Difference between revisions of "Why is the Goat Sent to Azazel/2"
m (Text replacement - "Seforno" to "Sforno") |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<page type="Approaches"> | <page type="Approaches"> | ||
<h1>Why is the Goat Sent to Azazel?</h1> | <h1>Why is the Goat Sent to Azazel?</h1> | ||
− | |||
<div class="overview"> | <div class="overview"> | ||
<h2>Overview</h2> | <h2>Overview</h2> | ||
<p>The different approaches to understanding the ritual of the sending of a goat to Azazel reflect fundamentally diverging world outlooks. Mystics, like Ramban, identify Azazel as a demonic being which needs to be appeased before the Day of Atonement so as not harm Israel when they are being judged. Rationalists, uncomfortable with the notion that such supernatural powers exist or that a sacrifice might be offered to them, look for alternative explanations. Thus, Rambam attempts to view the action as being part of the regular sacrificial service of the day, which only for technical reasons occurs at a distance from the Mikdash.</p> | <p>The different approaches to understanding the ritual of the sending of a goat to Azazel reflect fundamentally diverging world outlooks. Mystics, like Ramban, identify Azazel as a demonic being which needs to be appeased before the Day of Atonement so as not harm Israel when they are being judged. Rationalists, uncomfortable with the notion that such supernatural powers exist or that a sacrifice might be offered to them, look for alternative explanations. Thus, Rambam attempts to view the action as being part of the regular sacrificial service of the day, which only for technical reasons occurs at a distance from the Mikdash.</p> | ||
<p>Others view the rite more symbolically. Rashbam, looking to the leper's purification for inspiration, views it as a sending away of impurities, and Ralbag explains that this enables the nation to start afresh with a clean slate. Abarbanel looks more comprehensively at the ritual as a whole, seeing in the entire lottery a representation of the people's choice to turn to God or away from Him.</p></div> | <p>Others view the rite more symbolically. Rashbam, looking to the leper's purification for inspiration, views it as a sending away of impurities, and Ralbag explains that this enables the nation to start afresh with a clean slate. Abarbanel looks more comprehensively at the ritual as a whole, seeing in the entire lottery a representation of the people's choice to turn to God or away from Him.</p></div> | ||
− | |||
<approaches> | <approaches> | ||
Line 33: | Line 31: | ||
<point><b>Is the goat left alive or killed?</b> Although these sources do not say so explicitly, they could assert that the goat was sent alive to Azazel, as the simple understanding of the term "הַשָּׂעִיר הֶחָי" might indicate.</point> | <point><b>Is the goat left alive or killed?</b> Although these sources do not say so explicitly, they could assert that the goat was sent alive to Azazel, as the simple understanding of the term "הַשָּׂעִיר הֶחָי" might indicate.</point> | ||
<point><b>Relationship to Rabbinic tradition</b> – <multilink><a href="Enoch10-4" data-aht="source">Enoch</a><a href="Enoch6-1" data-aht="source">Chapter 6:1-8</a><a href="Enoch7-1" data-aht="source">Chapter 7:1-6</a><a href="Enoch8-1" data-aht="source">Chapter 8:1-2</a><a href="Enoch9-4" data-aht="source">Chapter 9:4-6</a><a href="Enoch10-4" data-aht="source">Chapter 10:4-8</a><a href="Enoch" data-aht="parshan">About Enoch</a></multilink>, the earliest extant source which speaks of the fallen angel Azael, speaks of him being imprisoned in "the desert of Dudael" and being covered with "jagged and rough rocks". It is possible that the <multilink><a href="MishnaYoma6-6" data-aht="source">Mishna Yoma</a><a href="MishnaYoma6-6" data-aht="source">6:6-8</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink> also preserves elements of a similar tradition in its identification of "בית חדודו" as the place where the goat was pushed down a mountain and dismembered.</point> | <point><b>Relationship to Rabbinic tradition</b> – <multilink><a href="Enoch10-4" data-aht="source">Enoch</a><a href="Enoch6-1" data-aht="source">Chapter 6:1-8</a><a href="Enoch7-1" data-aht="source">Chapter 7:1-6</a><a href="Enoch8-1" data-aht="source">Chapter 8:1-2</a><a href="Enoch9-4" data-aht="source">Chapter 9:4-6</a><a href="Enoch10-4" data-aht="source">Chapter 10:4-8</a><a href="Enoch" data-aht="parshan">About Enoch</a></multilink>, the earliest extant source which speaks of the fallen angel Azael, speaks of him being imprisoned in "the desert of Dudael" and being covered with "jagged and rough rocks". It is possible that the <multilink><a href="MishnaYoma6-6" data-aht="source">Mishna Yoma</a><a href="MishnaYoma6-6" data-aht="source">6:6-8</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink> also preserves elements of a similar tradition in its identification of "בית חדודו" as the place where the goat was pushed down a mountain and dismembered.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Transfer of sins?</b> Bereshit Rabbati and Yalkut Shimoni appear to understand that there is a literal transfer of sins. The booby-trapped goat carries the sins back to their originator, who is ultimately responsible for the entire world's transgressions.<fn>One could take this a step further and claim that the Torah is really mocking the pagan beliefs in the existence of these demons | + | <point><b>Transfer of sins?