2 According to ch. 47 of the Nērangestān, two assistants had to bring the sacrificial animal at the beginning of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, but it is probable that they should appear on the sacrificial area before the beginning of Y35.1; the same chapter (N47.19–24) states that the animal sacrifice was celebrated during the recitation of three following Ahuna Vairiia; in particular, during the recitation of the third one the victim was killed with a knife and stunned with a hammer; see also Cantera 2016b, 152. The entrails were inspected and the sacrificial portions prepared according to N47.28 and N47.13–18, at the moment of the recitation of the word yā̊ŋhąmcā of the Yeŋhē Hātąm, which comes up just before the YH. See Cantera 2014a, 255–258. Boyce (1970, 68– 69) advanced very important considerations on the subject, observing that: “The sacrifice was performed by the frabartār (sic). The carcase was then presumably flayed and the meat dressed; and subsequently, after the recital of Hā XXXIV, a little of the meat was roasted over the fire in the pāvī, and partaken of in cāšnī by the zōt during the recital of Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, while the frabartār then proffered the ātaš-zōhr. The culminations of the sacrifice thus took place at what is evidently the highest point of the liturgy, set between Zoroaster’s own Gāϑās, which surround it protectively as the noblest of mąϑras.”

3 Modi 1937, 263–267, passim.

4 De Jong 2002, 128, 140–141.

5 Panaino 2004a, 66–75; 2004b.

6 Biardeau (in Biardeau & Malamoud) 1996, 58; cf. Panaino 2004a, 71–75; 2004b.

7 Malamoud 1989, 65 [= 1994, 70–71].

8 Kellens 1991, 50–51.

9 Kellens 2007a, 149.

10 Cf. Cantera 2013b, 117; 2016b, 155.

11 Götz König has recently underlined the importance of the xratu- in the framework of the ritual dynamics (see his contribution in this volume). On the kratu- in the Vedic dimension, see Das 1983, 448–450.

12 See Kellens 1995b, 38–40.

13 Ibidem.

14 Cf. Cantera 2013b, 118.

15 See Panaino 2004a, 66–71.

16 See Cantera 2016b, 156.

17 On the blood, see De Jong 2002, 137, n. 42, 138. The same scholar underlines (p. 142) the fact that one distinguished Zoroastrian practice was that of keeping the animal blood for as long as possible.

18 Kellens 1991, 50.

19 See Hintze 2003. Cf. Hintze 2007a.

20 I must thank V. Sadovski, who has attracted my attention on this problem.

21 Rüpke 2001, 116. Scheid in Rüpke 2011, 265–266.

22 See the synthesis by De Jong 2002 and the contribution by Malandra 2010.

23 See De Jong 1997, passim; 2002, 132–133.

24 See Narten 1995, 297–304. Cf. Benveniste 1964; De Jong 2002, 139–140.

25 Boyce 1970, 77–78.

26 See Giara (& Karanjia & Stausberg) 2004; Boyce 1967, 40.

27 See already Boyce 1966; 1970, 67–73; 1977, 157; Humbach 1964, 271–272; Kellens 2011, 112– 113; 2013, 59–61; De Jong 2002; Cantera 2014b; 2016a.

28 Panaino 2003.

29 See now Panaino 2015b.

30 Panaino 2004a, 66–75. 2004b.

31 Biardeau 1996, 57–58. Cf. Panaino 2004a, 71–72.

32 See, e.g., Kellens 2007a; Cantera 2016b.

33 See Kellens 2011, 113. Cantera 2014a, 256–257; 2016b, 151–152. I still insist on the fact that it was correct to emphasize the absence of ritual actions in the core of the Long Liturgy, as it was described in modern Zoroastrian practice, because it is a fact, whose origin is due, as now we know, from the decay of the ritual act of killing a sacrificial animal or to offer a piece of meat to the fire. Furthermore, this period of inactivity was connected also with the time necessary for the cooking of the meat. My mistake was in the supposition that this condition of inactivity was original, because I supposed that the effects of the ritual abstraction and spiritualisation had been efficient too earlier, but these facts do not eliminate the presence of a process of ritual abstraction and of self-sacrifice, which is now commonly admitted (see Cantera 2016b, 152). For instance, Kellens (2007a, 149) used, in his turn, the expression “auto-immolation” in order to define that status in which the priest has offered his uštana- and remains with his uruuan-, waiting for the moment of his union with his daēnā-, and of his transformation in a ritual saošiiaṇt-.

