Commentaire de citation sur Le Lévitique 16:33

Shemot Rabbah 15,5 quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish as saying that Israel was on a very high level if G’d agreed to manifest Himself in a place full of impurity and abominations for the sake of this people. He explained this phenomenon by means of a parable. A priest had been given some Terumah, a tithe which is holy and not accessible to laymen. This Terumah had fallen into a graveyard (a place inaccessible to a priest by law). The priest pondered his problem saying that he was certainly not permitted to defile himself by entering the cemetery. On the other hand, he was desperately dependent on that Terumah so that he could not forego it. He decided that it was preferable for him to temporarily defile himself and subsequently to purify himself than to die from starvation by foregoing this Terumah. The Jewish people are G’d’s Terumah (compare Jeremiah 2,3): “Israel is holy, the first of G’d’s harvest.” The Jewish people’s present situation was that they were in a vast cemetery (compare 12,30: “there was not a single house which did not contain a dead body”). If G’d would not contaminate Himself briefly in order to salvage the Jewish people, He would have to forego their existence permanently. Hence He decided to temporarily relax His rule and reveal Himself in a place not normally suitable for such a revelation in order to secure the continued existence of His Terumah, i.e. the Jewish people. After G’d had taken the Israelites out of Egypt, He said to Aaron: “please perform rites of purification for Me.” This is the meaning of Leviticus 16,33 and 16,16: “he shall provide atonement for the Sanctuary,” or “he shall provide atonement upon the Tent of Meeting and the altar.”

A rational approach to this legislation: the calf which is being killed, עגלה ערופה, is a similar phenomenon to the שעיר לעזאזל, the scape-goat, which is killed after it (symbolically) carries the sins of the entire Jewish people (Leviticus 16,10). Both wind up in a totally barren environment. Something similar happens to one of the birds offered by the person who has been declared cured of the dreaded skin disease tzoraat. It is released into the air after its partner has been slaughtered and the surviving bird’s blood has been dipped in the blood of the bird which has been slaughtered (Leviticus 14,51-53). The surviving bird is perceived as carrying the guilt of the person for whom it atones into certain nether regions inhabited by demons and the like. All of the three phenomena we listed have as their purpose to blunt possible accusations by spiritually negative forces which abound in the world and which look for any excuse to assume the role of prosecuting attorney against the Jewish people.
From a technical point of view it would have been enough for the Torah to write that the valley in question should be one which has neither been worked nor sown, i.e. לא יעבד ולא יזרע. Why did the Torah add the extra word בו (verse 4)? The Torah wanted to make clear that not only the valley but also the calf itself must not have performed any kind of work. By being so totally undomesticated, the animal is perceived as (still) belonging to the domain of the forces appointed by G’d to rule in the desert and similar inhospitable places (as we explained on other occasions). When the calf’s neck is broken then it occurs in the domain of these demonic forces. The very word איתן implies that the valley is very harsh, hard, tough.
The reason that the Torah spelled the word שפכה with the letter ה at the end, instead of the letter ו which we would have expected, may be an allusion to the fact that if one kills a person one deprives him of his five senses. By doing so, the murderer has destroyed an entire world. The world had been created with the last letter ה of the tetragrammaton (Bereshit Rabbah 12,9). The reason for this somewhat exaggerated sounding description of the murder of a single individual is the fact that G’d created only a single human being at the beginning. If he had been killed prematurely, the human race would have been exterminated as the result of such a single act of killing.
The reason for the words כפר לעמך ישראל אשר פדית ה', “provide atonement for Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed o Lord” (verse 8), is simple. The procedure of killing this calf resulted in our providing these demonic forces with a delight. This enhances the power of these forces to act as advocates for the prosecution against Israel. As a result, we have to ask forgiveness, כפרה, from Hashem for having been forced to make use of this legislation. Similar considerations are valid in connection with the שעיר לעזאזל. In Leviticus 16,33, at the conclusion of the whole procedure, the Torah writes: “He shall bring atonement upon the Holy of Holies, and upon the Tent of meeting and the Altar; he will bring atonement for the priests and all the people.” In other words, after the whole Yom Kippur service has been dealt with the Torah had to write these words to show that having somehow caused satisfaction to the Azzazel, the people and all concerned are in need of atonement for this.

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,” (Abusaula), as will be explained further on in the text. The same applies to the following verse where the Hebrew word is read unethatha (and ‘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.