Purpose of the Service of Vayikra 16/2

The Service of Acharei Mot

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Commentators debate what was the main goal of the Yom HaKippurim service. While R. Saadia Gaon puts the people at the center, suggesting that all aspects of the rite aimed to achieve atonement for Israel's sins, the Hoil Moshe views the rite as aimed at the Mikdash itself, understanding it to be a purification ceremony meant to cleanse the Mikdash of impurities. Shadal takes a middle position, suggesting that the ritual had a dual focus, to both purge the Mikdash of impurity and to expiate the sins of the nation.

Atonement for the People

The central goal of the service described in Vayikra 16 is to achieve atonement for the nation's sins.

Sources:Sifra16:1616:33About the Sifra Vayikra, R. Saadia GaonCommentary Vayikra 16HaEmunot VeHaDeiot 3:10About R. Saadia Gaon, RashiShemot 30:10Vayikra 16:1-3, 11, 15-16, 34About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RambamHilkhot Shegagot 11:9About R. Moshe b. Maimon, ?RambanVayikra 16:1Vayikra 16:2Vayikra 16:4Vayikra 16:18Vayikra 16:21About R. Moshe b. Nachman, RalbagVayikra 16About R. Levi b. Gershom, AbarbanelVayikra 16:5About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SefornoVayikra 16:4-5, 11-12, 24, 30About R. Ovadyah Seforno, HaKetav VeHaKabbalahVayikra 16:3Vayikra 16:15About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg, Reggio

Focus of the ceremony – According to these sources, the ceremony of Vayikra 16 focuses on the people rather than the Mikdash. This might be supported by the summary statement of the unit which points to atonement of the nation as the central goal of the rite: "וְהָיְתָה זֹּאת לָכֶם לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְכַפֵּר עַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכׇּל חַטֹּאתָם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה" (verse 34) .¹

Reaction to the Sin of the Golden Calf – This approach might suggest that Yom HaKippurim was instituted in reaction to the Sin of the Golden Calf, either to commemorate the pardon granted or to facilitate future penitence:

• Commemorative – TanchumaKi Tisa 31About the Tanchuma asserts that the day that Hashem forgave the people for the sin was the tenth of Tishrei² and, in commemoration, Hashem set it to be a day of forgiveness for all future generations as well.³
• Corrective – The sin might have further demonstrated the nation's general need for vehicles of repentance and atonement, leading to both the construction of the Tabernacle, a means to atone for transgressions throughout the year, and to the institution of Yom HaKippurim, a national, annual day of atonement.⁴ In fact, the very first Yom HaKippurim might have even been meant to atone for the Sin of the Calf specifically.

The sin offerings and inner sprinkling of blood – The sin offerings of Aharon and the nation appear to be patterned after two other unique sin offerings which share a similar protocol: the bull of the anointed priest who has inadvertently transgressed (פר כהן משיח) and the goat of the nation who has sinned in the realm of idolatry (שעיר עבודה זרה). The blood of these offerings is similarly sprinkled in the sanctum and on the incense altar, while their flesh is burned outside the camp.⁵ This would support the suggestion that the service of Vayikra 16 was intended to atone for both Aharon's role and the nation's sin in the episode of the Golden Calf.⁶

White clothing – R. Chisda in Bavli Rosh HaShanah suggests that the choice of white clothing is also related to the Sin of the Calf.  The priest does not perform the rituals in his normal golden garb so as not recall the sin ("for a prosecutor cannot become a defender"). R"Y Bekhor Shor, alternatively suggests that gold, being reddish in color, is symbolic of sin, while white connotes a cleansing of sin. Since this is a day of atonement, the priest symbolizes the process of "אִם יִהְיוּ חֲטָאֵיכֶם כַּשָּׁנִים כַּשֶּׁלֶג יַלְבִּינוּ"‎⁷ in his choice of garments.

Why three sacrifices? All these sources agree that both the cow and two goats served to atone for sins but they differ in their explanations of why three distinct sin-offerings⁸ were necessary:

• Different people – R. Saadia⁹ suggests that each is meant to atone for the sins of a different group of people. The bull atones for the sins of the high priest.  The "goat for Hashem", understood by R. Saadia to mean "the goat for the House of Hashem", atones for the regular priests,¹⁰ while the second goat expiates the sins of the nation as a whole.¹¹ The first two sacrifices are offered in the Mikdash, abode of the priests, while the second goat is sent outside the sanctuary where the nation resides. 
• Distinct sins – Most of the other sources, in contrast, assumes that both the bull and "goat for Hashem" atone for sins related to the Mikdash,¹² such as intentionally entering the Mikdash or eating "kodshim" while impure,¹³ while the goat for Azazel atones for all other sins.¹⁴ The blood of the first two is appropriately sprinkled inside where the sins might have taken place.  The second goat, though, is brought outside the camp, as it is so contaminated by the enormity of the sins it bears that it would be unfitting to be offered in the sanctity of the Mikdash.¹⁵ 
• Combination – One might alternatively suggest that the offering of the bull was to ensure the purity of the high priest before he set out to atone for others, while the two goats were meant for two distinct sets of sins of the nation - those related to impurity in the Mikdash and all other sins.

"וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" – This verse is somewhat difficult for this position as it implies that the blood of the bull and goat was supposed to purify the Mikdash itself (rather than the people). These sources explain it in one of two ways:

• In the Kodesh – R. Saadia reinterprets the phrase "עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ" to mean "in the Kodesh" rather than "on/for the Kodesh" and understands the word "טֻּמְאֹת" to mean transgressions rather than impurities.  According to him, then, the verse only states that the priest atoned for the people's sins in the Mikdash and says nothing about purification.
• Regarding the Kodesh – The other sources explain the phrase to mean that the priest atoned for sins regarding the "קֹדֶשׁ" and impurities of the nation, ie. טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו.‎¹⁶

General role of blood – This position's understanding that the sprinkling of the blood serves to atone rather than purify fits the general role played by blood, as Vayikra 17 teaches, "וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר".‎¹⁷

Why are the laws linked to the death of Nadav and Avihu? This position might suggest one of two explanations:

• Commanded then – It is possible that these laws were commanded right after the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. This day marked the completion of the Tabernacle's construction, the first vehicle for the nation's atonement.  On that very day, Hashem introduced the second vehicle, Yom HaKippurim. 
• Warning – To achieve atonement for the people, it is required for Aharon to go into the Holy of Holies. If Nadav and Avihu were killed for entering (as R. Saadia, for instance, suggests), it is logical that Hashem would preface the protocol with a warning to Aharon of what might occur if he does not follow the right procedures.¹⁸

Intervening laws of purity – If the ceremony was indeed commanded right after the deaths of Nadav and Avihu one might question why it does not appear immediately afterwards.  Ralbag suggests that the intervening laws of purity precede the rite of Yom HaKippurim since the rite was instituted to cleanse the nation from their sins in the realm of impurity.

When and how often was the ritual enacted? Thןis approach assume that the ritual was enacted only once a year, on Yom HaKippurim. They understand the directive "וְאַל יָבֹא בְכׇל עֵת אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ" to mean that Aharon was not permitted to come into the Inner Sanctum except for once a year, and only after following the protocol described in the chapter. The concluding phrase of the chapter, "וַיַּעַשׂ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה י"י אֶת מֹשֶׁה", which might initially imply that the ceremony was enacted immediately, is understood to refer only to the future, as Rashi writes, ""כשהגיע יום הכפורים עשה כסדר הזה".

Meaning of כפרה

Purification of the Temple

The various rituals were instituted as a means of purifying the Mikdash from impurity.

Sources:Hoil MosheShemot 30:10Vayikra 16About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki

Focus of the ceremony – According to Hoil Moshe, the ceremony focused on the Mikdash more than on the people, and the day might more accurately be called a Day of Purification or Purging, rather than a Day of Atonement.  Any atonement for personal sin is secondary and needed only to ensure the purification of the Mikdash.

Why are the laws linked to the death of Nadav and Avihu? Hoil Moshe asserts that the entire ceremony was instituted in reaction to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. The deaths of the brothers inside the Mishkan caused immense impurity which needed to be purged. In addition, it led the nation to fear that the Tabernacle's sanctity had been diminished as a result. To combat this fear and rid the sanctuary of pollution, Hashem instructed Aharon how to purify the Mishkan.

When and how often was the ritual enacted? According to Hoil Moshe the first time the ceremony was enacted was not the tenth of Tishrei, but immediately after the command was given following the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, as it was originally intended to purify the Mishkan from their deaths specifically.¹⁹ Afterwards, the ceremony was set to be an annual one,²⁰ to cleanse the Mikdash from any other intentional or accidental impurity which might have contaminated it throughout the year.²¹

"וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִפִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכׇל חַטֹּאתָם" – Hoil Moshe understands this verse literally to mean that the sacrificial blood was intended to purge the Kodesh itself from impurity. He gives two possible explanations for the accompanying mention of atonement from sins:

• The verse might refer to the need to atone for any sins which caused Hashem to be dissatisfied with the nation, allowing the Mishkan to be polluted.
• Alternatively this (and similar verses) refer not to the initial ceremony, which was exclusively for purification, but to future years when Yom HaKippurim also incorporated atoning aspects.