34 Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 206–211 (in particular N47.24–25, and n. 817). See also for a possible reconstruction of the procedure and its similarities with the pounding of the haoma-, Cantera 2014b. See De Jong 2002, 138–141.

35 See Cantera 2014a, 255–257; 2015, 255–257; Panaino 2017d.

36 On this text, see Hintze 2007a (with bibliography). See also Cantera 2014b.

37 See N47.24; Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 208–209, and n. 815.

38 See N40.10; Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 170–171. Cf. Boyce 1970, 67–68.

39 See Cantera’s contribution in this volume; cf. also Cantera 2016b.

40 Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 206–209. Cf. Cantera 2016b, 152.

41 See the contribution by Moein in this volume.

42 See Cantera 2014b.

43 Cantera (2014a, 256. 2016b, 152) notes that the meat of the sacrificial animal was cut during the recitation of three additional Ahuna Vairiias. Then the offering was given to the fire at the recitation of Y35.1. Between the recitation of Vr20 and Y35, 1, the formula aētā̊s.tē ātarә zaōϑrā̊ was recited “these offerings are for You, o Fire!” (N47.16; cf. Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 205–206 and n. 802), which was chosen as title of the present article. It is also to be underlined that Cantera (2016b, 164–165) suspects that “there was an immolation during the Srōš Drōn, and the victim was eaten by the participants at the end of Y8. We could imagine that during the second Drōn Yašt the rest of the immolated victim before the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti and then partially offered to the fire was consecrated and “sacrificed” (yazamaide), and then distributed between the sponsor and the sacrifice to all the other participants”. All these examples show that there were many varieties and that our reconstruction, in absence of more explicit prescriptive sources, must consider the presence of a number of different alternatives.

44 Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 206–207.

45 See Panaino 2005.

46 On the hierarchy of the sacrificial animals see Puhvel 1978. Cf. Bolle 1983, 49.

47 See Huyse 1999 I, 48–49, and in particular 124.

48 See De Jong 2002, 144–145.

49 See Ahmadi 2017.

50 See Razmjou 2004.

51 We must distinguish between the crude reality and a theoretical model of the sacrifice as an uninterrupted chain of liturgical services, celebrated in a perfect manner with a sacerdotal college in its entirety and purity under the most excellent patronage offering the best victims. This distinction means that we must evaluate whether the expectations contained in the manuals and in the most conservative ritual directions correspond to the everyday practice or to an abstract description of the most ideal performance.

52 In his study of the Mazdean sacrifice, De Jong (2002, 137) observes that the quantity of sacrificed animals seems to have been under close control, in order to kill a number of beasts strictly indispensable for the survival of the community.

53 See De Jong 2002, 147.

54 See Humbach & Faiss 2010, 168.

55 Kellens 2015a, 21–22.

56 The problem of the intrinsic connection between sacrifice and violence is an object of deep and complex investigation; see: Girard 1972; Burkert 1997; Bolle 1983.

57 See Kellens & Pirart 1991, 265–267.

58 Cantera (2016b, 152, n. 16) assumes quite reasonably that the regular practice of the animal sacrifice was abandoned “sometimes between the final redaction of the Nērangestān and the first liturgical manuscripts”.

59 See the remarks by Girgenti 2005, 528, 537; cf. Clemen 1920a, 80.

60 Boyce 1970, 77–78.

61 This is the ceremony usually offered to Srōš on the fourth day after the death of a Zoroastrian. It is celebrated in memory of his soul. The version described by M. Boyce was performed by the Bhagarias priests (cf. Boyce 1970, 77–78). Cf. also Panaino 2017d.

62 Boyce 1970, 77–78.

63 See Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 206; Cantera 2014a, 256–257. See also Panaino, 2017d, and the comparison with the Vedic role of the śamitr̥-.

64 See in particular Panaino 2018, forthc.-a.

65 This seems to be evident also from the Gāϑic passages in which the uxšānō asnąm “the bulls of the days” (Y46.3) are compared to the saošiiaṇtō dax́iiunąm; see also Y50.10: raocā̊ x^vǝ̄ṇg asnąm uxšā “the lights of the sun, the bull of the days”. Cf. also the fitting commentary offered by Kellens & Pirart 1991, 199.

