Comentario sobre Levítico 16:39

'וידבר ה' אל משה אחרי מות שני בני אהרן וגו‎‎ AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AFTER THE DEATH OF THE TWO SONS OF AARON etc. —What is this statement intended to tell us? (i. e. why is it at all stated when God spoke this to Moses?) Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah illustrated this by a parable: It may be compared to the case of a sick person whom the physician visited. He (the physician) said to him: “Do not eat cold things nor sleep in a damp place!" Another physician came and said to him: “Do not eat cold things, nor sleep in a damp place so that thou mayest not die as Mr. So-and-so died!" Certainly this (the latter) put him on his guard more than the former; that is why Scripture states “after the death of the two sons of Aaron" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 1 3).

AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES, AFTER THE DEATH OF THE TWO SONS OF AARON. The meaning of the phrase after the death of the two sons of Aaron, is that immediately after the death of his sons He had warned Aaron against [drinking] wine or strong drink [when going into the Tent of Meeting], so that he should not die,¹Above, 10:9. and now He told Moses in addition to warn him so that he should not die when he draws near the Eternal [even in a sober condition, but at a time when he is not commanded to do so].²Ramban’s intent is thus to explain that we should not think that this section was made known to Moses immediately after the death of Aaron’s two sons, since the prohibition conveyed to Aaron against the ministering priests’ drinking wine, preceded it. The reason why Ramban finds this important to emphasize will be made clear further on. See Note 5. It is likely that these two commandments were both conveyed on the day after the death of Aaron’s sons, for on the actual day [when the deaths occurred, Aaron] was a mourner, and the holy spirit does not rest upon man in moments of sadness,³Yerushalmi Succah V, 1. And therefore G-d would not have communicated with Aaron on that day. and the communication concerning the prohibition against wine came to Aaron,⁴Above, 10:8. Thus it must have been on the day after the day of the tragedy, when he was no longer a mourner. and in that selfsame day this commandment [stated in the section before us] was also told to Moses.⁵We may now understand why Ramban emphasized that the phrase after the death of the two sons of Aaron does not mean immediately after their death, since it was preceded by G-d’s command to Aaron. For had the phrase meant “immediately following their death,” then it would have been possible that this command came to Moses on the day of the death of Aaron’s sons. But now that the Divine command to Aaron preceded it, and that could not have taken place on the day of the tragedy [for the reason explained in the text], but only on the following day, it follows that the Divine command given to Moses, as contained in this section, was also communicated to him on the day after the death of Aaron’s sons. Ramban’s stressing of this is obviously intended to take exception to what Chizkuni clearly writes in his commentary, that it was on the selfsame day that the death occurred that the command contained in this section was communicated. On this Ramban commented: “The holy spirit does not rest upon man in moments of sadness.” Scripture, however, preceded the prohibitions with which He warned Israel that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile My Tabernacle that is in the midst of them,⁶Above, 15:31. “And incidentally He explained already all the laws of impurity” (Tur). [before dealing with the commands specific to Aaron], and only afterwards He wrote the warning [applying to] the individual [i.e., this section, which was to be conveyed by Moses to Aaron, as the verse states: And the Eternal said unto Moses: ‘Speak unto Aaron thy brother etc.’].⁷Verse 2. But in my opinion the whole Torah is written in consecutive order, and in all places where He changed the order, placing an earlier event in a later position, Scripture clearly states so, such as the verses: And the Eternal spoke unto Moses in Mount Sinai⁸Further, 25:1. [later on] in this book, [the laws of which were declared to Moses in the Tent of Meeting]; And it came to pass on the day that Moses had made an end of setting up the Tabernacle,⁹Numbers 7:1. in the following book [i.e., the Book of Numbers], and similar such statements. Therefore Scripture stated here after the death, in order to inform us that this [communication] was [given to Moses] immediately after the death of the two sons of Aaron [and according to the historical sequence of events, it should have been placed in Chapter 10 above, where the account of events following their death is given].
And in the opinion of our Rabbis who said¹⁰Torath Kohanim, beginning of Acharei Moth, 3. Quoted also in Rashi. [by way of a parable, that this verse can be compared to the case of a physician who warned his patient not to eat cold things or sleep in a damp place, and another physician warned him likewise but added]: “so that you should not die as that person died;” thus “this [second physician] put him on his guard more than the first one,” [according to this comment of the Rabbis] the meaning of the verse will be, that G-d said to Moses these words: “After the death of the two sons of Aaron¹¹Thus the expression after the death is not a chronological note marking the occasion when this communication was given, but constitutes part of the Divine words, as if to say: “Now that the death of Aaron’s sons happened because they drew near etc., therefore speak to Aaron etc.” when they drew near before the Eternal, speak to him that he come not at all times into the holy place … that he die not.”

וידבר ה' אל משה אחרי מות, normally, the expression וידבר in the Holy Tongue is not used to describe specific parts of the verbal message but applies to the entire speech, characterising its nature. This is the reason why we find so many times the word לאמור, i.e. אמירה after the introduction וידבר. This is why verse 2 continues with ויאמר אליו דבר אל אהרן אחיך, He said to him: “say to your brother Aaron,” without a change of subject between the two verses. Seeing that the thrust of the message, i.e. its being connected to the immediately preceding death of the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, had not changed, there was no need to once again identity the speaker, i.e. G’d, by adding the words ויאמר אליו, “He said to him,” as is customary in similar constructions in the Torah. However, according to a minority of our sages (Torat Kohanim 1,3) there were two separate addresses by G’d and we would then have to understand the verse as follows: one concerned the prohibition for Aaron not to enter the sanctuary any time he felt like it otherwise he would be courting death. The second time was after Aaron’s sons had died; Aaron was to enter only at G’d’s command. The warning this time was more urgent, warning that G’d’s presence in the sanctuary would be visible from the outside by means of the cloud hovering over the Tabernacle. At that point the voice of G’d addressed itself to Moses again, issuing instructions concerning the conduct of prophets and High priests in future generations. We find a reference to such matters in Samuel I 3,3-4 where Samuel is reported as lying down in the sanctuary of the Lord when G’d called to him.

וידבר ה׳ אל משה אחרי מות, G'd spoke to Moses after the death, etc. Why doesn't the Torah spell out what G'd told Moses on this occasion? Secondly, why did the Torah have to add that this communication occurred after the death of two of Aaron's sons? What bearing does this have on the content of G'd's message? Thirdly, why did the Torah have to add the words: בקרבתם לפני ה׳ וימותו, "when they came close to the presence of G'd and died?" If the Torah wanted to tell us the reason these sons died, we have been told this already in Leviticus 10,1, when the Torah wrote: ויקריבו לפני ה׳ אש זרה? The Torah was far more specific about the death of these sons in that context than it is here. We could not determine what the sin of these sons of Aaron had been by relying merely on what the Torah has written here. What is so terrible about wanting to come close to the presence of G'd? Fourthly, the word וימותו, they died, is quite superfluous seeing the verse commenced with the mention of their deaths? Fifthly, why did the Torah use the additional letter ו in the word וימותו?

אחרי מות, G’d told Moses to warn Aaron so that he would not die as had his sons because of unauthorised entry into the Temple.

אחרי מות שני בני אהרן, “After the death of two of Aaron’s sons.” The reason why the Torah again refers to this event at this juncture is that seeing the Torah had just (15,31) concluded by warning us to be extremely careful not to become guilty of death through polluting G’d’s residence while entering it in a state of ritual contamination, the Torah uses the death of Aaron’s sons as an example designed to serve as a deterrent to anyone else daring to desecrate consecrated grounds in such a fashion. Nachmanides adds that the wording אחרי מות שני בני אהרן is that immediately after that tragic death had occurred, Aaron and his sons had been warned not to enter consecrated grounds while in a state of intoxication. (Compare Leviticus 10,8-11). It is certainly reasonable to assume that these laws were revealed to Aaron and the people on the day following the death of Nadav and Avihu. They could not very well have been communicated on the very day of the death of the sons, as the legal status of אנינות, preoccupation with burial and mourning rites, prevent the remaining two sons from studying Torah on that day. Not only that, but the Holy Spirit does not communicate with people when they are in such a state of mind. The warning not to drink wine applied to Aaron personally more than to anyone else, as he performed service in the Tabernacle on a daily basis. Moses had been informed before now, of course, but the Torah wanted that the entire people be warned at once. [We must remember that though Moses had been given all these laws already on Mount Sinai, seeing that at that time the whole subject of building a Tabernacle had not yet become relevant, as there had not yet been the sin of the golden calf, there had also been no reason to reveal this to the people until now, the first or second day that the Tabernacle had become operative. Ed.] As a general rule (Nachmanides writing), whenever the Torah departs from chronological sequence in its report, it prefaces such statements with the words “G’d spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai, etc.,” to remind us that the legislation following was not an afterthought. Ed.] Our sages claim that the meaning of the words ולא תמותו in Leviticus 10,9 was an oblique reference to the reason why the two sons of his had died. Aaron should take care that the same would not happen to him. [Seeing that the author does not attribute this statement of “our sages” to a specific source, I permit myself the comment that this sounds incredibly unlikely, as surely someone of Aaron’s stature did not need to be given this kind of a warning in order to obey G’d’s instructions. Ed.]

In a damp place. טחב refers to any place that cools or dampens [a person]. The explanation of the verses is as follows. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture write, “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe” [and then repeat, “Adonoy spoke to Moshe.”] It should merely have written, “After the death [of two sons of Aharon] ... Adonoy spoke to Moshe, Speak to your brother Aharon...” Alternatively, it should have written, “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe after the death [of two sons of Aharon]... Speak to [your brother] Aharon... Why does it write [“And Adonoy spoke to Moshe,” and then repeat], “Adonoy spoke to Moshe.” Regarding this Rashi explains: “Why does the verse say [this]...” He then cites the parable of Rabbi Elazar in order to say that the verse is like this parable... And thus, “This [second speaking to him clearly] urged him on more than the first one.” The verse, too, means the same when it is written, “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe” [and repeats it]. [The first time the verse says “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe], means [that He instructed] Moshe to only tell Aharon not to come into the Holy that is inside of the curtain and not to mention [that he can incur] death similar to the death of his sons. Afterwards, the verse writes “After the death ... Adonoy said to Moshe...” meaning that the Holy One spoke again to Moshe to tell Aharon something else — he should warn him a second time to not come into the Holy, and [this time] also mention the death [of his sons] as it is written, “After the death of two sons of Aharon ... Adonoy spoke to Moshe, Speak to your brother Aharon ... so that he not die.” I.e., if you do not come into the Holy you will not die as your sons died, but if you come into the Holy as your sons did, you too will die like them. Re’m’s text of Rashi is different, see there. Aharon’s sons did not die for entering the Holy of Holies, the place where Aharon was forbidden to enter at all times. If so, what proof does the death of his sons serve to support this warning? The verse means as follows: Aharon should not enter [the Holy of Holies] at all times in order not to die as his sons died when they entered a place forbidden to them. Similarly, he should not enter a place that is forbidden to him. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

אחרי מות, “after the death;” when we read in Kohelet 9,2: כטוב כחוטא, “as is the good man so is the sinner,” this is a reference to the two sons of Aaron who died only on account of having arrogated to themselves the right to preempt their elders Moses and Aaron in issuing a religious ruling. This is the meaning of the Talmud, tractate Yuma, folio 53, where Rabbi Eliezer explained the word חוטא as referring to their having done so. What precisely was the “new” ruling that they revealed? They interpreted the line: ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש על המזבח, ”the sons of Aaron the priest placed fire (man made) on the altar;” (in addition to the fire that came down from the heaven). (Leviticus 1,7) Their sin was basically the same as that of Korach and his congregation, and that is why both were burned to death by heavenly fire. (Compare Tanchuma on our portion, section 1) Rabbi Acha son of Ze-ira adds (in the Tanchuma) that this is also the meaning of Job 37,1: אף לזאת יחרד לבי ויתר ממקומו, “also on account of this my heart quakes and leaps from its place;” he compares what happened to the staff of Aaron when it was placed inside the Sanctuary which sprouted almonds, whereas his sons when they entered the Sanctuary were burned to death. (Numbers 17,23) He also contrasts the fact that the Roman general Titus dared to enter the Holy of Holies, and he left it unharmed although surely he was less qualified to have entered such sacred grounds. He had entered in order to blaspheme, whereas the sons of Aaron had entered in order to offer incense to the Lord. (Tanchuma section 4 on our portion) [No wonder at the reaction of Job when he reflected on this phenomenon. Ed.] This phenomenon is also the subject of Psalms 78,63: בחורי אכלו אש ובתולותיו לא הוללו, “Fire consumed their young men and their maidens remained unwed.” The psalmist explains the reason that the sons of Aaron had to die as being that they had failed to get married. They had described themselves as so superior that no one was good enough to become their wives. They overestimated the value of having been born into such prominent families as their father and uncle. The result of their haughtiness was that they died without leaving behind any children. (Tanchuma section 6) In other words, no one remembered them.

אחרי מות, “after the death;” Rashi queries why this verse was written, as we do not hear what G-d said to Moses, and verse 2 immediately begins with G-d speaking to Moses again and telling him to tell Aaron that entrance to the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle is not permitted at any time he so chooses. What was missing in Rashi’s commentary is the parable by Rabbi Elazar ben Aroch, who said that when a physician visits a sick person he tells him not to eat certain foods, not to lie down in wet areas, etc; subsequently someone else comes into the room of the patient and tells him the same thing, but he Acharey Mot adds that if the patient does not heed this warning he is liable to die. The effect of the second person’s warning is far greater than the effect of the physician’s instructions. Rashi saw in the second verse in our portion a comparison to the second person in Rabbi Elazar ben Aroch’s parable. The Torah realised that in order to impress Aaron sufficiently with the prohibition to enter the Holy of Holies at will, he had to be warned of the consequences if he disregarded the warning. (Torat kohanim) The version there is as follows: in the second verse Moses is asked to remind Aaron that his two sons had died, because they had ignored the warning not to enter the Holy of Holies unless invited to do so.

... It is difficult... Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah should not have said, "There is a parable about two physicians." Rather, he should have said, "It is a greater warning when someone warns a sick person that he should not die like x, than if he just says not to [do x] and die."...

בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו, “when they approached the presence of Hashem and died.” Ibn Ezra comments that this verse is proof that the sons of Aaron died because they had dared to bring the incense into the Tabernacle. Nachmanides disagrees, as the Torah always mentions the sin of anyone who died an untimely death at the hands of Hashem. The Torah had already told us on a number of occasions that the cause of death was that they introduced “strange fire” which they had not been authorised to do. (Leviticus 10,1) However, this was described as בהקריבם אש זרה, “when they introduced alien fire,” whereas here the Torah wrote about בקרבתם, i.e. when they personally entered a domain which was out of bounds to them. It is therefore completely reasonable that the Torah should now warn Aaron not to enter the wrong place at the wrong time. Although he is permitted entry to the Holy of Holies, even, something no other priest is allowed to enter, he cannot do so at times of his choosing. It is quite possible that the correct interpretation of our verse is in line with what our sages said (Mechilta Beshalach ויסע ו) that the people had come to the conclusion that the incense contained poisonous herbs which had caused the death of Nadav and Avihu, the 250 men who offered incense during Korach’s rebellion, etc. The Torah, countering these wild accusations leveled against the incense offering, wanted to make the point that it had not been the incense which had killed them but their unauthorised entry, both in terms of place and time. Aaron therefore had to be especially on guard, seeing he would offer incense on a daily basis he would be more exposed to such a danger than any other individual. The Torah defines precisely when, where, and who is fit to offer this special offering (verses 12 and 13). Some scholars feel that we must take careful note of the difference in meaning of the word בקרבתם as opposed to בהקריבם, the former referring to the act of entering a forbidden domain regardless of the purpose why it was entered and regardless of what the person entering had in his hands as an offering. In order to make plain that mere entering the sacred domain by Nadav and Avihu was a mortal sin by itself, the Torah now instructs Aaron: בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקוד'ש, “only when accompanied by the following is Aaron allowed to enter these holy domains.”

It appears that the Torah tries to tell us that G'd warned Moses not to think that seeing that he personally was closer to the Kingdom of Heaven and at home in G'd's palace, that he could enter the Sanctuary at will. Even though G'd addressed this command to Aaron, Moses was not to think that he was not included in this restriction because the Torah itself testified in Numbers 12, 7-8 that Moses' prophecy was superior to that of Aaron. G'd had to speak to Moses to warn him not to misunderstand the prohibition He was about to issue to Aaron concerning entry into the Sanctuary, i.e. the Holy of Holies. G'd said וידבר ה׳ אל משה, i.e. the directive was addressed exclusively to Moses. He spoke to him shortly after the death of the sons of Aaron who had attempted to come too close as a result of which they died. The Torah meant that although they were the sons of Aaron, i.e. highly placed personages so much so that the Torah testified that their death was due to their closeness to G'd, (compare comment of Vayikra Rabbah 12,2 on Leviticus 10,3 "I will be sanctified through those close to Me.") G'd did not have pity on them in spite of their closeness to Him. The principal lesson to be derived from all this is that he who occupies a privileged position is not entitled to take liberties with G'd who has granted this privilege in the first place.

Another aspect of the word בקרבתם may be that these people were closer to G'd than anyone. Had Moses been closer to G'd than Nadav and Avihu, G'd should have demonstrated the lesson of בקרובי אקדש by punishing Moses for some minor infraction he was guilty of. If G'd chose Nadav and Avihu instead to demonstrate this principle, they must have been the people closest to G'd at that time. Perhaps G'd explained all this to Moses on this occasion so that afterwards Moses said to Aaron in Leviticus 10,3: הוא אשר דבר ה׳ לאמור בקרובי אקדש, "this is what G'd has said to say: I will be sanctified by those who are close to Me." We would then have to assume that the content of G'd's communication in verse 1 of our chapter was said to Moses immediately after the death of Nadav and Avihu. The fact that their deaths had been reported earlier does not matter as we have a principle that the Torah is not bound to report events in chronological order.

Who brought an [unauthorized] offering before Adonoy [בקרבתם לפני ה']. This can be explained as, “In their closeness to Hashem,” for they were extremely close to Hashem. This is why Hashem was exact with them and judged them even for a slight indiscretion, as it says (Tehillim 50:3): “And around Him it storms furiously.” The closer one is to the King, the more careful one has to be with the King’s honor.

Torat Kohanim writes one could have thought that when G'd addressed His warning to "your brother Aaron," Moses felt that he was not included in that prohibition and could enter the Holy of Holies at will. They conclude that the word אחיך was meant to include only Aaron's other sons so that Moses himself would have remained free to enter at will. Accordingly, I would not have known if Moses was included in the prohibition or not unless G'd told Him so specifically. The author of Korban Aharon writes that it is clear that only someone who had received permission to enter at certain specified times had to be told not to enter at other times. He who had never been permitted to perform a duty inside the Holy of Holies did not need to be told that he could not enter at will. According to what I have written the entire warning is contained only in verse 1. I do not think that the reasoning of Korban Aharon is correct. The author of Torat Kohanim meant that our verse did not mean to exempt Moses from the warning issued to Aaron at all and that we remain without a verse either permitting or prohibiting Moses from entering the Holy of Holies. The author chose to use the extraneous word אחיך to also include Aaron's remaining sons in the prohibition instead of using it to exempt Moses from the warning.

All of this is in line with the opinion that the word אחרי is a signal that something occurred close to what was reported earlier, whereas the word אחר indicates that it occurred some considerable time later than what has been reported last (compare Bereshit Rabbah 44,5). There is also an opposite view that the word אחרי introduces something that occurred much later chronologically than what had been reported immediately before, whereas the word אחר refers to what had happened immediately before the paragraph commencing with the words אחר הדברים. According to the latter view we have to explain our verse in the following manner. The death of Aaron's sons was due to their having entered the Sanctuary on their way to the Holy of Holies without permission. While it is true that in פרשת שמיני the reason for their deaths given by the Torah is the "strange fire" they introduced into the Sanctuary (10,1), our verse teaches that they would have been guilty of death for merely entering the Holy of Holies even if they had not brought strange fire into the Sanctuary. The Torah stressed the word וימותו, "they died," so that we should not think that Nadav and Avihu succeeded to carry out their intention to enter the Holy of Holies. They died before they could carry out their intention. The Torah is at pains to let us know this in the event a person would be willing to enter the Holy of Holies even at the cost of his life. We are warned here that the effort would be futile as G'd would not allow such a person to realise his intention. The Torah does not warn us about this because it presumes a criminal intent by someone who insists on entering the Holy of Holies. On the contrary, the assumption is that such an attempt would be prompted by the religious fervor of the individual, an overpowering desire to come close to the source of the שכינה on earth which makes such a person ignore the danger to which he exposes himself.

All of the above is based on the approach of Rabbi Yossi who claimed that it was the unauthorized entry which caused the death of Nadav and Avihu. It also conforms to the view of Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra according to which they committed two deathly sins, i.e. the offering of unauthorised incense, and entering the Sanctuary without authority. According to the view of Rabbi Akiva who holds that they died only because they offered incense, you have to explain our verse differently if you assume that the word אחרי refers to something which had occurred some time previously. In order to understand this we must first ask ourselves why G'd did not mention the legislation involving the Day of Atonement until this day instead of revealing this information on the day He commanded the details about all the other sacrificial offerings in the first two portions of the Book of Leviticus. We could have expected Moses to tell Aaron not to enter the Holy of Holies unbidden in Leviticus 9,7 where he also told him to approach the altar and offer his sin-offering, etc. This would have been the logical place to add that Aaron should not enter the Sanctuary unless bidden to do so. The fact is that one could have derived that prohibition from the positive permission to approach the altar (in the courtyard of the Tabernacle). All Moses had to tell Aaron at that point was: "offer your sin-offering," and I would have known that it was to be offered on that altar." If he added the words קרב אל מזבח, Aaron could have figured out that he was allowed only to mount the copper altar at will, not the golden altar in the Sanctuary. Our sages in Torat Kohanim explain all sorts of things in connection with that verse. According to our own approach Moses only told Aaron that he could use only the outer altar. The question is why he did not add that entering the Holy of Holies would result in his death?

Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 7,1) remark that the two sons of Aaron died on account of the sin of the golden calf, based on Deut. 9,20: "G'd was also very angry at Aaron to have destroyed him;" if it had not been for Moses' prayer all four sons of Aaron would have died prematurely. The original cause of the death of Nadav and Avihu was the involvement of their father in the sin of the golden calf, and their deaths served as atonement, much as a sacrifice on the altar serves as atonement for the owner of his sin-offering. Do not argue that we have quoted different sages as attributing the deaths of these sons to either their unauthorised offering of incense, or their entering the Holy of Holies without authorisation or the Torah's speaking of their unauthorised use of man-made fire. The answer to all these arguments is that had it not been for the involvement of their father in the sin of the golden calf, G'd would have found a way to guard the feet of His pious so that they would not become guilty of such an inadvertent sin as bringing incense, etc. The statement in Zevachim 115 that these sons died as martyrs for the glory of the name of the Lord is also not at variance with what the Midrash said in Vayikra Rabbah 7,1. Had it not been for the sin of their father, G'd would have had to glorify His name by means of the death of another one of His beloved people. We have it on good authority (Psalms 116,17) that "the death of His pious ones is a very precious event for the Lord;" the reasons for this may be difficult for anyone other than G'd Himself to fathom. Nonetheless, it is our tradition that sometimes G'd desires the deaths of such pious people. In such instances, the pious person in question whose departure from earth G'd desires, must have committed at least some minor infraction so that his death can be justified legally. I have elaborated elsewhere on this theme. It is worth looking at Avot de Rabbi Natan chapter 38 in which the martyrs who died at the hands of the Emperor Hadrian were unhappy that their violent deaths could be interpreted as due to their having violated basic laws of the Torah. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel found a justification for his violent death when his colleague suggested he could have been guilty of the minor infraction of having had a poor man wait too long before he gave him food to eat, or that he was guilty of enjoying the honour of discoursing on Torah before an audience of 600,000 people. It is difficult to accept that a person should be guilty of a violent death for such a minor indulgence. If this were the norm G'd applies to His Torah scholars there would hardly be anyone left alive! You must understand these happenings in light of the fact that G'd already waited for an excuse to gather in the souls of these people to the Celestial Regions. Simltaneously, the very death of such martyrs insures that G'd can delay the retribution which the other people of the martyrs' generation had become guilty of. When we keep this consideration in mind we will better understand that the death of the sons of Aaron was a blessing for the survivors. As far as the public was concerned the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven as demonstrated by the establishment of the Tabernacle and the presence of the שכינה in the Holy of Holies. Aaron's sin-offering on the eighth day of the consecration rites had been the final public step in that rehabilitation. The decree according to which Aaron's sons had to die had therefore been cancelled already. However, the impression this sin had made in the celestial regions had not been erased. It was the residue of that impression which resulted in G'd not guarding the feet of these sons from inadvertently committing a deadly sin as described by the Torah and the various sages.

When we take a long look at all the factors we have just outlined, it is clear that Aaron had not yet been qualified to enter the inner sanctum of the King of Kings had it not been for the death of his two sons serving as atonement for his share in the sin of the golden calf. It was only then that the record of his involvement was erased in the celestial spheres. We can now understand our verse properly. וידבר ה׳ ….בזאת יבא אהרון אל הקדש, "G'd said..only after Aaron has been equipped with this (i.e. the atonement attained through the death of his two sons) Aaron is able to enter the Holy of Holies." The Torah stresses that the two people who died did so in their capacity as בני אהרון, sons of Aaron. This is an allusion to the guilt of their father which had been fully atoned for by their deaths. This also accounts for the fact that G'd did not command Aaron concerning not entering the Sanctuary at will until now. As long as Aaron was not qualified to enter the Sanctuary even when he was to perform a specific task there, there was no point in prohibiting him from entering when he did not have a specific function to perform there. Once the Torah had informed us that the death of the sons of Aaron was linked to the guilt of their father, the Torah also had to inform us that this was not the only reason they died. There were other reasons which were quite unconnected to anything their father had done or had failed to do. Their father's part in their death was limited to G'd having withdrawn His protective supervision from them so that they should not become guilty of inadvertently committing deadly sins. The word בקרבתם לפני השם may be understood as the second cause of their death. Had they not been the sons of Aaron who was still guilty of some involvement in the sin of the golden calf at that time, the fact that they were about to enter the Holy of Holies might not have resulted in their deaths. In view of the fact that even both factors combined would not represent sufficient reason for these people to be guilty of death, G'd added that their closeness to G'd was what made these two priests ideal to serve as a means of glorifying the name of G'd, i.e. בקרובי אקדש. In recognition of the fact that even the two causes mentioned were not sufficient to account for the deaths of Nadav and Avihu at that time, the Torah adds the latter ו at the beginning of the word וימותו, to hint that there was a need for someone to die in order to demonstrate the sacred nature of the Tabernacle and G'd's presence associated with it. G'd felt that He had to demonstrate that anyone who approached this sacred place without specific authority would die. This is why the paragraph dealing with the warning not to enter the Sanctuary at will was legislated here.

Accordingly, we have three factors which combined to cause the death of Nadav and Avihu at that time. 1) The sin of the golden calf, i.e. Aaron's share in it. 2) offering of the incense; 3) the need to demonstrate the sanctity of the Tabernacle through the death of someone who entered it without authority. G'd alluded to all three of these factors when He wrote: אחרי מות שני בני אהרון, i.e. on account of Aaron's sin, בקרבתם, because they approached too closely to the center of holiness; וימותו, because someone had to die to demonstrate לבל יבא...אל הקודש, that neither ordinary people nor the High Priest himself could enter there unbidden. The Torah had to list all three reasons here. 1) Had it not been for the sin of the golden calf these righteous sons of Aaron would certainly have enjoyed sufficient protection from G'd not to allow them to become guilty of such a trespass. 2) The sin of venturing too close to G'd also had to be mentioned as they would never have died on account of their father's sin unless they had been guilty of a sin themselves. 3) The nature of the sanctity of the Tabernacle also had to be recorded here since, if it had not been for this consideration, G'd would not have allowed the joy prevailing over the evidence that His presence had returned to the Jewish people to be disturbed by such a tragic occurrence. He would have waited to let these sons of Aaron die at some later date. It was because G'd wanted to sanctify the Tabernacle on that day that the sons of Aaron died on that day. The need to sanctify the Tabernacle on that day would not have been sufficient reason by itself to let them die then.

In view of all the foregoing we can understand what prompted Moses to tell Aaron that he found out through what happened to Nadav and Avihu that they were men of greater stature than either Aaron or himself (see Torat Kohanim our quote on page 1035). Moses simply found out that had it not been for the sin of Aaron their father, G'd could not have found anything these sons had been guilty of to allow them to die. The same could not have been said of either Moses or Aaron.

If you follow our approach to the whole subject, it is possible to understand Proverbs 22,20: "indeed I wrote down for you threefold learnings and knowledge." There were three causes which combined to result in the deaths of Nadav and Avihu; two of them can be categorised as מועצות, learning, the third one as דעת, knowledge. These are the three aspects which caused the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. It teaches that G'd had not completely forgiven Aaron despite his threefold efforts, i.e. his prayers, his good deeds and his sacrificial offerings. The word מועצות is also an allusion to the failure of G'd to watch over the feet of the righteous so that they should not stumble into sin. This second aspect of מועצות is even more sophisticated than the former one. G'd deliberately failed to forgive Aaron completely so that He would have an excuse to allow Nadav and Aavihu to die.

Another reason why the Torah wrote אחרי מות is connected with the prohibition for Aaron to enter the Holy of Holies dressed in his golden garments (Rosh Hashanah 26) as the accuser (reminder of the gold of the golden calf) could not function as counsel for defense at the same time. The Torah was concerned that we might reason that the prohibition to wear his golden garments was applicable only as long as the last vestiges of Aaron's sin had not yet been erased in the celestial regions. I might have thought that as soon as his sons died and had thereby achieved atonement for their father's remaining vestiges of sin, Aaron would be allowed into the Holy of Holies even while wearing his golden garments. The Torah had to tell us that even after the deaths of his two sons Aaron could still not wear his golden garments in the Holy of Holies. All he was to wear when entering that part of the Sanctuary was כתנת בד קדש ילבש, "a holy linen tunic, etc." While it is true that our sages in Erchin 16 mention that the golden garments performed a function in the atonement process, the gold could not atone sufficiently for the sins to become completely "snow white." Please read what I have written in my commentary on Shabbat 30 what Solomon had in mind when he said "remember the kindness of David Your servant" (Chronicles II 6,42). [I have not seen the author's comment, but I presume that although David had tried to obtain forgiveness by all the means at his disposal, it was not until the prayer of his son Solomon that G'd erased the last vestiges of his sin. The Talmud is on record that the gates of the Sanctuary had refused to open for Solomon until he completed this prayer. Ed.]

When the Torah mentions the cause of death as בקרבתם לפני השם, this is meant to free Moses from the suspicion that his own prayer on behalf of Aaron at the time of the golden calf episode had been unsuccessful. The Torah had mentioned Moses's prayer on behalf of Aaron in Deut. 9.20. Moses himself may have been under the allusion that his prayer had not elicited the desired response. G'd told him therefore that these sons did not die because of Aaron's sin alone, i.e. Aaron's guilt had been reduced to a level where he would not be punished by the death of his sons. Moses' prayer had been effective enough to reduce Aaron's guilt and save his sons. Once we accept this approach we need not say that Moses' prayer was effective only 50% and that instead of all four of Aaron's sons having to die only two of them died (compare Vayikra Rabbah 10,5). None of them had to die were it not for the fact that two of them had become guilty of a sin of their own. What the Midrash meant was that since eventually two of Aaron's sons died at the hands of G'd this was proof that Moses' prayer was only partially effective. We measure the effectiveness of a prayer by its ultimate outcome, not by the short-term reprieve it may afford a sinner.

וימותו, they died; Perhaps G'd had informed Moses that these two sons of Aaron had committed the sin of approaching too closely or offering incense using man-made fire while they had already been guilty of death due to a sin committed by their father when G'd had become angry at Aaron. Had it not been for this, G'd might have stretched His patience so that they would not have died immediately for the sin committed now. If they had escaped death until that moment it had only been due to the prayer of Moses on behalf of Aaron at the time.

Another approach to the word וימותו focuses on the nature of these sons' deaths rather than on the fact of their deaths. The Torah writes: בקרבתם לפני השם, to describe that due to their love for G'd these people came too near the celestial source of light which has a deadly effect on man. This is the mystical dimension of what is commonly known as "death by Divine kiss," the kind of death experienced by both Aaron and Moses eventually. The deaths of Nadav and Avihu were similar to the death of all other completely righteous men. The only difference was that in the case of the deaths of people such as Moses and Aaron G'd's "kiss of death" approaches them, whereas in this case Nadav and Avihu approached "the kiss of death."

This is the meaning of the extra letter ו in בקרבתם לפני ה׳ ו־ימותו. The Torah alludes to the fact that though these righteous people felt that they were approaching an area which would result in this "kiss of death" they did not flinch and kept getting closer. They attained a state of religious intoxication. The desire of their souls to fuse with the divine was so overpowering that they no longer made decisions in which their powers of conscious perception were involved. If we were to evaluate part of the emotional process these people underwent, perhaps the following may help. There are times when certain people feel such an overpowering hatred for someone that they will abandon all restraining influences in the desire to exercise their revenge even while they are subconsciously aware that they are forfeiting their very lives by the act of revenge. This may be the mystical dimension of what appears as licentious behaviour by prophets in Samuel I 19. There is a mystifying verse in Samuel I 19,24 which tells of Saul's pursuit of David and the religious experiences first experienced by the messengers despatched to capture David who at that time was in the proximity of the prophet Samuel and other prophets. All the messengers are reported as being overcome by an aura of religious experiences of these prophets. Eventually, the same happened to Saul himself. He is described as having divested himself of his clothing and remained naked [symbol of the desire to abandon the restrictions imposed on man by his body, Ed.] for a whole day in the presence of the prophet Samuel. Perhaps that verse affords us an inkling of the result of overpowering emotions of hatred. When we think of the other extreme of man's emotional range, his love for his source, i.e. his Creator, and the overpowering desire to be united with that source, we may have an inkling of what possessed Nadav and Avihu at the time. Basically speaking, we are dealing with the natural abhorrence each soul has for the need to be imprisoned inside a mere body. It is always the soul's desire to escape this body. Nadav and Avihu's souls experienced such an urge in an unusual manner. [At this point the author describes how a person may arrive at progressively purer insights due to his mind's ability to triumph over the impeding element of self, ego. Eventually, such a person will view "life" itself in an entirely new light such as hinted at by Moses in Deut. 30 19 when he exhorts the Jewish people to "choose life." The letter ב at the beginning of the word ב־חיים, is understood to refer to a life devoid of what he calls הרגש הכללי, emotions felt by all normal human beings. The author blesses the Lord for having granted selected individuals the ability to rise to such spiritual heights. Ed.]

There is yet another approach to our problem based on Torat Kohanim which quotes a Baraitha in Yuma 53."Rabbi Eliezer says: ולא ימות עונש, כי בענן אראה אזהרה; יכול קודם מיתת בני אהרון, תלמוד לומר אחרי מות; יכול שניהם אחר מיתת בני אהרון, תלמוד לומר אראה. הא כיצד אזהרה קודם, מיתה אחר כך. "The words: 'so that he shall not die," are the penalty for entering; 'for I will be visible through the cloud is the warning;' I might have thought that this warning was issued prior to the deaths of the sons of Aaron; hence the Torah writes: 'after the death.' How did it all work? The warning was issued before, the death followed afterwards." The Talmud there enquires what we are to learn from Rabbi Eliezer's statement. Rava says that the expression אראה is a future tense, and that the Torah speaks of something that had not yet occurred, i.e. the cloud had not yet enveloped the Tabernacle (Leviticus 9,23). Accordingly, the sons of Aaron who are reported to have offered incense did so after the cloud had already appeared on that very day (Leviticus 10,1) and they were killed before a penalty had been decreed for this by the Torah. Keeping this in mind, we have to explain our verse here as follows: אחרי מות, after the death, etc.; G'd does not want you to think that the fact that the Torah records the prohibition to enter the Holy of Holies at will except when the High Priest was equipped with the cloud of incense was a belated warning, and that the sons of Aaron died for not heeding it. It says in 10,1 that "the sons of Aaron each took a censer with incense and placed fire on it, etc." The fact is the sons of Aaron had not been warned not to enter the Holy of Holies. This leaves us with the question why they had to die. The Torah therefore had to inform us that these deaths were not just a legal matter, a penalty which anyone else who had done the same thing would also have been subject to. The reason that the sons of Aaron died when attempting to enter the Holy of Holies was because בקרבם לפני ה׳, they attempted to draw too near to G'd. Seeing that they considered themselves as fit to be so close to G'd, G'd applied a more stringent yardstick when judging their behaviour. This is why a minor misdemeanour was treated as if it were a major sin. The Torah alluded to this with the additional letter ו in the word וימותו, i.e. there was an additional factor which contributed to their deaths.

We find the following comment in Torat Kohanim concerning the words: "speak to Aaron, etc;" we do not know what G'd had said to Moses in the previous verse (verse 1). Rabbi Eleazer ben Azaryah used to say that this could be explained by a parable. A physician comes to a patient and tells him not to eat cold food and not to lie on wet moss. Later on another physician enters the room of that patient and tells him not to eat cold food or to lie down on wet moss else he would die just as so-and-so has died. The comment of the second physicain made a more powerful impression on the patient than the instruction of the first physician. We must understand why these instructions were issued in this order. Besides, why does Torat Kohanim not simply commence the comment with the words: "Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah said, etc.?"

It appears that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah did not address the problem of the warning itself but the problem of why the warning coupled with the threat of death for ignoring it was so much delayed that G'd issued it to Aaron only in our portion instead of in chapter 9, and why he compared it to the parable with the physician. Normally, a physician who wants to impress his patient mentions that failure to adhere to his instructions has already cost patients' lives. The physician of the Jewish people, i.e. G'd, did just this when He issued His instructions to Aaron in this instance. Until the sons of Aaron died G'd had not been in a position to accompany His warning with an example of the consequences of not heeding it. Torat Kohanim therefore quoted Rabbi Eleazar who also answered the question why the same warning had to be issued a second time. We have a rule in the Talmud that there are occasions when a scholar who explains a problem does so by means of an answer without his having spelled out the question first. In our case the unspoken question was what G'd had told Moses in verse 1. We now understand that in the first verse G'd told Moses why these sons of Aaron had died though their quest had been to draw near to Him. Now G'd told Moses to warn Aaron that the same could happen to him even if he did not bring strange fire or incense at a time he was not authorised to enter the Holy of Holies. He should remember what happened to his two sons.

I have seen a further statement at the end of the Baraitha containing Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah's statement that the last of the warnings had achieved the greatest effect. This is why the Torah said: "speak to your brother Aaron that he shall not enter, etc. If he would enter he would die." Mention is made there of Exodus 4,14 where G'd had told Moses that his brother Aaron would be very happy about his appointment. Here G'd also told Moses to say to "your brother Aaron" as if we did not know that Aaron was Moses' brother. Moses was supposed to frighten Aaron so that he should not share the fate of his sons. The whole reason that Moses was to warn him was that seeing he was his brother, plus the fact that Moses was not forbidden to enter this would be difficult for Aaron to accept. The problem with all this is that Torat Kohanim had already used the word אחיך as including Aaron's other sons in the prohibition as I have mentioned earlier.

I believe the intent behind that statement is clear from its position in the chapter. It is peculiar that G'd told Moses to warn Aaron not to die as had his sons before he had even told him of the prohibition to enter the Holy of Holies at will (verse 2). We would have expected such a warning to follow on the heels of the prohibition not to enter the Tabernacle at will. The fact that Moses isssued the warning earlier indicates that the basis of the warning was nothing but brotherly concern for Aaron. This is why Torat Kohanim made reference to Exodus 4,14 where the brotherly relations between Moses and Aaron have been stressed. At that time G'd had indicated to Moses that Aaron would become the High Priest and Moses had not minded (Zevachim 102). At the same time Aaron had rejoiced when he saw that his younger brother had been chosen to be leader of the people. When G'd suggested that Moses tell Aaron about the danger of entering the Holy of Holies, He meant for Moses to demonstrate his concern for Aaron's well being.

We may interpret the additional letter ו in the words ואל יבא as a warning that Aaron should take care that what happened to his sons would not happen to him. The words ולא ימות then are a continuation of that warning.

I have seen in the commentary of Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi that according to the interpretation of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah there were three kinds of warnings [according to a variant reading in Torat Kohanim. Ed.] The Rabbi is at pains to reconcile the various verses according to the viewpoint of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah. According to my own point of view, all Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah was concerned with was what G'd had said to Moses in verse 1 where the Torah did not elaborate on the content of G'd's communication to Moses. He arrived at the conclusion that in that communication G'd advised Moses to tell Aaron that if he would violate His instructions he would die just as his sons had died. Moses was troubled by the fact that G'd had not merely told him to warn Aaron not to enter on pain of death but had added that he would die "just as his sons had died." This is why Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah related the parable illustrating the point. Rabbi Eleazar related the story as involving three physicians, not just one or two. Each physician added an additional element of urgency to the warning expressed by the previous physician. According to Rabbi Eleazar, G'd was the physician who was the most persuasive in His warning when He said the patient should take care not to die as had so-and-so before him. According to the explanation offered by Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, G'd did not compare to either of the three physicians mentioned by Rabbi Eleazar. According to him the first and second physicians did not draw a comparison with another patient, whereas the third physician did mention death already during his first warning, something which is not applicable to G'd who had not warned Aaron in that manner until the third warning. [I do not bother to add the additional criticism levelled by our author against the interpretation offered by Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi. Ed.]

יבא‎ ויאמר ה׳ אל משה דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SPEAK UNTO AARON THY BROTHER THAT HE COME NOT [AT ALL TIMES INTO THE HOLY PLACE]! THAT HE DIE NOT as his sons have died (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 1 4).

