Kommentar zu Wajikra 16:7

ולקח את שני השעירים, "He will take the two male goats, etc." This entire procedure needs much explaining. Why would G'd command procedures such as these? If it is one of the commandments for which the Torah has not provided a rationale, why has it not been described as a חוק, something the Torah normally does in situations where our intellect is too limited to understand G'd's motivations? The problem is made worse in light of the comment of our sages (Zohar volume 3, page 101) that the Azazel is a euphemism for Satan. If we accept this, the entire procedure smacks of a pagan rite, G'd forbid? This impression is reinforced by the statement in Yuma that the two goats are to be indistinguishable from one another in appearance!

והעמיד אותם לפני ה, “and he will make them stand in the presence of the Lord, etc.” Both of these he-goats were a gift for Hashem, both before the lots had been drawn as well as after the lots had been drawn. To make this point quite clear the Torah wrote that the High Priest is to present both of them to the presence of Hashem. Even after the lots had been drawn and one of these he-goats had now been described as לעזאזל, “for a rocky place (identified with Satan),” the Torah continues writing יעמד חי לפני ה', “that the he-goat is to stand alive in the presence of Hashem (verse 10).” In other words, one must not think that the scapegoat was addressed as a gift to Satan; it too was addressed to Hashem though by a different route. The principal difference between the two he-goats was that the one consigned to Azzazel was not slaughtered but was consigned live to the desert similar to one of the birds of the offerings of the person afflicted with tzoraat. (Compare author’s comment on Leviticus 14,7). There is a further similarity with the heifer consigned to virgin earth and killed in the process which was to atone for any negligence which might have contributed to the murder by a person unknown of the slain person described in Deut. 21,4. That heifer had to be “virginal,” had not been used as a beast of burden or otherwise made to perform tasks for its owner. It is most certainly not the intention of the Torah to suggest that this scapegoat be presented to Satan as an offering, a sacrifice. There simply is no sacrificial service performed in Judaism whose address is not Hashem, G’d’s essence, not even any of the lesser attributes of G’d [as the author has been at pains to point out repeatedly. Ed]. After all, what sense would Exodus 22,19 make where we are told that if someone offers a sacrifice to anyone other than G'd exclusively he would be guilty of death? Does then the Torah contradict itself in Leviticus reneging on what was written in Exodus? In Exodus the Torah was at pains to state that sacrifices that are addressed to a foreign deity or to an angel are prohibited. If even sacrifices addressed to G’d’s intermediaries are rejected, how much more so would an offering to Satan be rejected? Addressing a sacrifice to Azzazel, read Satan, would be violating the verse in Proverbs 21,27: “the sacrifice of a wicked man is an abomination.” Directing a sacrifice to the wrong address not only does not result in G’d’s grace but drives a wedge between man and G’d, is an abomination!
The fact that the Azzazel will become a beneficiary of a sacrifice which we presented to the Lord, i.e. to Hashem in accordance with His instructions, does not need to bother us as long as that secondary beneficiary is not the address of that sacrifice. The High Priest first offered the two he-goats as a gift to the Lord. The very fact that the decision which of these he-goats would arrive at its ultimate address via the detour of the Azzazel was determined by lot made it impossible to accuse the High Priest, i.e. Israel, as having aimed one of the animals as a gift, bribe, or whatever, to the Azzazel. It was as if G’d had determined by means of the lot, which of these two animals was to travel to its ultimate destiny via a detour. If the High Priest in sanctifying the two animals had said: ‘this one is for Hashem and this one is for Azzazel,” he would have compared the two, thus becoming guilty of performing a procedure which could be interpreted as offering an offering to an idolatrous destination. Seeing that the choice was determined by lot, it was as if G’d had decided which of the two animals was to make this detour via the Azzazel. While the animal was consigned to a location known as Azzazel, this was not the same as addressing it to the concept ”Azzazel.” (Compare Nachmanides on verse 8 in our chapter).
Our sages in Yuma 41 determined that in the event that the High Priest had failed to perform the procedure of drawing lots which of the two animals was to serve as the scapegoat and which was to be slaughtered for burning on the altar, the entire Yom Kippur service is voided. In other words, the drawing of lots was an integral part of the entire service.