</b> Bereshit Rabbati and Yalkut Shimoni appear to understand that there is a literal transfer of sins. The booby-trapped goat carries the sins back to their originator, who is ultimately responsible for the entire world's transgressions.<fn>One could take this a step further and claim that the Torah is really mocking the pagan beliefs in the existence of these demons by sending Azazel an animal defiled with sins rather than a unblemished sacrifice.</fn> According to Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer and Ramban, the goat carries away the sins so that the Satan will see a sin-free nation and have nothing to say against them.<fn>Considering that it is the angel who is receiving the sin-laden goat, this is somewhat counterintuitive. What better proof than it of the nation's iniquities? This question leads R. Yechezkel Sofer, in his article, "לשלח אותו לעזאזל המדברה - המען או הנמען", שמעתין 180 (תשע"א): 74-63, to suggest that what is loaded on the goat is actually the <i>forgiven</i> sins. He notes that though the goat is chosen towards the beginning of the ceremony, it is not sent until after all the other ritual acts have already achieved atonement for the nation. It is also possible that the goat is bearing the people's guilt or punishment (with "עֲוֹנֹתָם" meaning guilt) rather than their sins which have already been expiated.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Efficacy of a bribe</b> – <multilink><a href="AlshikhVayikra16" data-aht="source">R. Moshe Alshikh</a><a href="AlshikhVayikra16" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16</a><a href="R. Moshe Alshikh" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Alshikh</a></multilink> challenges the approach of Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, questioning both the legitimacy and utility of a bribe. He notes that either the nation does not deserve a punishment, in which case the prosecution of the Satan should have no effect regardless, or the nation does deserve a punishment in which case even the silence of the Satan should not protect them. If it did that would be a travesty of justice!<fn>He further argues that giving a bribe would only provide the Satan with more material with which to accuse the nation. This discomfort is likely what leads Ramban to view the goat as a gift from Hashem to his servant, rather than a bribe from the nation. Nevertheless, it is not clear what purpose such a gift is meant to serve, if regardless of it the Satan's words are not capable of swaying God's judgment. It is possible that according to Ramban, Hashem is keeping His servant happy so that he will not bring harm to the nation on his own. This, though, would assume that the angel has power to act against Hashem's will.</fn></point> | <point><b>Efficacy of a bribe</b> – <multilink><a href="AlshikhVayikra16" data-aht="source">R. Moshe Alshikh</a><a href="AlshikhVayikra16" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16</a><a href="R. Moshe Alshikh" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Alshikh</a></multilink> challenges the approach of Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, questioning both the legitimacy and utility of a bribe. He notes that either the nation does not deserve a punishment, in which case the prosecution of the Satan should have no effect regardless, or the nation does deserve a punishment in which case even the silence of the Satan should not protect them. If it did that would be a travesty of justice!<fn>He further argues that giving a bribe would only provide the Satan with more material with which to accuse the nation. This discomfort is likely what leads Ramban to view the goat as a gift from Hashem to his servant, rather than a bribe from the nation. Nevertheless, it is not clear what purpose such a gift is meant to serve, if regardless of it the Satan's words are not capable of swaying God's judgment. It is possible that according to Ramban, Hashem is keeping His servant happy so that he will not bring harm to the nation on his own. This, though, would assume that the angel has power to act against Hashem's will.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>A punishment?</b> One might also question how giving more sins to some demonic being who encourages sin regardless, serves to punish him. Why would this being care?<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="PhiloLawsI186" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloLawsI186" data-aht="source">The Special Laws I 186-188</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink> who asserts that it is actually the curses and punishments which are being sent away. See Kayin's cry "גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְּשֹׂא" in Bereshit 4:13 for another instance where the word "עֲוֹן" may mean punishment rather than sin.</fn></point> | <point><b>A punishment?</b> One might also question how giving more sins to some demonic being who encourages sin regardless, serves to punish him. Why would this being care?<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="PhiloLawsI186" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloLawsI186" data-aht="source">The Special Laws I 186-188</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink> who asserts that it is actually the curses and punishments which are being sent away. See Kayin's cry "גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְּשֹׂא" in Bereshit 4:13 for another instance where the word "עֲוֹן" may mean punishment rather than sin.</fn></point> | ||
