Kommentar zu Wajikra 16:8

‎‎‎‎‏ השעירים גרלות‎שני ‎על ‎‎ אהרן ‎ונתן AND AARON SHALL CAST LOTS UPON THE TWO GOATS — He places one goat at his right and the other at his left. He then puts both his hands into an urn and takes one lot in his right hand and the other in his left. These he places upon them (the goats; i.e. one upon each of them). The goat upon which there fell that lot bearing the inscription 'לה, "For the Lord" was destined for the Lord, and that upon which there fell that lot bearing the inscription "For Azazel" was afterwards sent forth to the Azazel (Yoma 39a).

AND THE OTHER LOT FOR AZAZEL. “This was a high mountain — a flinty precipitous peak, as it is said, a land which is cut off.”⁵⁰Further, Verse 22. This is the language of Rashi. And in the Torath Kohanim [the Rabbis have said]:⁵¹Torath Kohanim, Acharei 2:8. “For Azazel. This means the ‘hardest’ place in the mountains. I might think that it refers to an inhabited place; Scripture therefore says into the wilderness.⁵²Further, Verse 21. Whence do we know that it be a precipitous peak? Scripture therefore says, unto a land which is cut off.”⁵⁰Further, Verse 22. Accordingly the meaning of the word la’azazel is to “a hard” place, [the root of the word azazel being az — strong], with the letter za’yin doubled just like ‘izuz’ (strong) and mighty.⁵³Psalms 24:8.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “Said Rav Shmuel:⁵⁴This is Rabbi Shmuel ben Chophni, the father-in-law of Rav Hai Gaon. See Vol. II, p. 84, Note 139. ‘Although it is [only] with reference to the goat of the sin-offering that it is written [explicitly] that it was for the Eternal,⁵⁵As it is stated in the verse before us: one lot for the Eternal, and the other for Azazel, and in the following verse it is stated that the goat upon which the lot fell for the Eternal be offered for a sin-offering. the goat which was sent away [to Azazel] was also for the Eternal.’ But there is no need for this [comment]. For the goat which was sent away was not an “offering’⁵⁶I.e., “it was unlike all other offerings” (Ohel Yoseph). since it was not slaughtered. Now if you can understand the secret of the word after ‘Azazel,’⁵⁷In Verse 10 it states ‘la’azazel hamidbarah’ (for Azazel into the wilderness). The secret is thus that this is the desert’s portion. you will know its secret [that of Azazel] and the secret of its name,⁵⁸“For the name [Azazel] is derived from the word az (strong), which is indicative of the nature of the offering befitting him, and of the strength and might which are in his power” (Peirush Mototh on Ibn Ezra). since it has companions in Scripture.⁵⁹I.e., in the purification of the leper (above, 14:7) and of a house afflicted by leprosy (ibid., Verse 53). See Ramban ibid., Verse 53. And I will reveal to you part of the secret by hint: when you will be at thirty-three⁶⁰This enigmatic text in Ibn Ezra is generally explained by his commentators [and is so clearly indicated further, by Ramban] as follows: If from the word Azazel [here in Verse 8] you will count ahead thirty-three verses, you will reach Chapter 17, Verse 7, which reads And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray. Here then is the secret of why the goat that was sent away to Azazel was not slaughtered, so that it should not appear as a form of sacrifice to the satyrs (Ohel Yoseph). See my Hebrew commentary, p. 88. you will know it.” [Thus far are the words of Ibn Ezra]. Now of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra it may be said that he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth a matter,⁶¹Proverbs 11:13. and I will not be the talebearer who revealeth his secret,⁶²The above verse reads: He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth a matter. Ramban thus after paying tribute to Ibn Ezra for remaining faithful to the spirit of the second half of the verse, now says that nor will he himself be in violation of the first half of the verse, since the Sages have already revealed that secret in many places. since our Rabbis of blessed memory have already revealed it in many places. Thus they have said in Bereshith Rabbah:⁶³Bereshith Rabbah 65:10. “And the ‘sa’ir’⁶⁴Literally: “the goat.” But this Hebrew term sa’ir was also used by Scripture with reference to Esau [as the text continues], in the sense of “hairy.” shall carry upon him,⁶⁵Verse 22. this is a reference to Esau, as it is said, Behold, Esau my brother is a man who is ‘sa’ir’ (hairy).