SPEAK UNTO AARON THY BROTHER. The meaning of the epithet thy brother is that “you are to warn him because he is your brother, for even though you are not under this prohibition against coming [into the holy place at all times, thus you might think that Aaron, too, is not subject to this restriction, since he is your brother, nonetheless] Aaron, your brother, is under the prohibition against coming [into the holy place at all times].”
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that this Scriptural section indicates that Aaron’s sons [died because they] brought the fire of incense into the innermost part of the Sanctuary.¹²I.e., the Holy of Holies. This explains, according to Ibn Ezra, why He mentioned here the death of Aaron’s sons, and then followed it up with the admonition against the priests entering at all times into the holy place within the Veil (M’kor Chayim). But in my opinion this is not correct. For the verses which mention their sin always say, when they offered ‘strange’ fire before the Eternal.¹³Numbers 3:4. Ibid., 26:61. And if [you accept as] proof that they entered into the innermost part of the Sanctuary, the prohibition with which G-d warned Moses concerning their father [i.e., Aaron], so that he die not [as Ibn Ezra said], then [you should] certainly accept as proof [that they died because] they entered the Sanctuary whilst intoxicated by wine, the prohibition that was said to Aaron himself immediately after their death, [Drink no wine nor strong drink etc.]!¹Above, 10:9. Moreover, how could it have occurred to them to enter on that day the [innermost] part [of the Sanctuary] which [even] their father did not enter, for Aaron burnt the incense on the “inner” altar [which stood in the Sanctuary proper], and why should they bring in their incense to a place further inside [the Sanctuary] than their father! Now I have already hinted at the nature of their sin,¹⁴Above, 10:2. and the language of the verses point thereto. But the expression ‘b’korvatham’ (when they approached) [does not mean, as Ibn Ezra interpreted it, “when they approached by entering the innermost part of the holy place”, but] according to its plain meaning is like the expression ‘uv’korvatham’ (and when they come near) to the altar¹⁵Exodus 40:32. to minister.¹⁶Or when they come near to the altar to minister (ibid., 30:20). Thus the verse here is stating that Aaron’s sons died when they ministered before G-d. If so, [the sense of the warning here] is that He warned Aaron that he should only minister in the place which He commands [that it be done], and at the time He specifies for it.
It is possible that the sense of the verse is similar to that which our Rabbis have said,¹⁷Mechilta, Beshalach Vayasa 6. See also Rashi, Numbers 17:13. that the people were speaking perversely of the incense, saying, “Through it Nadab and Abihu [Aaron’s sons] died etc.” Therefore Scripture stated that after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Eternal with the incense, He said to Aaron that he should come even nearer before the Eternal than they did, and with incense, for if he comes into the holy place [i.e., the Holy of Holies] without the incense, he will die, for with it he shall enter there first, just as He said, and he shall bring it within the Veil … and the cloud of the incense will cover the ark-cover that is upon the testimony, that he die not.¹⁸Further, Verses 12-13. According to tradition the High Priest first entered the Holy of Holies, and then put the incense upon the censer containing the coals of fire from the altar that stood in the outside Court. This Service, as will be explained further on, was done only on the Day of Atonement. This then is the meaning of the phrase [here in Verse 2 before us], for I will appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover, meaning that he [Aaron now, and the High Priest in succeeding generations] is only to enter there with the incense whose cloud rises up there [upon the ark-cover], even as He said, and the cloud of the incense will cover the ark-cover.¹⁹Verse 13. Thus it will be shown that it is not the incense which brings death, for here Aaron went into the Sanctuary even further than his sons did, and he was protected by the incense. People will thus conclude that it is sin that brings death, and not the incense. This is clearly the trend of Ramban’s thought.

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. The Torah employs the "soft" language usually associated with the word אמור, although the subject matter is a dire warning according to Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah. The very warning was a demonstration of G'd's loving concern for Aaron, just as the physician who warned the patient of the consequences of not following his advice did so out of concern for the life of his patient.

כי בענן אראה על הכפורת. According to the plain meaning of the text, we are told that G’d would become manifest by means of the cloud which hovers over the spot where the lid of the Holy Ark is situated within the Tabernacle. Compare Exodus 25,22 where G’d told Moses: “I will speak with you from above the כפורת from the area between the two cherubs.” If the priest would see this area with his own eyes he would die. Therefore, when he would enter the Tabernacle (Holy of Holies) on the Day of Atonement to burn the incense and sprinkle the blood of the bull and ram of the sin offering on the dividing curtain, the cloud would first wrap the entire Tabernacle into darkness so that he would not be able to see what he was not allowed to see.

ויאמר ה' אל משה, “Hashem said to Moses,” I am greatly perturbed by this apparent repetition. We have already been told that G’d spoke to Moses, without hearing what He said to him. Our verse appears as if G’d is rephrasing the tenor of what He was about to say without having said anything as yet. We do not know if G’d had interrupted Himself by speaking on some other subject first, the details of which have been withheld from us. Is the word ויאמר merely indicative of G’d taking up the broken thread of a previous conversation? Some commentators claim that the subject of G’d’s message in verse one was the legislation about the red heifer, the ashes of which would be used to purify the people who had been involved in the burial of Nadav and Avihu who had become ritually impure through their handling the corpses. According to that version, the message contained as part of verse one was delivered still on the same day these sons died, i.e. the first of Nissan, whereas in verse two we deal with what G’d told Moses on the second day of Nissan. According to that, the remains of the red heifer were burned on the second day of Nissan, and the Torah now instructs Moses that the ashes would be used to purify people who had become ritually polluted through contact with dead bodies. In order to make this clear, the Torah refers once more to the death of the two sons of Aaron, to indicate that the ashes of the red heifer are used in purifying those who had become impure through their participation in the burial of these two people.

דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקדש, “speak to your brother Aaron -he shall not come at all times to the Sanctuary, etc.” The additional words: “so that he shall not die,” are an implied warning that what happened to his sons might otherwise happen to him. Our sages illustrated this by a parable, saying the matter is similar to a physician who enters the room of the patient telling him not to eat cold food and not to lie down on wet ground. A second physician comes and gives the patient similar instructions, adding: “so that you will not die like another patient who ignored this warning and died.” The second physician’s warning is more likely to be effective than that of the first.

For if he enters, he dies. Rashi needs to say this. Because according to his explanation that the verses are a parable of two doctors, and that the second doctor gave a greater warning — so that you do not die in the way so and so died, you might ask that the verse only writes “that he not die,” and does not write that if he comes in he will die. Instead [it writes] that if he does not come in he will not die, which implies, the way his sons did not come in and did not die. Rashi answers that the words “that he not die” also hint that if he comes in he will die, because from the negative you infer the positive.

Speak to your brother Aharon. This was already interpreted in Toras Kohanim that the same thing applies to his sons; regular kohanim are included in this warning. If so, why does it say “to Aharon” and not “to Aharon and his sons”? It must be that this section was said solely to Aharon, as it says in the Midrash Rabbah on this section: Aharon was permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies every day. However, it had to be with this preparation. This is derived from here because Yom Kippur was not mentioned in all this matter until afterwards. His sons, on the other hand, were only permitted to enter on Yom Kippur.

ויאמר ה' אל משה דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא בכל עת אל . the Lord said to Moses: “tell your brother Aaron not to enter the Holy of Holies at any time of your choosing, etc;”This paragraph, even though it deals with the laws of the Day of Atonement, was told to Moses on the day the Tabernacle had been erected , because on that very day the two sons of Aaron had died already because they had entered the Holy of Holies unnecessarily, and unbidden. As a result, the Torah warned Aaron, and of course everyone else. You might well ask why this paragraph had not been appended to the paragraph in Parshat Sh’mini, where we have been told what happened to these two sons of Aaron and what they had done? (Leviticus 10,11) The reason may be that even after learning about all the laws of impurity that disqualify a person in many instances from remaining within the camp of the Israelites, much less that of the priests and the Temple, we had not yet heard if these sons of Aaron had sinned deliberately or had committed merely an error, albeit with the best of intentions. Nor had we been told what manner of atonement would be appropriate for people who commit such a sin inadvertently. This is why the Torah continues here in verse 16: וכפר על הקודש, “he shall make atonement (the High Priest) for the holy place.”'בקרבתם לפני ה, “when they had approached the face of the Lord and died as a result.” (verse 1) They had deposited their incense on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, illegally.

ולא ימות THAT HE DIE NOT — for if he comes into the Holy of Holies at any time other than Yom-Kippur he will die (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 1 4).

THAT HE COME NOT AT ALL TIMES INTO THE HOLY PLACE WITHIN THE VEIL. The meaning of the expression at all times is that since He had already mentioned the Day of Atonement, saying, And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it [i.e., the golden altar which stood within the Sanctuary] once in the year,²⁰Exodus 30:10. therefore He stated here that Aaron is not to come at any time into the holy place [within the Veil], except with this²¹Verse 3 here. [procedure], that is to say, on the day that he brings these offerings to effect atonement. Later on in this section He explains with what Aaron shall enter, just as He said, and he shall bring it within the Veil,²²Verse 12. and then He specifies the day, that it be in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month,²³Verse 29. and then He states again that it be [only] once in the year.²⁴Verse 34.

דבר אל אהרן אחיך, “speak to your brother Aaron.” Nachmanides writes that the reason G’d mentioned that Aaron was Moses’ brother, [something that all of us have been aware of for a long time, Ed.] was that G’d meant to emphasise that although Moses was not included in the injunction not to enter the Tabernacle at any time, Aaron was subject to such constraints.

כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, “for in a cloud I will appear above the kapporet.” The Torah was careful not to write: כי אראה בענן על הכפורת. Had the Torah written these words in that order the meaning would have been that G’d appears inside the cloud. If that were so, what distinction did the High Priest enjoy over the rest of the people of Israel? They all witnessed a Presence of the Lord within the cloud on a year-round basis, or at least every time the Torah wrote והנה כבוד ה' נראה בענן, “and here the glory of the Lord had appeared within the cloud.” This was an appearance visible to all the people. They did not have to enter any Sanctuary in order to become aware of it. There are several other instances where all the people witnessed such a manifestation of G’d’s glory (Exodus 33,10). In our verse the meaning of the words is that after Aaron enters the Sanctuary [Holy of Holies] in a cloud of incense the glory of G’d previously encased in the cloud will leave that cloud and take up its position on top of the kapporet. In order for us to understand this clearly, the Torah wrote the words אראה על הכפורת as a single sequence without interposing the word בענן. Actually, in that Holy of Holies the glory of G’d would be situated on top of the kapporet on the other days of the year also; only Aaron, or anybody else, were not allowed to enter that Inner Sanctuary except on Yom Kippur. The cloud of incense (which normally was offered in the Outer Sanctuary, daily,) was needed in order to ensure that Aaron would not behold that glory with fatal consequences for himself.
Our sages (in Yuma 53) understand the words כי בענן אראה על הכפורת to mean that G’d’s glory would appear within the cloud of the incense. As a result of such considerations the incense had to be offered in the Holy of Holies (the site of the kapporet) The High Priest was not to make the entire incense ready before he entered. [the view of the Sadducees, whose High Priests were so scared that their mentors could have been wrong that they declined to perform this service on the Day of Atonement for fear of dying. Ed].
In fact, the wording of verse 13 in our chapter, “the cloud of the incense shall cover the kapporet over the testimony” (the Holy Ark) will ensure that the High Priest will not die. It is stated clearly in the verse previous that the High Priest enter beyond the dividing curtain into the Inner Sanctuary before placing the incense on the fire. This is the reason why the Talmud, according to Rava, understands why this legislation was repeated. The first time the Torah had to issue the instructions not to enter at will. The second time was the warning that unless he performed in accordance with these instructions the High Priest would die.

For I constantly appear. According to this explanation, כי is a reason for the above, the cause why the person who comes into the Holy dies. Thus the word כי here means “because,” like every כי in Scripture. And בענן means an actual cloud. Rashi explains further “For I constantly appear,” because the word אראה is [usually] in the future tense. Therefore Rashi explains אראה [here] as meaning “I appear” which is a present participle, since Hashem’s appearing in the future would not cause someone to die.

Alternatively, G'd demonstrated how much He valued Moses by showing that even when His message concerned primarily Aaron He did not address Aaron with that message but Moses. We may understand the very words ויאמר ה׳ אל משה in a way similar to Deut. 26,18: וה׳ האמירך היום, "and G'd achieved by speaking to you this day, etc." Bamidbar Rabbah 14,21 comments on this that even where we find the Torah reporting that G'd "spoke to Moses and Aaron," the meaning is that Moses was to tell Aaron what G'd had said to him. Our verse then is proof of that statement seeing that G'd addressed Moses even when the commandment He wanted to communicate was addressed exclusively to Aaron.

אל פני הכפורת אשר על הארון, “before the cover of the Holy Ark;” why did the Torah have to write that the lid was on the Holy Ark, when we have all been familiar with this? The reason is that we read in connection with the curtain dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of holies [in which the Holy Ark and this cover stood, Ed.] וסכות על הארון, “you shall screen the Ark with the veil.” (Exodus 40,3) This could have confused us into thinking that the dividing curtain was considered as a cover for the Holy Ark [seeing it screened it from all human eyes except once a year on the Day of Atonement. Ed.] We have therefore been taught that it was not the function of the dividing curtain to serve as a cover for the Holy Ark. ולא ימות, “so that he will not die as a result.” Now that we have heard the penalty for this sin, where do we find the warning not to commit this sin? It is part of the words: כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, “for I am capable of being seen above the lid.” [And we know that G-d had told Moses that no human being while connected to its body is granted the privilege to have a visual image of G-d’s essence. (Exodus 33,20) Ed.] כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, “for I will only appear screened by a cloud above the lid.” We have another verse explaining the same in Kings I 8,12: ה' אמר לשכון בערפל, “the Lord has said (of Himself) that He resides within a thick cloud.”

כי בענן אראה means, for I constantly show Myself there with My pillar of cloud, and because the revelation of My Shechinah takes place there he should take care not to make it his habit to come there. This is the literal meaning of the verse. The Halachic explanation is: He shall not come into the Holy of Holies except with (i.e. on the occasion when he is going to raise) a cloud of incense on the Day of Atonement (Yoma 53a).

He had already been told to enter the Holy of Holies only once a year on the Day of Atonement, as we know from Exodus 30,10 וכפר אהרן על קרנותיו אחת בשנה, “he is to secure atonement on its corners once a year by the sin offering of atonement, etc. This is what has been referred to in our verse here.

Except with the cloud of incense [on Yom Kippur]. According to the explanation of our Rabbis [the Midrash], it seems that כי here means “except,” i.e., he shall not come to the Holy except with the cloud of incense on Yom Kippur, and [the verse calls it a cloud] because the smoke of the incense is like a cloud. This differs from the previous explanation where Rashi said it meant “a pillar of cloud,” i.e., that the Divine Presence rests inside. Rashi does not mean that he comes in from outside with the cloud of incense, as this is the opinion of the Sadducees. He is only excluding his earlier interpretation where he said it was the cloud where the Divine Presence resides. Regarding Rashi saying “on Yom Kippur,” Rashi himself soon explains that the whole section is talking about Yom Kippur.

ואל יבא, and that he must not enter, etc. In addition to the reason we offered previously for the unusual letter ו at the beginning of a message, we may say that inasmuch as Moses had told Aaron on the very first day of his anointment as High Priest to go ahead and offer his sin-offering on the outer altar (Leviticus 9,7) the meaning was that it was only the altar situated in the courtyard which Aaron had unrestricted access to. Our sages derive this from the principle called לאו הבא מכלל עשה, that the wording of a positive commandment contains within it a negative commandment which was not spelled out by the Torah specifically. The letter ו in the word ואל provides the clue to that negative commandment.

בכל עת, at all times. The implication is that there are times when Aaron would be permitted to enter the Holy of Holies. Details of this are mentioned later beginning with the words בזאת יבא אהרון אל הקודש. Once every year Aaron was to enter the Holy of Holies. The reason the Torah had to introduce this information by the negative commandment that Aaron was not to enter the Holy of Holies before mentioning the exception, was to tell him that if he refrained from entering the Holy of Holies during the rest of the year he would merit entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. If, however, he were to enter the Holy of Holies during any other period he would forfeit the opportunity of entering it on the Day of Atonement at a time when permission had been granted. The Torah chose the expression בכל עת, so as to prohibit entering the Holy of Holies even on the Day of Atonement except in order to perform certain regulated activities, i.e. to burn incense and to splash blood of two sacrifices onto the dividing curtain. When we keep this in mind we derive another meaning from the letter ו at the beginning of the words ואל יבא. The letter relates to an additional warning. Aaron was not only not to enter the Holy of Holies except on the Day of Atonement, but even on that day he was to enter it only for the purpose designated in our chapter. In Torat Kohanim they derive the prohibition of entering the Holy of Holies on the other days from the words אל הקודש. The reason is that the Torah could have written merely the words מבית לפרוכת and I would have known what was meant. The additional words אל הקודש therefore became available for exegesis. Do not concern yourself with the letter ו at the beginning of the word ואל. It is not unusual for the Torah to write such a letter in such a context. We have proved this at length on other occasions.

כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, "for I will appear in a cloud above the ark-cover." Seeing the Torah had reported G'd's cloud of glory as becoming visible to the entire people in Leviticus 9,23, the Torah had to tell us that there was an even greater proof of G'd's presence in the form of a light of a celestial source above the ark-cover.

בזאת WITH THIS [SHALL AARON COME] — The numerical value of this word is 410, being an allusion to the 410 years during which the First Temple existed (cf. Leviticus Rabbah 21 9).

The secret of ‘b’zoth’ (With this) shall Aaron come into the holy place,²¹Verse 3 here. is analogous to the secret of ‘zoth’ (this is) the token of the covenant which I have established.²⁵Genesis 9:17. I have already explained it.²⁶“And you will find it in the covenant of the Sabbath” (Ma’or V’shamesh). See Ramban, Exodus 31:13, Vol. II, p. 548. Our Rabbis alluded to it in saying in Vayikra Rabbah:²⁷Vayikra Rabbah 21:5. “Rabbi Yudan explained the verse [‘With this’ shall Aaron come into the holy place] with reference to the High Priest when entering the Holy of Holies: he came with many bundles of commandments [fulfilled by Israel] in his possession. He came in there by merit of [their studying] Torah, as it is said, and ‘this’ is the law;²⁸Deuteronomy 4:44. by merit of circumcision, as it is said, ‘This’ is My covenant, which ye shall keep;²⁹Genesis 17:10. by merit of keeping the Sabbath, as it is said, Happy is the man that doeth ‘this’ [… that keepeth the Sabbath];³⁰Isaiah 56:2. by the guarding influence of Jerusalem, as it is said, ‘This’ is Jerusalem;³¹Ezekiel 5:5. by the guarding influence of the [twelve] tribes, as it is said, and ‘this’ is that their father spoke unto them;³²Genesis 49:28. by the guarding influence of Judah, as it is said, And ‘this’ [Moses said] for Judah;³³Deuteronomy 33:7. by the guarding influence of the congregation of Israel, as it is said, ‘This’ thy stature is like to a palm-tree;³⁴Song of Songs 7:8. by merit of [Israel having observed the law of] the heave-offering, as it is said, And ‘this’ is ‘ha’terumah’ (the offering);³⁵Exodus 25:3. The word terumah is here understood in the wider sense of “something set apart.” The portion given to the priest from the produce of the corn, etc. is therefore terumah. In this particular verse it refers to that which was set apart as a freewill gift for the erection of the Tabernacle. by the merit of [Israel giving] the tithes, as it is said, and try Me now with ‘this;’³⁶Malachi 3:10. The verse begins: Bring ye the whole ‘tithe’ into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now with this … If I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing. by the merit of bringing the offerings, as it is said, With ‘this’ shall Aaron come.” This text requires a lengthy exposition, but it is all explained in our commentary [in various places].³⁷These explanations are found mostly on the Scriptural verses mentioned above, and the meaning of those left unexplained can be surmized from those explained (Kur Zahav).

בזאת יבא...בפר בן בקר, by sanctifying the bull as a sin offering, and the ram as a burnt offering, and by donning the appropriate priestly garments, the linen ones which had no decorative additions and consisted only of white linen. On the one hand, that High Priest was not to enter the sanctuary until after the burnt offering had been sacrificed, but he was allowed to enter for the purpose of offering the incense as soon as the sin offering had been slaughtered.

בזאת יבא אהרון, "Aaron is to enter with the following:" The reason the Torah repeats Aaron's name though it could have written merely: "with this he is to enter, etc.," is that what has been written in verse 2 applied only to Aaron. From this verse on the Torah deals with commandments applicable not only to the High Priest personally; seeing that Aaron's duties in the Sanctuary were performed on behalf of the entire people, and the clothing he wore while performing this service was as a representative of the people as a whole, G'd commanded His people to perform these rites using Aaron as their representative so as to obtain forgiveness once a year. Torat Kohanim emphasises that the linen tunic Aaron wore was paid for by the Temple treasury. The Torah hinted at this by mentioning Aaron by name as the people's representative.

Its [בזאת] gematria is 410. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse say “with this”? You cannot say that it refers to the sacrifices mentioned afterwards because if so it should have said “With these Aharon shall come” in the plural form, since there were two sacrifices. Also, זאת is a feminine expression and the sacrifices mentioned afterwards are male [animals]. If so, the verse should not have said “with this” at all, but merely said, “For in a cloud I shall appear on the Ark-cover, and with a young bullock, for a sin-offering Aharon shall come...” Therefore, it must be hinting at the number of years that the First Temple stood. You might ask: Were there only kohanim gadolim in the First Temple? Were there not kohanim gadolim in the Second Temple as well? The answer is as follows: The gematria of בזאת tells you how many years there would be kohanim like Aharon [i.e., kohanim gadolim] who were anointed with the anointing oil. After the First Temple, however, they no longer anointed them with anointing oil like Aharon, because at the end of the First Temple era the anointing oil was hidden away from the time of [King] Yoshia onwards, as Rashi explains later. Gur Aryeh asks: How do we know that one is warned against entering the Holy in the Second Temple? Perhaps this law only applies to the first Temple that stood this number of years? The Toras Kohanim answers as follows: “Why does v. 3 say ’into the Holy’? Did it not already say in v. 2 ’That he not come at all times into the Holy that is inside of the curtain.’ Why does it say ’into the Holy’ a second time? Because the verse said ’into the Holy that is inside of the curtain before the Ark-cover that is on the Ark.’ You might think that this only applies to a Holy [sanctuary] that has an ark. From where do we know that we make a Holy [sanctuary] without an ark the same as a Holy [sanctuary] that has an ark? Because the verse says ’into the Holy’ again.” You might ask: If so, why does the verse write בזאת to hint [at the years of the First Temple] if this prohibition applies in the Second Temple as well? Perhaps this teaches that if one enters the place of the Holy of Holies after its destruction one is not liable. Thus the verse refers to the First Temple as “into the Holy” to hint that one is liable because of its holiness, and therefore [entering] the Second Temple that is also holy [also] makes one liable. [But after its destruction one is not liable.]