Line 50: | Line 48: | ||
<point><b>Context</b> – Hoil Moshe connects the background of the ritual to the opening words of the chapter, "אַחֲרֵי מוֹת שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן", positing that the nation attributed Nadav and Avihu's death and the ensuing impurity in the Mikdash to the jealousy of Azazel. It was this that necessitated a purification of the Mikdash and led to the nation's fear that Azazel might act again if not appeased.</point> | <point><b>Context</b> – Hoil Moshe connects the background of the ritual to the opening words of the chapter, "אַחֲרֵי מוֹת שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן", positing that the nation attributed Nadav and Avihu's death and the ensuing impurity in the Mikdash to the jealousy of Azazel. It was this that necessitated a purification of the Mikdash and led to the nation's fear that Azazel might act again if not appeased.</point> | ||
<point><b>Is the goat a sacrifice?</b> The nation viewed the goat as a sacrifice to this evil spirit.</point> | <point><b>Is the goat a sacrifice?</b> The nation viewed the goat as a sacrifice to this evil spirit.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Is the goat left alive or killed?</b> The Hoil Moshe could explain that while initially | + | <point><b>Is the goat left alive or killed?</b> The Hoil Moshe could explain that while initially the goat was set free in the wilderness like the simple reading of the verses, by the time of the second Beit HaMikdash, Chazal instituted that the goat be pushed off a cliff and break apart in order to make it clear that Azazel was only a figment of the imagination and that there was no need to sacrifice to him.<fn>The Hoil Moshe suggests that these laws were meant to evolve as the nation grew out of their beliefs: "ומי יודע מה דבר הורה משה רבנו בעל פה לנשיאי העדה וזקניה להודיע לבאים אחריהם בהתחלף מצב האומה ואמונותיה". For other places where the Hoil Moshe similarly explains that commandments might evolve based on the nation's spiritual level, see <a href=""עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye" data-aht="page">"עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye</a>, <a href="Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood" data-aht="page">Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood</a>, and <a href="Commentators:R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)" data-aht="page">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</a>.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Transfer of sins?</b> The Hoil Moshe does not explain what role the transfer of sins plays in the ceremony nor whether this was an actual act or a symbolic one. It would seem to be unnecessary if the sole purpose of the goat is simply to serve as a bribe to ease the nation's fears.</point> | <point><b>Transfer of sins?</b> The Hoil Moshe does not explain what role the transfer of sins plays in the ceremony nor whether this was an actual act or a symbolic one. It would seem to be unnecessary if the sole purpose of the goat is simply to serve as a bribe to ease the nation's fears.</point> | ||
<point><b>"אֶרֶץ גְּזֵרָה"</b> – The goat is sent to the wilderness, where the nation believed that Azazel ruled.</point> | <point><b>"אֶרֶץ גְּזֵרָה"</b> – The goat is sent to the wilderness, where the nation believed that Azazel ruled.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – The Hoil Moshe suggests that numerous commandments were given as a concession to the nation's erroneous beliefs or low spiritual level,<fn>See discussion of the Hoil Moshe's positions in <a href=""עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye" data-aht="page">"עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye</a>, <a href="Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood" data-aht="page">Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood</a>, and <a href="Commentators:R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)" data-aht="page">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</a>.</fn> and he points to the Rambam's understanding of the institution of sacrifices as a prime example.<fn>Other exegetes take a similar approach to explain other laws. See, for instance, the Rambam also on the building of the <a href="Purpose of the Mishkan/2" data-aht="page">Mishkan</a>, Ibn Kaspi's approach to the smearing of the blood of the <a href="Purpose of the Pesach" data-aht="page">Pesach Sacrifice</a> and Shadal's understanding of the giving of <a href="Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle" data-aht="page">Half Shekels</a>.</fn> The Hoil Moshe's claim, though, is much more radical. While Rambam asserts that a concession is made to wean the people away from idolatry, Hoil Moshe asserts that the law actually allows some form of it!</point> | + | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – The Hoil Moshe suggests that numerous commandments were given as a concession to the nation's erroneous beliefs or low spiritual level,<fn>See discussion of the Hoil Moshe's positions in <a href=""עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye" data-aht="page">"עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye</a>, <a href="Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood" data-aht="page">Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood</a>, and <a href="Commentators:R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)" data-aht="page">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</a>.