was greatly influenced by Kabbalistic works and philosophy which is evident in his writings; Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson E. J., v. 8, 990-994). for the possibility she might give birth to a male (infant). The (custom is to) chose white roosters20bA commentary by Magen Avraham (see footnote 33): 605:3 - “White roosters”: Anyhow, one should not try to get only white (chickens), which is similar to the practice of the Amorites (meaning, idol worshippers). If there happens to be a white one available he should buy it, (Bayit Hadash, בית חדש; which is a critical and comprehensive commentary on the Arba’ah Turim of Jacob b. Asher (see footnote 23), where each law is traced to its talmudic source, and the development of the law through successive generations of interpretation is followed. The work was prompted by the over-reliance on codes, especially the Shulḥan Arukh for halakhic decisions, without using the basic sources. The work was written by Joel Sirkes who lived from 1561 until 1640. He was born in Lublin but came to be the head of the bet din, the rabbinical court, in Cracow where he also headed a yeshivah in 1619. He was an adherent of Kabbalah but he rejected kabbalistic practices when they were contrary to the halakhah; Max Jonah Routtenberg, E. J., v. 14, pp. 1619-20.). And if there is no chicken, he should buy another kind of animal, and there are those who say even fish (can be used), (Levush, לבוש, see footnote 20a.). It seems to me that one should not take a thing (an animal that was used) for the sacrificial cult like doves so that it should not appear that one sacrifices holy animals outside the Temple, see in the Tur, טור, (see footnote 23), and we find it in Shabbat 81b, in the Rashi, that it was a custom to take a pot with seeds and to swing it around one’s head on the Eve of Yom Kippur, and one says the words: “This is the exchange for me, the substitute for me, the atonement for me”, which is an abbreviation meaning, חת״ך, which is the name of an angel, (Darkei Moshe, ד״מ, see footnote 6, and Hagahot Minhagim, הגמ״נ, which are commentary notes on the Minhagim, see footnote 13).
The following is a comment found in the Turei Zahav, (see footnote 19a.): 605:2 - “And the (custom is to) chose white ones”; My father-in-law (meaning the Bayit Ḥadash, Joel Sirkes, see above), may his memory be blessed, wrote that this is a bit like the way of the Amorites (idol worshippers), even though this is (found in) the Maharil, מהרי״ל, (see footnote 8), it is possible that one should not ask for it intentionally, rather if (the white chicken) just happens to him thus (if he can buy a white one) he choses it, but to ask for a white chicken and to pay a higher price, this is the way of the Amerites (idol worshippers), and this (tradition) I received from my father (Samuel ha-Levi), may his memory be blessed.
I found written that one should say, “This is your exchange, your substitution, and your atonement” which is an abbreviation for חת״ך, which means God will cut (חתך) (or determine) life for every living thing. (Notice the difference between this comment and the one translated above by Magen Avraham on the same subject.)
The following is a comment by the Wilna Gaon, which supplies the sources for references made in the Shulḥan Arukh. It is found under the text of the Shulḥan Arukh under the title Beure ha-Gra, ביארי הגר״א: 605:1 - “That which they customarily do…”: Because of the way of the Amorites (idol worshippers); see in the Rashba, רשב״א, (Solomon ben Abraham Adret, see footnote 90), chapter 395. since it says “though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow,” (Isaiah 1:18). It was customary to give the atonement chickens to the poor or to redeem them20cThe following is a comment by Magen Avraham, (see footnote 33): 605:4 - “Or to redeem (replace) them (the chickens) (with charity money…”: This is better so as not to embarrass the poor (Shenai Luḥot ha-Berit, של״ה, see footnote 20a., and Maharil, מהרי״ל, see footnote 8), (with the money they can buy their own food which is less embarrassing than accepting a chicken). (replace them) with charity money which is given to the poor (for sustenance), (מהרי״ל).21Maharil, מהרי״ל, Jacob ben Moses Moellin; see footnote 8. There are places where it is customary to visit the graves and to increase (the giving of) charity which is all a beautiful custom. It is necessary to slaughter the atonement chickens immediately after completing the ceremony and laying one’s hands21aThe following is a comment by Turei Zahav, (see footnote 19a.): 605:3 - “And one lays his hands (on it, the chicken)…”: Even though this thing (this practice) appears in the Tur, טור, (see the translation of this section in footnote 18 and see footnote 23) in the name of the geonim (see footnote 19), it is very perplexing in my eyes since this appears