בזאת, “herewith, etc.” the numerical value of the word בזאת is 410, a reminder of the number of years Solomon’s Temple was operative before the last two tribes went into exile.

בפר בן בקר, “by means of a bull, one year old;” the Torah does not mean that the bull itself is to enter the sanctuary, only its blood [i.e. its essence, Ed.] will be sprinkled within the Sanctuary.

'בזאת יבא אהרן וגו WITH THIS SHALL AARON COME [INTO THE HOLY PLACE] etc. — And this, also, shall not be at any time he pleases, but on the day of Atonement, as it is explicitly stated at the end of this section (vv. 29—34). “In the seventh month on the tenth day of the month [ye shall fast … And the priest … shall make expiation]".

But [only] on Yom Kippur. Even though Rashi already explained earlier regarding “for in a cloud I shall appear,” that this was on Yom Kippur, [Rashi repeats this] so that you should not say that only when there is only a cloud [of incense] may one may come in only on Yom Kippur. But if one brings a young bullock, for a sin-offering and a ram, for a burnt-offering one can come in even during other days of the year. Therefore Rashi explains here, “And this too, not at every time.”

'כתנת בד וגו [HE SHALL PUT ON] THE LINEN INNER GARMENTS etc. — This teaches us that he must not officiate in the “Interior" (in the Holy of Holies) robed in the eight garments which were the insignia of the High Priest (cf. Exodus 28:4ff) in which he performed the service outside (in the היכל and the עזרה) and in which there was gold interwoven, — because the prosecuting counsel cannot become the defending counsel) — but in the four garments (cf. Exodus 28:40), like an ordinary priest, all of these being on this occasion entirely of linen (whereas one of the four worn by the ordinary priests, the belt, was a mixture of wool and linen) (Rosh Hashanah 26a).

HE SHALL PUT ON THE LINEN TUNIC OF ‘KODESH’ (HOLINESS). “This means that they [i.e., all the garments of the High Priest] must be of the Sanctuary [treasury, and not of his own possession].” This is Rashi’s language.³⁸Rashi thus interprets the verse to mean: “he shall put on the linen tunic of the Sanctuary.” Ramban will later suggest that by way of the simple meaning of Scripture, the phrase means that “he shall put on ‘the holy’ linen tunic.” It is so rendered in the J.P.S. translation. Thus the following phrase which states, they are garments of ‘kodesh’ (holiness) must therefore mean that all the garments [even those of the ordinary priests], must come from the Sanctuary [treasury]. And [so] it is stated in the Torath Kohanim:³⁹Torath Kohanim, Acharei 1:10. “‘Kodesh yilbash’ (‘He shall put on’ the linen tunic ‘of holiness’), this means that these [garments of the High Priest] are to be of the Sanctuary. From this phrase I would only know concerning these garments [i.e., the four garments worn by the High Priest when he ministered in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement]. Whence do I know to include the other garments of the High Priest [i.e., the eight golden garments in which he officiated throughout the year], and the garments of his brethren the priests [that they too must all come from the Temple treasury]? Scripture therefore says, they are garments of ‘kodesh’ (holiness). It is a conclusion by analogy that all garments [worn by all priests] should be of the Temple treasury” [since they all come under the term ‘garments of holiness’].
By way of the simple meaning of Scripture, just as He said, and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother,⁴⁰Exodus 28:4. referring to the eight [golden] garments, He states that these [four garments worn by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement] are also holy garments. Their secret is analogous to the man clothed in linen,⁴¹Ezekiel 9:11. The symbol there is that G-d will not destroy His people, but that He will deal with them in mercy (Abusaula). and therefore He informed him that they are holy garments. And in Vayikra Rabbah the Rabbis have said:⁴²Vayikra Rabbah 21:10. “As the Service performed Above, so is the Service below. Just as of the Service Above it is said, one man in the midst of them clothed in linen,⁴³Ezekiel 9:2. so of the Service below it is said, he shall put on the holy linen tunic.

בגדי קדש הם, when angels appeared in human guise to the prophets they wore these kinds of garments. This is the meaning of the expression לבושי הבדים. (Ezekiel 9,3 and Daniel 12,6-7)

כתנת בד קודש ילבש, "He shall put on the holy linen tunic, etc." The reason the Torah used the word קרש, holy, in connection with the linen tunic and was not content to include it in the subsequently mentioned בגדי קודש, sacred garments, may be that the Torah was afraid that we would reason that G'd had only ordered three garments to be paid for from the treasury of the Temple seeing they are not garments an ordinary person has to wear anyway. Inasmuch as every person has to wear a tunic, it could have been reasoned that Aaron had to pay out of his own funds for that tunic. The Torah therefore added the word קדש, sacred, to teach that this tunic too was paid for by funds from the Temple treasury. The Torah added the words בגדי קודש הם, so that we should not think that only the tunic was to be paid for by the Temple treasury. The Torah wanted to make plain that the same rule applied to all four garments.

בגדי קודש הם, “they are sacred vestments.” The sages in Torat Kohanim use this verse as applying not only to this service in the Tabernacle on the Day of Atonement, but as applying to any time the High Priest performs duties in the Temple or Tabernacle. [Meaning that only the four vestments mentioned here are to be worn by him inside the Tabernacle, not the additional vestments which have been described as לכבוד ולתפארת, “for glory and splendour.” (Exodus 28,2). Ed.] Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text, seeing that in connection with the eight vestments the Torah had used the expression ועשית בגדי קודש, “you are to make sacred vestments,” (Exodus 28,2) the same terminology is used here. The Torah by emphasising the fact that the garments enumerated here are to be linen, בד, indicates that during service inside the Tabernacle only linen garments are to be worn. [Approaching Hashem in golden vestments when asking forgiveness would be the ultimate in bad taste. Ed.] In Vayikra Rabbah, 21,10 a comparison is drawn between the way service by the angels is perceived as taking place in the celestial counterpart to the Tabernacle on earth. In those regions the service is performed in linen vestments. The words כתונת בד קודש match what our sages used to describe as taking place in those regions. (Compare Ezekiel 9,1) Commenting on three different verbs used by the Torah for Aaron donning these vestments, ילבש, יחגור, יצנוף, when we would have thought that the word ילבש would suffice to describe all this, Torat Kohanim explains that seeing that the High Priest had to return to the Holy of Holies for the offering of the evening portion of the incense, he needed additional vessels to retrieve the spoon used for the incense, for instance, these extra words hint at these additional items the High Priest had to take with him.

He does not perform the Service within etc. Rashi is answering the question: The Torah already mentioned wearing these garments in parshas Ve’ata Tetzaveh? Therefore, he explains, “[This] tells us...”

'כתנת בד קדש וגו “a holy linen tunic, etc.” why did the Torah have to repeat the word “בד” four times in this verse? It was to exclude the breastplate, ephod, the robe, and the headband, which did not contain any linen. The reason is that the priest is not to appear in the Sanctuary wearing those garments, although in connection with them the Torah had also used the expression: 'לפני ה, in the presence of the Lord. (Compare Exodus 28,29, 28,35,28,37.)

קדש ילבש HE SHALL PUT ON [THE LINEN INNER GARMENT] OF HOLINESS (or, OF THE SANCTUARY) - This means that they shall be purchased from the Temple treasury (whilst his personal offering mentioned v. 3 had to be of his own) (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 1 10).

HE SHALL PUT ON … HE SHALL BE GIRDED … HE SHALL BE ATTIRED.⁴⁴The verse reads: ‘He shall put on’ the holy linen tunic, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and ‘he shall be girded’ with the linen belt, and with the linen mitre ‘he shall be attired.’ The use of the multiple verbs will be explained in the following text from the Torath Kohanim. [The Scriptural use of these multiple expressions is] explained by the Torath Kohanim:⁴⁵Torath Kohanim, Acharei 1:14. “Since we are finally bound to include [among the requirements for the Service on the Day of Atonement] another set of [four linen] garments [when he brought out the spoon and censer from the Holy of Holies] in the afternoon of that day, then I might think that if he has no other set of garments he should not put on those he wore in the morning [when he first entered the Holy of Holies]. Scripture therefore says he shall put on … he shall be girded … he shall be attired” [thus indicating by the multiple use of these expressions that the High Priest may wear these vestments again in the afternoon].
Now Rashi commented: “‘Yitznoph’ (he shall be attired). [The word is to be understood as the Targum rendered it:] yocheith b’reishei which means “he shall ‘place’ it upon his head.” This is like ‘vatanach’ his garment by her⁴⁶Genesis 39:16. which the Targum rendered ‘v’achthethei,” meaning “and she ‘placed’ [his garment by her].” But Onkelos’ opinion [in translating the Hebrew word yitznoph as “placing”] is not clear to me, for the term tzniphah means “winding” [something] around the head like a turban,⁴⁷See Ramban, Exodus 28:31. (Vol. II, pp. 486-7). so why did he translate it merely as “placing,” and did not render it by an [Aramaic] word which is used specifically for actual “winding”? Perhaps there is no equivalent expression for it in the Aramaic language, for even the expression in [the Book of] Isaiah, ‘hatzniphoth’ and the mantles,⁴⁸Isaiah 3:23. Tzniphoth is translated “turbans.” Yonathan ben Uziel rendered kitoraya (“crownings” surrounding the head). Thus both [Onkelos and Yonathan] had no Aramaic equivalent for tzniph [in the Book of Isaiah] and mitznepheth [in the Torah — Exodus 28:4], and therefore both of them used the same term derived from the Sacred Language — mitznephta.⁴⁹Thus the Hebrew mitznepheth [in Exodus 28:4] is rendered both by Onkelos and Yonathan as mitznephta, which is basically the same Hebrew word as mitznepheth, since they had no Aramaic word for it.

But with four [garments] like an ordinary kohein.. Here too, it seems that he is answering the question: Why does it specifically write the garments of a regular kohein?

Furthermore, the Torah may have intended to inform us that the material the tunic was made from was paid for by the Temple treasury. The same applied to the other three garments mentioned here. The Torah wanted to make this plain already when mentioning the first garment. The meaning of the words בגדי קודש הם, may be that the cost of constructing the garments, not only their materials, should be defrayed by the Temple treasury.

על בשרו, “on his flesh,” covering his private parts, as in זב מבשרו in Leviticus 15,2. What is the meaning of the words: ילבש, יחגור, יצנוף? [if these garments could not be worn inside the Sanctuary? Ed.] Seeing that before nightfall the priest would still don those garments, it had to be mentioned that he would wear them, even if not during the morning and afternoon while Temple service was carried out.

יצנף — Understand this as the Targum does: יחת ברישה which means: he shall place upon his head. Thus, the verb in (Genesis 39:16) ותנח בגדו, is rendered by the Targum ואחתתיה (of the same root as יחת) “and she placed".

That it should come from the Temple treasury. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse write, “He shall don a sanctified...,” which implies that they are holy even before he wears them? What holiness can they have before he wears them? You cannot answer that he wore these garments on the previous Yom Kippur and this is speaking of a second Yom Kippur, because immediately after wearing them they need to be hidden away and the kohein gadol never serves in them again as it is written (verse 23) “and place them there.” Therefore Rashi explains: “That it should come from the Temple treasury,” meaning he should buy them with money of the Temple treasury. Since we find that he buys the bull with his own [money], you might have thought that the garments too should be from his own [money]. Therefore the verse informs us [that this is not so]. The reason the bull comes from his own [money] is since it comes for [his personal] atonement as it says (verse 6), “And atone on his own behalf and on behalf of his household.” On the other hand, he prayed in the garments on behalf of all Israel. I found this.

The Torah may also have intended to convey that these garments are of holy character by writing the words בגדי קודש הם, One should not think that it is demeaning that the very servant of G'd who had been equipped with eight garments described in Exodus 28,2-5 as לכבוד ולתפארת, "for glory and splendour," should now wear only inferior garments when performing the service inside the Holy of Holies. Only the four garments listed here are suitable for the mission the High Priest was to fulfil inside the Holy of Holies. One of the reasons is that אין קטגור נעשה סנגור, that the accuser cannot also function as the counsel of defence, as we pointed out repeatedly. The presence of gold on the garments of the High Priest would have reminded the attribute of Justice of the episode of the golden calf.

ובמצנפת בד יצנוף, “and he shall be attired with a linen mitre.” From the fact that the breastplate and the ephod are not mentioned here we learn that during the entire 400 plus years that the second Temple stood these latter garments were not available. There was no point in wearing them if the means of communication with G-d through the urim vetumim did not exist during that period. (Ibn Ezra)

ורחץ במים AND HE SHALL LAVE [HIS FLESH] IN WATER — That day he required immersion at each change of his garments! Five times he proceeded alternately from the service in the “Interior" to that performed outside and from the outside service to that in the "Interior", changing from the golden garments into the linen garments or from the linen garments into the golden garments. At each change he required to take an immersion and to wash his hands and his feet twice from the laver (viz., before he took off the garments he was wearing and after he had put on others — in all, 10 times during the day) (Yoma 32a).

He shall place [on his head]. According to this, the ב' of ובמצנפת is superfluous, similar to the ב of ברוחו שמים שפרה, “His wind calmed the heavens” (Iyov 26:13), which is also superfluous. It is as if the verse said ומצנפת בד יצנוף. The בי"ת should be understood as a substitute for עם (with), as if it said, “With a linen turban he should wind around his head.” In the Targum too, ומצנפתא is without a ב. The Targum has to say this [translating יצנוף as “to put”] because the expression of צניפה does not exist in Aramaic. But in Scripture where we do find words like צנוף [and] יצנוף [which mean to surround], the ב has the meaning of עם (with) as in the phrase ובאבנט בד יחגור, “He shall gird himself with a linen sash.” Here too it means, “He shall surround his head with a (linen) turban.” Rashi cites the Targum to inform us that the expression צניפה refers to the head [only] and not to somewhere else. And incidental to this he explains that that יחית means “to place.”

Alternatively, the reason such garments would not have been in place inside the Holy of Holies is based on Proverbs 25,6: "Do not be boastful in front of a king;" it is bad manners to harp on one's own importance in the presence of G'd Almighty. The words בגדי קודש הם are the Torah's reassurance to us that just these four garments are the sacred vestments suitable for the service about to be described in our chapter. Our sages see in the expression קודש ילבש a reference to where the tunic is to be worn, i.e. inside the Holy of Holies, the place where the Holy Presence of G'd resides. The apparent repetition בגדי קודש הם mean that all of these garments are to be the property of the Temple treasury. (Torat Kohanim).

בגדי קדש הם, “they are holy garments;” this expression here teaches that that term applies to all the priestly garments.

He would change. The following is the order of the Services on Yom Kippur: First, he immersed and donned the golden garments for the daily morning sacrifice which is a Service outside. Afterwards he removed the golden garments and immersed, and donned the white garments to perform the Services of the bull and the goat and the incense of the hand shovel inside. Then he removed the white garments and immersed, and donned the golden garments to perform the Services of his ram and the ram of the people and some of the additional sacrifices outside. Afterwards he removed the golden garments and immersed, and donned the white garments and entered inside to remove the spoon and the hand shovel. Afterwards he removed the white garments, immersed, and donned the golden garments to perform the Services outside, to sacrifice the remaining additional sacrifices and the daily sacrifice of the evening and the [daily evening] incense. Analyze this and you will find it so. As Rashi explains later on v.24, “He shall wash his flesh in water,” this (v. 4) indicates that he has to immerse before donning the white garments, and later (in v. 24) too it is written that he had to immerse before donning the golden garments. Therefore, we say that he must immerse whenever he changes from the golden garments to white garments or from the white garments to the golden garments. Rashi also explains that he requires two sanctifications, because verses 23 and 24 write “he shall wash” between “and remove” and “and don.” [“Aharon will then come into the Tent of Meeting and remove the linen garments that he wore.... He shall wash his flesh in water in a sacred place and don his garments.”] This is to apply washing to both the removing [his garments] and the donning [his garments], and if it is not to teach immersion which we have already learnt [from other sources], we use it to teach sanctification.

ורחץ במים את בשרו, “and he is to wash his flesh with water;“ Rashi comments on this line that on that day the High Priest is to immerse himself each time he changed his garments. It is no more than basic courtesy that someone who is a personal attendant of a king purifies himself before he commences a new task each time; this is in addition to the fact that his hands had become sullied each time he handled certain objects or materials. This is why the Torah requires the High Priest in addition to wash his hands and feet each time also. All this has been spelled out in the Talmud tractate Yuma, folio 32. Seeing that our verse inserted the words: ורחץ את בשרו במים, between the words: ופשט, “he is to disrobe,” and the words: ולבש, “and he is to get dressed,” it is clear that what is required is that prior to each changing of the garments he must immerse himself in a ritual bath. Seeing that those words were not necessary in order to teach us that he must immerse himself, they had to be applied to separate washing of hands and feet. As far as Rashi writing that he must sanctify hands and feet from the כיור, the special basin for this positioned near the entrance to the Tabernacle, it is clear that the water in that basin must be used for this purpose, the Mishnah in Yuma folio 43, concludes that there was a special golden ladle available on that day, not just the copper faucets used normally.

שני שעירי עזים לחטאת, the first to atone for sins which occurred inadvertently in the holy precincts, and the second one in respect of sins committed by the public at large who through mostly being in a state of ritual impurity would not have been in a position to offer this sacrifice on their own behalf at this time. Had they done so while in a state of ritual impurity and had entered holy precincts, they would have conferred ritual impurity on their agent the priest. [just as happened with the scape-goat who conferred ritual impurity on the man leading it to its death. (verse 26). However, in this case such impurity was not conferred on sacred ground. Ed.]

את פרי החטאת אשר לו [AND AARON SHALL OFFER] THE BULL OF SIN OFFERING WHICH IS HIS — i. e. that mentioned above (v. 3). It teaches you here, by adding the words אשר לו, that it came (had to be purchased) from his own and not from the money of the community (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 2 2; Yoma 3b).

והקריב אהרן, in the courtyard, עזרה,

And not from public [funds]. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say “which is his,” if no other bull is mentioned in this parsha except that of Aharon as it is written, “With this Aharon shall come... with a young bullock?” [He answers]: This indicates that he must bring the sacrifices from his [property]. In addition, since it is written above, “He shall take, from the congregation of Israel two he-goats etc.,” it indicates that the sacrifices written above he brought for himself [i.e., with his own funds].

And atone. In gematriyah this equals “זה בוידוי דברים” (this is with oral confession), for his confesses on the bullock of his sin-offering.

וכפר בעדו, “he will perform atonement for his personal sins;” he will recite a confession by mouth. If you were to assume that the Torah here refers to an atonement by means of the blood of a sacrifice, our sages understood, after looking at verse 10 where we read the words: לכפר עליו in connection with the scapegoat, where it is clear that a confession by mouth is described, that the same expression being used here is meant to draw a parallel, i.e. that he is to recite a verbal confession. In verse 21 the words: והתודה עליו “he will make a verbal confession,” are spelled out clearly. This confession was in addition to the blood of the animal being sacrificed. If you were to ask why the High Priest did not also recite a confession over the male goat whose blood was sprinkled inside the Sanctuary, the reason was that it was destined for G-d, and it would be unseemly to make use of it for the needs of creatures here on earth. The Torah had especially written that this animal had been chosen by lot to be G-d’s. (verse 9) (Sifra). According to Malbim, the unnecessary word עלה in this verse may be the reason for the Sifra’s comment.

וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו means, he shall make confession over it of his own sins and of the sins of his house (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 2 2; Yoma 36b).

את פר החטאת אשר לו וכפר בעדו. He will immediately pronounce his personal confession over the animal. According to the plain meaning of the text he will bring it into the courtyard in order to sacrifice it as atonement as explained by the line ושחט את פר החטאת אשר לו, “he will slaughter the bull of the sin offering for his personal atonement.(verse 11).

He confesses over it. [Rashi says this] since it is impossible to say that this means actual atonement, as there is no atonement until after throwing of the blood as it is written below (verse18), “[He shall go out to the altar that is before Adonoy] and atone on it. He shall take some of the bullock’s blood [and some of the he-goat’s blood] and put it atop the corners of the altar, [all around].” But [here] this animal is still alive because afterwards (verse 11) it is written “And he shall slaughter his sin-offeringbullock.” Therefore, we learn from לכפר עליו, that it means “to achieve atonement with it” (verse 10), and [just as the atonement there is through confession, here too] it means through confession. I found this.

Hello

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.

‎‎‎‎‏ 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.

ועשהו חטאת means, when putting the lot upon it he names it (i.e. designates its purpose), using the words: "to the Lord as a sin offering״ (Yoma 39a).

ועשהו חטאת, the lot determines which of the male goats is to be the sin offering for the altar. In the words of our sages (Yuma 40) “the lot determines which is the sin offering, and not the name.” [calling it such is meaningless unless confirmed by the lot drawn. Ed.]

“A sin-offering.” I.e., “And do (offer) it as a sin-offering” means “he calls it a name... ‘a sin offering.’” You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it means that he sacrifices it for the sake of a sin-offering, as is indeed the law of a sin-offering? The answer is: Later in the parsha (verse 15) it is written, “He shall slaughter the he-goat sin-offering,” which implies that he had not yet sacrificed it.

ועשהו חטאת, “and it will be made into a sin offering.” This was determined by lot. The High Priest had no hand in which of the two animals wound up as the sin offering.

חי ‎יעמד SHALL BE PRESENTED ALIVE — חי‎ יָעֳמַד is the same as חי ‏‎ ‏ יוּעֲמַד (i. e. יָעֳמַד is a regular Hophal-form) — it shall be made to stand by others (i. e. it shall be placed). The Targum also renders it by: יתקם כד חי, “it shall be made to stand in a live state". — Why is it stated that it shall be presented alive; this is already implied in the word יעמד. it shall be made to stand!? But because it continues “to send it forth unto Azazel" and I would not know whether this “sending forth” means to death or to life (in the latter case it would mean “to let it go”; cf. Leviticus 14:7 where ושלח has this meaning), therefore Scripture states “it shall be presented alive” — its presentation must be made whilst it is alive and the animal remains so up to the time when it is being sent forth; it follows therefore that it shall be sent forth to death (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 2 6).

