Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Exodo 11:7

And in the Midrash Yalkut Shimoni they said, regarding the verse and before he came near to them that they set dogs upon him. The reason for this was that they considered him a spreader of evil reports and a slanderer. Our Sages of blessed memory said (Pesachim 118a) that anyone who speaks lashon hara [evil speech] deserves to be thrown to the dogs, as it is said Do not spread false reports (Exodus 23:1), and adjacent to it [is written] throw it to the dogs. The reason for this is that anyone who speaks lashon hara is likened to a barking dog that wags its tongue. Therefore, regarding the Israelites in Egypt who did not engage in lashon hara, it is written but against the children of Israel, no dog shall whet its tongue (Exodus 11:7). This was measure for measure. And this is what is meant by Let us go to Dothan [nelkhah dotaynah] — to seek religious pretexts [nikhlei datot] against him, based on the Torah’s instruction, to throw to the dogs anyone who speaks lashon hara. And some say that they set the dogs upon him so that they would eat a limb from him while he was alive, to repay him for what he said about them — that they had eaten a limb from a living animal. And shortly, the verse and before he came near to them will be explained in another way.

And know that Ad-nai singles out (וּדְע֗וּ כִּֽי־הִפְלָ֣ה ה' - U-d'u ki hiflah Ad-nai): [The verb hiflah is] similar to (Exodus 11:7): "that Ad-nai will distinguish (yafleh)." [This means] He distinguished/separated (hivdil) and made known (ve-hodia) who His faithful one (chasido) is. For He hears when he calls to Him.