</fn> and he points to the Rambam's understanding of the institution of sacrifices<fn>See <a href="Purpose of the Sacrifices" data-aht="page">Purpose of the Sacrifices</a> for elaboration on his position.</fn> as a prime example.<fn>Other exegetes take a similar approach to explain other laws. See, for instance, the Rambam also on the building of the <a href="Purpose of the Mishkan/2" data-aht="page">Mishkan</a>, Ibn Kaspi's approach to the smearing of the blood of the <a href="Purpose of the Pesach" data-aht="page">Pesach Sacrifice</a> and Shadal's understanding of the giving of <a href="Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle" data-aht="page">Half Shekels</a>.</fn> The Hoil Moshe's claim, though, is much more radical. While Rambam asserts that a concession is made to wean the people away from idolatry, Hoil Moshe asserts that the law actually allows some form of it!</point> |
<point><b>Role in Atonement?</b> According to the Hoil Moshe, the ceremony plays no role in achieving atonement, not even in the minds of the nation. It is rather about maintaining the purity of the Mikdash. This reflects his understanding of the entire day's ritual as being a means of purifying the Temple.<fn>In this the Hoil Moshe differs from Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer which emphasizes the attainment of forgiveness and the concern lest Azazel serve as a prosecutor against the nation. According to the Hoil Moshe, in contrast, the fear is that Azazel might contaminate the Mikdash.</fn></point> | <point><b>Role in Atonement?</b> According to the Hoil Moshe, the ceremony plays no role in achieving atonement, not even in the minds of the nation. It is rather about maintaining the purity of the Mikdash. This reflects his understanding of the entire day's ritual as being a means of purifying the Temple.<fn>In this the Hoil Moshe differs from Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer which emphasizes the attainment of forgiveness and the concern lest Azazel serve as a prosecutor against the nation. According to the Hoil Moshe, in contrast, the fear is that Azazel might contaminate the Mikdash.</fn></point> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
Line 60: | Line 58: | ||
<p>The Azazel goat is a full-fledged sin offering sacrificed to Hashem. Its unique meeting of its fate outside of the Mikdash is merely for technical reasons.</p> | <p>The Azazel goat is a full-fledged sin offering sacrificed to Hashem. Its unique meeting of its fate outside of the Mikdash is merely for technical reasons.</p> | ||
<mekorot> | <mekorot> | ||
− | <multilink><a href="RasagEmunot3-10" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="RasagTafsirVayikra16-8" data-aht="source">Tafsir Vayikra 16:8</a><a href="RasagEmunot3-10" data-aht="source">HaNivchar BaEmunot UvaDeiot 3:10</a><a href="RMubashir" data-aht="source">Cited by R. Mubashir HaLevi p.112</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>, | + | <multilink><a href="RasagEmunot3-10" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="RasagTafsirVayikra16-8" data-aht="source">Tafsir Vayikra 16:8</a><a href="RasagEmunot3-10" data-aht="source">HaNivchar BaEmunot UvaDeiot 3:10</a><a href="RMubashir" data-aht="source">Cited by R. Mubashir HaLevi p.112</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="Moreh3-46" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="Moreh3-46" data-aht="source">Moreh Nevukhim 3:46</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Maimonides</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SfornoVayikra16-5" data-aht="source">Sforno</a><a href="SfornoVayikra16-5" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:5</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Sforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Sforno</a></multilink> |
− | <multilink><a href="Moreh3-46" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="Moreh3-46" data-aht="source">Moreh Nevukhim 3:46</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Maimonides</a></multilink>, | ||
− | <multilink><a href=" | ||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Meaning of "עֲזָאזֵל"</b> – R. Saadia Gaon suggests that the word refers to a mountain,<fn>R. Saadia in his Tafsir suggests that it is simply a proper name, "הר עזאז", perhaps a known mountain in the time of Moshe. In his commentary (cited by R. Mubashir HaLevi), in contrast, he explains the etymology of the word.</fn> pointing to the fact that other mountains also contain the superlative "אֵל" as part of their name.<fn>He cites the examples of "יָקְתְאֵל" in Melakhim II 14:7, "יַבְנְאֵל" in Yehoshua 15:11 and "יִרְפְּאֵל" in Yehoshua 18:27.</fn> He suggests that the word is formed from the root עוז‎,<fn>Cf. the second opinion in <multilink><a href="BavliYoma67b" data-aht="source">Bavli Yoma</a><a href="BavliYoma67b" data-aht="source">67b</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> which also understands Azazel to refer to a hard place.</fn> with both the doubling of the "ז"‎<fn>See, for instance the form "עִזּוּז" in Yeshayahu 43:17.</fn> and the ending "אֵל" acting as markers of emphasis to connote an extremely strong or hard place.