⁶⁶Genesis 27:11. All ‘avonotham’ (their iniquities),⁶⁵Verse 22. [read]: ‘avonoth tam’ (the sins of him who has been called tam, ‘a man of integrity’), as it is said, and Jacob was a man ‘tam’ (‘of integrity’).”⁶⁷Ibid., 25:27. It is explained more clearly in the Chapters of the great Rabbi Eliezer:⁶⁸Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 46. “The reason why⁶⁹This is in connection with what is told in the Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, that “on the day the Torah was given to Israel, Satan said before the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, you have given me control over all the wicked, but over the righteous You have not given me control!’ To this the Holy One, blessed be He, replied: ‘You will have control over them on the Day of Atonement if they have sinned, and if not, you will have no control over them.’” Therefore etc. they would give Sammael [i.e., Satan] a conciliatory gift on the Day of Atonement, was so that he should not annul [the effect of] their offerings, as it is said, one lot for the Eternal, and the other lot for Azazel, the lot of the Holy One, blessed by He, to be a burnt-offering,⁷⁰In view of the fact that the goat for the Eternal was offered as a sin-offering [as stated in Verse 9]. Rabbi David Luria in his commentary to the Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, emends the text to read: “the lot of the Holy One, blessed be He, to be a sin-offering.” It would seem, however, that Ramban calls it a “burnt-offering” because although it was technically a sin-offering, it was completely burnt as is a burnt-offering (further, Verse 27) and not eaten as is a sin-offering. and the lot of Azazel to be ‘the goat of sin,’ bearing upon it all the iniquities of Israel, as it is said, And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities.⁷¹Verse 22. When Sammael saw that he could find no sin on the Day of Atonement amongst them [the children of Israel], he said to the Holy One, blessed by He: ‘Master of all worlds! You have one people on earth who are comparable to the ministering angels in the heavens. Just as the ministering angels are barefooted, so are the Israelites barefooted [i.e., do not wear leather shoes] on the Day of Atonement. Just as the ministering angels do not eat or drink, so is there no eating or drinking in Israel on the Day of Atonement. Just as the ministering angels have no joints [in their feet, and therefore cannot sit or lie down], so do the Israelites stand on their feet on the Day of Atonement.⁷²This would seem to be a reference to the Sanctuary, where the Service on the Day of Atonement lasted continuously for almost the whole day, and since it was not permitted to sit in the Sanctuary Court, the people who were there had to stand on their feet the whole day (Rabbi David Luria). Based on this text the custom has spread among devout Jews to stand on their feet during the whole Day of Atonement (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 619:5). Just as there is peace in the midst of the ministering angels, so do the Israelites bring peace among themselves on the Day of Atonement. Just as the ministering angels are free from all sin, so are the Israelites free from all sin on the Day of Atonement.’ And the Holy One, blessed be He, hears the testimony concerning Israel from their prosecutor, and He atones for the altar and for the Sanctuary, and for the priests and for all the people of the assembly,⁷³Verse 33. as it is said, And he shall make atonement for the most holy place etc.”⁷³Verse 33. Thus far is the language of this Agadah (tradition) in which the Rabbis have informed us of his name [i.e., Sammael] and the nature of his deeds.
