Leviticus · Chapter 16

Hashem spoke with Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near with strange fire before Hashem and died.

'וידבר ה' אל משה אחרי מות שני בני אהרן וגו AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AFTER THE DEATH OF THE TWO SONS OF AARON etc. —What is this statement intended to tell us? (i. e. why is it at all stated when God spoke this to Moses?) Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah illustrated this by a parable: It may be compared to the case of a sick person whom the physician visited. He (the physician) said to him: “Do not eat cold things nor sleep in a damp place!" Another physician came and said to him: “Do not eat cold things, nor sleep in a damp place so that thou mayest not die as Mr. So-and-so died!" Certainly this (the latter) put him on his guard more than the former; that is why Scripture states “after the death of the two sons of Aaron" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 1 3).

AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES, AFTER THE DEATH OF THE TWO SONS OF AARON. The meaning of the phrase after the death of the two sons of Aaron, is that immediately after the death of his sons He had warned Aaron against [drinking] wine or strong drink [when going into the Tent of Meeting], so that he should not die, and now He told Moses in addition to warn him so that he should not die when he draws near the Eternal [even in a sober condition, but at a time when he is not commanded to do so]. It is likely that these two commandments were both conveyed on the day after the death of Aaron’s sons, for on the actual day [when the deaths occurred, Aaron] was a mourner, and the holy spirit does not rest upon man in moments of sadness, and the communication concerning the prohibition against wine came to Aaron, and in that selfsame day this commandment [stated in the section before us] was also told to Moses. Scripture, however, preceded the prohibitions with which He warned Israel that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile My Tabernacle that is in the midst of them, [before dealing with the commands specific to Aaron], and only afterwards He wrote the warning [applying to] the individual [i.e., this section, which was to be conveyed by Moses to Aaron, as the verse states: And the Eternal said unto Moses: ‘Speak unto Aaron thy brother etc.’]. But in my opinion the whole Torah is written in consecutive order, and in all places where He changed the order, placing an earlier event in a later position, Scripture clearly states so, such as the verses: And the Eternal spoke unto Moses in Mount Sinai [later on] in this book, [the laws of which were declared to Moses in the Tent of Meeting]; And it came to pass on the day that Moses had made an end of setting up the Tabernacle, in the following book [i.e., the Book of Numbers], and similar such statements. Therefore Scripture stated here after the death, in order to inform us that this [communication] was [given to Moses] immediately after the death of the two sons of Aaron [and according to the historical sequence of events, it should have been placed in Chapter 10 above, where the account of events following their death is given].And in the opinion of our Rabbis who said [by way of a parable, that this verse can be compared to the case of a physician who warned his patient not to eat cold things or sleep in a damp place, and another physician warned him likewise but added]: “so that you should not die as that person died;” thus “this [second physician] put him on his guard more than the first one,” [according to this comment of the Rabbis] the meaning of the verse will be, that G-d said to Moses these words: “After the death of the two sons of Aaron when they drew near before the Eternal, speak to him that he come not at all times into the holy place … that he die not.”

"After the death." After He had warned Israel not to die, Hashem told Moses to warn Aaron as well, that he should not die as his sons had died — and this passage is a sign that Aaron's sons had brought the incense inside the curtain. The word בְּקָרְבָתָם is a verbal noun; the heh is for drawing near to the service, and it has a tav at the end after the manner of the feminine heh. Rabbi Yeshu'ah erred when he said it is a noun on the pattern of חָכְמָתָם.

וידבר ה' אל משה אחרי מות, normally, the expression וידבר in the Holy Tongue is not used to describe specific parts of the verbal message but applies to the entire speech, characterising its nature. This is the reason why we find so many times the word לאמור, i.e. אמירה after the introduction וידבר. This is why verse 2 continues with ויאמר אליו דבר אל אהרן אחיך, He said to him: “say to your brother Aaron,” without a change of subject between the two verses. Seeing that the thrust of the message, i.e. its being connected to the immediately preceding death of the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, had not changed, there was no need to once again identity the speaker, i.e. G’d, by adding the words ויאמר אליו, “He said to him,” as is customary in similar constructions in the Torah. However, according to a minority of our sages (Torat Kohanim 1,3) there were two separate addresses by G’d and we would then have to understand the verse as follows: one concerned the prohibition for Aaron not to enter the sanctuary any time he felt like it otherwise he would be courting death. The second time was after Aaron’s sons had died; Aaron was to enter only at G’d’s command. The warning this time was more urgent, warning that G’d’s presence in the sanctuary would be visible from the outside by means of the cloud hovering over the Tabernacle. At that point the voice of G’d addressed itself to Moses again, issuing instructions concerning the conduct of prophets and High priests in future generations. We find a reference to such matters in Samuel I 3,3-4 where Samuel is reported as lying down in the sanctuary of the Lord when G’d called to him.