From a strictly linguistic point of view, פשט, the word לעזאזל means “hard,” a word related to the word עזוז, obstinacy. The location was a relatively high mountain, a rock, an uninhabited place, in the desert, as the Torah mentions in verse 22. (Compare Rashi and Torat Kohanim Sifra Acharey 2,8).

In order to understand this whole subject we must first refer to a statement made by our sages in Avot 4,11 where we are told by Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov that if one performs a single מצוה one acquires an advocate on one's behalf; the reverse is true if one commits a sin. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov's words are explained by the Zohar volume 2, page 76 and elsewhere as well as by the Ari Zal. A sin is perceived as creating a spiritually negative force in our world. It is this spiritually negative force which is considered the actual sin perpetrated by the individual in question. We have explained Jeremiah 2,19 and Isaiah 64,6 as conveying this idea. When G'd forgave David in Samuel II 12,14, telling him he would not die, the message was also that the evil power David had created through his deed would be destroyed as a result of his repentance. This is why the prophet Nathan could say that "G'd has also removed your sin and you will not die." The sin man committed created the lethal force which has the power to kill the sinner. Once the sin has been removed, the force that potentially could have killed the sinner has been neutralised, is unable to kill. In other words, it is not G'd who kills but the forces created by the sinner are what cause death. Seeing that G'd much prefers our welfare to our death, He commanded that whosoever committed a sinful act unintentionally should offer a sin-offering; the owner should place his weight on the animal which is to serve as this offering, an act which drains him of the negative influences he has absorbed due to his evil deeds and transfers them to the sacrificial animal instead. G'd has informed us that this act of man when performed in the precincts of the Holy Temple is imbued with the unifying power of the אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, G'd's attribute as the spirit of all flesh. This is the mystical dimension of the need to perform סמיכה prior to the offering of sin-offerings. Every activity performed by man as part of the sin-offering procedure, i.e. the slaughtering, and the burning up of the animal's parts designated for this, he performs as a continuation of the act of placing his own physical weight on the animal first. The evil force his sin had created is neutralised, is completely uprooted. You have been aware already that the sin-offering is applicable only in respect of sins committed inadvertently because such a sin does not add to the already extant power of the pollutant which is residual in man since Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. If man committed a sin knowingly and willingly, something which increases this pollutant within him, he cannot erase this by means of a sin-offering. This is what is meant by Solomon in Proverbs 21,27: "the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination." G'd abhors someone who abuses the institution of the sacrificial altar to offer his abomination on it. There is nothing as abhorrent to G'd as the misuse of the altar in an attempt to expiate for intentional sins.

A Midrashic approach found in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 46: Satan was complaining that whereas G’d had given him authority over all the nations He had not given him any control over the Jewish people. G’d responded that on one day a year, namely, on Yom Kippur, he, Satan would have authority over the Jewish people in the event the latter were sinful. [I suppose it means that if they did not repent on that day and observed it properly. There could hardly be a question that they entered the day in a state of sin. Ed.]. The Israelites were given an opportunity to satisfy the aspirations of Samael by offering him a bribe. Whereas the offering presented to G’d was a burnt-offering, the one offered to Samael (Azzazel) was the sin-offering which was burdened with all the sins of the people of Israel. This gift to Samael was designed to deflect his intention to thwart the value of Israel’s offering on that day. By “playing up to the ego of Samael,” G’d hoped to neutralize him through flattery so that the purpose of the Day of Atonement could be achieved without interference from that source. When, as a result of receiving the “bribe,” Samael realised that on that day the Israelites were like angels, not eating, not drinking, etc., he too joined the chorus of Israel’s admirers telling G’d that Israel were as free from sin as are the ministering angels. Once G’d hears the testimony of our perennial accuser, He grants atonement to the people, to the priests, and the entire congregation. Thus far Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer.
[Our author now addresses a difficulty in the text of that Midrash where he does not know what to make of the word יקריב in the line “this is why one gives a bribe to Samael so that לא יקריב את קרבנם,” which we translated “so that he would not try to thwart the value of our offering.” The text in our amended version of the Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer does not have either the word יקרב or יקריב which bothers our author. I will therefore omit his attempt at dealing with this problematic wording. Our text reads שלא לבטל את קרבן של ישראל, and is not problematic at all. Ed.]