Goat for Azazel

• Hoil Moshe suggests that the nation erroneously believed in a demonic creature named Azazel, whom they thought might contaminate the Mikdash and thereby sabotage the purification accomplished through the rituals of the Day of Atonement. To calm the nation's (baseless) concern, a gift is sent to appease (the non-existent) Azazel.²² This part of the ceremony, too, then, revolves around purification and not atonement.
• One could alternatively suggest, as does Rashbam, that the sending of the goat is similar to the purification ceremony of the leper described in Vayikra 14. In both cases, two animals are brought, one of which is killed while the other is sent away alive. In both cases, it is possible that the animal is meant to carry away (symbolically or for real) the impurities that have been purged.

Why two sin offerings – Hoil Moshe does not explain why separate sacrifices were needed for Aharon and the nation as a whole, nor why one was a bull and one a goat.

Internal sprinkling of blood – As the blood was meant to purify the Mikdash itself, it is logical that the blood is sprinkled inside. Hoil Moshe raises the possibility that Nadav and Avihu's sin lay in entering (or attempting to enter) the Inner Sanctum.  If so, it is clear why it, too, needed purification.

Context of laws of impurity – The preceding chapters deal with various cases of impurity, detailing both a purification and an atonement process involving sacrificial procedures.

"כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם"

Can the Mikdash become impure? Many verses in Torah suggest that the Mikdash can indeed be contaminated. In fact at the conclusion of the laws regarding one who has an emission, in the chapter immediately preceding ours, Hashem warns, "וְלֹא יָמֻתוּ בְּטֻמְאָתָם בְּטַמְּאָם אֶת מִשְׁכָּנִי אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכָם".  This implies that the Mikdash itself can become impure, and moreover, that an action which causes such impurity is a capital crime. ²³

White clothing

Purity and Atonement

The service was dual focused, meant both to purge the Temple from impurity and to attain atonement for the nation.

Sources:perhaps R"Y Bekhor Shor,Vayikra 16:1, 4, 10, 33About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor perhaps R"Y Kara, perhaps ChizkuniVayikra 16:2Vayikra 16:6Vayikra 16:8Vayikra 16:21About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, ShadalVayikra 16:1-2, 8, 16, 30About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, ?RDZH, J. Milgrom²⁴

Why three sacrifices?

"וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל"

"וְהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו אֶת כׇּל עֲוֺנֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל "

Connection to Nadav and Avihu?

בְּטַמְּאָם אֶת מִשְׁכָּנִי אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכָם

When and how often was the ritual enacted?

Meaning of "כפרה"

Choice of animals

Goat to Azazel

What sins are being atoned for? The sins being atoned for are sins of impurity of the Mikdash and the rest of the sins of Israel.

Focus of the ceremony

ANE parallels

¹ See also verse 30, "כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי י"י תִּטְהָרוּ" which similarly focuses on purification of the nation from sin rather than a purging of the Temple from impurity.

² The Midrash assumes that there were three sets of "forty days" during which Moshe was on the mountain.  During the first set, he received the initial tablets. During the second set, he prayed for forgiveness and at the end of the third set he received the second tablets and was told that the nation was forgiven. If Moshe ascended the mountain after Revelation on the sixth of Sivan, spent 120 days on the mountain and a couple of days in between the various sets within the camp, the final day would be the 10th of Tishrei.

³ If so, one could even suggest that the directive to fast is commemorative as well.  Since Moshe fasted while on the mountain, the nation, too, is told to fast.

⁴ Cf. Ralbag who points out that the nation needed an elaborate atonement process that could serve as a tangible expression of Hashem's forgiveness of not only inadvertent sins (which sin offerings atone for) but also intentional ones. Without such a ceremony the people would not be convinced that their sins had indeed been forgiven.  This could potentially lead to despair, where people would stop trying to improve thinking it a lost cause. [See Ralbag's similar explanation for the sacrificial system as a whole and the prohibition of blood specifically in Purpose of the Sacrifices and Prohibition of Blood.]

⁵ This stands in contrast to most sin offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the outer altar and whose flesh is eaten by the priests.

⁶ For various understandings of the sin, and whether or not it constituted idolatry, see Sin of the Golden Calf.

⁷ See Yeshayahu 1:18.