וידבר ה׳ אל משה אחרי מות, G'd spoke to Moses after the death, etc. Why doesn't the Torah spell out what G'd told Moses on this occasion? Secondly, why did the Torah have to add that this communication occurred after the death of two of Aaron's sons? What bearing does this have on the content of G'd's message? Thirdly, why did the Torah have to add the words: בקרבתם לפני ה׳ וימותו, "when they came close to the presence of G'd and died?" If the Torah wanted to tell us the reason these sons died, we have been told this already in Leviticus 10,1, when the Torah wrote: ויקריבו לפני ה׳ אש זרה? The Torah was far more specific about the death of these sons in that context than it is here. We could not determine what the sin of these sons of Aaron had been by relying merely on what the Torah has written here. What is so terrible about wanting to come close to the presence of G'd? Fourthly, the word וימותו, they died, is quite superfluous seeing the verse commenced with the mention of their deaths? Fifthly, why did the Torah use the additional letter ו in the word וימותו? It appears that the Torah tries to tell us that G'd warned Moses not to think that seeing that he personally was closer to the Kingdom of Heaven and at home in G'd's palace, that he could enter the Sanctuary at will. Even though G'd addressed this command to Aaron, Moses was not to think that he was not included in this restriction because the Torah itself testified in Numbers 12, 7-8 that Moses' prophecy was superior to that of Aaron. G'd had to speak to Moses to warn him not to misunderstand the prohibition He was about to issue to Aaron concerning entry into the Sanctuary, i.e. the Holy of Holies. G'd said וידבר ה׳ אל משה, i.e. the directive was addressed exclusively to Moses. He spoke to him shortly after the death of the sons of Aaron who had attempted to come too close as a result of which they died. The Torah meant that although they were the sons of Aaron, i.e. highly placed personages so much so that the Torah testified that their death was due to their closeness to G'd, (compare comment of Vayikra Rabbah 12,2 on Leviticus 10,3 "I will be sanctified through those close to Me.") G'd did not have pity on them in spite of their closeness to Him. The principal lesson to be derived from all this is that he who occupies a privileged position is not entitled to take liberties with G'd who has granted this privilege in the first place. Another aspect of the word בקרבתם may be that these people were closer to G'd than anyone. Had Moses been closer to G'd than Nadav and Avihu, G'd should have demonstrated the lesson of בקרובי אקדש by punishing Moses for some minor infraction he was guilty of. If G'd chose Nadav and Avihu instead to demonstrate this principle, they must have been the people closest to G'd at that time. Perhaps G'd explained all this to Moses on this occasion so that afterwards Moses said to Aaron in Leviticus 10,3: הוא אשר דבר ה׳ לאמור בקרובי אקדש, "this is what G'd has ...

אחרי מות, “after the death;” Rashi queries why this verse was written, as we do not hear what G-d said to Moses, and verse 2 immediately begins with G-d speaking to Moses again and telling him to tell Aaron that entrance to the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle is not permitted at any time he so chooses. What was missing in Rashi’s commentary is the parable by Rabbi Elazar ben Aroch, who said that when a physician visits a sick person he tells him not to eat certain foods, not to lie down in wet areas, etc; subsequently someone else comes into the room of the patient and tells him the same thing, but he Acharey Mot adds that if the patient does not heed this warning he is liable to die. The effect of the second person’s warning is far greater than the effect of the physician’s instructions. Rashi saw in the second verse in our portion a comparison to the second person in Rabbi Elazar ben Aroch’s parable. The Torah realised that in order to impress Aaron sufficiently with the prohibition to enter the Holy of Holies at will, he had to be warned of the consequences if he disregarded the warning. (Torat kohanim) The version there is as follows: in the second verse Moses is asked to remind Aaron that his two sons had died, because they had ignored the warning not to enter the Holy of Holies unless invited to do so.