Now this is the secret of the matter. They used to worship “other gods,” namely, the angels, bringing offerings of a sweet savor to them, similarly to that which it says, and thou didst set Mine oil and My incense before them. My bread also which I gave thee, fine flour, and oil, and honey, wherewith I fed thee, thou didst even set it before them for a sweet savor, and thus it was; saith the Eternal G-d.⁷⁴Ezekiel 16:18-19. You have to contemplate the Scriptural text as it is written and [also] as [it is read according to the] Masoretic tradition.⁷⁵According to the Masorah we read in the above first verse: nathat (‘thou’ didst set Mine oil …), but the Hebrew word is actually written with a letter yod at the end, which suggests the reading nathati, meaning: “and ‘I’ did set Mine oil and Mine incense before them for your sake; that is to say, the offering which you brought before Me, it is I who gave it to them,” (Abusuala), as will be explained further on in the text. The same applies to the following verse where the Hebrew word is read unethatha (‘thou’ didst even set it), but it is actually written with a letter yod: unethati, meaning, “and I did set it …” (ibid.). Now the Torah has absolutely forbidden to accept them as deities, or to worship them in any manner. However, the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us that on the Day of Atonement we should let loose a goat in the wilderness, to that “prince” [power] which rules over wastelands, and this [goat] is fitting for it because he is its master, and destruction and waste emanate from that power, which in turn is the cause of the stars of the sword, wars, quarrels, wounds, plagues, division and destruction. In short, it is the spirit of the sphere of Mars, and its portion among the nations is Esau [Rome], the people that inherited the sword and the wars, and among animals [its portion consists of] the se’irim (demons) and the goats. Also in its portion are the devils called “destroyers” in the language of our Rabbis, and in the language of Scripture: se’irim⁷⁶Further, 17:7. (satyrs, demons), for thus he [i.e., Esau] and his nation were called sa’ir.⁷⁷Genesis 27:11. Numbers 24:18. Now the intention in our sending away the goat to the desert was not that it should be an offering from us to it — Heaven forbid! Rather, our intention should be to fulfill the wish of our Creator, Who commanded us to do so. This may be compared to the case of someone who makes a feast for his master, and the master commands the person making the feast, “Give one portion to that servant of mine,” in which case the host gives nothing [of his own] to that servant, and it is not to show him honor that he acts in that way to him, but everything is given to the master and it is the master that gives a gift to his servant; the host only observes his command and does in honor of the master whatever he commanded him to do. The master, however, out of his own compassion for the host, wanted all his servants to derive some enjoyment from it [the feast], in order that they may all speak of his [the host’s] praise and not of his shortcomings.
This then is the reason [for having someone] who casts the lots [on the two goats]. If the priest were to dedicate them merely, by word of mouth [without casting the lots], saying, “one for the Eternal” and “one for Azazel,” that would be like worshipping [Azazel] or taking a vow in its name.⁷⁸Sanhedrin 60 b: “He who makes a vow in the name of an idol, transgresses a negative commandment,” i.e., and make no mention of the name of other gods (Exodus 23:13, Rashi). Ramban’s thought is thus clear. If the priest were to dedicate the two goats by word of mouth, without the casting of lots, that would be as if he was worshipping Azazel, a deed which is punishable by death, and in addition it would be making a vow in the name of an idol, which is also prohibited under penalty of whipping. In either case, then, he would be doing something which the Torah has prohibited. Rather, the priest set the two goats before the Eternal at the door of the Tent of Meeting,⁷⁹Verse 7. for both of them were a gift to G-d, and he gave to His servant that portion which came to him from G-d. It is he [i.e., the priest] who cast the lots on them, but it is His hand that apportioned them, something like that which it says, The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing of it is of the Eternal.⁸⁰Proverbs 16:33. Even after the casting of the lots, the priest placed the two goats before the Eternal,⁸¹Verse 10. thus proclaiming that both are His and that by sending one away [to the desert] we intend merely to fulfill G-d’s wish, just as it said, And the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive ‘before the Eternal,’ to make atonement over him, to send him away etc.⁸¹Verse 10. That is the reason why we do not ourselves do any act of slaughtering [of that goat, as this would imply that it is a proper offering which requires slaughtering]. And Onkelos rendered the expression (one lot for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel) as: “one lot for ‘the Name of’ the Eternal and one lot for Azazel;” [thus he was careful not to translate “and one lot for the name of Azazel”], because the one was “for the Name of the Eternal” and not for him [Azazel], and the second was “for Azazel” but not “for the name of Azazel.”