<fn><multilink><a href="RMubashir" data-aht="source">R. Mubashir HaLevi</a><a href="RMubashir" data-aht="source">Critique of the Writings of R. Saadia Gaon (p. 112)</a><a href="R. Mubashir HaLevi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Mubashir HaLevi</a></multilink> argues against this etymology, pointing to the fact that a "ז" separates the two letters of the "אֵל" ending preventing them from being explained as a superlative. See above, though, that textual variants such as <multilink><a href="MegillatHaMikdash26" data-aht="source">Megillat HaMikdash</a><a href="MegillatHaMikdash26" data-aht="source">26</a><a href="Megillat HaMikdash" data-aht="parshan">About Megillat HaMikdash</a></multilink> preserve a spelling of עזזאל.</fn></point> | <point><b>Meaning of "עֲזָאזֵל"</b> – R. Saadia Gaon suggests that the word refers to a mountain,<fn>R. Saadia in his Tafsir suggests that it is simply a proper name, "הר עזאז", perhaps a known mountain in the time of Moshe. In his commentary (cited by R. Mubashir HaLevi), in contrast, he explains the etymology of the word.</fn> pointing to the fact that other mountains also contain the superlative "אֵל" as part of their name.<fn>He cites the examples of "יָקְתְאֵל" in Melakhim II 14:7, "יַבְנְאֵל" in Yehoshua 15:11 and "יִרְפְּאֵל" in Yehoshua 18:27.</fn> He suggests that the word is formed from the root עוז‎,<fn>Cf. the second opinion in <multilink><a href="BavliYoma67b" data-aht="source">Bavli Yoma</a><a href="BavliYoma67b" data-aht="source">67b</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> which also understands Azazel to refer to a hard place.</fn> with both the doubling of the "ז"‎<fn>See, for instance the form "עִזּוּז" in Yeshayahu 43:17.</fn> and the ending "אֵל" acting as markers of emphasis to connote an extremely strong or hard place.<fn><multilink><a href="RMubashir" data-aht="source">R. Mubashir HaLevi</a><a href="RMubashir" data-aht="source">Critique of the Writings of R. Saadia Gaon (p. 112)</a><a href="R. Mubashir HaLevi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Mubashir HaLevi</a></multilink> argues against this etymology, pointing to the fact that a "ז" separates the two letters of the "אֵל" ending preventing them from being explained as a superlative. See above, though, that textual variants such as <multilink><a href="MegillatHaMikdash26" data-aht="source">Megillat HaMikdash</a><a href="MegillatHaMikdash26" data-aht="source">26</a><a href="Megillat HaMikdash" data-aht="parshan">About Megillat HaMikdash</a></multilink> preserve a spelling of עזזאל.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Why not in the Mikdash?</b><ul> | <point><b>Why not in the Mikdash?</b><ul> | ||
− | + | <li><b>For the masses whose abode is outside</b> – R. Saadia maintains that each of the two goats in the ceremony provides sacrificial atonement for a different group of people. The first goat atones for the sins of the priests,<fn>This approach encounters considerable difficulties from the simple reading of the verses which suggests that the first goat too is related to the sins and impurities of the nation. It is called "שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר <b>לָעָם</b>" and the verse states explicitly that it comes to atone "עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת <b>בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל</b> וּמִפִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכׇל חַטֹּאתָם"</fn> and is thus sacrificed in their abode of the Mikdash, while the second goat atones for the nation as a whole and is thus sacrificed outside of the sanctuary where the nation resides.<fn>R. Saadia's suggestion would work better if the goat was sacrificed in the midst of the Israelite camp rather than in the uninhabited territory of the wilderness.</fn></li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Too contaminated</b> – Rambam and Sforno, in contrast, suggest that this sin offering which is laden with all of the sins of the entire nation is simply too contaminated to be brought into the purity of the Mikdash.<fn>Sforno notes that this accounts for why the person who accompanies the Azazel goat becomes ritually impure.</fn> Due to its great impurity it is sacrificed as far away as possible.<fn>See below that Rambam compares this to some other sin offerings, which, due to their offensive nature, are also burnt outside the camp.</fn></li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
− | <point><b>Belief in demonic beings</b> – As rationalist philosophers, R. Saadia and Rambam deny the existence of demons and the like,<fn>Interestingly, | + | <point><b>Belief in demonic beings</b> – As rationalist philosophers, R. Saadia and Rambam deny the existence of demons and the like,<fn>Interestingly, Sforno does not deny the existence of demons, and suggests that Hashem distances the nation from them since they are dangerous beings who are likely to lure the nation into sinful and useless acts.</fn> and thus reject the possibility that Azazel refers to such a creature.<fn>R. Saadia even states that such an interpretation that the Torah is commanding us to sacrifice to a demon is one of the factors that led some people to heresy. This likely gave R. Saadia additional motivation to combat this interpretation. |
+ | <p>The heretics to whom R. Saadia refers likely included Hivi HaBalkhi, see J. Rosenthal, "Ḥiwi al-Balkhi: A Comparative Study", JQR 38:3 (1948): 336. See note 83 there for sources that this was also one of the charges leveled by Julian the Apostate against Christian belief in the Old Testament.</p></fn></point> | ||