66 See Kellens (in Kellens & Pirart) 1988, 33. Kellens (1991, 48): “Le caractère diurne du rituel implique nécessairement que le sacrifice vieil-avestique n’a pas le but qui est prêté à celui de l’adversaire, à savoir assurer la réapparition quotidienne du soleil.”

67 Kellens 2015a, 23–24.

68 A new comparative approach between Vedic and Avestan liturgies has been framed by the most regretted colleague X. Tremblay (2008, 2016); see also Swennen 2016.

69 Cf. Lommel 1927, 41; Weller 1938, 97–98 (text); 16 (translation).

70 See Ahmadi 2015, 210.

71 Cf. Kellens (1984, 75), who translates: “Qu’advient-il des offrandes pour toi quand ce sont les trompeurs qui te les apportent?”, and then he remarks: “frabarәṇte (F1) est fautif pour⁺frabarәṇti (J10) ou a une valeur réfléchie indirecte.” I maintain the solution made by K.F. Geldner because I prefer the second interpretation.

72 The text is strongly confusing. See Wolff 1910, 177–178; Lommel 1927, 41, n. 1; Weller 1938, 122; Gershevitch 1959, 200–201; Malandra 1983, 127; Pirart 2010, 75–76.

73 This emendation instead of satāiš was suggested by Weller 1938, 122.

74 The original text has paiti vīsәnti. Gershevitch (1959: 201) interpreted vīsәṇti as vi + isәṇti with reference to Ved. vi- + icchanti “to seek for” (iṣ- + vi°), but this solution seems to me improbable. I prefer to follow Bartholomae’s emendation (1904, 1327) of the text with paiti instead of haiti in this verse-line. Cf. Kellens 1984, 22; Klingenschmitt 1972, 125–126.

75 Emendation (hәṇti instead of haiti) suggested by Weller 1928, 98. Contrariwise, Bartholomae (1904, 1327) proposed to emend here again haiti with paiti.

76 With regard to the four compounds here listed (niuuaiiaka-, nipašnaka-, apa.skaraka-, apa. xraosaka-), see Duchesne-Guillemin 1936, 32, § 54 (but cf. Bartholomae 1904, 74, 79, 1083, 1084). Pirart (2010, 76) translates: “épouvantables et sautillants, désordonnés et gueulards.”

77 On the middle ending, see Kellens 1984, 22.

78 It is worth to recall that this Yašt cannot be recited overnight.

79 See Kellens (in Redard & Kellens) 2013, 7–9; Cantera 2016b, 165–166.

80 Cf. Ahmadi 2015, 215–216, n. 13.

81 We must remark the preservation of a derivative of the stem *nakt- (surviving in Wakī naγd “night”) in the adjectival compound upa-naxt^urušu (loc. pl. of upa-naxtar-). Cf. Bartholomae 1904: 391; Duchesne-Guillemin 1936, 196, § 234; Schulze 1966, 799–800, 827–828; Belardi 1977, 130.

82 Moazami 2014, 217–218. See also Darmesteter (1892, II, 114, n. 95), who notes that an ābzōhr can be performed overnight, but that it should be done in a proper way. But also in this case, it is to be noted that some acts are strictly forbidden in the nocturnal ceremony, as stated in the Nērangestān 30, 8 (Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 130–131).

83 Cf. Mendoza-Forrest 2011, 165, passim.

84 See the discussion in Panaino 2007.

85 See Keith 1916.

86 Panaino 2015a.

87 Cf. also Moazami 2014, 400–401.

88 See Cantera 2013b, 118. Cf. also Moazami 2014, 401–402. I prefer the grammatical interpretation of the passage as suggested by Ahmadi 2013.

89 In any case, we must observe that already according to V4.45, the knowledge increases during the first and the last parts of the day, and the first and the last periods of the night (cf. Wolff 1910, 339; Moazami 2014, 111–115). See also Kotwal & Boyd 1982, 169–170.

90 Falk 1989, 81.

91 This is not the place for a new discussion of the importance attributed to Sraoša also in a variety of the Vidēvdād-sāde ritual, a ceremonial variety on which Cantera (2010, 35, 39, passim) has rightly attracted due attention. The stress placed on the auroral phase is a common derivation from the Indo-Iranian background. See Cantera 2011, 22.