כי תשב ללחום את מושל בין תבין את אשר לפניך, “When you sit down to dine with a ruler, consider well who is before you.” (Proverbs 23,1). In this verse Solomon warns not to run after princes and after people appointed to the king’s palace in order to curry favor with them, seeing that He, G’d, is the ruler of the universe. Getting too close to the authorities will result in these people suffering damage seeing that rulers on earth are compared to fire, which while beneficial also spreads damage at the same time and consumes all those near it. The benefits derived from fire are that it warms you when you are cold and that it provides light. The damage accruing to those who come too close to it are that they will get burned. Our sages in Avot 1,10 have paraphrased this thought when they said: “hate the holding of high office and do not seek to become intimate with the authorities.” The reason that the government is called רשות in the language of our sages is that they have the רשות, “authority,” and the power to do what they want, to open, to close, to save and to destroy. On the same subject our sages in Avot 2,3 also said: “be cautious with the ruling authorities, for they befriend you only for their own interest when it is to their advantage but they do not stand by a man in times of distress.” The disadvantages cited as the danger when associating too closely with the authorities are in addition to the built-in problem that being involved with the authorities invariably brings in its wake a loosening of one’s ties to G’d, neglect of Torah study, seeing that time devoted to it will be interpreted as time spent at the expense of one’s duties vis-a-vis the demands of the state. This is what prompted Solomon to say in Proverbs 24,21: “fear the Lord my son and the king, do not associate with those who keep changing.” Solomon advises us to first and foremost cultivate fear of the Lord before worrying about respect for the local king. Under no circumstances should one have one’s priorities mixed up by first cultivating the relationship with one ‘s terrestrial ruler. If one were to do this it is tantamount to desecrating the name of the Lord. Concerning this subject we can learn a lesson from the woman in Shunem who was asked by the prophet Elisha if he could do something for her such as interceding on her behalf with the king. Her response was that בתוך עמי אני יושבת, “I live inconspicuously amongst my people;” she meant that she did not want to get involved with the authorities (compare Kings II 4,8). These are the considerations which prompted Solomon to say “when you sit down to dine with the king, consider well who is before you.” Do not be in a hurry to become close to the authorities until you have weighed all the pros and cons. Consider what happened to people who preceded you in such positions. Solomon adds another verse dealing with the subject (Proverbs 29,26). ”Many seek a ruler’s audience, but a man gets justice from the Lord.” What the author meant is that although there are many supplicants wanting favors from a king only a few have their wishes granted so that they are permanent beneficiaries. If you are a discriminating intellect bent on pursuing permanently useful objectives you will refrain from chasing such favours, as the merely physical food served at the king’s table is truly not the sum total of your aspirations in life. Solomon therefore added in Proverbs 23,2: “thrust a knife into your gullet, if you are a man of large appetite.” This is the plain meaning of the above quotation. A more rational approach: The author speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven. Solomon warns man not to approach it over and beyond one’s mental capacities. We find other verses in Scripture describing G’d as מושל, ruler, such as Psalms 22,29: כי לה' המלוכה ומושל בגויים, “for kingship is the Lord’s and He rules the nations.” Keeping this thought in mind, Solomon warns you that when you sit down to eat with the ruler you better be clear what nearness to G’d entails, i.e. who qualifies for such an elevated station in life. You must appreciate that the food served at G’d’s table is soul-food, not of the type that is served at the table of a king of flesh and blood. The food you receive there is known as חכמה, the spiritual equivalent to the לחם, “bread,” served here on earth by human kings. The words בין תבין את אשר לפניך mean in essence that you must be sure to comprehend things about the nature of G’d by what is לפניך, “by what is before your eyes,” i.e. by the historical record of G’d’s actions. This is also what David said in Psalms 8,4: “when I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars that You set in place.” The word בין, “between,” suggests that there are two distinct kinds of insights that one must possess in order to properly appreciate the grandeur of G’d and His impact on history as well as on our individual fates. The very concept G’d, Creator, is not a point of departure in one’s thinking but is a conclusion one arrives at after having weighed all the phenomena we are familiar with. This is the meaning of Deut. 4,39: והשבות אל לבביך כי ה' הוא האלו-הים, “and let your heart come to the conclusion that the Lord is your G’d, etc.” When Elijah experienced a personal revelation at Mount Chorev after he had been disillusioned subsequent to what he thought would be G’d’s triumph at Mount Carmel, he had to experience a variety of supernatural phenomena before finally, a most insignificant phenomenon, a whisper, proved to be the real thing, the Presence of G’d (Kings I 19,11-12). It is due to such considerations that Solomon hints that several insights have to be gained in order to appreciate certain truths about G’d. If one is an intellectually oriented person, Solomon warns that one should not allow one’s intellectual curiosity to cause one to bite off more than one can chew (intellectually speaking); he couches the warning in these words: “thrust a knife in your gullet.” What he means is simple: you would do better to commit suicide than to reach beyond your intellectual capacity in coming close to the Lord. Solomon