יעמד חי, shall be set alive, etc. These words need analysis. Yuma 40 and Torat Kohanim offer many explanations. According to our own approach the meaning is simply that Aaron was not to confess the sins of Israel on that animal immediately after the lot had been drawn, but was to leave it "alive" for a while. We have explained on several occasions that sinners are called "dead" even while they are physically still alive. An animal which carries the burden of the sins of the nation would therefore certainly be considered "dead" from the moment it assumed that burden. Consequently, the Torah had to mention that this procedure was not to take place immediately and that in the meantime the scape-goat remained "alive." Our interpretation is confirmed by the Torah as correct as you can see from verse 21. Only then does Aaron place his hands (weight) on the head of the שעיר החי, the "living goat," and confesses the sins of the people and transfers them to the head of that animal. At that point the Torah no longer adds the adjective "the live one," when speaking of the scapegoat. Seeing the animal is considered dead from that point on we can understand why the messenger who took the scapegoat to the place from where it was thrown off the rock had to immerse himself in a ritual bath. He had become ritually defiled by contact with an animal considered dead according to halachah though it had been walking all the time that the איש עתי accompanied it (verse 22).

לשלח אותו לעזאזל המדברה, according to the plain meaning it means to dispatch it “alive” to the goats in the desert, similar to the one bird of the two bird offerings in Leviticus 14,7 being released live into the open spaces. The purpose of the procedure is to ritually purify the afflicted from his ritual contamination. Here in our verse too, the purpose of the procedure is to cleanse the entire Jewish people from the ritual contamination which they have been in by releasing the scape-goat to the desert, to an area where it can find grazing, as we know from Exodus 3,1 where Moses had taken his father-in-law’s sheep into grazing land behind the desert, According to the Talmud (Beytzah 40) the meaning of מדבריות, is בייתות, “domesticated.” [this would support the idea that the word המדברה here does not mean “to a desolate, desert region.” Ed.]

Why does the verse say [this]? Explanation: because it [already] said יעמד, “it shall stand,” and “standing” implies that it is alive. If so, why does the verse say “alive?”

'יעמד חי לפני ה, “shall be standing alive before the Lord;” initially it will remain standing alive before the Lord, whereas its death will be caused by the rock from which it will be thrown. How long will it have to remain standing alive? According to Rabbi Yehudah, until the High Priest has completed all the procedures resulting in the atonement for the Jewish people, something hinted at in verse 20. (Sifra)

To achieve atonement with it. This means to confess, for the main understanding of confession and atonement is throwing away and abandoning the sin. Similarly, every language of atonement (כפרה) is a connotation of removing, as in (Yishayahu 28:18): “And your treaty with death shall be removed” (HaKesav veHaKabbalah).

לכפר עליו THAT HE MAY MAKE AN EXPIATION WITH IT — i. e. that he (the High-Priest) shall confess upon it (upon its head) Israel’s sins, as it is said (v. 21) “And Aaron shall confess upon it [the iniquities of the children of Israel]” (cf. Yoma 40b).

לעזאזל. The letter ל at the beginning is not an integral part of the word. It is like the letter ל in ארבאל בית in Hoseah 10,14 where the word is really derived from ארב as in Deuteronomy 19,11 וארב לו “and he prepared an ambush for him.” The letter we are speaking about is similar to the letter ם which sometimes appears at the end of the word ריקם, empty, instead of ריק, but which does not add to the meaning of the word. Similar examples of apparently redundant letters are the letter ן in words such as עשרון, עצבון, and שגעון, In verse 22 the place called המדברה in our verse is called ארץ גזרה, a totally arid land, one that cannot produce a crop. It is literally “cut off,” גזורה, from all goodness.

That he shall confess over it. But not atonement of blood, because this goat was not sacrificed and its blood is not received [in a vessel], as it is sent to Azazel. In addition, this cannot be [referring to the] blood atonement [of his bullock], because his bullock was not yet slaughtered.

'וכפר בעדו וגו‎ AND HE SHALL MAKE AN EXPIATION FOR HIMSELF etc. — This implies a second confession of sins which he was to make for himself and on behalf of his brother-priests, who may all be termed “his house”, as it said (Psalms 135:19) “Bless the Lord, o house of Aaron, etc." (cf. Shevuot 14a). Hence we learn that the priests become atoned for by means of it (the bullock). The expiation effected by it extended, however, only to those sins committed by causing uncleanness to the Sanctuary or holy things (i.e. by the priests having entered the Sanctuary or eaten of the holy things in such a state), as it is said (v. 16) “And he shall make an expiation for the holy place because of the uncleanness [of the children of Israel] etc.”.

וכפר בעדו, we have already learned by tradition that both the atonements which are mentioned in connection with Aaron personally refer to the confession recited by Aaron, this is why they took place before the actual slaughtering of the sin offering.

And his brother kohanim. You might ask: Why does Aharon not atone for his brother kohanim with the first confession that he confesses on his behalf and on behalf of his household? The answer is: Because it is written, התקוששו וקשו (Tzephanya 2:1). [Although this actually means, “Gather yourselves together, gather yourselves], Reish Lakish said, [read the word התקוששו as התקושטו and say,] קשוט לעצמך ואח"כ קשוט אחרים, “Ornament yourself before ornamenting others.” Therefore, Aharon first confesses only on his behalf and on behalf of his household, and afterwards, during the second confession, he confesses also on behalf of his brothers. And the word “his household” [in this verse] also refers to his brothers as it says, “House of Aharon...” Gur Aryeh asks: Why does Aharon have to atone for himself twice? He answers: [to atone] for a sin that occurred between the first confession and the second confession, as Chazal say, it would be fitting for Israel to offer their sacrifices every hour, except that Scripture had mercy on them. Therefore, here where he anyhow has to confess for his brothers the kohanim, he again confesses his own sins. Also, because the bullock belongs only to him, it is not fitting that he confess over it only on behalf of the [other] kohanim, but rather they are subsidiary to Aharon as [belonging to] “the house of Aharon.” Therefore, in the second confession he once again confesses, “I and my household, the kohanim,” who are subsidiary to Aharon.

ושחט את פר החטאת, “he will slaughter the bull as a sin offering;” whereupon he will take the censer (12) filled with glowing coal, and take some of the blood from that bull (14) so that it will not have time to congeal before he has to sprinkle it. Actually, he has to hand over the blood from that bull to another priest (Talmud Yuma 43) so as to keep it being stirred, while the High Priest is busy with presenting the incense in the Holy of Holies, before commencing with the sprinkling on to the dividing curtain.

Impurity to the Temple. With this, he also wants to prove that when it is written “and on behalf of his household,” it refers to his brothers the kohanim. Because its whole atonement is only for impurity to the Temple and its holy things, therefore all the kohanim need atonement for this.

מעל המזבח FROM OFF THE ALTAR — i. e. the outer altar (that was in the fore-court) (Yoma 45b).

ולקח מלא המחתה, as soon as the sin offering had been slaughtered and he had previously recited his confession so that his sins had been removed, he was now ready to face the “King,” (G’d) who would look upon him with favour. This is what was meant in verse 2 with the reference to the cloud by means of which G’d would manifest Himself. At that point it was appropriate to honour Him by presenting the incense, much as the incense would be offered daily after the presentation of the daily communal offering, תמיד both in the morning and in the evening. (compare Exodus 29,42 עולת תמיד לדורותיכם פתח אהל מועד אשר אועד לכם שמה, “a regular burnt offering throughout your generations at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting where I manifest Myself for you.”

The outer [one]. Because it is written “From atop the altar, which is before Adonoy,” and Rashi explains, “From the side [of the altar that is] before the entrance [to the Sanctuary], and that is before Adonoy.” Perforce, this must be the outer altar, because if it is the inner altar, how can it say “before Adonoy,” which implies the side [of the altar] that is before Hashem? The entire inner altar is before Hashem! Rather, it is the outer altar, whose western side is opposite the eastern side of the Temple, where the Temple entrance is located, and which is called before [Hashem].

'מעל המזבח מלפני ה, “off the altar before the Lord;” which is the altar that is described here as being “before the Lord?” According to the prefix letter מ in front of the word מעל, this is the copper altar in front of the Temple, only part of which is directly in front of the entrance of the Temple/Tabernacle.

מלפני ה׳ FROM BEFORE THE LORD — from that side of the altar which was before the entrance — that is, the west side (cf. Yoma 45b.)

דקה [AND HIS HANDS FULL OF INCENSE OF AROMATICS] FINE — Why is it stated that it shall be fine? Was not all incense fine, for so it is said, (Exodus 30:36) "And thou shall rub some of it very fine” - ? But it is intended to teach that it (the incense used on the Day of Atonement) was to be of the very finest powder, for on the Eve of the Day of Atonement it (the ordinary incense) was put again into the mortar in order that it should be again beaten into a finer powder. (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 3 8-9; Keritot 6b; Yoma 45a).

על האש UPON THE FIRE which was in the censer.

Which is within [the incense-pan]. [Rashi says this] to preclude explaining that there was another fire “before Adonoy” onto which he put the incense. Therefore he explains that he places the incense “’on the fire’ which is within the incense-pan.” “Before Adonoy” means [that he put the incense on the fire] inside [the Holy of Holies] and not outside like the opinion of the Sadducees.

ונתן את הקטורת, “he will place the incense, etc.” this incense has been mentioned in verse 2 where G-d explained that he will be making an appearance above the lid of the Holy Ark, beyond the dividing curtain. At that point, Aaron, and of course, anyone of lower rank, is not to go there on pain of death unless commanded to do so by G-d. G-d had made clear that no human being while inside a body can ever have a visual image of His essence. In order to make this point quite clear the Torah writes that the cloud of the smoke from the incense will fill that area so that nothing can be seen.

ולא ימות THAT IIE DIE NOT — Hence, if he did not offer it according to regulation he was liable to the death penalty (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 3 10; Yoma 53a).

If he did not do it properly. I.e., he did not put in all its ingredients according to their weight. Even if he did not do like the Sadducees, but placed the incense on the fire within the incense-pan after entering, even so, if he omitted some of its ingredients, either the ingredients themselves or [part of] their weight, he is liable for death. Rashi writes, “If he did not do it properly...,” since it is obvious that from the negative, one can infer the positive.

והזה באצבעו AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE IT WITH THE FINGER — One sprinkling only is implied (since the next phrase mentions a definite number),

על פני הכפרת קדמה ולפני הכפרת יזה שבע פעמים, “in front of the kapporet to the east as well as in front of the kapporet (west?).” There were a total of eight sprinklings of blood on Yom Kippur. Seven were aimed at the lower half of the Holy Ark and one at the upper half. Let me try and explain the symbolism in these sprinklings. The first sprinkling aimed at the Holy Ark was directed at the highest emanations which include the emanation of חכמה and בינה, “wisdom and insight.” The seven subsequent sprinklings aimed at the Holy Ark were to symbolize the remaining seven lower emanations.
We have been taught in Yuma 53 that the High Priest had to count aloud while performing these sprinklings. This was the formula: “one; one and one; one and two; one and three; one and four; one and five; one and six; one and seven.” When the High Priest said: “one,” he meant the upper three emanations which were treated as one group. When he said: “one and one,” he referred to the first sprinkling which was in respect of the three higher emanations plus the first of the sprinklings in respect of the highest of the seven lower emanations. He continued in that vein to the end. The Talmud there (folio 55) states that though there is a disagreement among the scholars concerning the subsequent countings, they are all agreed that the initial counting is obligatory. Concerning the question why the High Priest always had to repeat the reference to the first sprinkling, i.e. repeating the word אחת each time, Rabbi Eleazar says that it was to ensure he would not make a mistake in the procedure. Rabbi Yochanan says that that this was based on our verse where the Torah wrote that seven sprinklings had to take place in front of the kapporet. He considered the word יזה the second time in that verse as redundant, seeing the verse had said earlier והזה, “he shall sprinkle.” As a result of the extra word Rabbi Yochanan considers the count accompanying the sprinkling procedure as obligatory and crucial, meaning that if the High Priest failed to count in this manner the whole procedure would be invalidated. We need to understand why, according to Rabbi Yochanan, the count in this fashion is so essential. According to Rabbi Yochanan even if the High Priest did not make a mistake in the procedure the fact that he did not count in the approved manner makes his service invalid. The Torah attributed so much importance to the sprinkling of this blood on and against the Holy Ark instead of merely on the Altar in the Sanctuary that the counting of the procedure became so important. The very name of the lid of the Ark i.e. כפרת indicates the ability of contributing to atonement which was part of the latent power of the Ark, the Lid and the Cherubs. (Compare Tanchuma Vayakhel 10).

One. Rashi does not mean that word “he shall sprinkle” implies once, because “he shall sprinkle” does not indicate once or more. Rather, he means that “he shall sprinkle with his finger” implies one sprinkling because of a gezeirah shavah. It says [that] “blood” [is sprinkled] below [=downwards] by the he-goat (verse 15) and it says [that] “blood” [is sprinkled] below [=downwards] by the bullock [in our verse]. Just as [the sprinklings] below by the bullock are seven, so too [the sprinklings below] by the he-goat are seven. And just as [the sprinklings] above [=upwards] by the he-goat are once as it is written, “He shall sprinkle it,” and Chazal expound “it” as exclusionary, he should sprinkle it once and no more, so we learn that the blood of the he-goat [sprinkled] above [=upwards] on the Ark-cover is only once, so too the sprinkling of the bullock above is [only] once, because “blood, blood” is a gezeirah shavah. Re’m

ולקח מדם הפר, “he will take some of the blood from the bull;” he takes it from the priest who had kept stirring it.

ולפני הכפרת יזה שבע AND BEFORE THE COVERING SHALL HE SPRINKLE [OF THE BLOOD] SEVEN TIMES — Thus we have one sprinkling upwards and seven downwards (Yoma 53b).

על פני הכפורת קדמה, “onto the top of the lid, eastward;” on the side of the ark facing east.

על, according to our sages the word על means “upwards.” as in the reciting of the counting by the High Priest, recited in our liturgy on the Day of Atonement.

שבע פעמים, “seven times.” This number is reminiscent of the Torah in Leviticus 26,24 speaking of G-d punishing us sevenfold for our sins.

אשר לעם [THE GOAT OF THE SIN-OFFERING] THAT IS FOR THE PEOPLE — Only for that which the bullock effects atonement for the priests (i. e. for ומאת מקדש וקדשיו‎ט) the goat effects atonement for the Israelites. It (the goat spoken of here) is that goat upon which the lot “for the Lord" fell (Yoma 61a; Shevuot 2b).

החטאת אשר לעם. After he had completed offering the sin offering for his own atonement, also the people would be on the level where they could face the “King.” The sequence described here which at fist glance might seem as if the High Priest were more concerned with his own atonement than that of the people whom he represented, is confirmed by the prophet (Tzefaniah 2,1) in the words התקוששו וקושו, which is interpreted in Sanhedrin 18 as “attend to your own integrity before you attend to the integrity of others.”

The goat atones. I.e., just as the bullock atones for impurity of the Temple and its holy things for the kohanim as Rashi just explained above, similarly the he-goat of the public atones for the impurity of the Temple. Rashi is [actually] saying [the reverse]: You might ask: Why does the verse write “that belongs to the people” since there is no he-goat sin-offering that does not belong to the people? This comes to teach you, what does the bullock atone for on behalf of the kohanim? That same thing which the he-goat of the people atones for. The he-goat of the people certainly atones for the impurity of the Temple as it is written regarding it, “He will atone for the Sanctuary, from the impurities of Bnei Yisroel,” so the bullock of the kohanim atones for the impurity of the Temple. [See Re’m]

אשר לעם, “intended for atonement of the people,” and not for other ordinary priests, not of the High Priest’s family. The question then arises by what means did those priests receive their atonement? Answer: by the bull that brought atonement of Aaron’s sins.

כאשר עשה לדם הפר AS HE DID WITH THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK, viz., sprinkling once upwards and seven times downwards (Yoma 53b).

One above and seven below. Explanation: Rashi needs to explain this so that we do not learn the first instance of “blood” [in verse 14] from the last instance [of “blood” in verse 14] and the last instance [of “blood” in verse 15] from the first instance [of “blood” in verse 15], and say that the above [sprinkling] and below [sprinkling] of both the bullock and the he-goat] should be the same, or one [sprinkling above and below for the he-goat] or seven [sprinklings above and below for the bullock]. We would learn each case from itself. Therefore “just as he did with the bullock’s blood” tells us that we compare the he-goat to the bullock in all its actions, [and both of their numbers of sprinklings are equal]. [See Re’m verse 14]

מטמאת בני ישראל [AND HE SHALL MAKE AN EXPIATION FOR THE HOLY PLACE] BECAUSE OF THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — i. e. for those who entered the Sanctuary in a state of uncleanness without having finally become conscious of this fact (Shevuot 7b), for it is said לכל חטאתם, and the word חטאת implies a sin committed unconsciously.

השכן אתם בתוך טומאתם, “that dwells with them amidst their contamination.” Even though the Jewish people are contaminated the Shechinah is amongst them (Sifra Acharey 4, 5). This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah in the Talmud Sukkah where he states his view that one may cover the Sukkah with material which is subject to becoming contaminated, although his view is not shared by the other scholars. He based his opinion on the text in our verse.
We also have an opinion in Sanhedrin 37 according to which the words וירח את ריח בגדיו, “he inhaled the fragrance of his clothing” (Genesis 27,23) are understood as וירח את ריח בוגדיו, “he inhaled the fragrance of those who betray Him,” i.e. even though the person concerned is contaminated, seeing that they are Jews G’d does not totally reject them. Another allegorical approach along these lines is found in Shemot Rabbah 33,2 where the word עלית למרום שבית שבי (Psalms 68,19) are understood to mean that even if there were unfit Jews amongst the people this did not stop the Shechinah from being amongst them. The Midrash understands the words as a rebuttal to the Gentiles who believe that because Jews have served idols at one time they are forever cut off from G’d’s grace.
Another comment by the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 18,8) on the words of Maleachi 2,16: “for I detest divorce- said the Lord G’d of Israel,” points to the fact that the prophet Malachi when mentioning G’d always uses the expression אלוקי צבאות, and only in this instance does he refer to G’d as אלוקי ישראל, “the G’d of Israel.” The author of the Midrash sees a clear message in this that the prophet wanted to reassure the people that G’d’s presence does not abandon the Jewish people even when they are sinful.

In [a state of] impurity. Explanation: For being in impurity and inadvertently entering the Sanctuary or [eating] its sanctified items. However, [the verse is] not [speaking about] the impurity of idolatry or promiscuity or murder which are also called impurity. This is because it is written, “He will atone for the Sanctuary.” This indicates that it is speaking about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sanctified things. See the Gemara, first chapter of Shavuos (7b), where this is explained well.

ומפשעיהם AND BECAUSE OF THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS — This implies atonement also for those who entered the Sanctuary presumptuously in a state of uncleanness (Shevuot 7b; cf. also Shevuot 2a and Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 1).

[Which] was not known to them afterwards. Because if it was known afterwards, why does the verse command to bring a he-goat? Above in parshas Vayikra (4:13,14) it is written, “If the entire congregation of Yisroel erred ... [when] they realize the sin which they committed, the community shall bring a young bullock as a sin-offering...” Thus here we must say that it was completely inadvertent [and they did not realize even afterwards]. Therefore they bring a he-goat and not a bullock. This sacrifice is brought to suspend and to shield [in the meantime] from punishment, until the person realizes [that he sinned] and is then obligated to bring a sliding-scale sacrifice described in parshas Vayikra.

וכן יעשה לאהל מועד AND SO SHALL HE DO FOR THE APPOINTED TENT — Just as he sprinkled in the “Interior" (the Holy of Holies) from the blood of both of them (of the bullock and the goat) once upwards and seven times downwards so he sprinkles over against the Partition Vail from outside (i. e. standing in the היכל; cf. Leviticus 4:6) once upwards and seven times downwards (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 5; Yoma 56b).

And a transgression is unintentional. And so it says (above 4:2), “If a person unwittingly transgresses (תחטא).” “ומפשעיהם, are rebellious sins,” i.e., deliberate sins, as it says, (Melachim II 3:7), “The king of Moav rebelled (פשע) against me.” Here too, the case is that afterwards they do not know that they sinned.

השכן אתם בתוך טמאתם— This implies that although they are unclean nevertheless the Shechinah dwells in their midst (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 5; Yoma 57a).

Even intentionally entering in [a state of] impurity. You might ask: If intentional sin requires atonement, how much more so do intentional sins [require atonement]. The answer is: You may have thought that the severe intentional sin is severe that it is never atoned. Therefore it says “and from their rebellious sins.” You might ask: Once the verse has to mention intentional sin, it should not mention unintentional sin. The answer is: You might have thought that [only] an intentional sin which is severe requires atonement, but an unintentional sin which is not severe does not require atonement.

Just as he sprinkled. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: Seven below and one above is not written in the he-goat itself but is derived from the bullock, and regarding sacrifices we do not derive a derivation from a derivation. The Gemara in chapter Hotzi’u Lo asked this question and answered that this is not a derivation from a derivation because “above” and “below” are written both for the bullock and for the he-goat, except that the number [one above and seven below] is not written explicitly [for both] and we derive the number from their comparison to each other; this is not called a derivation from a derivation but only a revelation of how many sprinklings must be made [see Re’m]. Nachalas Yaakov explains [why Rashi stresses “just as he sprinkled of the two of them. This is] so that you should not explain that “he shall do likewise” teaches that he has to sacrifice another bullock and he-goat; therefore, Rashi tells us that they are the same two mentioned above.