92 Cf. Ved. pitvá- “time of eating and drinking” (see also pitu- “meal”) > “midday” (as the eating time for excellence), Old Av. *piϑβa- in arǝ̄m.piϑβā- “time of midday” (literally, “fitting [arǝ̄m; Ved. áram, adv.; Kellens & Pirart 1990, 205] for midday”); then, Y.Av. ra-piϑβā-, f., “midday”, is an Ablaut derivation with respect to the corresponding Gāϑic form (Bartholomae 1904, 1509), for which only a temporal value (> “[part of the day] from midday to afternoon”) is well attested, but which should have had also a geographical meaning, as deducible from rapiϑβitara- “southern” and rapiϑβәnatara- “more to the south” (De Vaan 2003, 114, 155, 436, 473). In its turn, rapiϑβina- is both a substantive (like rapiϑβā-, f., “midday”, of which it is a derivative) and an adjective, which were probably distinguished by a shift in the stress; cf. De Vaan 2003, 209. See also n. 92.

93 See Bartholomae 1904, 157–158; the Avestan texts worship a series of temporal ratu- distinguished as aiiara-, asńiia, māhiia-, yāiriia- and sarәda-. On their meaning and in particular on the pertinent distinction between aiiara- “belonging to (the inner divisions of) the day (aiiar-/ aiian-)” and asniia- “belonging to the (entire) day (azan-/asn-)”, already focused on by Schulze (1966, 824–825), see Panaino 2017c; 2019. In the same articles the reader will find a discussion between yāiriia- “belonging to (the seasons of) the year (yār-)” and sarәda- “belonging to the (entire) years”. We must also note that with close reference to this part of the day the Vaeϑā Nask 104 mentions the worship of Bәrәzaṇt, i.e. of Apąm Napāt; see Humbach & JamspAsa (1969, 52), who note that during this gāh also the waters and Frādat.vīra should be worshipped.

94 Cf. N29.4; Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 113. We may recall that at the time of Ušahina also other minor divinities are worshipped, as in particular Bәrәjiia Nmāniia and Sraoša; in particular, the quality of being nmāniia- “belonging to home”, is attributed to Ušahina as well (see Bartholomae 1904, 1094); cf. Humbach & JamaspAsa 1969, 53.

95 Hintze 2007b. Cf. also Cantera 2013b, 90.

96 Cantera 2011, 30. Cantera (2016b, 168–171) suspects that in an earlier phase the whole ceremony was performed along the whole day, as in the Vedic case of the Agnicayana. This solution, already proposed by Tremblay (2008; cf. 2016), is plausible, but it should be framed in a context that it is difficult to be evaluated; furthermore, if this was the case, we must suspect that a great mass of texts in Old Avestan, as it is reasonable, has been lost. Thus, if so, the present Yasna is nothing but a synthetic ritual, which compresses in only one watch, a daylong ceremony. Nevertheless, this solution would imply a great change in the liturgical organization of the Avestan community, which, perhaps, should be connected with a calendrical reform and the adoption of the five gāh as well as of the five epagomenal days. The possibility of multiplying the force of a ritual from of just one performance to many ceremonies during a single day results in any case consonant with the same care dedicated to the concept of time in the later Avestan framework. I do not know if this radical modification should be connected with an increasing importance attributed to the centrality of Miϑra, as Cantera suggests (ibidem), but, if this was the state of facts, it involved a significant transformation also in the priestly organization. In fact, for the earlier and longer form of sacrifice a very large number of priests would have been necessary, while the new variety included the presence of eight priests only in the Solemn Liturgies, while during the standard office just two of them were sufficient. However, I wonder if it is not improbable that already in remote times other alternative forms of ritual were at disposal, and that familiar ceremonies, in which the pater familias behaved as a sacrificer, were not known and performed. We could also work with a theoretical model in which we postulate the contemporary presence of alternative rituals, so that the short version would be not a substitute of the longest one, but another kind of ceremony. For unknown reasons, perhaps the desire to have many liturgies in the different parts of the day and eventually even at the same time, would have favoured the prevalence of the synthetic ceremony against the longest one, whose presence, if we consider the comparative data coming from the Vedic world, should have been well attested.