It is for this reason that our Rabbis have interpreted:⁸²Torath Kohanim, Acharei 13:10. See also Yoma 67 b. “And My statutes shall ye keep.⁸³Further, 18:4. These are matters against which the evil inclination raises accusations, and the idolaters likewise bring charges, such as the [prohibition against] wearing clothes made of a mixture of wool and linen, [the law of] the Red Heifer, and of the goat that is sent away [to Azazel].” Now these idolaters have not accused us [according to our Rabbis] in connection with the offerings, for these are the fire-offerings unto the Eternal.⁸⁴Above, 4:35; 5:12. But they accuse us in connection with the goat that is sent away [to Azazel], because they think that we act as they do. Similarly they accuse us in connection with the Red Heifer, because it is slaughtered without the camp,⁸⁵Number 19:3. but [in truth] the purport thereof is analogous to that of the goat sent away [to Azazel], which is to remove the spirit of impurity, as it is said of the future, And also I will cause the [false] prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the Land.⁸⁶Zechariah 13:2. That the reference is to the “false” prophets is clearly stated in Yonathan ben Uziel’s rendition of the verse. On this basis you will understand the reason why the person who sent forth the goat to Azazel must wash his garments [as they were rendered impure],⁸⁷Further, Verse 26. and likewise he who burns the Red Heifer,⁸⁸Numbers 19:8. and what our Rabbis have mentioned⁸⁹Zebachim 83 a. See my Hebrew commentary p. 90. concerning the requirement of washing the garments [of those priests who are in charge] of the burning of the bulls and he-goats which were to be wholly burnt [outside the camp, i.e., outside the city of Jerusalem].⁹⁰Above, 4:1-12; 13-21. Numbers 15:24. See also Ramban above, 4:2 (towards end: “He did not mention here etc.”) Thus Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra intimated to you that you will know the secret of [sending away the goat to Azazel] when you reach the verse, And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs.⁹¹Further, 17:7. See above, Note 60. The word [Azazel] is a compound one [made of two words].⁹²Eiz (the goat) and azal (going). It is the place to which “the goat goes.” So clearly explained by Rabbeinu Bachya (in my edition, II p. 499), and so found also in R’dak’s Sefer Hashorashim under root eiz. There are many such cases. Thus the matter is explained, unless you pursue a further investigation from this subject to that of the Separate Intelligences⁹³Generally referring to the angels and spheres. See Vol. I, p. 59, Note 237, for fuller discussion of this term. See also in Seder Yithro Vol. II, 292, Note 313. and how the spirits [are affected by] the offerings — [the influence upon the spirits] being known through the study of necromancy,⁹⁴See Ramban, Exodus 20:3 (towards end: The third kind of idolatry etc.” — Vol. II, p. 295). while that of the [Separate] Intelligences is known by means of certain allusions of the Torah to those who understand their secrets. I cannot explain more, for I would have to close the mouths of those who claim to be wise in the study of nature, following after that Greek [philosopher Aristotle] who denied everything except that which could be perceived by him [through the physical senses], and he, and his wicked disciples, were so proud as to suspect⁹⁵“Suspect.” In some books: “think.” that whatever he could not conceive of through his reasoning is not true!⁹⁶The attitude of these philosophers, who claimed that whatever their minds could not understand was untrue, was especially obnoxious to Ramban. History has fully borne him out on this matter, for there are literally myriads of matters which the Medieval scholastics, conditioned as they were by Aristotelian concepts of the universe, considered impossible, and are now proven facts. And who can foretell the future of our present-day concepts of the universe? There are obviously facts which lie beyond the present-day grasp of the human mind, which will some day become firmly established. To deny their possibility just because we do not understand them, was to Ramban a manifestation of arrogance.

גורלות, use of a lot, especially when handled by one of G’d’s intimates, in this case by Aaron, serves to confirm something G’d wants as we know from Solomon in Proverbs 16,33 בחיק יוטל את הגורל, ומה' כל משפטו, “the lot is cast in the lap, but one’s judgment depends on G.d.” [the gullible person imagining that as long as the lot has not revealed what it was meant to reveal the fate of the individual has not been determined, is in gross error. The fate had long ago been determined in heaven. (Alshich). Ed.]