<point><b>"‏לַה'‏" vs. "לַעֲזָאזֵל"</b> – To maintain the parallelism between the two terms,<fn>This factor is amplified in the fragment from R. Saadia's commentary on Vayikra 16 published by Hirschfeld in JQR 6:3 (1916): 373,383.</fn> R. Saadia asserts that each refers to a place – the House of Hashem and the Mountain of Azazel.<fn>The others do not address the issue and might not be particularly bothered by the lack of parallelism. They might suggests that other parallels, between the sending of the goat "to Azazel" and the sending of the goat "to the wilderness", support the interpretation that both terms are geographical locations.</fn></point> | <point><b>"‏לַה'‏" vs. "לַעֲזָאזֵל"</b> – To maintain the parallelism between the two terms,<fn>This factor is amplified in the fragment from R. Saadia's commentary on Vayikra 16 published by Hirschfeld in JQR 6:3 (1916): 373,383.</fn> R. Saadia asserts that each refers to a place – the House of Hashem and the Mountain of Azazel.<fn>The others do not address the issue and might not be particularly bothered by the lack of parallelism. They might suggests that other parallels, between the sending of the goat "to Azazel" and the sending of the goat "to the wilderness", support the interpretation that both terms are geographical locations.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Is the goat a sacrifice?</b> This position views the goat as a regular sin-offering.</point> | <point><b>Is the goat a sacrifice?</b> This position views the goat as a regular sin-offering.</point> | ||
Line 85: | Line 82: | ||
<p>The sending off of the sin-laden goat represents the cleansing of the impurity or sins of the nation, and it enables the people to feel that they have been given a fresh start rather than remaining mired in sin.</p> | <p>The sending off of the sin-laden goat represents the cleansing of the impurity or sins of the nation, and it enables the people to feel that they have been given a fresh start rather than remaining mired in sin.</p> | ||
<mekorot> | <mekorot> | ||
− | <multilink><a href="RashbamVayikra16-10" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamVayikra16-10" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:10</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, | + | <multilink><a href="RashbamVayikra16-10" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamVayikra16-10" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:10</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYBSVayikra16-8" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYBSVayikra16-8" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:8,10,26</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RalbagVayikra16-22" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagVayikra16-22" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:22</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShadalVayikra16-8" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalVayikra16-8" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:8</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RDZHoffmannVayikra16-7" data-aht="source">R. D"Z Hoffmann</a><a href="RDZHoffmannVayikra16-7" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:7-8</a><a href="R. David Zvi Hoffmann" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Zvi Hoffmann</a></multilink> |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Meaning of "עֲזָאזֵל"</b> – All these commentators agree that the goat is sent to a place rather than to some metaphysical being, but they differ in their exact understanding of the term Azazel: | <point><b>Meaning of "עֲזָאזֵל"</b> – All these commentators agree that the goat is sent to a place rather than to some metaphysical being, but they differ in their exact understanding of the term Azazel: | ||
Line 98: | Line 91: | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Belief in demonic beings</b> – The commentators in this position likely have different views on this issue, with some believing and some opposing.</point> | <point><b>Belief in demonic beings</b> – The commentators in this position likely have different views on this issue, with some believing and some opposing.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"‏לַה'‏" vs. "לַעֲזָאזֵל"</b> – R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that the two terms are opposites, with Hashem symbolizing eternal life, and Azazel | + | <point><b>"‏לַה'‏" vs. "לַעֲזָאזֵל"</b> – R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that the two terms are opposites, with Hashem symbolizing eternal life, and Azazel referring to complete destruction.</point> |
<point><b>Is the goat a sacrifice?</b> Most of these sources would likely suggest that the goat is not considered a sacrifice but merely a symbol.<fn>Ralbag, though, maintains that the goat is a sacrifice. He points out that it is for this reason that the goat must die, as otherwise there would be a risk that it would be inadvertently taken by a person unaware of its holy status. Ralbag is likely motivated by a desire to uphold the Rabbinic understanding of the ceremony.</fn></point> | <point><b>Is the goat a sacrifice?</b> Most of these sources would likely suggest that the goat is not considered a sacrifice but merely a symbol.<fn>Ralbag, though, maintains that the goat is a sacrifice. He points out that it is for this reason that the goat must die, as otherwise there would be a risk that it would be inadvertently taken by a person unaware of its holy status. Ralbag is likely motivated by a desire to uphold the Rabbinic understanding of the ceremony.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Is the goat killed or left alive?</b><ul> | <point><b>Is the goat killed or left alive?</b><ul> | ||