97 Humbach (2010, 195) assumes with reference to Y44.5, that the ritual times were three: dawn, noon and nightfall (kǝ̄ yā ušā̊ arǝ̄m.piϑβā xšapācā).

98 Pakzad 2005, 286; Anklesaria 1956, 206–207. Cf. West 1880, 95 (Indian Bundahišn 25, 8).

99 Bartholomae 1904, 415–416. The suffix *-iná- < *-ino-, is of Indo-European origins (cf. Gr. νυκτερ-ινό-ς “nocturnal” (cf. Lat. nocturnus), ἑσπερ-ινό-ς “evening”, εἰαρινός “vernal”, ὀπωρ-ινό-ς “autumnal”, etc.; Brugmann & Delbrück 1906, 270–272), but it is not attested in Vedic (see Wackernagel & Debrunner 1954, 352, § 221e; De Vaan 2003, 209–210).

100 This must be deduced by passages like Frahang ī Ōīm 27b: duadasaŋhāϑrәm asti aγrim aiiarә “(of) twelve hours is the greatest day” (Reichelt 1900, 212; 1901, 142; Klingenschmitt 1968, 245–246; Bartholomae 1904, 50,763–764) and Bundahišn 25, 5 (Pakzad 2005, 285): <mahist> rōz ī hāmīnīg dwāzdah hās^ar ud šab šaš hās^ar. <mahist> šab ī zamestānīg dwāzdah has^ar ud rōz šaš hās^ar. “The <greatest> summer day takes on twelve hours and one night six hours; the <greatest> winter night takes on twelve hours and one day six hours”. Cf. Panaino 2019, 617.

101 Darmesteter 1892 II, 245–246, and n. 36.

102 See Darmesteter 1892 II, 286–287, and in particular the note 9.

103 According to Bartholomae (1904, 202) the etymology of this stem is unclear, but he closely connects such a word with arәzahī-, n., the denomination of the western Av. karšuuar-, according to the direct correspondence “Evening” = “West”.

104 Reichelt 1900, 212; 1901, 137; Klingenschmitt 1968 XVIII, 244–245, n^o 753, n^o 754. Cf. Bartholomae 1904, 353, 415, 549, 977, 1022.

105 Klingenschmitt 1968, 245.

106 Wolff 1910, 419.

107 Kellens 2016b, 196.

108 I do not have compelling arguments in order to state that one of the main characteristics of the aēnah- was the animal sacrifice overnight, although we know that its semantic implications remain in the ritual domain and strictly concern forms of violence and injustice against animals and humans (see, e.g. Y31, 15), but the problem should be taken into consideration. In fact, in the famous passage of Y32.10, following the one in which the various forms of aēnah- of Yima have been referred to (Y32.8), the “man who pronounces a very bad (hymn) in order to see the cow and the sun with his eyes”, can be involved in a nocturnal ritual if “cow” is metaphorically used for “moon”, which should be seen together with the sun in the night. According to Y9.29, the man who is guilty of committing aēnah- is cursed so that he should see the “cow” no more, an expression that might be explained as another reference to the night. If the problem was not in the nocturnal ritual in itself, but in the refusal of a nocturnal act of violence, the problem could be solved.

109 Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 148–149.

110 Ahmadi 2015, 211.

111 Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 147–149.

112 Boyce (1970, 68, n. 58) observed that, according to the Nērangestān, “if the gāh should change before the point of the service when the gōspand is to be killed, then the sacrifice cannot properly be made; but if the sacrifice has already taken place then the zōhr can still properly be offered in the next gāh”. As we have seen, not all these statements are clear, and furthermore it is possible that the case of the celebrations to be performed at dawn was different.

113 Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 168–169.

114 No Pahlavi translation of the Avestan passage it preserved in the mss. This fragment is also completely isolated in the Avestan literary tradition.

115 Kellens 1995a, 54. Contrariwise, Kotwal & Kreyenbroek (2003, 169, n. 666) do not translate this verb.

116 Bartholomae 1904, 1356.

117 Cf. Bartholomae 1904, 207.

118 See De Jong 2002, 138.

119 See Bulsara 1915, 273–274, n. 7.

120 In any case it is not clear whether in this particular situation an animal sacrifice was allowed or not, but I seriously doubt the answer could be positive.