.וכל אדם, “not any human being, as they were not allowed into those precincts, but this is a warning to other priests not to be in these holy precincts during the period that the High Priest performs these functions.

לא יהיה באהל מועד, “he must not be within the precincts of the Tent of meeting;” the reason why they were forbidden to be there was so that they would not become suddenly ritually impure, as the priest officiating would not be able to atone on their behalf on the same day.

אל המזבח אשר ‎'לפני ה‎‎‎ [AND HE SHALL GO OUT] UNTO THE ALTAR THAT IS BEFORE THE LORD — i. e. unto the golden altar which is before the Lord viz., in the היכל. But why then (if the golden altar is intended) does Scripture state ויצא, “he shall go out" since he did not then leave the area where he officiated before? But because immediately before he made the sprinklings in front of the Partition Vail (cf. Rashi on the preceding verse) and was standing inwards (i.e. westwards) from the altar when sprinkling, whilst for the purpose of sprinkling the blood upon the horns of the altar Scripture forced him to go outwards from the altar (i. e. to its east-side, the side facing the exit) so that he should begin the sprinklings from the north-east corner, therefore it rightly Uses the term ויצא, he shall go out" i. e. move alongside the altar towards the exit (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 7-8; Yoma 58b).

AND HE SHALL GO OUT UNTO THE ALTAR THAT IS BEFORE THE ETERNAL AND MAKE ATONEMENT FOR IT, etc. The sprinklings before the ark-cover [in the Holy of Holies]⁹⁷Verses 14-15. effected atonement for impurity that befell the innermost part of the Sanctuary and its hallowed things. The sprinklings in front of the Veil in the Tent of Meeting [which divided between the holy place and the most holy],⁹⁸Verse 16. effected atonement for impurity that befell the Sanctuary and its holy things, such as the candelabrum, the table, the showbread, and the Veil itself. The applications of the blood upon [the horns of] the inner altar and the [seven] sprinklings upon its top⁹⁹Verse 18-19. effected atonement for impurity that befell this altar itself and its holy things, such as the incense [which was burnt on it twice daily]. It is for this reason that Scripture divided them [these three parts of the Service] and mentioned “atonement” in each case.¹⁰⁰And he shall ‘make atonement’ for the holy place (Verse 16) refers to the Holy of Holies. And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goeth in to ‘make atonement’ in the holy place (Verse 17), refers to the atonement in front of the Veil. And he shall go out unto the altar … and ‘make atonement’ for it (Verse 18 before us) is the atonement for the altar. In the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis derived this interpretation from a verse written at the end [of this part of the Service], And when he hath finished making an atonement for the holy place, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar etc.¹⁰¹Verse 20. On this verse the Rabbis commented:¹⁰²Torath Kohanim, Acharei 4:1-2. “Making an atonement for the holy place, this refers to the innermost part of the Sanctuary [i.e., the Holy of Holies]. The Tent of Meeting, this is the Sanctuary. The altar, that is the inner altar. This teaches that they are each a separate act of atonement. From this the Sages have deduced that if [the High Priest] made some of the applications of the blood within [the Holy of Holies], and the blood then became spilt, he must bring other blood and start again with the applications [done] within [the Holy of Holies]. But if he finished the applications within [the Holy of Holies], and the blood then became spilt, he must bring other blood and start again with the applications [done] on [the Veil] outside¹⁰³In relation to the Holy of Holies which is called “within,” the space in front of the Veil is called “outside.” But it is in fact within the Sanctuary. Opposite the Veil, towards the entrance of the Sanctuary, stood the inner [or golden] altar. [in the Sanctuary]. If he finished the applications outside [in the Sanctuary] and the blood then became spilt, he must bring other blood and start again with the applications on the altar, etc. [since they are each a separate act of atonement].”¹⁰⁴But had they constituted one act of atonement, then even if the blood was poured away before he completed the applications on the altar, he would have to start again from the applications within the Holy of Holies.

And why does Scripture state: “And he shall go out”? Rashi means: before this Aharon was [already] at [i.e. outside] the curtain where he made the sprinklings. But then it is written “and he shall go out” which implies that [only now] does he go outside of the curtain? Rashi explains that regarding this too, it is appropriate to say “he shall go out,” because he was at the curtain which is further inside than the altar. Therefore, when he returns to the altar it is appropriate to say “he shall go out.” When Rashi explains that he “begins with the northeastern corner,” he means as follows: When he wanted to sprinkle he would turn his face towards the altar and his right hand would be towards the north. He [then] walked along the north side of the altar because, as they say, all turnings that you make should only be to the right. Therefore when he returned [to the exit, going] outwards [without sprinkling on the northwestern corner of the altar because the verse says “he shall go out”], he went along the [altar’s] north side until he reached the front of the altar that faces east. From there he immediately began [sprinkling] on the northeastern corner because one may not pass over mitzvos.

וכפר עליו AND HE SHALL MAKE EXPIATION FOR IT — wherein does this expiation consist? ולקח מדם הפר ומדם השעיר that HE TAKETH OF THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK AND OF THE BLOOD OF THE GOAT mingled one with the other and sprinkles it (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 9; Yoma 57b).

Some of the bullock’s blood. You cannot say that this refers to confession because it is already written above (verse 17), “He shall atone on his behalf,” which refers to confession, which is atonement of words, as explained above (Rashi verse 6). If so, his atonement [here] is that “he shall take some of the bullock’s blood...” It is as if Rashi said, “’And atone on it.’ What is his atonement? ’And he shall take some of the bullock’s blood.’”

Mixed together. Because it is written at the end of parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 30:10), “Aharon shall make atonement on its horn-like elevations once each year.” This implies that he only placed [blood] on the horns of the inner altar once each year. If so, if they were not mixed together and he put on each one by itself, the blood of the bullock and then the blood of the he-goat, the blood would be placed on the horns of the inner altar twice every year? Thus we must say that he put them on with one act. How? They are two bloods, the blood of the bullock and the blood of the he-goat? Therefore [we must say] they were mixed together.

והזה עליו מן הדם AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE UPON IT WITH THE BLOOD — After he has made with his finger the application of the blood upon the horns of the altar he shall make seven sprinklings on its top (עליו signifies "upon it") (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 12).

He sprinkles seven sprinklings on its top. Because it is written “on it,” implying that he placed [the blood] on its roof.

וטהרו AND THUS HE CLEANSES IT from the defilement that happened to it in the past,

From what has passed. Explanation: “And purify it” from the impurity that has passed, “and sanctify it,” to be careful from making it impure in the future.

וקדשו AND HALLOWS IT for use in the future (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 13)

והקריב את השעיר החי, “then he will present the live goat;” that goat had required to remain alive until this point. The first time (in our verse) the Torah had written about this goat, the vowel under the letter ה had been a segol, whereas subsequently (verse 21) it is a patach.

איש עתי A READY MAN — one who was held in readiness for this purpose from yesterday (Yoma 66a; Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 4 8).

AND HE SHALL PUT THEM UPON THE HEAD OF THE GOAT. Such an expression is not used with reference to the bullock of Aaron [over which he confessed his own sins and those of the other priests], nor in relation to the goat of the sin-offering of the Eternal, nor regarding the leaning of hands upon any of the offerings. This is because all offerings were brought for acceptance upon the fires of G-d⁸⁴Above, 4:35; 5:12. [which burnt on the altar], and thus they effected pardon and atonement. But this [goat that was sent away to Azazel], since it was not for G-d, and the recipient thereof [i.e. Sammael] has no power to offer atonement or pardon, therefore the goat merely carries the people’s sins away, and [the accusing angel] must answer “Amen” against his will.¹⁰⁵See Ramban above, Verse 8 [in connection with the quote from the Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer about Sammael]. The particular expression of Ramban here is based upon a Rabbinic tradition (Shabbath 119 b) that two ministering angels, one good and one bad, accompany a person on the eve of the Sabbath on his way from the synagogue to his home. If the house is in order, the light is kindled, and peace reigns throughout, the good angel says, “May it be so on the next Sabbath as well,” and the bad angel answers “Amen” against his will, etc. When the Israelites are free from all sins and transgressions [as after the moment of confession of sins over the goat sent to Azazel], he indeed carries their sins away, as is mentioned in many verses in the Torah¹⁰⁶E.g., thou shalt set the blessing upon Mount Gerizim, and the curse upon Mount Ebal (Deuteronomy 11:29). and the prophets. This then is [the meaning of the expression], and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities.¹⁰⁷Verse 22. That was the reason why the thread of crimson wool¹⁰⁸A thread of crimson wool was tied on the head of the goat as soon as the lot determined that it was to be sent to Azazel (Yoma 41 b). When the person who brought it there finally arrived at the ravine, he divided the threat and tied one half to the rock and the other half between the horns of the goat (ibid., 67a). There was also a thread of crimson wool tied to the door of the Sanctuary (ibid., 68 b). At the moment of the fulfillment of the Divine command concerning this goat, the threads miraculously turned white as a sign of the Divine forgiveness, as it is said, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow (Isaiah 1:18) (Yoma 68 b). turned white at the time when the goat was sent away to Azazel, i.e., at the moment that he pushed it over the cliff, when it was broken in pieces, as is mentioned in the words of the Sages.¹⁰⁹Ibid., 67 a.

ביד איש עתי, a man familiar with the paths and the desert regions, someone always available, on call, for such an assignment.

...elsewhere the sinner’s or his representative the High Priest’s placing his hands with all his weight on the animal offered as the sin offering is designed to regain the goodwill of Hashem for the sinner or sinners. In this instance (compare Shabbat 119) the scapegoat reluctantly agrees to carry the sins of the Israelites and says Amen.

איש עתי, “a man designated for this particular task.” Our sages understand the word איש in this instance to mean that even a non-priest was fit for this task (Yuma 66). The word עתי means that even if the man was in a state of ritual impurity (temporarily) this did not disqualify him for this task. The man, even if impure, was allowed to enter the courtyard of the Temple in order to dispatch the scapegoat. The word עתי also means that the procedure transcends the laws of the Sabbath. The Torah means that if for some reason that scapegoat takes sick, the designated man may carry him to its destination on his shoulder. If the animal remained in good health it most certainly could be carried on the Sabbath as it is not forbidden to carry animals capable of walking, on the Sabbath. Even if the animal is sick and therefore as if tied up, unable to walk, the procedure is carried out on the Sabbath. All this is part of the meaning of the word עתי.

Who is prepared. The Toras Kohanim says: עתי, that he should be prepared. Radak’s explanation for the root עת, says that he is called עתי because he was accustomed in going there many times (עתים).

את שתי ידיו, “both of his hands;” once the word שתי has been used here with the word for hands being in the plural, this is to teach us that whenever the word appears in the plural mode both hands are meant, without the word שתי needing to be written.

והתודה עליו, “and he will confess over him;” how precisely does he word his confession? He recites the following words: אנא השם חטאו ועוו ופשעו בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel committed inadvertent sins, deliberate sins as well as sins reflecting their obstinacy against the Lord;” the people in turn will respond by saying that this was all true, and that they now blessed the glory of the Lord G-d. Thus far they had only confessed sins that they knew they had been guilty of. How do we know that their confession included sinful acts committed against their will through circumstances beyond their control, as well as possible sins that they had not even been aware of? This is covered by the word: כל עונות, “ail manner of sins.”The scapegoat that is thrown off the rock on the Day of Atonement results in atonement for sins committed by trespassing on holy grounds and abusing for personal use holy objects or foods reserved for consumption by the priests, etc.. It covers all manner of sins committed regardless of how severe the penalty for these sins if not repented. (Sifra)

ביד איש עתי, “by the hand of a man especially (temporarily) appointed for this task.”According to a Midrashnot found) the word: עתי, “which could be translated as: “whose time had come,” this is someone who was destined to die before this year is out. This would account for the fact that it was noticed that the man who had been entrusted with this task never lived out that year. [A well known commentator, author < of k’lee yakar, written several hundred years after that of our author, by the name of Shlomoh Efrayin ben Aharon, quotes this commentary, but attributes it to our author. Ed.] We must assume that in those days people used astrology to determine who was not destined to live out the year.

To the desert. The connotation is that he should go freely in the desert … In any case, the verse does not depart from its plain meaning, and the sending works in one of two ways. If the generation merits, the goat goes down to a desolate land, as found in Targum Yonason. If the generation is not worthy, the opposite happens, and the goat strengthens itself and flees to the desert, as it says in the Yerushalmi: “All the days that Shimon HaTzaddik was alive the goat would break up into its limbs before it reached even half the mountain, but after Shimon HaTzaddik died it would flee to the desert and the nomads would eat it”.

אל ארץ גזרה, “into the wilderness.” Basically, the meaning of the word גזרה, is “radically different from other lands.” We encounter it in this sense in Isaiah 53,8: כי נגזר מארץ החיים, “for he was cut off from the land of the living.” The reason for the choice of such earth to throw the scapegoat into was that if it had been thrown into productive soil it would have made that soil unproductive

ושלח את השעיר במדבר, “and he shall dispatch the goat into the desert.” We find a similar construction in Leviticus 14,7 where our author commented on the meaning of the word.ושלח

ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד AND AARON SHALL COME INTO THE APPOINTED TENT — Our Rabbis said (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 6 2; Yoma 32a), that this is not the proper place for this verse (it should be read after v. 25) and they gave a reason for this assertion in Treatise Yoma 32a. They said: The whole section is written in the order in which the rites actually took place with the exception of this "coming" into the appointed tent which was really done after he (the High-Priest) had offered his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people (v. 24) and also after the burning of the fat-parts of the bullock and the goat, which rites were performed outside the Sanctuary (i. e. in the fore-court) he being then attired in the golden garments. This having been done he immersed himself, sanctified himself (i. e. washed his hands and feet), took them (the golden garments) off, and put on the linen garments and only then, ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד DID HE COME INTO THE APPOINTED TENT in order to bring out the spoon and the censer in which he had burnt the incense in the "Innermost" (the Holy of Holies).

AND AARON SHALL COME INTO THE TENT OF MEETING. “Our Rabbis have said that this is not the proper place of this verse [which ought rather to follow Verse 25], and they explained the reason for their saying so in Tractate Yoma,¹¹⁰Ibid., 32 a. stating: The whole section is written according to the procedure [which was actually followed in the Service on the Day of Atonement], except for this ‘coming’ [of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies] which was actually done after he offered his burnt-offering and the burnt-offering of the people [stated in Verse 24], and after the burning of the fats of the bullock [of Aaron] and the goat [of the sin-offering of the people], which rites were performed outside the Sanctuary [proper, as stated in Verse 25, i.e., in the Sanctuary Court, and therefore done by the High Priest dressed] in golden garments. [It was only after he had done these things that] he immersed himself [in a ritual pool] and washed his hands and feet and took them [the golden garments] off,¹¹¹So I have found in all editions of Rashi, including the first Reggio (1475) edition. But obviously the procedure was that he first removed the garments, and then immersed himself. The washing of hands and feet according to the Sages also took place before the removal of the garments (Yoma 31 b). and put on the linen garments, and then he came into the Tent of Meeting [as mentioned in our verse] to take out [from the Holy of Holies] the spoon and the censer in which he had burnt the incense in the innermost part of the Sanctuary. And then he shall put off the linen garments after he had taken them [the spoon and the censer] out, and attires himself in his golden clothes for the Daily burnt-offering brought in the afternoon.”¹¹²Numbers 28:4. All this is Rashi’s language.
Now this is truly a case where the verse calls aloud for elucidation. For it is not at all conceivable that [the verse] should command that Aaron come into the Tent of Meeting for no purpose whatsoever other than that of taking off his garments¹¹³The verse as stated reads: And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting, and shall put off the linen garments … and shall leave them there. Under no circumstances, as Ramban points out, can this be taken literally. It must then mean etc. and being naked in G-d’s temple, and that he should leave the garments there to decay! Rather, we must perforce interpret the verse thus: And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting to do some act of the Service which Scripture found it unnecessary to mention, that is, the removal of the spoon and the censer [which he had left in the Holy of Holies when he had burnt the incense there]. The explanation of the [order of the] verses is thus as follows. Having mentioned at first, And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Eternal, that the cloud of the incense may cover the ark-cover that is upon the testimony, that he die not,¹¹⁴Verse 13. meaning to say that he is to place the incense upon the fire until the cloud of the incense goes up, and then he is to go out immediately, leaving there the spoon [in which he had carried the incense] and the censer [which contained the coals of fire, and upon which the incense was now burning], and which he would in any case have to remove later on from there, Scripture therefore says, and Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting in order to enter within the Veil [and to bring out] the things he had left there. Now the Scriptural section here did not mention all that the priest did at the beginning when [attired] in the golden garments, such as the [offering of the] Daily burnt-offering of the morning,¹¹²Numbers 28:4. but rather it began with the [special] Service performed on the Day of Atonement, which was done in the white [linen] garments, and it arranged the following procedure [of things to be done in these garments]: burning of incense within the Holy of Holies, the [rites of the] bullock [of Aaron] and of the goat [whose blood was sprinkled] within [the Holy of Holies], and the matter of the goat that was sent away to Azazel. All these rites were done in one order, and there was nothing left to be performed in these [white linen] garments except for the bringing out of the spoon and the censer [from the Holy of Holies]. Now it is always the custom of Scripture to finish a subject which it began, although there may be some matters which took place after that which it mentions later [as here, where the removal of the spoon and censer took place after the events of Verses 24-28, but is referred to before, in Verse 23, to finish the subject of the events done in the white garments]. Therefore Scripture states, and Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting in these [white linen] garments, to complete his Service, namely, the bringing out of the spoon and the censer which he has to remove from there, and after he came out from there he shall put off his garments which he put on in the morning at the time when he went into the holy place, and he shall leave them there where he took them off, thus teaching us that he is not to use them again on a subsequent Day of Atonement. Therefore Scripture completed in one sequence everything that was to be done during the whole day in the white garments. [Thus Scripture mentions the removal of the spoon and censer here in Verse 23, although it actually took place only later after the events mentioned in Verses 24-28, in order to complete in one sequence all the events done in the white garments]. Then it went back and said, and he shall bathe his flesh in water … and put on his other vestments,¹¹⁵Verse 24. i.e., those garments which are known to him from his ministry during the whole year, thus teaching that [whenever he changes on that day] from one set of garments to another, he had to immerse himself [in a ritual pool]. Then Scripture states, and ‘he shall come forth,’ and offer his burnt-offering,¹¹⁵Verse 24. for everything that had been done hitherto in the white garments is considered “the Service within [the Sanctuary],” while his ram¹¹⁶Above, Verse 3. and the ram of the people¹¹⁷Ibid., Verse 5. [which are the burnt-offerings] that He mentions [here in Verse 24: and he shall come forth, and offer his burnt-offering of the people], were done on the outer altar. Thus the section mentioned the High Priest’s first attirement in the white garments, and required him to immerse himself [first in a ritual pool],¹¹⁸Ibid., Verse 4: and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and put them on. and then it mentioned the final removal of these garments [after taking out the spoon and censer from the Holy of Holies], and required him to immerse himself [before he puts on the golden garments for the performance of the Daily burnt-offering of the afternoon]. Thus we learn that he had to immerse himself [in a ritual pool] whenever there was a change of the garments.
Now in the opinion of Rashi this immersion of the High Priest for the bringing out of the spoon and the censer, took place after he had offered his ram and the ram of the people; [that is to say], between the Additional Offerings¹¹⁹These are specified in Numbers 29:8, among the Additional Offerings for all the festivals. and the Daily burnt-offering of the afternoon. This is also the opinion of all the Gaonim,¹²⁰See in Seder Ki Thisa, Vol. II, p. 521, Note 74. and it would likewise so appear from the plain meaning of a Beraitha¹²¹See in Seder Bo, Vol. II, p. 133, Note 209. taught in the Torath Kohanim.¹²²Torath Kohanim, Acharei 6:5. See in my Hebrew commentary p. 92. But we have found in the Yerushalmi:¹²³Yerushalmi Yoma VII, 2. On the name “Yerushalmi,” see above in Seder Metzora Note 44. “Rabbi Yochanan said, ‘All Sages agree that the taking out of the spoon and the censer [from the Holy of Holies] was done after [the slaughtering of] the Daily burnt-offering of the afternoon.’” And so did Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] write.¹²⁴Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Avodath Yom Hakippurim 2:2. So also is the procedure taught in our Mishnah [following the High Priest’s removal of the spoon and the censer]:¹²⁵Yoma 70 a. “He washed his hands and feet, took off [his white garments], went down and immersed himself, and they brought him the golden garments … and he went into [the Sanctuary] to burn the [daily] incense of the afternoon.”¹²⁶Thus the text indicates that the slaughtering of the Daily burnt-offering of the afternoon had already taken place, for if not, the Mishnah would have stated: “and they brought him the golden garments … and he went out and offered the Daily burnt-offering of the afternoon, and then he went into the Sanctuary to burn the incense etc.” Rather, the order was as follows: The [special] Service of the Day of Atonement was performed in the white garments;¹²⁷Since this special Service followed that of the ordinary Daily burnt-offering of the morning, which was performed in the golden garments, and was also preceded by the priest immersing himself in a ritual pool, it followed that his attiring himself in the white garments to perform the special Service for the Day of Atonement was after his second immersion. This is important to note in order to understand the text which follows. his [the High Priest’s] ram and the ram of the people, the Additional Offerings,¹¹⁹These are specified in Numbers 29:8, among the Additional Offerings for all the festivals. the [burning of the] fats of the sin-offering,¹²⁸Verse 25. and [the slaughtering of] the Daily burnt-offering of the afternoon were all done in the golden garments following the [High Priest’s] third immersion; the taking out of the spoon and censer [from the Holy of Holies] was done in the white garments following the fourth immersion, while the [daily] burning of the incense of [the afternoon], the [daily] offering of the High Priest’s cakes,¹²⁹Above, 6:13-15. the libations and [the kindling of] the lamps [in the candelabrum], were done in the golden garments following the fifth immersion.¹³⁰Such was the law taught to Moses on Sinai, that “on this day [i.e., the Day of Atonement] the High Priest immerses himself five times and washes his hands and feet ten times” as he changes from one set of garments to another in the performance of the various rites of the day (Yoma 32 a, Rashi). Rashi’s statement here on the verse before us that “this is not its proper place” is thus to be understood as follows: Since Scripture wanted to complete in one section everything that was to be done in the white garments during the whole day, as is its custom everywhere to finish a subject that it began, although there may be some minor matters which are mentioned afterwards but really took place before the conclusion of that subject, it therefore purposely stated it here, although the actual performance thereof took place at a later point in the Service of the Day of Atonement, as is explained in the text. The reason for this [delaying of the removal of the spoon and censer until after the slaughtering of the Daily burnt-offering of the afternoon] is because it [the removal of the spoon and censer] is not in itself a rite of Service, therefore they delayed it until all the acts of the day were done, as long as the five [required] immersions¹³⁰Such was the law taught to Moses on Sinai, that “on this day [i.e., the Day of Atonement] the High Priest immerses himself five times and washes his hands and feet ten times” as he changes from one set of garments to another in the performance of the various rites of the day (Yoma 32 a, Rashi). Rashi’s statement here on the verse before us that “this is not its proper place” is thus to be understood as follows: Since Scripture wanted to complete in one section everything that was to be done in the white garments during the whole day, as is its custom everywhere to finish a subject that it began, although there may be some minor matters which are mentioned afterwards but really took place before the conclusion of that subject, it therefore purposely stated it here, although the actual performance thereof took place at a later point in the Service of the Day of Atonement, as is explained in the text. were fulfilled. Therefore they interrupted the regular order of rites in the Daily burnt-offering of the afternoon, and [the High Priest] took out the spoon and censer [from the Holy of Holies] between the slaughtering of the burnt-offering and the burning of the incense.