וגורל אחד לעזאזל, “and one lot for the one designated as destined for Azazel.” The word עזאזל is interpreted in Torat Kohanim as “a hard place in the mountains.” The word is linked to the word עז meaning “hard, tough.” By doubling the letters the point is made that the place is especially hard, unyielding. Nachmanides proceeds to explain the somewhat strange sounding rite of the scapegoat as follows: There used to be people who worshipped other deities, i.e. they ascribed divine powers to phenomena in nature. In fact these so-called deities are agents of the Creator whom we Jews perceive as מלאכים, loosely translated as “angels,” as they perform tasks assigned to them by the Creator, by Hashem. These misguided people offered sacrifices to these powers in the mistaken belief that these powers were able to do things on their own, things that G’d had not authorised them to do, or to fail to do. The Torah, had, of course, forbidden us totally to see in these powers anything resembling divinity. However, on the occasion of Yom Kippur, the Torah commanded that one of the two male goats designated as part of the Temple service would instead of being offered on the altar be dispatched to its death not as a sacrifice. The address to which this scapegoat was dispatched was the location in which the power perceived as possessing divine powers over nature was supposed to have its home. This power is equated in our thinking with the power that unleashes destruction [always at the command of Hashem, of course. Ed.] The “president” of these powers deserves to be acknowledged for what it is, though of course not to be deified, and that is why the scapegoat described in our verse is not slaughtered as opposed to sacrifices that are. The celestial body perceived as in “control” of all negative events in our universe is the planet Mars. Its counterpart among human beings is the nation of Edom, i.e. the descendants of Esau. Esau is the nation that has inherited the sword as the symbol of its power, ever since Yitzchok blessed his son Esau. In he animal kingdom the male goat represents the counterpart of Esau/Edom amongst the human beings. Parts of the domain of the male goats are the so-called שדים, satanic forces, the demons. The whole subject of the scapegoat must not, G’d forbid, be misunderstood as a kind of offering to these demonic forces from the Jewish people. On the contrary, the procedure demonstrates that we carry out the will of our Creator. Our sages have illustrated this in the form of a parable. When an individual prepares a feast in honour of his king, the king in turn, asks the host of this feast to also give a portion to a certain servant of his. Naturally, the individual tendering the feast to the king, in complying with his king’s request has not thereby done anything for that particular servant of the king. He has merely carried out a wish by his monarch. He had tendered a meal to the king, who had decided not to eat it all himself but to let another one of his servants share in the honour bestowed on him The reason why the king decided to give a portion to that particular servant of his was that he thereby wanted to perform an act of kindness for the host of this meal by ensuring that the servant who had not been invited to that meal but to whom the king diverted a portion now, had no reason to be jealous of the host and be upset that the host had not seen fit to invite him also as guest to that feast. A clear proof of the basic analogy presented in this parable is the fact that the scapegoat, though given to the demons had not been slaughtered, its blood had not been sprinkled on the altar, as was done with the part of the feast to which the king and his other servants had been invited. This is also the underlying reason for the lots which were drawn as to which of the male goats would be served to whom, -to continue in the language of the parable.- Both the fact that according to halachah both male goats had to be as near to twins as was possible, and the fact that only the drawing of lots determined which was to be served to whom, made it plain that the guest whom the king’s admirer had not invited was not considered inferior, else an inferior portion would have been set aside for him from the outset. Onkelos translates the words גורל אחד לה' as “one of the male goats was destined for the Hoy Name of Hashem,” whereas the other one was destined for Azazel. In other words, the first one was addressed to an attribute of Hashem, not to His essence, whereas the second was addressed to the essence of Azazel, not to an attribute of his. Such considerations prompted our sages both in Torat Kohanim and in Yuma 67 to comment as follows on Leviticus 18,4 את משפטי תעשו ואת חוקותי תשמרו, “Carry out My laws and observe My statutes.” The “laws” are the ones that are so self-evident that if the Torah had not spelled them out we would have had to legislate them ourselves. The former include legislation against robbery, murder, idolatry, etc.; whereas the latter include such statutes as not to mix wool with linen in a garment, not to allow the widow of a husband who had no children to remarry unless her brother-in-law had refused to enter into a levirate marriage with her (חליצה), not to eat pig’s meat, the red heifer, etc. The latter have been described as examples of irrational laws which the nations of the world ridicule, and thereby test our faith in the Creator Who has wanted to see if we would observe these laws although we do not understand their rationale. The legislation about the scapegoat also falls into the category of laws that afford the gentiles a challenge in that they feel that basically, we do nothing else than what they do. They cannot challenge all the various offerings that we offer to Hashem and hope thereby to undermine our faith in the invisible Creator. They thought that the absence of the mention of Hashem in the procedure of the scapegoat proved that we also pay homage to demons, etc. They thought they had found another proof of the irrationality of our faith in the red heifer legislation that appears to contaminate the very person who is preoccupied with purifying others. The wording of the Torah, as alluded to by Onkelos, makes it plain that the gentiles have completely misunderstood the phenomenon of the scapegoat. The major reason why the gentiles were misled is that both the red heifer procedure and the second half of the scapegoat procedure takes place outside consecrated grounds.

One to his right and one to his left. [Rashi adds this comment] because it is written, “Aharon shall put lots on the two he-goats,” indicating that he places lots on both of them with one act of placement, and this is impossible unless one is in the right hand and one in the left hand.

גורל אחד לה' וגורל אחד לעזאזל, “one lot for the Lord and one lot for Azazel.” Ibn Ezra, [at the conclusion of his commentary on this verse, Ed.], writes that when we get to thirty three, we will be able to understand the meaning of this procedure. [At the beginning of his commentary, he had already hinted that there is a mystical element, kabbalah, in all this. Ed.] What he meant was that when we count the next thirty three verses in the Torah and we get to Leviticus 17,7, the Torah will explain that the procedure described here is meant to teach us not to sacrifice to Satanic forces in the universe anymore. These Satanic forces are symbolised by the scapegoat. Just as the bird released into the air by the priest performing the ritual of the person afflicted with tzoraat is perceived as taking away his former sins, so the scapegoat is supposed to do this on behalf of the whole Jewish nation on the day of Atonement. Ibn Ezra understands the word עזאזל as a combination of two words, similar to גלעד in Genesis 31,47 or to בנימין in Genesis 35,18 or ראובן in Genesis 29,32, and many others. Whereas the first male goat is offered to the Lord as a burnt offering, the second one is symbolically tendered of the Satanic forces, the complete destruction of that animal pointing at the uselessness of idolatry The two words לעז אזל, “it went to waste, to destruction ” symbolise this concept.

וגורל אחד לעזאזל, “and one lot for Azazel.” This word is an alternate word for Samael, which means “Satan.” According to Rabbi Eliezer in Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 46, we are commanded to assuage the feelings of Satan on that day so that he will not attempt to interfere with the effectiveness of our repentance. When the Jewish people can enlist even Satan’s silence at the throne of G-d, there is no greater bribery than this. We are bidden to enlist this so that our sacrifices are not going to be in vain due to his citing our shortcomings.

עזאזל AZAZEL — (The word is taken to be a compound of עזז "to be strong" and אל "mighty"). It was a precipitous and flinty rock — a towering peak, for it is said (v. 22) "[and the goat shall bear upon it their iniquities into] an גזר) "ארץ גזרה means to cut) — into a craggy land (Yoma 67b).

A high cliff. Azazel connotes both [strength and power] as it is a compound word עזז אל (strength, power), and אל connotes power as in the verse (Yechezkel 17:23), “And he took away the powerful (אילי) of the land.” Rashi explains further: How do we know it was a mountain? Because it says “A land cut off (גזירה),” and גזירה connotes “cut off.” [This indicates a mountain] because if one cuts a trench in the earth, a mountain automatically results, since for someone standing in the trench it is the same as standing in the valley of a mountain.