phrases this more clearly in Kohelet 7,16: “don’t act the wise man to excess or you will be dumbfounded.” You can see what happened to the two sons of Aaron who were guilty precisely of the arrogance of overestimating their mental/moral capabilities when they were described at the revelation on Mount Sinai as feasting their eyes on divine visions, breaching barriers that had been designed to prevent precisely such a disaster from occurring (compare Exodus 19,24 as well as 24,10). Death was decreed for them because they approached domains which were beyond what they were allowed to approach. This is the meaning of the opening lines of our Parshah. אחרי מות שני בני אהרן בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו, “after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died because they approached the presence of the Lord.” The communication by G’d to Moses mentioned here occurred immediately after the death of these two sons of Aaron. The meaning of the words בקרבתם לפני ה' is “while they were performing service before the Lord they died.” This is the opinion of Nachmanides. Looking at the plain meaning of the text I believe that this verse reveals two separate sins these sons of Aaron were guilty of. One sin was of an intellectual nature, i.e. their thinking, their attitude. Death was decreed for them for that sin. This is the meaning of Tanchuma Acharey 6 that the verse in Exodus 24,11 that “G’d did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of Israel who gazed at G’d and ate and drank,” meant that their punishment was placed in abeyance at that time. The words make it plain that these men were already guilty of death at that time. They were temporarily saved as G’d did not want to spoil the joy of the revelation, the giving of the Torah, at that time. This is all derived by inference because in this instance the Torah speaks of בקרבתם instead of בהקריבם. The latter word means: “when they performed an act of offering, etc.” The former word means: “when they came close,” i.e. intellectually. The sin consisting of a deed was the offering of external fire which was not authorised for them to do, (Leviticus 10,1). They offered the fire without offering incense at the same time, seeing mention of their placing incense on their censers appears to refer to a separate action. We may therefore understand the verse in front of us as meaning: “after the death of the two sons of Aaron who had died seeing that G’d had decreed death for them because they were guilty of a sin involving thought when they had come too close before the Lord during the revelation at Mount Sinai feasting their eyes on a vision of G’d.” They died only on the first day of Nissan following (almost 10 months later) because of the additional sin in deed when they introduced external fire as an offering. When G’d spoke to Moses here He used both the form of address known as אמירה, and that known as דבור. Verse 1 mentions the latter, verse 2 the former kind of address. He was to tell Aaron (אמירה, in a friendly manner) that he and other priests must not enter the part of the Sanctuary which is beyond the dividing curtain except armed with incense. This is elaborated on in verses 12-13 where the Torah describes the cloud of incense covering the lid of the Holy Ark as insurance against Aaron (or whichever High Priest) dying during this procedure. If Aaron were to enter the Holy of Holies without the incense he would die just as his sons had died. Thus the sin of the sons of Aaron was reported very explicitly by the Torah. Our portion testifies to this by writing that they entered without incense. This is the reason that Aaron was warned concerning the same matter. As a further proof reinforcing my opinion that this is the correct interpretation consider the following comment by the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 20,8) “Nadav and Avihu died because they brought external fire into the Holy of Holies before the Lord in the desert of Sinai, fire taken from their hearths” (compare Numbers 2,3). Did then the sons of Aaron die in the desert of Sinai? [Actually they did seeing that the people did not leave that spot until the 20th of the second month of the second year (Numbers 10,11 Ed.] Did they not die in the Sanctuary, the Tabernacle? Answer: they died as a result of a decree which G’d had decreed while they were in the desert of Sinai (at the time of the revelation), i.e. a sin dating back to that occasion. A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Acharey 8): The emphasis of the text on the death of “two sons of Aaron dying” [without naming them, Ed.] suggests that actually all four of his sons were guilty of death dating back to Aaron’s share in the sin of the golden calf. Moses prayed on their behalf resulting in two of Aaron’s sons being spared. All of this is based on Moses recalling in Deut. 9,19: “G’d was also angry enough at Aaron ready to wipe him out.” The word השמדה which is the one used by Moses at that time invariably involves the death of someone’s children. Example: Amos 2,9 ואשמיד פריו ממעל ושרשיו מתחת, “I will wipe out his fruit from above and his roots from below.” Seeing that Moses prayed, G’d responded to half of his prayer saying to him: “did I not write in My Torah (Exodus 22,8) ‘concerning every liability, whether an ox a donkey, a sheep, or a garment-regarding any lost item about which he said: ‘this is it!” To the court shall come both their claims. Whomever the court finds guilty shall pay double to his fellow.’” Someone who incurred guilt on account of an ox deserves to be punished. The prophet Ezekiel 23,20 already said that the Israelites exchanged their honour (G’d) for an ox. Anyone incurring guilt “on account of a donkey,” refers to the Egyptians whose flesh has been described by Ezekiel as the flesh of donkeys in that same verse; the ones referred to were the converts whom Moses allowed to convert at the time and who were the initiators in the golden calf being made. When the verse in Exodus continues with “guilt incurred on account of a lamb,” the reference is to the Jewish people who have been referred