121 Ahmadi 2015, 209–226, passim.

122 At this proposal, I would like to recall the religious cycles connected with the Vrātyas and their violent behaviour; Heesterman 1963; 1993, 178–179, 183. Falk 1986, passim; Hiltebeitel 2001, 132–168 (with additional bibliography).

123 See Oertel 1909, 162–175; Gonda 1980, passim; Staal 1983a, 663–680; Sreekrishna-Sarma 1983b; Bodewitz 1990, 115–130; Falk 1989.

124 We should consider again that the Vidēvdād-sāde ceremony is the only Zoroastrian nocturnal service in which the haoma- can be pressed; in their turn, also the Atirātra ceremonies include three pressures of the sóma-. On this Vedic ritual, see Brereton 2013; 2016.

125 Falk 1989, 81.

126 Cf. Minkowski 1991, 65, n. 136. On the demonic dimension of night, see also Schulze 1966, 848.

127 On this passage, see De Jong 1997, 180–181. Cf. Schwartz 1990.

128 Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 178–181. Cf. De Jong 2002, 134.

129 Ahmadi 2015, 212–214.

130 Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 181, n. 712.

131 See in particular Ahmadi 2015, 213–214.

132 Cf. Clemen 1920a, 48; 1920b, 158–159. Clemen preferred the reading Μῶλυ (introduced by P. de Lagarde and supported by F. Cumont) instead of ὄμωμι, but there is no compelling reason to accept this solution. Unfortunately, the whole discussion was disturbed by the wrong inference that ὄμωμι should be connected with the haoma-.

133 Benveniste 1929a, 74; 1929b, 290.

134 But see again Ahmadi 2015, 211–212, 215–216. We may just recall that Benveniste (1929b) suggested that this was a Zurvanite ritual, but this hypothesis was rejected by Zaehner (1955, 13–14).

135 It is interesting to note, following Swennen (2003), that, if the adjective aruṇī- is strictly linked to uṣás- in Vedic, because it denotes her red hues, it was progressively associated also to auroral and crepuscular periods, designating also the nocturnal wolf, as underlined again by Ahmadi (2015, 210). On the demonic character of these sacrifices, see De Jong 2002, 133–135. About the wolf in the Mazdean framework see Moazami 2005, 312–315; Azarnouche (2016) has recently written a very interesting study dedicated to the wolf in the framework of the Zoroastrian sources.

136 Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 180–181.

137 See on this problem already De Jong 2002, 133–141; we must note the in Yt8.58 it is prescribed a sacrifice of a sheep (pasu-) either white or black, or solely of uniform colour. This implies a selection of the suitable animal and in particular imposes the choice of a sheep (see Panaino 1990, 81,145–146). On the sacrifice as an instrument for the empowerment of the divinity, see Panaino 1986. It must be noted that hunted animals represented a particular category, whose meat might be eaten, but its status was different from that obtained after regular sacrifices (cf. again De Jong 2002, 135 with additional pertinent bibliography on this subject).

138 White 1989, 297–299.

139 For an interpretation of this sacrifice and its meaning, see also Stutley 1969, 257–258.

140 See also De Jong 2002, 134–135.

141 White 1991, 125, 231, n. 102, 253–254, n. 21.

142 See Schlerath 1954.

143 White 1989, 297–298.

144 See Schwab 1886, 106. Extremely important are also the very cautious actions enacted in order to prevent any énas- during the cooking procedure of the sacrificial meat, on which, see Vesci 1992, 144–145. Cf. Panaino 2019.

145 Unfortunately, this happened in spite of the relevant focus placed on them by Burnouf (1829), Brockhaus (1850) and Darmesteter (1892). Cf. also Kotwal & Hintze 2008.

146 Already Anquetil-Duperron noted that this ritual (i.e. the Yasna with the intercalations of the Visperad and of the Vidēvdād), must start at midnight and finish with the rising of the sun (1771, I. 75; 1771, II. 779). See also Boyce 1986, 156. It is to be remarked that since the time of Anquetil-Duperron it was known that in this ritual it was possible for a Parsi priest to read the text of the Vidēvdād during the ceremony, in particular at night. Cf. Modi 1937, 330–333. Daryaee 2012, 103–104.

