Комментарий к Вайикра 16:7

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

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

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