Line 111: | Line 104: | ||
<li><b>Sale of Yosef</b> – <a href="Jubilees34-11" data-aht="source">Jubilees</a><fn>See also <multilink><a href="Moreh3-46" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="Moreh3-46" data-aht="source">Moreh Nevukhim 3:46</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Maimonides</a></multilink> who connects the sale of Yosef with the goat sacrificed for regular sin-offerings.</fn> connects this ritual to the story of the sale of Yosef. In both stories there is a כתונת, a dipping in blood, abundant usage of the verb שלח, and a שעיר עזים. Moreover, in both cases the animal functions as a scapegoat, taking the blame for another's sins.<fn>See C. Carmichael, Illuminating Leviticus, (Baltimore, 2006): 37-52, who develops the parallel and suggests that the Azazel ritual borrows an act that was originally done to cover up sin and utilizes it to help others atone.</fn></li> | <li><b>Sale of Yosef</b> – <a href="Jubilees34-11" data-aht="source">Jubilees</a><fn>See also <multilink><a href="Moreh3-46" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="Moreh3-46" data-aht="source">Moreh Nevukhim 3:46</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Maimonides</a></multilink> who connects the sale of Yosef with the goat sacrificed for regular sin-offerings.</fn> connects this ritual to the story of the sale of Yosef. In both stories there is a כתונת, a dipping in blood, abundant usage of the verb שלח, and a שעיר עזים. Moreover, in both cases the animal functions as a scapegoat, taking the blame for another's sins.<fn>See C. Carmichael, Illuminating Leviticus, (Baltimore, 2006): 37-52, who develops the parallel and suggests that the Azazel ritual borrows an act that was originally done to cover up sin and utilizes it to help others atone.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Ancient Near Eastern parallels</b> – Both Hittite and Mesopotamian cultures have similar rites of transfer or disposal in which evil is transferred to another object/ person and disposed of elsewhere. In some of these, the object is considered a substitution for the original and is meant to suffer the consequences of the evil in place of the original sinner.<fn>For a full discussion of the parallels and differences, see D. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity (Atlanta, 1987): 15-74.</fn></point> | + | <point><b>Ancient Near Eastern parallels</b> – Both Hittite and Mesopotamian cultures have similar rites of transfer or disposal in which evil is transferred to another object / person and disposed of elsewhere. In some of these, the object is considered a substitution for the original and is meant to suffer the consequences of the evil in place of the original sinner.<fn>For a full discussion of the parallels and differences, see D. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity (Atlanta, 1987): 15-74.</fn></point> |
− | <point><b>Role in Atonement?</b> The ritual is meant to help the people repent | + | <point><b>Role in Atonement?</b> The ritual is meant to help the people repent by giving them hope and a new lease on life.</point> |
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
<opinion>Life's Choices | <opinion>Life's Choices | ||
<p>The lottery of the goats and their diverging fates represent the nation's choice to stand either with Hashem or against Him, and thus to remain on their land or be exiled.</p> | <p>The lottery of the goats and their diverging fates represent the nation's choice to stand either with Hashem or against Him, and thus to remain on their land or be exiled.</p> | ||
<mekorot> | <mekorot> | ||
− | <multilink><a href="AbarbanelVayikra16Q" data-aht="source">Abarbanel #2</a><a href="AbarbanelVayikra16Q" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16 Questions</a><a href="AbarbanelVayikra16" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, | + | <multilink><a href="AbarbanelVayikra16Q" data-aht="source">Abarbanel #2</a><a href="AbarbanelVayikra16Q" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16 Questions</a><a href="AbarbanelVayikra16" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RHirschVayikra16-10" data-aht="source">R. S"R Hirsch</a><a href="RHirschVayikra16-10" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:10</a><a href="R. Samson Raphael Hirsch" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shimshon Refael Hirsch</a></multilink> |
− | |||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Meaning of "עֲזָאזֵל"</b> – Azazel is comprised of two separate words, "עַז" and "אזל" and means the one who is defiant will go.</point> | <point><b>Meaning of "עֲזָאזֵל"</b> – Azazel is comprised of two separate words, "עַז" and "אזל" and means the one who is defiant will go.</point> |
Latest revision as of 11:56, 28 January 2023
Why is the Goat Sent to Azazel?
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
The different approaches to understanding the ritual of the sending of a goat to Azazel reflect fundamentally diverging world outlooks. Mystics, like Ramban, identify Azazel as a demonic being which needs to be appeased before the Day of Atonement so as not harm Israel when they are being judged. Rationalists, uncomfortable with the notion that such supernatural powers exist or that a sacrifice might be offered to them, look for alternative explanations. Thus, Rambam attempts to view the action as being part of the regular sacrificial service of the day, which only for technical reasons occurs at a distance from the Mikdash.