as sacrificing animals and slaughtering them outside of the Temple. And even though the rooster is not proper as a sacrifice, since we found that it is a forbidden practice in chapter 469 (of the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim) concerning the matter of such meat for the Passover for which the Maharil, מהרי״ל, (see footnote 8) forbid even a rooster, and how much the more so here, where one does it explicitly as a sacrificial matter, that this fear is present (this consideration that it might be prohibited is present). This being so it is better to prevent this matter, (following the dictum to sit and not do it is better. (This expression, ושב ואל תעשה, is found in Erubim 100a: if by performing a mitzvah you might transgress a law, you should not do it. In a case of doubt do not do such a thing.) And so it seems to me in my humble opinion. on it like (it was done with) the Sacrifice22The “laying of the hands” of the priest onto the animal that was sacrificed was part of the rite which transformed the animal from a mere profane animal into a holy sacrifice to God. Sacrifice from the biblical through the temple Period in Jerusalem was the way in which man communicated with God. Extensive rituals and practices developed around the sacrifice which was performed by the special priestly class, the cohanim. The main thrust behind a sacrifice was the fact that man was surrendering to God a living thing of some value to man. This brought out vividly the fact that all things man has on earth are given by God and ultimately God has complete control over man and all He has given to man. Special concern was placed on the blood of an animal sacrifice for dam, דם, blood, was the symbol of life. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life (that is in it)”, (Leviticus 17:11). The people were therefore forbidden to eat the blood of an animal since it belonged to God. The offering to God of a sacrifice had to be an animal which was owned by the person offering it and the animal had to be domesticated and proper for food. In other words, it had to have some worth. Work animals were excluded from this. An animal had to be at least eight days old and totally without blemishes, (Leviticus 22:17-25).
A very large portion of the Bible, especially the Pentateuch, is concerned with the extensive ritual, ceremony, and material that went into a sacrifice. Also different types of sacrifices were outlined for different purposes. The following are separate types of sacrifices present in the Bible: Propitiatory, both Sin and Guilt Offerings, Dedicatory, Burnt, Meal, Libation, Fellowship, Peace and Thanksgiving, Wave, Votive, Freewill, and Ordination Offerings.
During the period of the First and Second Temple, elaborate sacrificial services took place twice daily, Shaḥrit, Morning and Minḥah, Afternoon, along with special sacrifices for Sabbaths, festivals, and special circumstances.
Yom Kippur, being the holiest day of the year had associated with it a special and unique sacrificial atonement ritual. The Avodah, עבודה, which means literally “service” was the name applied to the ritual, during the Temple period, which was the central part of the Musaf, מוסף, additional, sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. With the Avodah, which is a poetical recounting of the Temple ritual, became the central part of the Musaf liturgy (see footnote 166) for the Day of Atonement. The ritual itself was based on the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus where the special sacrifical ritual for atonement is described. After the detailing of the ritual is completed, the Bible established that the tenth day of the seventh month (the tenth of Tishrei which today is considered the first month) would be set aside as a special Sabbath for the purpose of atonement, (Leviticus 16:29-31). The extensive details associated with the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement are described in the Talmud in tractate Yoma.
It was on Yom Kippur, and only on Yom Kippur, that the high priest would enter the very center of the Temple, the Holy of Holies. He had to make special preparations for this ritual. One week prior to the Day of Atonement, the high priest would begin living in a special apartment in the Temple court where he studied with the scholarly elders all the special laws of Yom Kippur. Another priest would also stand-by and study in case something happened to the high priest. The day prior to Yom Kippur the high priest would enter the Temple and perform all the minute details involved in a sacrifice along with the other priests who were used to sacrificing. The high priest rarely performed the regular daily sacrifices, he only functioned on special occasions. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest himself would perform all the sacred and sacrificial duties.