והניחם שם, for he had offered them in the presence of G’d so that they attained additional sanctity, and it is not appropriate even for the High Priest to wear them after they had performed the assigned task. (according to Yuma 12 these garments are buried forthwith or otherwise locked away.)

ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד, “Aaron shall come to the Tent of Meeting;” Rashi, quoting our sages (Yuma 32) says that the verse does not really represent the correct sequence of what happened. According to the sages the entire chapter is reported chronologically in proper sequence with the exception of this verse. Aaron did not enter the Sanctuary until after he had completed the procedures involving both the bull and the male goat offering. Afterwards he entered the Sanctuary in order to retrieve the ladle and the pan of the incense that he had left behind there earlier. Nachmanides agrees that the position of this verse in the Yom Kippur rites needs explaining. If we were to accept the verse at its face value, we would have to believe that Aaron made a special trip into the Sanctuary to do nothing else but retrieve the ladle and the censer which he had use earlier when offering the incense. For all this he would have to first change his golden vestments immerse himself in a ritual bath, etc, and don the linen vestments mandatory when entering the Sanctuary after first having stood nude in the Sanctuary. We must assume that Aaron entered the Sanctuary in order to perform service, some of the priestly functions. There was no need to mention that this service consisted of the retrieval of the ladle and the censer. The meaning of 16,13 ונתן את הקטרת על האש לפני ה' וכסה ענן הקטרת את הכפורת וגו', “he shall place the incense upon the fire before Hashem; so that the cloud of smoke of the incense will envelop the lid of the Holy Ark, etc.,” is that Aaron shall wait there until the cloud of the incense had enveloped the lid of the Holy Ark. When that had occurred, he was to leave immediately and leave behind the ladle and the censer [as they were too hot to handle at that moment. Ed.] Naturally, at some stage these two vessels had to be retrieved. This is what the Torah refers to when it writes in verse 23 “Aaron is to enter the Sanctuary, disrobe from the golden vestments and again don the linen vestments, etc.” The Torah did not mention at this stage what he had done prior to this while having worn the golden vestments, such as performing the rites of the daily tamid offering. Instead, the Torah commences describing the daily sacrifices that were offered while he was wearing the linen vestments. These rites are described sequentially. It is the custom of the Torah to relate procedures in order of their happening and to complete the report of them. In this instance, retrieval of the ladle and censer from the Holy of Holies was the last item on the agenda. Even though, as a result, there is some chronological inconsistency in the report here, the Torah rectifies this by reporting that Aaron had entered the Sanctuary again wearing the appropriate vestments in order to complete the final stage of the day’s Temple service in them.

והניחם שם, “and he shall leave them there.” He is not to use these garments again on the following Yom Kippur. Our sages (in Yuma 24) said that the source for the ruling that garments worn by the High Priest on one Day of Atonement must not be worn again on another Day of Atonement are the words והניחם שם. This expression means that they have to be hidden forthwith. They added that the combined weight of these garments totaled 18 מנה, (והניחם= יח מנה) 450 shekel. A further allusion to the fact that these garments were not to be used again is found in Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 7 by Rabbi Chiya who derives from the word ולבשם, “and to wear them,” i.e. the combination of the letters in that word, that ובלו שם that these garments are “to rot there”. This is an outright indication that these garments are not to be used again.

This is not the [proper] place. [I.e., verse 23 and 24 are written in the wrong order. The kohein gadol first burns his ram and the people’s ram as burnt-offerings (verse 24); afterwards he goes into the Sanctuary to remove the spoon and incense-pan (verse 23)]. In maseches Yoma 32a [the Gemara asks]: Why does he interrupt, [by burning the rams before removing the spoon and incense-pan]? Said Rav Chisda, we have a tradition that he immerse five times and makes ten sanctifications on that day. [He makes one immersion and two sanctifications every time he changes into the white or the golden garments]. But if the verses are in order we would only find three [immersions]. Rashi explains: “You would only find three immersions, one [when he dons golden garments] for the morning perpetual offering, and one between it and the whole service of the day including taking out the spoon and incense-pan (verse 23) [when he dons white garments], and one between the taking out of the spoon and incensepan, and his ram and the ram of the people (verse 24), and with them the additional sacrifices and the perpetual-offering of the afternoon [when he dons golden garments]. Therefore, his ram and the ram of the people have to interrupt between the service of the day and the taking out of the spoon and incense-pan [in order to require an extra immersion]. And the taking out of the spoon and incense-pan interrupts between his ram and the ram of the people, and [the additional sacrifices] and the perpetual-offering of the afternoon [in order to require yet another immersion]. Thus we [now] have five immersions [prior to donning garments]. The morning daily sacrifice in the golden garments, the service of the day in the white garments, his ram and the people’s ram on the outside altar in the golden garments, taking out the spoon and incense-pan in the white garments, and the additional sacrifices and the perpetual-offering in the golden garments.” Between each donning [of garments] he needs to immerse; therefore there are five immersions. And every immersion requires sanctification before it and after it as I explained above, so that there are ten sanctifications.

ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד, “and Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting;” Rashi, in his commentary on the tractate Yuma folio 32, comments on these words by asking why, after having completed the service of the day in the Sanctuary the High Priest has to come to the Sanctuary once more, especially when the Torah does not even spell out what he is to do there. He answers that Aaron had to bring out the spoon and the censer that he had used during the performance of his duties there. These had been used for the sprinkling of the blood and the depositing of the incense. If you were to ask why did he have to make a return trip to the Holy of Holies for no real purpose, seeing he could have left these tools for the Day of the Atonement of the following year when the ashes in the censer would have cooled off in the meantime?Actually, this was not an unnecessary return, as it would have been discourteous in the extreme to leave behind items that had become useless and probably offensive looking and smelling in G-d’s palaceRashi adds further that this was not the place where we would have expected the Torah to refer to this, seeing that up until now the Torah had described the entire service in the Tabernacle on that day in the order in which it had taken place. [I am summarizing now. Ed.] If we follow what took place in the Tabernacle, there would have been no need for the High Priest to immerse himself five times and wash his hands and feet ten times as the Talmud had explained, i.e. once for the daily morning sacrifice, followed by the special service required on that day, and again before the offering of the daily evening service. The extra trip into the Sanctuary for retrieving the spoon and the censer necessitated the need for additional immersions in the ritual bath. This is the reason why Rashi pointed out that here was not really the proper place to mention this, had it not been for the need to explain why five such immersions were indeed necessary. The removal of these items took place after the offering of Aaron’s burnt offering, a ram, and that of the ram offered on behalf of the people (verse 24). Each service, i.e. the morning service, the Mussaph service, the evening service, and, on that day the sin offering on behalf of Aaron and his family and again on behalf of the people, according to the Talmud there, required an immersion in a ritual bath, etc.

ופשט את בגדי הבד AND HE SHALL PUT OFF THE LINEN GARMENTS — after he had brought it (the censer) out. Then he attired himself in his golden garments to offer the continual burnt offering due in the afternoon. Thus the order of the services on the Day of Atonement was as follows: The offering of the morning continual offering — in the golden garments; the service connected with the bullock and the ram the blood of both of which was sprinkled in the Interior, (v. 6—22) and the offering of the incense in the censer (in the Holy of Holies) — in the linen garments. The offering of his (the High-Priest's) ram and that of the people and one part of the additional offerings (the seven lambs mentioned in Numbers 29:8; cf. Yoma 70a) — in the golden garments. The bringing out of the spoon and the censer — in the linen garments. Finally the offering of the remaining additional offerings (the bullock and the ram mentioned in Numbers 29:8, 11) and of the continual burnt offering due in the afternoon and of the daily incense in the היכל. which was burnt on the golden altar — in the golden garments. The sequence of the Scriptural verses according to the rites as actually performed is as follows: "and he shall send the goat forth into the desert" (v. 22), then "and he shall lave his flesh with water …. and come out and burn his burnt offering etc." (v. 24) and the whole section up to "and afterwards he shall come into the camp" (end of v. 28), and only after this (v. 23) "and Aaron shall come etc."

והניחם שם, “and he shall leave them there.” He was to leave these garments at the place where he changed into his golden vestments. We are taught by this that they would not be used again even on the Day of Atonement in the following year.”

Hidden away. Explanation: So that a kohein gadol should not use them even for the next Yom Kippur, and so that a regular kohein should not use them all the days of the year. You cannot say that he should place them in the place he removed them [from himself] and not take them outside, because nowhere does it say “before Hashem,” to which “place them there” would be referring to [and saying that they must not be removed from “before Hashem”]. Therefore, “[This] teaches...”

והניחם שם AND HE SHALL PUT THEM THERE — This teaches us that they (the linen garments) must be laid by and that he must not officiate in those four garments again on any subsequent Day of Atonement (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 6 7; Yoma 12b).

'ורחץ את בשרו וגו‎‎ AND HE SHALL LAVE HIS FLESH etc. — Above (v. 4) we have learned from the statement "therefore shall he lave his flesh and so put them on" that whenever he (the High-Priest) changed from the golden garments into the linen ones he had to immerse himself (for on the occasion of that immersion, mentioned v. 4, he took off his golden garments in which he performed the service connected with the continual burnt offering due in the morning and put on the linen garments for the performance of the service peculiar to that Day); here, however, we are told that whenever he changed from the linen garments into the golden ones he had also to immerse himself (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 6 3; Yoma 32).

ורחץ את בשרו, after he had supported his hands on the scape-goat. ועשה את עולתו, this was after he had first obtained his personal atonement, followed by the atonement on behalf of the people at large with the two sin offerings consisting of the male goats. Even the “scape-goat” is referred to here as a “sin offering,” חטאת, when we consider it had already been referred to as such in verse 5 where the Torah spoke about שני שעירי עזים לחטאת, “two male goats as sin offering.” Both of these procedures had to take place before the burnt offering on behalf of the people was offered. This was standard procedure, i.e. that the sin offering preceded the burnt offering. This point has been made in Pessachim 59.

And here we have learned. Explanation: [To know] the reason we need them both (see Yuma 32b). (Gur Aryeh) The Gemara there asks as follows. The verse should not write that he requires immersion when changing from the white to the golden garments because this can be derived by a kal vachomer. If [changing] from the white garments to the golden garments, whose sanctity is less severe as he does enter the Holy of Holies with them, requires immersion, so then certainly that [changing] from the golden garments to the white garments whose sanctity is more severe requires immersion? The Gemara answers that the golden garments [have a superiority in that] their atonement is greater the entire year. But the white garments whose atonement is not great [the entire year], I would say [one does] not [require immersion]. Therefore both [verses] are needed.

ורחץ את בשרו במים , “he shall wash his flesh with water. Here the Torah does not speak of an immersion in a ritual bath but of washing hands and feet as we have mentioned earlier on verse 4.

במקום קדוש [AND HE SHALL LAVE HIS FLESH WITH WATER] IN A HOLY PLACE — i.e. in a place which has the sanctity of the fore-court. It (the immersion) took place (later on when the Temple was built) on the roof of the so-called Parva-compartment. Similarly also all the four immersions that formed a special obligation for the Day alone. The first immersion, however, (that which took place immediately before entering the עזרה to offer the תמיד של שחר) was taken in an unsanctified place (i.e. outside the fore-court) (Yoma 30a).

וכפר בעדו ובעד העם, the atonement required for inappropriate thoughts which ought to precede matters requiring “clean” (sin free) hands and a pure heart. Such a sin free state is achieved by means of the burnt offering.

In the roof of the Parva House. Rashi on the Gemara explains, “A Persian magician built it and his name was Parva.” See the Aruch, in the entry for parva.

ולבש את בגדיו AND HE SHALL PUT ON HIS GARMENTS — i. e. the eight garments in which he officiated on every day of the year.

In common [space]. Re’m. It was in common [space] because every day too it is thus. But regarding the four immersions which are on account of the obligation of the day [i.e., Yom Kippur] it is written “in a holy place.”

ויצא AND HE SHALL COME OUT from the היכל into the fore-court where was the altar of the burnt offering. ...

In which he performs the Service. Not his [daily] clothes that he wears the rest of the year when not performing the service, which are common clothes, because he sacrifices his ram and the people’s ram in them. Therefore Rashi explains that they are holy clothes, and they are called “his clothes” because he wears them when performs the service the rest of the year.

ועשה את עלתו AND HE SHALL MAKE HIS BURNT OFFERING — "the ram for a burnt offering" mentioned above (v. 3) (cf. Yoma 70b).

And one ram, etc. Re’m writes: It is surprising that he needs to explain something as obvious as this... The answer is: “Rashi explained [just before], “’And do (offer) his burnt-offering,’ refers to the ram for the burnt-offering mentioned above.” Thus Rashi is teaching: Just as the burnt offering of Aharon was the ram mentioned above [in verse 3], since Aharon only sacrificed one burnt offering [for himself], so too “and the people’s burnt-offering” means the one mentioned above [in verse 5]. And this is meant to exclude [that the verse here is not referring to] the burnt-offerings written in parshas Pinchas (Bamidbar 59:7,8), “On the tenth day of this seventh month... you shall bring a burntoffering [for a pleasing aroma to Adonoy, consisting of] one young bull...” Rashi’s proof for this is that the verse groups them as one and does not write, “He shall go out and do his burnt-offering and atone on his behalf, and do the people’s burntoffering and atone on behalf of the people.” This is to tell you that the burnt-offering of the people too refers to the one mentioned above, like the burnt offering of Aharon, and not the burnt-offerings mentioned in parshas Pinchas.” (Re’m)

ואת עלת העם AND THE BURNT OFFERING OF THE PEOPLE — This is identical with "a ram for a burnt offering" mentioned above (v. 5) which begins with the words "And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel … [a ram for a burnt offering]".

ואת חלב החטאת AND THE FAT OF THE SIN OFFERING [SHALL HE CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES] — i. e. the fat parts of both the bullock and the goat.

The bullock and goat. Because if it was [referring to] the entrails of only the bullock burnt-offering or only the goat, which is the sacrifice of the people, it should have written, “the fat of the sin-offering of the people.” Or, if it was referring only to the bullock of Aharon, it should have written, “the fat of the burnt-offering which is his,” as Scripture writes above (verse 6), “the sin-offering bullock which is his.” Therefore, because it is simply written “the fat of the sin-offering,” it refers to both sin-offerings.

ואת חלב החטאת, “and the fat of the sinoffering;” Onkelos translates this verse in the plural mode, i.e. וית תרבי דחטווא, seeing that the Torah speaks of both the fat parts of bull and the male goat offered inside the Sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.

יקטיר המזבחה SHALL HE CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES ON THE ALTAR — i. e. on the outer altar, for if you say that it was burnt on the inner altar you are wrong, for it is written (Exodus 30:9) "Ye shall not bring up strange incense thereon, (i. e. on the inner altar) nor burnt offering, nor oblation".

והמשלח לעזאזל "And he who sends the scapegoat to Azzazel, etc." Who or "what" precisely is the "Azzazel?" We are told in Yuma 67 that it is something "tough and hard." This in turn has given rise to many explanations none of which are satisfactory. My eyes have been opened by kabbalists who are privy to the "370 illuminating lights of the Torah," who have written in the Zohar volume 2 page 157 that the barren desert is the habitat of Samael (Satan). In fact, the reason such a piece of earth is called "desert" is because it is Satan's habitat. An alternate name for this desert is Azzazel; a derivative of that name is עוזא, עזאל. Perhaps the word עזאזל is a composite of עז אזל, "a place where the glory of their existence departed." Alternatively, עזא זל, the site of the force of something base, mean; seeing that Samael is the basest of all spiritual forces, the description would be quite appropriate.

ורחץ את בשרו במים, “and he shall wash his flesh in water.” This was sufficient as his state of ritual defilement does not last longer than until the evening. (Ibn Ezra)

אשר הובא את דמם WHOSE BLOOD WAS BROUGHT into the Heichal and the Innermost (the Holy of Holies).

AND THE BULLOCK OF THE SIN-OFFERING, AND THE GOAT OF THE SIN-OFFERING … HE SHALL CARRY FORTH WITHOUT THE CAMP. In the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, ‘he’ shall carry forth means Aaron, who has been mentioned in this section, [and he is to do it] by commanding others [to carry them forth without the camp]. The correct interpretation is that it means: yotzi hamotzi (“whoever shall carry them forth, shall carry them forth” without the camp).¹³¹The performer of the deed is thus implied in the verse, even though he is not specifically mentioned. Similarly, the expression and they shall burn [in the verse before us] means, “and they that burn them, shall burn them.” Scripture states it in the plural, and ‘they’ shall burn, in order to teach us that if many people were engaged in the burning thereof — such as if one brought the fire, another arranged the wood of the pile, and another kindled the fire — only the garments of him who kindled the fire in the bullocks themselves¹³²According to the Keseph Mezukak, the reading should be: “the bullock and the goats.” See further in my Hebrew commentary, p. 93. are rendered impure, as soon as the fire takes hold of the greater part of it. That is why Scripture goes back and states it in the singular, and he that burneth them shall wash his clothes.¹³³Verse 28.

יוציא אל מחוץ למחנה, “he will take outside beyond the boundaries of the camp.” According to Ibn Ezra the subject of the word יוציא is Aaron himself. Nachmanides disagrees and understands that whoever was the person who had been designated to do this would at this stage proceed and take these animal carcasses outside the camp limits there to burn them with their skins, etc. The same interpretation is correct for the respective persons charged with ושרפו, burning these remains.

And within. Not like every sin-offering “whose blood is to be brought inside the Tent of Meeting to achieve atonement,” i.e., [it is brought]only into the Sanctuary and not within the Holy of Holies. Here however, it refers to the bullock of Yom Kippur whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary within [the Holy of Holies].

ושרפו באש, “and there they shall burn it with fire;” the priests will burn their hides and their flesh and their excrement. Just as the hide, flesh and excrement mentioned in Leviticus 4,12 had been cut up before being burned, so here too they had to be cut up.

ושרפו, “they shall burn (transitively);” the verb is in the plural mode to teach us that if there are a number of priests participating in that procedure, one may bring the torch or match, another may arrange the firewood, yet another may light the flame, seeing that only the one who brings the torch or match becomes liable to ritual contamination by the procedure. Seeing that the others do not become ritually contaminated, the Torah speaks of the one starting the fire in the singular mode, i.e. השורף, in verse 28. [Priests must not become ritually contaminated unless they perform a מצוה by doing so. The one starting the fire has to be מכבס בגדיו both immerse his body and the garments he wore in a ritual bath after having completed the task. Ed.]

TE’ANU’ (YE SHALL AFFLICT) YOUR SOULS. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has already explained — in order to silence the words of the Karaites,¹³⁴See above in Seder Vayikra, Note 277. may their name be blotted out¹³⁵See a similar expression in Ramban above, 3:9 (towards end, at Note 277). Here, however, the Hebrew expression m’chukei sheim may mean: “those whose names are blotted out” from the ranks of Israel. — that all expressions of inuy (affliction) found in Scripture together with the word “soul,” mean fasting.

לחקת עולם, even though G’d had provided a Temple wherein to perform the ritual called עבודה, sacrificial service, the Day of Atonement, in order to be fully effective, also requires that each person abstain from the kind of work forbidden on every Sabbath, as well as that he abstain from eating and drinking, i.e. עינוי.