After these introductory lines we may be able to understand the procedure prescribed in our paragraph, especially when we add the following comment quoted in Torat Kohanim. on verse 16. "He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel and their transgressions, etc." The verse speaks of the sin of defiling the Temple and its sacrifices which are being atoned for by the male goat whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary onto the dividing curtain. All other sins listed in the Torah, both the relatively minor ones as well as the most severe ones, both intentionally committed ones as well as those committed unintentionally, even those for which judicial execution of the sinner is mandatory, etc., will be atoned for by the scapegoat." Thus far Torat Kohanim. The wording in the Talmud is as follows: "The scapegoat carries on it all the sins of the Jewish people, the intentional sins, (both serious ones and relatively minor ones), as well as unintentionally committed trespasses." The atonement for sins committed by the priests is also attained by means of the scapegoat as we know from Menachot 92 and Shavuot 13. The exact quote from the Talmud there reads as follows: "Rabbi Yehudah says that the priests also attain their atonement by means of the scapegoat." After G'd has informed us of all this you have sufficient reason to understand the purpose of the two male goats. Between them they carry away the accumulated pollutants which have polluted the souls of the Israelites during the preceding year. G'd is willing to accept as a sacrifice the animal whose function it is to atone for the defiling of the Temple precincts and the various animals therein which became contaminated before being offered on the altar. He does not abhor that sacrifice. G'd is not willing to accept the animal which carries the burden of all the other sins of the Israelites and He consigns that animal to death in a place far removed from the sacred precincts of the Holy Temple. He commanded Aaron to place his weight on that scapegoat prior to dispatching it to its death, seeing that Aaron acts as the plenipotentiary of the Jewish people. He could do so seeing we have the principle that a man's messenger can take the place of the one who has authorised him to be his messenger. When the Torah writes: "he shall place them on the head of the live scapegoat, the verse makes it plain that Aaron transfers all the pollutants which have contaminated the souls of the Jewish people to the scapegoat by means of placing his weight on that animal's head. The Torah simply informed us that the scapegoat is G'd's appointee for carrying the sins of the Israelites away to a barren land.

We will understand the procedure better by means of a parable. A king examined the garments of his son and found that some of them were clean whereas others were stained. If the garment had a single stain, the king rubs it clean and returns the garment to his son. If he comes across garments which are greatly soiled, he hands these garments to one of his servants instructing him to launder it. The servant does not mind getting his hands dirty while washing the garment. G'd acts in a similar manner with the Jewish people, His children. When one of them presents an offering asking Him to remove a minor stain, i.e. the result of inadvertently committed sins or a stain caused by defiling a Holy Place, G'd does not despise such an offering. However, all the pollutants the Israelites accumulated on their souls due to all the other sins are something G'd considers as most despicable. This is why He instructed one of His most junior servants- the scapegoat- to consign these dirty clothes to a barren spot on earth. This servant is considered expendable by G'd. The death of the scapecoat without slaughter is considered as an undesirable assignment for this servant. Nonetheless, the fact that the servant accomplishes by this mission something similar to what is accomplished by the slaughter of its colleague, namely the cleansing of the Israelites from sin, his mission is a worthy one. This is alluded to in our verse by the requirement that both male goats need to be almost indistinguishable in outward appearance and they have to be presented in the courtyard of the Temple before the lot is cast to determine which one of them is to perform which function. The reason G'd did not command to simply take any male goat from the market to serve as the scapegoat is, that it is impossible for one such animal to absorb all the sins of the Jewish people on its head until it has been imbued with additional strength by having been presented in the holy precincts in the presence of G'd. Once this occurred it was not clear to an observer which of the two goats had been chosen for the task of carrying away the sins of the Jewish people. This is why the Torah arranged for Aaron to draw lots. Only G'd Himself could determine which of His servants (goats) would perform which task. If we consider that according to the kabbalists numerous animals became bodies which housed the souls of former sinners whose souls were given an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves through another re-incarnation on earth, the chances are that the goat which had been chosen by lot to be the scapegoat was such an animal. There are also mystical dimensions to the procedure of the lottery itself as mentioned in the Zohar volume three page 101.