After proper cleansing for the Musaf, or Avodah Service the high priest would first sacrifice a bull as his own personal sin offering after which he would confess and purify the sins of his own family, those of the priests (the tribe of Aaron), and finally those of the whole congregation of Israel, (Leviticus 16:6). The high priest, in the Holy of Holies, would carefully sprinkle and dispose of the animal’s blood as was prescribed. It was at this time, and only at this time, that he would utter the holy name of God, the Tetragrammaton, יהוה, and when he uttered this the people outside would prostrate themselves and respond, “Blessed be His Name whose glorious kingdom is forever ever and ever.” This was repeated ten times according to the Babylonian Talmud, (Yoma 2:2) and thirteen times according to the Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 3:7).
The high priest then drew lots, one marked for “Azazel” and the other marked as a “sin offering for the Lord”. Depending upon the drawing of the lots, two he-goats had different parts to play in the remaining ritual. The goat marked “for Azazel” would be lead out of the Temple into the wilderness called Azazel. This he-goat symbolically carried the sins of Israel away and was lost over a cliff in the wilderness along with Israel’s sins. A red ribbon which had been tied to the goat was brought back to the people to display to them that the goat had been lost in Azazel. The he-goat marked as a “sin offering for the Lord” was offered as such. This was followed by a special incense-offering and a prayer for good weather, prosperity, and the sovereignty of Judah, whereupon the high priest would come out from the Holy of Holies marking the end to the Avodah ritual.
The Avodah liturgy expanded in its development from simply a description of the Temple service and the reading of Mishna Yoma, chapters 1-7 to an elaborate service rich with special liturgical poems, piyyutim (see footnote 149), most of them acrostics, their beginning word following the alphabet. Different Jewish communities developed separate rites. Most rites contain a brief synopsis of the history of Israel and the purity of its early generations culminating in a description of the Temple ritual on the Day of Atonement and the Holy of Holies. Some communities and rites even still call for a prostration on the floor of the synagogue during the Avodah Service as was done at the Temple upon the prononciation of the Tetragrammaton.
Piyyutim also close the Avodah Service expressing the misfortune of Israel who, because of her sins, is deprived of the Temple and its sacrificial cult and must suffer persecution and exile. The piyyutim call for the reestablishment of the Temple, which is followed by the seliḥot (see footnote 14) prayers (penitential prayers of forgiveness) of the Musaf Service.
Anson Rainey, E. J., v. 14, pp. 599-602; Hanoch Avenary, E. J., v. 3, pp. 976-80.; and they (it is customary) throw their intestines on the roofs or in a courtyard, a place from where fowls are able to take (the intestines of the slaughtered chickens), (טור).23Tur, טור, is the singular for the word Turim or the Arba’ah Turim, the four columns, the major halakhic work of Jacob ben Asher who lived from around 1270 until 1340. He was the son of a famous halakhic authority, Asher b. Jehiel, known as the “Rosh”. Jacob ben Asher studied under his father and moved with him from Germany to Toledo in 1303. His work on the Turim was the result of the fact that in his time there was no one halakhic work free from controversy. Different opinions were present and there were no clear and authoritative halakhic decisions. Jacob ben Asher wanted to compose a work which would include all the laws and customs which applied in his day. He divided his work into four sections or turim, “rows”. Part one was called Oraḥ Ḥayyim. It contains 697 chapters on the laws of blessings, prayers, Sabbaths, festivals, and fasts. The second part was called Yoreh De’ah. It contains 403 chapters on the laws of ritual, Issur ve-Hetter (that which was forbidden and that which was permitted), and laws of mourning, idolatry, and usury. Part three, Even ha-Ezer, has 178 chapters on the laws affecting women; marriage, divorce, wedding contracts (Ketubbah), and childless widowhood (ḥaliẓah). The fourth part, Ḥoshen Mishpat, contains 427 chapters on civil law and personal relations.
Jacob ben Asher used the Talmud and its commentaries as well as the opinions of other authorities before him. He usually decided according to the opinion of Maimonides and his father, Asher b. Jehiel. He did though differ with Maimonides on questions of faith and belief.
The Turim was first published in 1475 and it became a widely accepted halakhic code. Joseph Caro used it and its organization as the basis for the Beit Yosef and the Shulḥan Arukh. (For a treatment of the Arba’ah Turim in relation to other code literature, see the introduction to this thesis.)
Ephraim Kupfer, E. J., v. 9, pp. 1214-16.