והיתה לכם לחקת עולם, "and it shall become for you an eternal statute, etc." The reason the Torah had to add the word לכם, "for you," is that during the earlier part of the chapter G'd had told Moses to address Aaron. At this point Moses is to address the entire nation, to wit "the natural-born Jew and the stranger who had converted." The Torah wants to avoid our making a mistake and tells us that the commandment concerning the activities of the priests only appears at the beginning of the paragraph. We should not think therefore that the commandment to afflict oneself on that day applies only to the non-priests. The word לכם makes it plain that it applies to the whole nation including the priests. We might have reasoned that the priests do not need to afflict themselves, and that especially the High Priest's service on that day would take the place of the afflictions the people submit themselves to. People of the stature of Moses and Aaron might have thought that their bodies were pure enough not to have to undergo the affliction described. This is why the Torah wrote והיתה לכם, "it will be applicable to you" i.e. to Moses and Aaron. We might now have thought that the law to afflict themselves applied only to Moses and Aaron; therefore the Torah wrote האזרח והגר, "the natural-born Israelite as well as the proselyte."

תענו את נפשותיכם, “you are to subject your bodies to discomfort;” according to Sifra on this verse he understands the word נפשותיכם as “the house of your soul,” i.e. your body. One subjects one’s body to discomfort by denying it food and drink.

לחקת עולם, as an eternal statute. The reason for the word עולם is because some people would reason that the purpose of the affliction is to expiate for sins. He who feels he has not sinned might decide that he need not submit to the afflictions either. The Torah therefore tells us that the statute is not connected to the guilt or otherwise of the individual, or even of the nation as a whole. On a more profound level, the word עולם with its connotation of something concealed is a reference to the hereafter. Our afflictions in this world have a profound effect on our wellbeing in the hereafter.

תענו את נפשותיכם, ''afflict your persons!" The meaning of the word נפשותיכם here is an affliction which is evenly distributed to all parts of the body and soul, i.e. the abstention from food and drink. Should you argue that what is meant is abstention from work such as on the Sabbath, such an affliction would not meet the criteria we just laid down. 1) the part of the body which performs a certain labour is more affected than other parts of the body when one either abstains from performing that work or performs it; 2) the Torah should have written תענו את גופותיכם, "afflict your bodies," seeing that the soul is not involved unless it is deprived of food and drink. The argument of the Karaites that the words are addressed to the hardship of not being allowed to perform physical labour is null and void.

האזרח והגר, the natural-born Israelite and the proselyte. Torat Kohanim derives from these two words (the extra letter ה in front) that the wife of the natural-born Israelite as well as the wife of the proselyte are included in this legislation. They further deduce from the word בתוככם that wives and slaves are included. This still leaves the problem why the Torah even had to mention that this legislation applies to natural-born Israelites. Surely we did not need the whole word so that we could derive from the letter ה at the beginning that the wife is included! Surely G'd has many other words at His disposal if He wanted to include the wives without His having to write such a superfluous expression as אזרח and גר.

We will understand the matter when recalling a statement in Sukkah 28. We are told there: "what is the reason the Torah wrote האזרח? Answer: "to include the women in the legislation to afflict oneself on the Day of Atonement." Our source for this is Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Nafka who said that the Torah compared women to men as far as the the penalties for transgressions are concerned. Clearly then the only reason the word had to be written was to teach that the duty to abstain from food and drink applies already shortly before the onset of the Day of Atonement proper (a few minutes before sunset). Seeing that failure to abstain earlier does not carry the karet penalty [as the Torah associates that penalty with the words "on the day itself" Ed.], I might have thought that women are not liable to the additional time for fasting though they have to abstain from food and drink during the Day of Atonement proper; hence the Torah had to write the word האזרח to teach us that she who has to fast on the day proper also has to fast already during the period the rabbis have seen fit to add before the onset of the Day of Atonement proper. When you consider this statement you can understand why the Torah had to write the word אזרח. The only extraneous letter then was the letter ה which included the additional period in the requirement to fast. The word האזרח then means that in this case, just as in other cases where the Torah employs the word האזרח, it applies to women in the same manner as it does to men. Once the Torah had used the word האזרח to exclude someone from something, it was reasonable that the exclusion would apply to a recent convert who would not require the atonement feature of the Day of Atonement. The Torah therefore added the word והגר to ensure we do not make such a mistake. This left us with the question why the Torah had to add the letter ה also in front of the word וגר? Inasmuch as the Torah is not on record as comparing proselytes' wives culpability as similar to that of their husbands,' I might have thought that a distinction would be made regarding the laws connected with abstention from food and drink. The Torah therefore added the letter ה in front of the word גר to show us that this is not so. Furthermore, the reason the Torah had to spell all this out is that otherwise we might have read into the letter ה in front of the word הכהנים that this is a restrictive clause and that the entire legislation applies only to the priests.

כי ביום הזה יכפר, the reason why the other factors mentioned just now are required in addition to the sacrificial service is that if the entire load of achieving atonement were to be placed on the shoulders of the High Priest this would amount only to “downgrading” of the seriousness of the sins which is what the term of כיפור is all about. The individual must prepare himself mentally for obtaining forgiveness from his Maker by these additional measures.

Before Hashem you will be purified. Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent and Hashem obligates each man to purify himself from the sole of his foot to the top of his head from all impurity of iniquity before He atones for them. Therefore, it says, “Before Hashem you will be purified” — in the sense that “before” connotes “previous to” … It furthermore cautions about inner repentance in the heart, which is “before Hashem,” for a matter of the heart is revealed only to Hashem. We should not be like the hypocrites that fast and afflict themselves and pray exceedingly so that they will appear to be righteous, and they seem to be a pure generation in human eyes but they do not cleanse themselves from their inner filth. Therefore it says, “before Hashem you shall purify yourself”.

Before Hashem you will be purified. The verse cautions a person to hurry and repent and purify himself before Hashem purifies him [automatically] at the end of the day of Yom Kippur. Thus it means: “Before Hashem you shall purify yourselves.” This is comparable to a child that soils himself and his father comes to wash him up and cleanse him. A clever man came and told him, “Aren’t you ashamed to cause this burden to your father? Hurry up and wash yourself as much as possible before your father comes.” So, too, repentance atones for [the negation of] a positive commandment without the essence of the day of Yom Kippur. This is what is meant by the phrase that a man will purify himself. By Hashem’s decree, however, the essence of the day atones for a negative commandment [with repentance] or a positive commandment even without repentance. The verse is saying to cleanse yourselves before Hashem comes and cleanses you.

כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם, “for on this day he will atone for you, et.;” a reference to the rituals performed by the High Priest. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah interprets the words: מכל חטאותיכם לפני ה' לפני ה' תטהרו, as meaning that G-d will forgive sins committed directly against Him, but not including sins committed against our fellow human beings unless we had obtained those people’s forgiveness first. (Compare Leviticus 23,28).

לפני ה' תטהרו, absolute forgiveness, rehabilitation, can occur only in the presence of the Lord, which in turn can be achieved only by personal confession of one’s sin and one’s absolute undertaking not to commit such sins again in similar circumstances. The verse is introduced here to remind us that only the Lord Himself is aware of the sincerity of one’s teshuvah, one’s repentance.

He will make atonement for you to purify you. The verse mentioned the concept of purity after atonement to teach that repentance has the power to overturn deliberate transgressions into merits. This is because the language of purity [לטהר] has two connotations. One is the removal of filth and refuse, such as in “pure gold,” and the second is the shining of radiance and clearness, as in (Shemos 24:10) “and like the appearance of the heavens for clarity [לטהר].” This verse speaks of both these types of purity. It says, “from all yours sins, before Hashem you will be purified” — if you will try to purify yourselves and remove from yourselves all dross of sins, then on this day “He will make atonement for you to purify you.” He will remove your filth. Furthermore, Hashem will do more, from the filth itself one will be overturned to become shining, to a radiant light and clearness, for the deliberate sin itself will become a merit.

In order to make this point even clearer the Torah wrote concerning this Day of Atonement, שבת שבתון היא לכם, this refers to the uniqueness of this day. A Sabbath day is usually honoured with food and drink, whereas the abstaining from physical indulgences i.e. a צום, fast day, is meant to put us in the good graces of G’d. (Isaiah 58,3) The message here is phrased differently but is the same. The self-denial of the Jew on that day results in the concept of the Sabbath being observed at its highest potential.

שבת שבתון היא, “it is a Sabbath of solemn rest;” the word היא, here is spelled with the letter י, not as frequently elsewhere with the letter ו. On the other hand, the same word in the same context in Parshat Emor, (Leviticus 23,32) is spelled with that letter וBoth words are read in accordance with the way they are spelled. If we want to remember this easily we can try and remember Kings I 17,15: ותאכל הוא והיא, “he and she ate;”

חקת עולם, even at a time when there is no Temple, and hence no sacrificial service, the day of Atonement does not lose its function, and the Sabbath observance, i.e. abstention from work as well as the self-denial consisting of fasting for twenty four hours remains in effect.

לכם, “for you (pl. masc.)” this is a reference to the day of Atonement, which has been sanctified for your sakes. On the other hand, the Sabbath of creation is known simply as שבת לה', “a Sabbath to be devoted to heavenly concerns.”

'וכפר הכהן אשר ימשח וגו‎ AND THE PRIEST WHOM THEY SHALL ANOINT … SHALL MAKE EXPIATION etc. — This expiation on the Day of Atonement is valid only if it is effected by the High-Priest. Because in the whole of this section reference is made to Aaron alone, Scripture was compelled to state here (towards the end) that any High-Priest succeeding him shall be like himself (i. e. shall possess the same power of effecting atonement on Yom-Kippur) (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8 4).

AND THE PRIEST WHO SHALL BE ANOINTED AND WHO SHALL BE CONSECRATED TO BE PRIEST IN HIS FATHER’S STEAD. “I might think that only [the High Priest] who has been anointed with the oil of anointment [may perform the Service on the Day of Atonement]. Whence do I know that a High Priest who is [inducted into office only] by many garments [i.e., the eight garments which distinguish him from all ordinary priests who wear only four garments, that he too may perform the Service on that day]? Scripture therefore says, and who shall be consecrated, by attiring the [eight] garments. Such were all the High Priests who functioned after the days of King Josiah [until the destruction of the Second Temple], for in his days the flask of anointing oil was hidden.”¹³⁶Josiah did this in order to prevent the desecration of the sacred oil by the hands of the enemy when Israel was to go into exile (Horayoth 12 a). The ark of the covenant was also hidden at that time (ibid.). This is Rashi’s language. Now the Rabbi did not intend to say that it was only from the days of King Josiah that there were High Priests who were [inducted into office only by means of] many garments, for in the Gemara we find that the Rabbis have said:¹³⁷Horayoth 13 a. “Who has precedence over whom [in being redeemed from captivity, etc.], a High Priest anointed with the oil of anointment, or one who was [inducted into office only] by his attiring himself in the many garments?”¹³⁸It is thus clear that both kinds of High Priest can exist simultaneously. Again the Rabbis have said:¹³⁹Makkoth 11 b. “Does he [that killed a person unwittingly] return from the city of refuge [only] at the death of all of them [i.e., the High Priest anointed with the oil of anointment, and the one that was inducted into office only by his attiring himself in the many garments and one that had passed from his High-priesthood], or does he return at the death of one of them?”¹⁴⁰Numbers 35:25. [Thus it is clear] that they can all be found at one time. Rather, [Rashi’s intent was that] if at any time [i.e., even when High Priests were still anointed with the oil of anointment], a priest was inducted [into the High-priesthood] by the many garments [worn by the High Priest], he was eligible to perform the Service of the Day of Atonement. For another priest was always prepared [in the High Priest’s stead] for the Day of Atonement,¹⁴¹“Lest aught befall the High Priest to render him ineligible” (Yoma 2 a). and he was not anointed.¹⁴²See my Hebrew commentary p. 93 for various reasons. Thus if some disqualification occurred to the High Priest [such as by becoming impure etc.], this priest served in his stead, as he was eligible to do so through his induction [to his position] by his attiring himself in the many garments, even if he was not anointed.

ואשר ימלא את ידו...ולבש, also a priest wearing the High Priest’s garments though not having been anointed with the holy anointing oil may be the instrument of the people’s atonement. [The conditions mentioned in our verse are not understood as cumulative and absolute requirements. (compare Rashi who explains that the holy anointing oil ran out already in the days of King Yoshiyahu during the first Temple, never to become available again. Nonetheless, even in the days of the second Temple, when the red cord turned white after the killing of the scape-goat, there was a sign from heaven that the people had been forgiven. Ed.]

וכפר הכהן אשר ימשח אותו, seeing that the Torah had previously stated that the service on the Day of Atonement is to be performed by the High Priest, i.e. בזאת יבא אהרן אל , הקודש, the Torah had to make provision for an alternate to Aaron if he or the High Priest in his generation was not available. The priest who had been anointed as an alternate would then officiate.

Except [when carried out] by a Kohein Gadol. Explanation: “who himself will be anointed” applies only to a Kohein Gadol because it is written later (21:10), “The kohein who is greatest among his brethren [upon whose head was poured the anointing oil].”

ואשר ימלא את ידו AND WHOM THEY SHALL CONSECRATE — Since it is stated "whom they anoint" I might say I have here only the law that he who has been anointed with the oil of anointing is capable of effecting expiation; How do I know that this is also the case with a High- Priest who is distinguished from an ordinary priest only by a larger number of official garments though he may not have been anointed? Because Scripture states "and whom they shall consecrate etc." (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8 4) — Such (i. e. מרובה בגדים only) were all the High-Priests who held office from Josiah and later, for in his days the flask of anointing oil was concealed (Horayot 12a).

One distinguished only by the greater number of garments from where? You might ask: If so, the verse should not say “who himself will be anointed,” and I would say that if even someone distinguished only by the greater number of garments becomes a Kohein Gadol, how much more so someone anointed with the anointing oil? The answer is: I would then say that even when anointing oil is available one only has to distinguish him by the greater number of garments; so it tells us [that this is not so].

לכהן תחת אביו TO MINISTER AS A PRIEST IN HIS FATHER'S STEAD — The words "in his father's stead” are intended to teach us that if the High-Priest’s son is able to fill his father’s place he has to be given preference to any other man (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8 5).

And who will be initiated. Explanation: Wearing of clothes is initiation as it is written in parshas Tetzaveh 28:8, 9), “...And clothe them [with undershirts]. Gird them etc. Thus you shall initiate Aharon and his sons.” And Rashi explains, “’Thus you shall initiate,’ by means of [following] these things [enumerated here].”

He has precedence. [The son must be capable of fulfilling his father’s place] because it is adjacently written, “And who will be initiated,” [lit. “whose hand is filled”], meaning, “He who fills his father’s place will serve in his stead.” Even though Rashi above expounded this for something else, nevertheless, because it is adjacent to “to serve in his father’s stead,” it comes to teach this as well. [see Re’m]

'ויעש כאשר צוה וגו AND HE DID AS [THE LORD] COMMANDED [MOSES] etc. — When the next Day of Atonement arrived he (Aaron) did everything as is here set forth in order. And Scripture only states this in order to declare the praise of Aaron — that he did not attire himself with them (the official garments) for his own aggrandisement, but as one who was executing the ordinance of his King (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8 10).

AND HE DID AS THE ETERNAL COMMANDED MOSES. This means that Aaron fulfilled all that he was commanded, and he was careful all his life not to enter the Holy of Holies except on the Day of Atonement in order to bring his offerings, according to all that G-d commanded Moses.

והיתה זאת לכם לחקת עולם לכפר, that the very day itself has the power to confer atonement even when there is neither a Temple nor a Temple service. In the words of our sages (Yuma 86) “repentance suspends the imposition of retribution and the arrival of the date of the Day of Atonement completes the atonement.”

והיתה זאת לכם לחוקת עולם, "and this shall be for you an eternal statute, etc." This verse refers back to the priests and in particular the High Priest to whom the Torah addressed itself at the beginning of our chapter. The legislation mentioned there is described now as everlasting, i.e. when the facilities exist the procedures of the Day of Atonement are irrevocable. The procedure by means of which atonement is attained on that day contains mystical elements which can only be activated by the High Priest, etc.

ויעש, when that day arrived Aaron performed, כאשר צוה ה' את משה, as G’d had commanded Moses.

ויעש כאשר צוה ה' את משה, “Aaron did as G’d had commanded Moses.” He carried out all that he had been commanded to do and he remained careful for the rest of his life not to enter beyond the dividing curtain except on the Day of Atonement, on which day he performed the sacrificial service in strict compliance with what the Torah had instructed Moses.

When Yom Kippur arrived. He did not do this immediately after the command, because Aharon’s sons died on the eighth day of the inauguration and the command was probably immediately afterwards so that Aharon should not enter the Sanctuary [Holy of Holies]. But the eighth day of inauguration was on Rosh Chodesh Nissan as Rashi explains at the beginning of parshas Shemini. So how could Aharon do as Hashem commanded, if Hashem had only commanded this in regard to Yom Kippur? Therefore he explains, “When Yom Kippur arrived.”

For his own greatness. I explained this above in parshas Shemini, see there.

Another reason for the verse here is that we might have thought that the restriction on wearing his golden garments applied only at that time and only to Aaron seeing he himself had been involved in the golden calf episode and it had not yet been fully atoned for. In the future, however, the respective High Priest would be able to discharge his duties in his full regalia. The Torah therefore had to inform us that this is not so. The Torah adds the words לכפר על בני ישראל to tell us that although all of Aaron's share in that sin had been completely erased even in the celestial spheres, the same could not be said of the people. They would need further instalments of atonement year after year indefinitely. Seeing this was so Aaron became part of that vicious circle once again.

ויעש באשר צוה ה׳ את משה. He did as the Lord commanded Moses. Torat Kohanim writes that this verse is a compliment to Aaron who did not perform all these procedures in order to attain greater stature amongst the people and to aggrandize himself, but who performed all his duties only as a servant of G'd with no ulterior motive. It appears that the Torah also compliments Moses himself seeing that G'd had not spoken to Aaron except via Moses. The Torah goes on record that G'd did not address the person to whom His message was intended directly, but did so only via his trusted servant Moses. When the Torah stated that Aaron complied exactly with what G'd had said, this is proof that Moses had relayed G'd's instructions without adding or omitting one iota. The fact that Moses replicated exactly what G'd told him without adding or detracting is the foundation of our belief in the authenticity of the written Torah, i.e. that it reflects G'd's word no less and no more.

That is that He commanded us to do the service of the day - meaning, the sum of all of the sacrifices and the confessions arranged for the fast of Yom Kippur, in order for them to atone for all of our transgressions, as it appears in Scripture. And this is the service that is written in Achrei Mot (Leviticus 16). And the proof about the sum of all of it being [only] one commandment is their saying in Tractate Yoma (Yoma 60a), "The whole process of Yom Kippur must be in order. If one performed one of the actions before another, he has not done anything." And all of the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Yoma. (See Parashat Achrei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Service on the Day of Atonement 4).

And that is that He commanded us to confess the transgressions and sins that we have done before God and to say them together with [our] repentance. And that is confession. And its intent is that one say, "Please, Lord, I have sinned, I have transgressed, I have rebelled and I have done such and such." And he should prolong the statement and request forgiveness about this matter according to the polish of his speech. And you should know that even the sins for which one is liable for the types of sacrifices that are mentioned - that He said that one offer them and it atones for him - do not suffice with the sacrifice when it is without confession. And that is His saying, "Speak to the children of Israel [saying], a man or woman who commits from any of the sins of man [...]. And they shall confess the sins that they did" (Numbers 5:6-7). And the language of the Mekhilta is, "Since it is stated (Leviticus 5:5), 'and he shall confess that which he has sinned upon it' - it is to be upon the sin-offering when it is in existence, not after it has been slaughtered. It is only understood that an individual confesses for entering the Temple [impure]" - for this verse appears in Parashat Vayikra about one who renders the Temple and its sanctified objects impure, and that which is mentioned with it, as we explained; and so the Mekhilta there raises the possibility that we would only learn the obligation for confession from Scripture about one who renders the Temple impure. "From where are you to include all the other commandments? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Speak to the children of Israel [...]. And they shall confess.' And from where [do we know] even [sins that bring punishments of] excision and death penalties of the court? It states, 'the sins,' to include negative commandments; 'that they did,' to include positive commandments." And there it says, "'From any of the sins of man' - for theft, for robbery, for evil speech; 'to commit a trespass' - to include one who swears falsely and a blasphemer; 'and be guilty' - to include all those guilty of death penalties. It might be even those who are killed according to the testimony of colluding ones. I only said, 'and that man be guilty.'" That means to say that he is not obligated to confess when he knows that he has not sinned, but rather what was testified against him was false. Behold it has been made clear to you that we are obligated to confess for all types of transgressions, big and small - and even [for] positive commandments. But because this command - that is, "And they shall confess" - appeared with an obligation for a sacrifice, it could have entered our mind that confession is not a commandment by itself, but is rather from those things that are an extension of the sacrifice. [Hence] they needed to clarify this in the Mekhilta with this language - "It might be that when they bring their sacrifices, they confess; when they do not bring their sacrifices, they do not confess. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Speak to the children of Israel [...]. And they shall confess.' But still, the understanding of confession is only in the Land [of Israel]. From where [do we know], also in the diaspora? [Hence] we learn to say, 'their iniquities [...] and the iniquities of their fathers' (Leviticus 26:40)." And likewise did Daniel say, "To You, Lord, is justice, etc." (Daniel 9:7). Behold that which we have mentioned has been made clear to you - that confession is a separate obligation; and that it is an obligation for the sinner for every sin that he did. Whether in the Land or outside of the Land; whether he brought a sacrifice or did not bring a sacrifice - he is obligated to confess, as it is stated, "And they shall confess for their iniquities." And the language of the [Sifra] is, "'And he shall confess' - that is confession of words." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Yoma. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Repentance 1).

That is that He commanded us that any man who is healed from a discharge offer a sacrifice. And this is the sacrifice of the zav; and he is lacking [full] atonement until he offers it. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, "When one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge [...]. On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves" (Leviticus 15:13-14). (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement 1-3.)