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 16About 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 – This approach looks to the summary statement, "וְהָיְתָה זֹּאת לָכֶם לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְכַפֵּר עַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכׇּל חַטֹּאתָם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה" (verse 34) as evidence that the rite was aimed at achieving absolution and that the ceremony was focused on the people rather than the Mikdash.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. In fact, the very first Yom HaKippurim might have even been meant to atone for the Sin of the Calf specifically.

The Sin Offerings – The sin offerings of Aharon and the nation appear to be patterned after two other unique sin offerings which share a similar protocol,⁴ 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). 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.⁵

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").

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-offerings⁶ were necessary:

• Different people – R. Saadia 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 "for the House of Hashem",⁷ atones for the regular priests,⁸ while the second goat expiates the sins of the nation as a whole. The first two are brought 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 atone for sins related to the Mikdash,⁹ such as entering or eating while impure, while the goat for Azazel atones for all other sins.¹⁰ 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.¹¹ 

"וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" – This verse is somewhat difficult for this position as it implies that the blood of the sin offerings not only atoned for the people but also played a role in purifying the Mikdash itself from impurities. 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 (or for) the Kodesh" and understands the word "טֻּמְאֹת" to mean transgressions rather than impurities.  According to him, then, the verse simply states that the priest atoned for the nation's sins in the Mikdash.
• Regarding the Kodesh – The other sources explain the phrase to mean that the priest atoned for sins regarding the kodesh and impurities of the nation, ie. טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו.‎¹²

Why start with 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 Tabernacles'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 warning Aharon what might occur if he does not follow the right procedures.

When and how often was the ritual enacted?

Role of blood

Is the purification for the people or the place? The purification is for the people exclusively. Any reference to purifying the Kodesh or any part of the Mikdash is not to be understood as purifying the place or objects themselves; instead these objects are facilitating the atonement through the service of the day.

What is the function of various rituals of the service? All the rituals are for the atonement of the people, and even the text says that specific actions, for example:

EN/HEע/E

וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִפִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכׇל חַטֹּאתָם וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה לְאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם.

And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; and so shall he do for the tent of meeting, that dwelleth with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.

The blood libations, which come to purify the sanctuary, really use the sanctuary and the utensils to purify the sins of Israel

Purification of the Temple

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

Sources:Hoil MosheVayikra 16:1Vayikra 16:2Vayikra 16:3Vayikra 16:11Vayikra 16:16Vayikra 16:23Vayikra 16:32Vayikra 16:34About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki

Why start with Nadav and Avihu? Since the death of Nadav and Avihu caused the Mikdash and certain utensils to be impure, there is a need to purify them through this service.

What sins are being atoned for? It depends on whether the impurity is a Halakhic or Metaphoric one: 

• Halakhic - There is only atonement for sins directly dealing with the laws of impurity of the Mikdash. (come back) i.e., Entering the Mikdash impure, eating sacrifices in an impure state, etc.¹³ 
• Metaphoric - When Israel sins they are causing a  There must be atonement for all the sins of Israel that are causing the Mikdash to be 'impure'.¹⁴ 

Is the purification for the people or the place? The purification is for the Mikdash that has become impure. Any reference to the atonement of Israel's sins is a means to purify the temple.

Is there a greater atonement? The biggest issue with claiming the service on Yom Kippur is solely about purification of the temple is a later verse of the chapter (16:30):

כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי י"י תִּטְהָרוּ.

For on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins shall ye be clean before the Lord.

 The verse seems to say that there is a universal atonement that happens on this day which is connected to the service of the day. One way of solving this issue is to say that there is a separate aspect of atonement on Yom HaKippur that has nothing to do with the service done by the Kohen Gadol.¹⁵ 

What is the function of various rituals of the service? The function of the various rituals of the service depends on whether the purification of impurity was on a metaphoric or Halakhic level. According to the Hoil Moshe all of the sacrifices, including the Azazel, were to get rid of Halakhic Tumah and did not atone for any sins. Milgram, on the other hand, says that there was atonement in specific offerings like the Azazel that would facilitate purification of the Mikdash from the metaphoric impurity

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, perhaps Chizkuni, Shadal, RDZH, J. Milgrom¹⁶

"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.

Is there a purification of the people or the place? The purification is for the Mikdash and the utensils and for the people of Israel

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 acsended 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 The blood of these offerings is similarly sprinkled in the sanctum and on the incense altar, while their flesh is burned outside the camp. This stands in contrast to most sin offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the outer altar and whose flesh is eaten by the priests.

⁵ For various understandings of the sin, and whether or not it constituted idolatry, see Sin of the Golden Calf.

⁶ 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 is used only to describe the first goat offered to Hashem and not the goat designated for Azazel.

⁷ 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. Saaia, thus, prefers to explain that both the term "‎לה'‎‏‎‏‎‎‏" and "לַעֲזָאזֵל" refer to a place, either the House of Hashem or a rocky mountain.

⁸ 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", implying that it is meant for them.

⁹ These are referred to as טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. There might be a separate offering for the priests and the nation since the priests are more involved with and perhaps more responsible for Mikdash related transgressions than the nation.

¹⁰ Seforno suggests that the Olah offerings was to atone for sins as well, sins of impure thought. As such, after describing its offering the verse writes, "וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ וּבְעַד הָעָם".

¹¹ See Rambam and Seforno who make this point.

¹² See HaKetav VeHaKabbalah who writes, "נ״ל כי מלת על כאן הוראתו על עסק וענין".

¹³ Hoil MosheVayikra 16Vayikra 16About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

¹⁴ Milgram believes that the metaphorical Tumah manifested itself because of the sins of Israel. He supports his view with different illusion throughout Tanakh of God being unable or unwilling to reside in the Mikdash because of an impurity. caused by the sins of Israel

¹⁵ Support for this understanding can be seen in the verses as the mention of the service has to be done on Yom Kippur comes after the service itself. The Meshekh Chokhmah points this out and posets from the Gra that the service was able to be done on other days besides Yom Kippur to purify the temple.1
Another proof to this is the Mishna Yoma where R. Akiva lauds Israel for being purified by Hashem. Rav Soloveitchik2 understood this as R. Akiva telling the people, in a post-second temple world Israel still gets atonement from Hashem without the service of Yom Kippur. Seemingly, in this understanding, the day of Yom Kippur itself atones for the sins of Israel and the above verse is a declaration of that and not connected to the purification of the Mikdash.

¹⁶ See J. Milgrom, The Anchor Bible, Leviticus 1-17 (New York, 1991): 1009-1079.