to as a lamb in Jeremiah 50,17 when the prophet speaks of “Israel the scattered sheep.” This too is a reference to the mixed multitude of converts who had initiated the process resulting in the golden calf and had dragged the Israelites into following their lead and becoming guilty of that sin. Regarding the reference to the garment in the verse in Exodus 22,8 this is a simile for the leaders of the people, the ones wearing the priestly garments. These garments have been referred to as describing their important wearers in Isaiah 3,6 “in whose father’s house there is clothing, come be a chief over us.” The words “concerning every lost object” in the verse in Exodus are a simile for people who have lost their way, and therefore are looking for a leader. The absence or failure of Moses to return when expected triggered the whole episode of the people wanting a replacement for him. The words “of which he says: ‘this is it,’” is a veiled reference to the Israelites saying about the golden calf: ‘this is your G’d O Israel who has taken you out of Egypt.’” The words “concerning which he says “this is he;” this is also a veiled reference to the instigators saying of the absent Moses “for this man Moses, etc.” (Exodus 32,1). The words “to a judge (court) shall come both their claims,” refers to Moses whom G’d had appointed as a judge for Pharaoh (Exodus 7,1). The people were to lay their problems in front of Moses and he would arbitrate them. The words: “whomever the court will find guilty”, refer to Aaron whom Moses had accused (declared guilty) saying to him: what did the people do to you that you brought this guilt upon them?” (Exodus 32,21). The words: “they shall pay twice to his fellow” is a reference to the two sons of Aaron who paid the price for his involvement in the affair of the golden calf. This is why the Torah wrote: ”the two sons of Aaron who died.” Tanchuma Acharey 1 exploits our verse to explain what Kohelet 9,2 referred to when Solomon wrote: “For the same fate is in store for all; for the righteous, and for the wicked; for the good and pure, and for the impure; for him who sacrifices, and for him who does not sacrifice; for him who is pleasing, and for him who is displeasing; and for him who swears, and for him who shuns oaths.” In that verse Solomon reviews his findings after he had looked at the history of man, had examined the relative fates of the righteous and the wicked. and had found that the righteous and the wicked share similar experiences “under the sun;” this is what Solomon referred to as “the evil which takes place under the sun” (Kohelet 9,3). The righteous of whom Kohelet speaks was Avraham of whom G’d had said in Genesis 18,19 “for I know him well, so that he will command his offspring to observe the path of the Lord to practice charity and justice,” etc. The “wicked” of whom Solomon spoke in Kohelet was Nimrod who instigated a rebellion against G’d throughout the world. Both of them died. This is whom Solomon had in mind when he said that the righteous and the wicked share the same fate. When Solomon added “and to the good,” he meant Moses; the Torah had reported of Moses that his mother “saw that he was good,” as soon as he was born (compare Exodus 2,2). When Solomon spoke about the “pure” in that verse in Kohelet he referred to David of whom it is written in Samuel I 16,12: “so they sent and brought him. He was ruddy-cheeked, bright eyed and handsome.” When speaking about the “impure” in Kohelet, Solomon referred to King Nevuchadnezzar. David laid the foundations of the Holy Temple and ruled for 40 years, whereas Nevuchadnezzar destroyed that Temple and also ruled for 40 years. The repetition of the words “the same fate is common to them all,” refers to the people who offer sacrifices to the Lord, i.e. Solomon, of whom we are told in Kings I 8,63 that he offered 22.000 cattle offerings at the consecration of the Holy Temple, whereas his successor Jerobam did not offer any sacrifices in that Temple. Not only that, Jerobam prevented the Israelites from making their pilgrimages to Jerusalem and the Temple. Solomon had continued in Kohelet that the “good” one i.e. Moses, experienced the same fate as the “sinner.” The good one he referred to was Moses whereas the sinner referred to the spies who had slandered the land of Israel. Both died and did not get to inherit that land. When Solomon added in Kohelet 9,3 that the one who renders an oath is equal to the one who does not, he meant Tzidkiyahu King of Yehudah whom Nevuchadnezzar blinded, (Chronicles II 36,13) as a result of his having dishonoured his oath of allegiance to him, whereas Samson who had not sworn an oath of allegiance to Israel’s enemies was also blinded (by the Philistines Judges 15,12). An alternative way of explaining Kohelet 9,3: The words that the “good and the sinners” experience the same fate refers to the sons of Aaron being the good, whereas Korach and his rebellious colleagues are referred to as the sinners. The former were burned by heavenly fire (Numbers 16,38), whereas the sons of Aaron were burned by similar fire as reported in Leviticus 10,2. Concerning such similarities in the fates of the good and the wicked, Tanchuma Acharey 8 understands Elihu saying in Job 37,1: “because of this too, my heart quakes, and leaps from its place.” He wondered how it could be that a dry stick of wood which was deposited in the Sanctuary began to blossom and to bear fruit, (compare Numbers 17,22-23) whereas the sons of Aaron who entered there alive and offered a gift to G’d were burned instead and had to be removed from there as corpses? Rabbi Acha commented that Kohelet 2,2 which has Solomon saying: “I said of laughter ‘it is mad, and of joy what does it accomplish?’ that Solomon referred to the attribute of Justice.” He himself had violated the three restrictions which the Torah imposes on the lifestyle of a Jewish king; 1) not to have too many wives, 2) not to have too many horses, and 3) not to amass too much gold and silver (Deut. 17,16). Solomon had 700 wives of full wifely status and three hundred concubines (Kings I 11,3); he had 40.000 stables for his horses (Kings I 5,6) and such an amount of silver and gold that they did not bother to keep count of the silver (Kings I 10,27). When Solomon downplayed the value of joy, G’d said to him: ‘in that case what do you need this crown for?’ He suggested that he descend from his throne briefly. In the interval someone resembling the king ascended the throne and claimed to be Solomon. No amount of protest by Solomon helped, he was treated as if insane, beaten as a pretender to the throne, fed inferior food, etc., and became a refugee in his own kingdom. When all this befell him he was moved to exclaim (Kohelet 22,10) “this is my share after all my labors!” Another explanation of the words in Kohelet 2,2 “I said of laughter it is madness:” This was the laughter by the attribute of Justice when it heard that Elisheva, wife of Aaron, prided herself on the morning of the first of Nissan of that year that she had merited four separate joyful occasions on that day; she had seen her husband appointed High Priest; her brother Nachshon had been elevated to the position of tribal head; her two oldest sons had been appointed as deputy High Priests; As soon as these two sons entered the Sanctuary they were burned to death. Solomon referred to the brief duration of Elisheva’s joy on that occasion and on the futility of enjoying such moments. The Midrash relates Job 39,27-30 to that event. We read there of G’d saying to Job: “does the eagle soar at your command, building high its nest, dwelling in the rock, lodging upon the fastness of a jutting rock? From there he spies out his food, from afar his eyes see it. His young gulp blood; where the slain are there is he.” In those verses G’d said to Job in effect; “if you were able to command the eagle where and when to build his nest, then you would also be greater than Aaron at whose bidding I allowed My Shechinah to rest on top of the Holy Ark.” The various further similes such as “the fastness jutting out of a rock,” refer to the second Temple. The rock is a reference to the אבן שתיה which was the substitute in the second Temple for the Holy Ark, the kapporet and the cherubim of the first Temple and the Tabernacle. The reason that slab of stone was called אבן שתיה, “the stone of drinking,” was that the entire earth’s food supply is channeled by G’d through the site of where this stone is located. When the High Priest on the Day of Atonement prayed for the economic welfare of the Jewish people, he said: ”may it be Your will O Lord that the coming year will be one of dew and adequate rainfall, a year of plenty, a year of grace before You, a year of blessing, a year of successful business dealings, a year in which the Jewish people should not have to depend on one another for handouts nor for handouts from Gentile nations. May it be a year when the people should not try and impose their will on each other by force. Their eyes should be focused on distant targets,” i.e. they should know what would be at the end of the year. How would this blessing and the fact that it was granted be evident? If the smoke from the altar’s offerings rose in a southerly direction this would forecast prosperity for the people living in the south of the country. Similarly, if that smoke rose in a westerly direction it would signify prosperity for the Israelites living close to the sea. If it rose straight up, it would indicate that the whole country (or the whole world) would enjoy prosperity during that year. The נשר in that verse in Job is a simile for G’d who is described elsewhere as like an eagle having transported the Children of Israel out of Egypt for the first 120 kilometers on “eagle’s wings.” All of the complimentary comments in those verses in Job apply to Aaron. In spite of this great stature of Aaron, “his young gulp blood,” i.e. his sons died and yet he kept silent, did not question or complain as did Job when disaster struck him. The very presence of the Shechinah did not prevent the disaster. Thus far the Tanchuma. A kabbalistic approach: the wording of our text suggest that the sons of Aaron died two deaths seeing that the Torah writes וימותו, They died,” having already said it was after their מות, “death.” We have a somewhat similar construction where the word “life” is repeated as if it meant that someone should have two lives. Moses said in Deut. 33,6 יחי ראובן ואל ימות, “may Reuven live and not die.” These words are allusions to the transmigration of the souls, i.e. the implied multiple deaths of one and the same soul in different bodies. The subject as far as it concerns Nadav and Avihu is hinted at by he words “and they had not had any children” (Numbers 3,4). You are aware that if someone dies without having had children, his soul is potentially reincarnated in a different body. The Torah provides a clear hint of this when it writes in Leviticus 22,13: “and the daughter of a priest who will either become widowed or divorced and she had not had any (seed) children (from that husband) will return to her father’s house as in her youth and eat from the table of her father.” [The plain meaning of this is that she will be allowed to resume her status as priestess. Ed.] Our author, having introduced this commentary as kabbalistic, views the words בת כהן in that verse as a reference to the soul (any soul) inasmuch as the soul descends from the emanation בינה on the left via the emanation (or attribute) חסד on the right. The meaning of the words: “she will become widowed,” is that her soul will become widowed from its body, lose it, as a result she will be like a גרושה, a divorced woman, who cannot return to her roots in the event she does not have absorbed any seed from her husband. If she had absorbed seed from her husband she could not be totally divorced from her “husband,” i.e. soul. When the period of her enforced separation from her original partner (the body assigned to her soul originally) has been completed, she will return to her “father,” i.e. the source at G’d’s side whence all souls originate and she will partake of the “food” she used to feed on at that time, i.e. enjoy the outpourings of the Shechinah.