147 The Bayān Yasn is explicitly mentioned in N28–32, while the description of another ceremony seems to be very close to that of the Visperad, as suggested by Cantera (2011; 2016c). In reality, the ceremony of the Vidēvdād-sāde is based on that of the Visperad, whose most important enactment should take place before the sunrise. We must recall that the mss. such as the Persian Rivāyats and other sources, confirm the existence of some varieties of these ceremonies, according to different periods of the day, of the month, of the years, and in connection with different purposes or celebrations. We may recall that the recitation of the Yašt during the ušahin gāh is admitted for most of them, being excluded only for Yt5 (Ābān) and 11a (Srōš Yašt); see Kotwal & Hintze 2008, 3–4.

148 In principle, any Mazdean liturgy must be concluded in the time limits of the same period of the day (gāh) in which it has been scheduled and performed (cf. N28.7). In this respect, in spite of a number of remarkable similarities concerning the squeezing and offering of the haoma-/ sóma-, and typical also of the Vedic śrauta rituals, the Zoroastrian tradition does not apparently preserve ceremonies whose duration can take a few days, as contrariwise it happened in India. All the ceremonies of the Long Liturgy can be performed in any of the five gāh, with the exception of the Vidēvdād-sāde, which is nocturnal.

149 Cantera 2013b, 122. A completely different analysis of the text has been proposed by Ahmadi (2013).

150 With regard to the daēnā-, in particular in the framework of the second fragard of the Vidēvdād, see the two different, but both new and original, explanations advanced by Panaino (2013, 2015a) and Cantera (2012c) of the myth concerning Yima, Ahura Mazdā and the daēnā- herself.

151 The importance of the auroral dimension and its connection with a ritual moment results patently confirmed already by the only Gāϑic passage in which ušah- is mentioned, i.e., that of Y44.5; from this stanza, in fact, we can deduce that “dawn, midday and night” (ušā̊ arǝ̄m.piϑβā xšapācā) corresponds to the three essential moments for any (ritually qualified) pious person seeking for a satisfaction of his desire (from eschatological viewpoint = his immortality). See also Cantera 2011: 21.

152 Cantera 2013b, 118.

153 Skjærvø 2007a, 118.

154 Stausberg 2004, 338; see also Cantera 2013b, 119.

155 Dhabhar 1932, 408. The original orthography and the transliteration of Persian technical words have been respected.

156 This particular ceremony is described also in the Gujarati Catechism written by Dastur Erachji Sohrabji Meherjirana; see Kotwal & Boyd 1982, 169–170.

157 Dhabhar 1932, 408–409.

158 See again his contribution in this volume. Now Cantera has explicitly revised his understanding of the Drōn service following Y59 discussed in another recent article by himself (see Cantera 2016b).

159 Cf. Modi 1937, 301–302, 34, 386–387.

160 I must thank Dr. Ahmadi with whom I shared some reflections on these passages and whose remarks I am fittingly using.

161 See Kellens 2016c, 195–198.

162 See Cantera in this volume.

163 Hintze 2007b, 36. It is to be considered, however, that 9 hours seems to be a time-duration compatible with cases in which the rituals were performed in a very slow manner, and this possibility was not excluded, at the condition that the time-line represented by the sections around Y62 (in its particular form) was respected.

164 Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 64–66.

165 Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 67, n. 165.

166 Cf. also Cantera 2010, 31–32, passim.

167 Cantera 2014a, 237; 2016a, 68; cf. Kellens 2011, 47.

168 It is to note that not only the lights of the sun are specifically referred to in Y50, 10c (raocā̊ x^vǝ̄ṇg), but that this presence has been realized also by the composer of V19; see Kellens 2016c, 155.

169 It is very relevant to underline here that Y62 was recited in two different parties: the first portion, corresponding to the stanzas 1–6, before Y60, and the second one, 7–10, in Y62, where we should expect it. Cantera (2015, 230–231) has been the first scholar to underline how this chapter is usually divided, and I must thank Céline Redard, who very kindly has attracted my attention on this evidence.