Others view the rite more symbolically. Rashbam, looking to the leper's purification for inspiration, views it as a sending away of impurities, and Ralbag explains that this enables the nation to start afresh with a clean slate. Abarbanel looks more comprehensively at the ritual as a whole, seeing in the entire lottery a representation of the people's choice to turn to God or away from Him.
Offering to a Demonic Being
The goat is sent as an offering to a supernatural power named Azazel. This approach subdivides regarding both the purpose of the offering and whether Azazel really exists:
Bribery or Punishment of an Actual Satanic Power
The goat is sent either as a bribe to the Satan so that he will not hinder Israel from performing the Day of Atonement purification rite, or as a punishment to the demonic power of Azael for continuously instigating sin in the world.1
- The angel Azael – Bereshit Rabbati and Yalkut Shimoni suggest that the name is a variation of Azael, one of the fallen angels (mentioned already in Enoch), who had relations with humans and incited man to sin by encouraging licentiousness.4
- Demon ruling over the wilderness – Ramban, in contrast, thinks Azazel refers to a demonic power who ruled over the wilderness and other desolate places. He relates him to the "שעירים" mentioned in Vayikra 17:7 to which the nation used to sacrifice.5
- Satan – Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer views the name Azazel as merely an alias of Satan or Samael.
Concession to Erroneous Human Fears of an Imagined Force
The goat is sent as a gift to Azazel, despite the fact that such a being neither exists nor has any power. The ceremony is intended merely to calm the nation who erroneously believed that this demonic creature would contaminate the Mikdash, and thereby sabotage the purification accomplished through the rituals of the Day of Atonement.
Extra-Sanctuarial Sacrifice to Hashem
The Azazel goat is a full-fledged sin offering sacrificed to Hashem. Its unique meeting of its fate outside of the Mikdash is merely for technical reasons.
- For the masses whose abode is outside – R. Saadia maintains that each of the two goats in the ceremony provides sacrificial atonement for a different group of people. The first goat atones for the sins of the priests,26 and is thus sacrificed in their abode of the Mikdash, while the second goat atones for the nation as a whole and is thus sacrificed outside of the sanctuary where the nation resides.27
- Too contaminated – Rambam and Sforno, in contrast, suggest that this sin offering which is laden with all of the sins of the entire nation is simply too contaminated to be brought into the purity of the Mikdash.28 Due to its great impurity it is sacrificed as far away as possible.29
Symbolic Act of Purification
The sending away of the goat is meant either to signify that the nation is being given a clean slate or to symbolize the fate of the sinner and thereby motivate the nation to repent:
Scapegoat or Proxy
The sending off of the sin-laden goat represents the cleansing of the impurity or sins of the nation, and it enables the people to feel that they have been given a fresh start rather than remaining mired in sin.
- Goats – Rashbam asserts that the word is related to עזים. The animal is sent to the grazing land of goats, the wilderness. He suggests that the "ל" at the end of the word is superfluous and points to other words which similarly end with an extra letter after the main root.37
- Hard land – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor maintains that the word is comprised of two roots, "עַז" and "אֵל", both meaning hard or strong.38 He suggests that the term is parallel to "אֶרֶץ גְּזֵרָה" and "מדבר", the harsh, barren place to which the goat is sent.
- Destruction – According to Shadal, the word was originally used to refer to some demonic being ("אֵל עַז" - a fierce god) but was later borrowed by monotheists to refer to any great evil or destruction. R. D"Z Hoffmann similarly suggests that "עֲזָאזֵל" refers to a place of destruction, but posits that the word עזל means to distance and thus the noun refers to a distant place of desolation and loss.39
- Killed – According to most of these commentators the goat is killed.41 R"Y Bekhor Shor emphasizes that the sin-laden goat takes the place of the sinning nation, and is thus killed in their stead.42 He maintains that the word "הַמְשַׁלֵּחַ" of verse 26 comes from the word שלח or sword and refers to an executioner.43
- Alive – Rashbam maintains that the goat is sent while still alive into the wilderness.44 Like the live bird in the purification ritual of the מצורע, the Azazel goat is sent away and not killed.45
- Purification of the מצורע – Rashbam points to the similarities between this rite of purification and that 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.
- Sale of Yosef – Jubilees49 connects this ritual to the story of the sale of Yosef. In both stories there is a כתונת, a dipping in blood, abundant usage of the verb שלח, and a שעיר עזים. Moreover, in both cases the animal functions as a scapegoat, taking the blame for another's sins.50
Life's Choices
The lottery of the goats and their diverging fates represent the nation's choice to stand either with Hashem or against Him, and thus to remain on their land or be exiled.