⁸ Not all view the goat for Azazel as a sin-offering. In verse 5 it is grouped with the second goat and both are said to be taken "לְחַטָּאת", but subsequently (see verses 9,15,25,27) the term "חַטָּאת" is used to describe only the first goat offered to Hashem and not the goat designated for Azazel.

⁹ This is how he explains the ritual in philosophical work, HaEmunot VeHaDeiot.

¹⁰ This is somewhat difficult considering that the verse refers to the goat as "שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לָעָם" (v. 15). R. Saadia might suggest that it so called because the goat is paid for by the nation. [Nonetheless, one might wonder why the nation should pay for the goat if it is meant for the priests.] Even more difficult is the fact that verses 16-17 state that the goat atones "בְעַד כׇּל קְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל" / "מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל", again implying that it is meant for them.

¹¹ It seems that R. Saadia is partially motivated by a desire to demonstrate that "Azazel" does not refer to a demonic being but a place. The parallel terms "a goat for Hashem" and "a goat for Azazel" might imply that Azazel is some sort of supernatural being like God. R. Saadia, thus, prefers to explain that both the term "‎לה'‎‏‎‏‎‎‏" and "לַעֲזָאזֵל" refer to a place, either the House of Hashem or a rocky mountain. See Why is the Goat Sent to Azazel for elaboration.

¹² It is not clear, though, why there needs to be two distinct offerings for this sin, one for Aharon and one for the nation (especially considering that for other sins, one goat, the Goat for Azazel, suffices for both groups).  It is possible that in his role as high priest serving in the Mikdash, Aharon was more responsible for any transgressions that took place there. See Shemot 28:38, regarding the role of the priest's turban, "וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת עֲוֺן הַקֳּדָשִׁים".  If Aharon bore the transgressions of "kodshim", this might have necessitated a personal sacrifice.

¹³ These are referred to as טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. See below that they reach this conclusion from the verse's explanation that through the sprinkling of blood: "וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל".  This verse, though, refers only to the nation's sins of impurity and no similar phrase is found by the offering of the high priest. Ralbag suggests that the absence is due only to the fact that the priests, as a whole, tended to be more careful and less sinful and so the language of "כִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ וּבְעַד בֵּיתוֹ" sufficed to describe their atonement.

¹⁴ Seforno suggests that the Olah offerings were meant to atone for sins as well (sins of impure thought). As such, after describing its offering the verse writes, "וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ וּבְעַד הָעָם".

¹⁵ See Rambam, Ralbag and Seforno who all make this point.

¹⁶ See HaKetav VeHaKabbalah who writes, "נ״ל כי מלת על כאן הוראתו על עסק וענין".

¹⁷ See Prohibition of Blood for elaboration.  The main difference between the sprinkling of blood in this rite and other rituals is in its location in the Inner and Outer Sanctum rather than on the outer altar.  See above that this might be related to the nature of the sin being atoned (Mikdash related impurities) or, according to R. Saadia, the people receiving atonement - the priests.  Ralbag adds a further explanation, suggesting that due to the loftiness of the ritual, its atoning for even intentional sins, part of it was performed in the loftiest of places, the Inner Sanctum.

¹⁸ Ralbag suggests that even if their sin was of a different nature, the juxtaposition still serves as a warning that disobedience and laxity in cultic procedures might result in death.

¹⁹ This might be supported from the concluding words of the chapter, " וַיַּעַשׂ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה י"י אֶת מֹשֶׁה" which imply that Aharon did as commanded immediately, and not only in the future.

²⁰ The phrase "וְאַל יָבֹא בְכׇל עֵת אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ" is understood to mean that Aharon cannot come whenever he wants, but only on this specific occasion, and on future Days of Atonement.

²¹ Hoil Moshe emphasizes the nation's fear of this impurity more than the impurity itself, implying that it was to combat this fear (even more than any actual ritual pollution) that the ceremony was instituted.

²² Hoil Moshe emphasizes that there is no such demonic power except in the minds of the people.  Nonetheless, as a concession to the people, Hashem allowed this ritual.  Hoil Moshe is consistent in suggesting that numerous commandments were given as a concession to the nation's erroneous beliefs or low spiritual level. See discussion of the Hoil Moshe's positions in "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye, Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood, and About: R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi.

²³ See also Bemidbar 19:20, " וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא וְלֹא יִתְחַטָּא וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל כִּי אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ ה' טִמֵּא".

²⁴ See J. Milgrom, The Anchor Bible, Leviticus 1-17 (New York, 1991): 1009-1079.