When you consider all that we have written and quoted on this subject you will be convinced that there most certainly cannot be a question of the scapegoat being an offering, a sacrifice to a Satanic force called Azzazel. All strife, war, etc., in the world have their origin in that domain where Satan-Se'ir, the other name for Esau and the negative character traits he symbolizes, reign supreme. This is the force which welcomes this scapegoat laden with sin. All goats, both male and female, are part of his domain. The nearest “relative” of this Satan-Samael-Azzazel is Esau and the nation descended from it. Esau already bore the name שעיר, a hairy man, as the antithesis of Yaakov the “smooth” man. The land in which he settled was named after him, and when pagans used to offer sacrifices to the שעירים, the he-goats, representing brute physical force and obstinacy, this was their way of paying homage to the ideals represented by Esau.
According to Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 27 Samael started out as a respectable angel in the celestial regions until he and his colleagues were expelled from there by G’d Himself. As a form of protest Samael held on to the wings of the archangel Michael trying to prevent his expulsion, or to drag that angel down to earth with him. G’d saved the archangel Michael and this is why that archangel became known as מיכאל הפליט, “Michael the escapee” (a veiled reference to who it was that told Avraham that Lot had been taken captive by the kings who had defeated the king of Sodom and his allies). We were told in Genesis 14,13 that the פליט came and informed Avraham that his relative Lot had been taken captive. Considering the fate of Azzazel-Samael, we know that he ended up at the lower end of the emanations which we associate with the celestial regions or domains. In fact, as the result of his expulsion from heaven, Samael constitutes a barrier between earth (the lowest of the emanations, מלכות), and heaven, i.e. the destination of the sacrifices. How can our sacrifices reach heaven when Samael forms an effective barrier to their ascent to heaven? In the words of Solomon in Proverbs 26,13 Samael is like a שחל בדרך, “a type of lion barring one’s progress.” Presenting this scapegoat to Samael is like throwing a bone to the dog, keeping it happy while one pursues one’s main objective. The Torah did the same thing when instructing us to dispatch the scapegoat to the domain of Samael in order to pave the way for our sacrifices to Hashem to ascend to heaven without hindrance and interference. This is why the author of Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 46 wrote that the purpose of the scapegoat procedure is to prevent Samael from interfering with our offerings.
It is important for the Jewish people to be aware of the existence of forces such as represented by the Azzazel and only in this manner are they able to deal with such a phenomenon. This was not the first time that normally hostile forces turned supportive. We encounter the phenomenon for the first time in Exodus 11,7 where the Torah tells us that the very dogs which could have been counted on to impede the departure of the Jewish people from Egypt kept their mouths shut and did not interfere with the Exodus. [According to tradition the dogs were rewarded by the Torah in that the Torah instructs us to throw meat unfit for us to eat to the dogs (Exodus 22:30, compare Rashi). It is not a new idea that the Torah suggests neutralizing potentially hostile forces by feeding their appetite. Ed.]
To sum up: it is not forbidden in principle to feed the appetite of our adversaries (placed there by G’d Himself) as long as we do not feed their appetites at the expense of our spiritual integrity [my phrasing, Ed.], and as long as we perform such a procedure at G’d’s command; the reason is that by doing so we are like servants of the Lord who share out gifts on behalf of the Lord to ministers of the Lord in order for those ministers not to object to the way the Lord wants to deal with us. This point is reinforced by the fact that until after the drawing of the lot it was not even clear which of the two he-goats would be dispatched to the Azzazel. The lot saying “for G’d” or “for the Azzazel” respectively would sometimes fall on the animal to the right of the High Priest and sometimes on the animal on his left. The High Priest was not allowed to change the determination made by the lot.
The Talmud Yuma 40 reports that they asked Rabbi Akiva once whether if the lot with the word “for G’d” fell on the animal to the left of the High Priest he was allowed to change it so that it would fall on the animal to his right (as usually happened); Rabbi Akiva answered that this was not permitted as it would provide a pretext for the heretics to claim that Azzazel and G’d were two separate domains, independent of each other. This is why the decision by the lot had to be honored although, according to tradition, the animal on the Priest’s right was to be offered as the sacrifice in the Temple. The heretics did not appreciate that the procedure was a decree from G’d and if He were willing to forego the animal intended as a sacrifice for Him, He was entitled to do so. If and when G’d waives His right, He does so for our benefit. At any rate, it is clear from all the above that the Israelites on their own do not give anything to Azzazel. All the Israelites and, of course the High Priest, direct all their thinking, prayers, and confessions only to the Lord, to the attribute represented by the tetragrammaton.
When we review what Manoach had done in Judges 13,20 when the angel ascended to heaven within the flame of his offering, he did not, G’d forbid, address himself to the angel, but he addressed himself to Hashem, hence his terrible fear that he would die as a result of having seen such a manifestation of the Lord.
The same consideration holds true for the gifts apportioned to the priests from the various sacrificial offerings for their consumption. Even though Aaron and his sons quite obviously enjoyed these portions of meat, etc., this is not part of the sacrificial service anymore pertaining to the owners of the animals whose blood and fat parts have been offered on the altar; the owners have simply carried out the will of the Lord in leaving these parts for the priests. By no means does G’d and the priest share in the offerings as “principals.” The entire offering is addressed to the Lord, exclusively.

חָרֶץ indicates the speech of the tongue. Similarly, “A dog will not sharpen its tongue.”¹⁴Shemos 11:7 [see Rashi there]. Similarly “Then you will utter a sharp word.”¹⁵II Shmuel 5:24. You will call, you will cry out a battle shout.

Then shout [war whoops]. Lift up [and bring forth] the sound of war and the fear of the sword Galfer in Old French, and similarly [we find] "A dog will not sharpen its tongue [growl].

לכלב תשלכון אתו YE SHALL CAST IT TO THE DOGS — You may give it to a heathen as well as to the dog. Or, perhaps this is not so, but כלב is to be taken literally? Scripture, however, states with regard to carrion, (Deuteronomy 14:21) “Thou shalt give it to a stranger or sell it unto an alien”, from which it follows by a conclusion à fortiori that you may derive whatever benefit you like from the Trefa (and so you also may give it to heathen). But if this be so, what is the force of Scripture expressly saying “to the dog”? It is to teach you that the dog is to be given preference in this respect and Scripture tells you at the same time that God does not withhold the reward due to any of His creatures. The dog is entitled to reward because it is stated, (Exodus 11:7) “But against the children of Israel shall not a dog move its tongue”, and this happened. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Give it the reward it deserves (Mekhilta).