And the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, etc. And the Lord said to Moses, etc. This is difficult to understand because where did the first speech go, as no command or information is mentioned in it. And Rashi’s explanation, likening it to a sick person, etc., is not satisfactory because in the first verse no command is mentioned. We could say that these four words when they drew near before the Lord and died are not the text’s statement to us but rather what God spoke to Moses — these four words — and this is the content of the first speech. For God wanted to inform Moses of the sin for which Aaron’s two sons died, and therefore He used the harsher expression spoke [vayedaber] since it represents the attribute of judgment. Then, for what followed from this information — to warn Aaron not to be burned by their coals — the verse says and He said [vayomer], a gentler expression. And the explanation of the matter is that the sons of Aaron were deserving of being punished, for they ate and drank and beheld God (Exodus 24:11), meaning they gazed upon the Divine Presence with the coarseness of heart that comes from food and drink. The Holy One, blessed be He, waited to punish them so as not to disturb the joy of the giving of the Torah. Corresponding to this came this command to Aaron that he should not enter the Holy place on any day when there is eating and drinking, but only on Yom Kippur, a day when a person afflicts his soul, because then he comes before his Creator in humility. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, presented this introduction to Moses and first informed him of the cause of the death of Aaron’s sons in the first statement, in order to tell him in the second statement the command he shall not come at any time into the holy place (Leviticus 16:2). And this is the wording of the first statement that God said to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron — and what was the statement? When they drew near before the Lord and died. He informed him that they died because they drew near to God at an inappropriate time, as it is written and they beheld God. And if you ask why it says when they drew near before the Lord rather than “when they drew near before Me,” we find a similar case as Rashi explained in Parashat Vayera (19:24) on the verse and the Lord rained upon Sodom, etc. from the Lord, etc. And regarding the wording and they died, which could have simply said “they died,” we find a similar case in and those who did not regard the word of the Lord left their servants and livestock in the field (Exodus 9:21) where it could have simply said “left.” This also resolves the apparent redundancy of the phrase and they died, since it was already stated after the death, because the first mention is the Torah’s statement to us, and the second is God’s statement to Moses. It is also possible to interpret “in their drawing near before the Lord,” according to the fact that they were especially close to the Lord, therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, was exacting with them to judge them even for a small error, as it is written (Psalms 53), And around Him it is very tempestuous. For whoever is closer to the king must be more careful with the king’s honor. And so Moses said, This is what the Lord spoke, saying: “Through those near to Me I will be sanctified” (Leviticus 10:3). And if we can say that there is no chronological order in the Torah, and this section was told to Moses before he said to Aaron, This is what the Lord spoke, saying: “Through those near to Me I will be sanctified,” then it is reasonable to understand that he said this regarding what the Holy One, blessed be He, told him in these four words: when they drew near before the Lord, and died. And [regarding] what Rashi explained, that “this warning was stricter than the first,” etc., perhaps his intention was that it had already been said (Exodus 19:22), Also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves, lest the Lord break out against them, and there too they were warned about this, but no punishment was mentioned there except lest He break out against them. Therefore, it was necessary to warn him a second time and tell him that he should not die in the way his sons died. But if the entire verse from after the death until and died is Scripture’s statement to us, I do not know from where Moses learned to warn him not to die as his sons died, for the Holy One, blessed be He, did not mention anything to Moses about the death of Aaron’s sons. According to our explanation, it is well-resolved that Moses learned this from the fact that the Lord informed him of the reason for the death of Aaron’s sons, and the commandment to Aaron is adjacent to it, which is certainly to warn him more than the first time.

אחרי מות שני בני אהרן, “After the death of two of Aaron’s sons.” The reason why the Torah again refers to this event at this juncture is that seeing the Torah had just (15,31) concluded by warning us to be extremely careful not to become guilty of death through polluting G’d’s residence while entering it in a state of ritual contamination, the Torah uses the death of Aaron’s sons as an example designed to serve as a deterrent to anyone else daring to desecrate consecrated grounds in such a fashion. Nachmanides adds that the wording אחרי מות שני בני אהרן is that immediately after that tragic death had occurred, Aaron and his sons had been warned not to enter consecrated grounds while in a state of intoxication. (Compare Leviticus 10,8-11). It is certainly reasonable to assume that these laws were revealed to Aaron and the people on the day following the death of Nadav and Avihu. They could not very well have been communicated on the very day of the death of the sons, as the legal status of אנינות, preoccupation with burial and mourning rites, prevent the remaining two sons from studying Torah on that day. Not only that, but the Holy Spirit does not communicate with people when they are in such a state of mind. The warning not to drink wine applied to Aaron personally more than to anyone else, as he performed service in the Tabernacle on a daily basis. Moses had been informed before now, of course, but the Torah wanted that the entire people be warned