170 See Schlerath 1968, 40. Cf. Dhalla 1908, 134–187; Taraf 1981, 96–109.

171 See Tremblay 2006, 258–260; 2008; 2016.

172 Boyce 2003. Cf. Cantera 2016b, 153–154.

173 See Cantera 2013b, 93–103; Skjærvø 2007a.

174 See Skjærvø 2007a; Cantera 2016c, passim.

175 The text of the Vidēvdād Nask was divided in 10 blocks or sections, which have been inserted among the Staota Yesniias, so that the five Gāϑās (including the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti) are anticipated starting with Y28 and followed by a sequence of chapters of the Visperad and fragards of the Vidēvdād. The disposition of the intercalations around Y27.6, and 27.7–13, is a little more complex. See the ritual ms. 4161 of the Vidēvdād at the folios 63v–65v (Cantera & Mazdāpour 2015). Cf. Cantera 2010, 29–33; 2016c.

176 See Panaino 2012.

177 I must observe that the practice of embedding rituals of different nature in a larger ritual session was also a Vedic and Brāhmaṇic practice, as underlined by Minkowski (1989, 418–419). The recursive nature of the Mazdean ritual repetitions as well as processes of liturgical enlargement in a sort of circular form should be investigated in further studies; for the Indian side, see Staal 1980.

178 See now Kellens 2015c, 534.

179 Other problems appear in the composition of the Vidēvdād, but in any case, they result to be earlier than the period of fusion in the intercalated ceremony; these subjects have been discussed by Cantera 2005.

180 See Skjærvø 2007a; Cantera 2013b, 106–108.

181 This evaluation concerns the text of the Vidēvdād-sāde taken as a ceremony and does not involve an evaluation of the single textual portions contained in it, the dating of which can strongly differ.

182 Dhabhar 1938, 412.

183 See n. 2.

184 Cf. Cantera 2013b, 117–118.

185 See Cantera 2011, 13.

186 See Cantera 2016b, 161.

187 Cantera 2014a, 237.

188 See again Cantera, ibidem.

189 See Panaino 2015b; Kellens 2016b, 195–197.

190 Cantera 2014a, 237–238.

191 Boyce 1968, 206; cf. Modi 1937, 179–181. We cannot exclude that in particular occasions high priests of very important families were involved in the same ceremony, so that an exchange of roles can be easily postulated.

192 See Kotwal & Kreyenbroek 2003, 206; Cantera 2014a, 256–257.

193 See Panaino, forthc.-a; -b.

194 Gignoux & Tafazzoli 1993, 130–135; Boyce 1968, 202–203.

195 The last five days of the year were (and are) named according to the five Gāϑās; if Ahunawad is the first, Spandarmad corresponds to the third.

196 A particular consideration should also be given to the image of the Fire descending from the infinite light, getting light over the entire earth, and bringing in his hand the trunk of tree with the boughs upwards and the roots turned downwards (WZ35.40).

197 See Pakzad 2005, 384; cf. Anklesaria 1956, 288–292. This passage must be compared with WZ35.15 (Gignoux & Tafazzoli 1993, 130–131). Cf. De Jong 2002, 146–147.

198 Gignoux & Tafazzoli 1993, 132–133.

199 Panaino 1990, 52, 117; 1995, 18.

200 Hintze 2007.

201 On this ritual, see Panaino 2017b.

202 See Cantera 2014a, 257.

203 See De Jong 2002, 128. But the Zoroastrians of Iran, as those of India, are no vegetarian and the killing of animals must be consecrated, according to the tradition. This consecration is necessary also for other kinds of food by means of the čāsnī ritual (see Modi 1937, 264–266, passim). About the consummation of meat in the gumēzišn state, see Lommel 1930, 206–207. On the other hand, we must register a strongly contrite attitude toward the treatment of animals, not only in the way of atone and put them asleep (which was very careful in order to avoid excessive pain), but through the act of giving them a kiss of sorrow on their left cheeks (Boyce 1970, 73), just as the ancient Indians tried to “humanize” the act of killing (cf. Oberlies 2012, 279; Schmidt 1997, 223–225).

204 On the development of the ahiṁsā- notion, see, with rich bibliography, Schmidt 1997.

205 For instance, we may mention the case of the rituals dedicated to Kālī or Bhavani, although they do not seem to be Brāhmaṇic divinities, but probably belong to an earlier Indian background. Cf. also De Jong 2002, 128.

206 The risks of a determinist approach have been underlined by Shanklin (1985); but see also Bolle 1983, 49.