at once. [We must remember that though Moses had been given all these laws already on Mount Sinai, seeing that at that time the whole subject of building a Tabernacle had not yet become relevant, as there had not yet been the sin of the golden calf, there had also been no reason to reveal this to the people until now, the first or second day that the Tabernacle had become operative. Ed.] As a general rule (Nachmanides writing), whenever the Torah departs from chronological sequence in its report, it prefaces such statements with the words “G’d spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai, etc.,” to remind us that the legislation following was not an afterthought. Ed.] Our sages claim that the meaning of the words ולא תמותו in Leviticus 10,9 was an oblique reference to the reason why the two sons of his had died. Aaron should take care that the same would not happen to him. [Seeing that the author does not attribute this statement of “our sages” to a specific source, I permit myself the comment that this sounds incredibly unlikely, as surely someone of Aaron’s stature did not need to be given this kind of a warning in order to obey G’d’s instructions. Ed.] בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו, “when they approached the presence of Hashem and died.” Ibn Ezra comments that this verse is proof that the sons of Aaron died because they had dared to bring the incense into the Tabernacle. Nachmanides disagrees, as the Torah always mentions the sin of anyone who died an untimely death at the hands of Hashem. The Torah had already told us on a number of occasions that the cause of death was that they introduced “strange fire” which they had not been authorised to do. (Leviticus 10,1) However, this was described as בהקריבם אש זרה, “when they introduced alien fire,” whereas here the Torah wrote about בקרבתם, i.e. when they personally entered a domain which was out of bounds to them. It is therefore completely reasonable that the Torah should now warn Aaron not to enter the wrong place at the wrong time. Although he is permitted entry to the Holy of Holies, even, something no other priest is allowed to enter, he cannot do so at times of his choosing. It is quite possible that the correct interpretation of our verse is in line with what our sages said (Mechilta Beshalach ויסע ו) that the people had come to the conclusion that the incense contained poisonous herbs which had caused the death of Nadav and Avihu, the 250 men who offered incense during Korach’s rebellion, etc. The Torah, countering these wild accusations leveled against the incense offering, wanted to make the point that it had not been the incense which had killed them but their unauthorised entry, both in terms of place and time. Aaron therefore had to be especially on guard, seeing he would offer incense on a daily basis he would be more exposed to such a danger than any other individual. The Torah defines precisely when, where, and who is fit to offer this special offering (verses 12 and 13). Some scholars feel that we must take careful note of the difference in meaning of the word בקרבתם as opposed to בהקריבם, the former referring to the act of entering a forbidden domain regardless of the purpose why it was entered and regardless of what the person entering had in his hands as an offering. In order to make plain that mere entering the sacred domain by Nadav and Avihu was a mortal sin by itself, the Torah now instructs Aaron: בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקוד'ש, “only when accompanied by the following is Aaron allowed to enter these holy domains.”

אחרי מות, G’d told Moses to warn Aaron so that he would not die as had his sons because of unauthorised entry into the Temple.

אחרי מות, “after the death;” when we read in Kohelet 9,2: כטוב כחוטא, “as is the good man so is the sinner,” this is a reference to the two sons of Aaron who died only on account of having arrogated to themselves the right to preempt their elders Moses and Aaron in issuing a religious ruling. This is the meaning of the Talmud, tractate Yuma, folio 53, where Rabbi Eliezer explained the word חוטא as referring to their having done so. What precisely was the “new” ruling that they revealed? They interpreted the line: ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש על המזבח, ”the sons of Aaron the priest placed fire (man made) on the altar;” (in addition to the fire that came down from the heaven). (Leviticus 1,7) Their sin was basically the same as that of Korach and his congregation, and that is why both were burned to death by heavenly fire. (Compare Tanchuma on our portion, section 1) Rabbi Acha son of Ze-ira adds (in the Tanchuma) that this is also the meaning of Job 37,1: אף לזאת יחרד לבי ויתר ממקומו, “also on account of this my heart quakes and leaps from its place;” he compares what happened to the staff of Aaron when it was placed inside the Sanctuary which sprouted almonds, whereas his sons when they entered the Sanctuary were burned to death. (Numbers 17,23) He also contrasts the fact that the Roman general Titus dared to enter the Holy of Holies, and he left it unharmed although surely he was less qualified to have entered such sacred grounds. He had entered in order to blaspheme, whereas the sons of Aaron had entered in order to offer incense to the Lord. (Tanchuma section 4 on our portion) [No wonder at the reaction of Job when he reflected on this phenomenon. Ed.] This phenomenon is also the subject of Psalms 78,63: בחורי אכלו אש ובתולותיו לא הוללו, “Fire consumed their young men and their maidens remained unwed.” The psalmist explains the reason that the sons of Aaron had to die as being that they had failed to get married. They had described themselves as so superior that no one was good enough to become their wives. They overestimated the value of having been born into such prominent families as their father and uncle. The result of their haughtiness was that they died without leaving behind any children. (Tanchuma section 6) In other words, no one remembered them.

Hashem said to Moses: Speak with Aaron your brother, that he shall not enter at any time into the sanctuary within the curtain, before the cover that is upon the ark, lest he die — for in a cloud I am revealed over the house of the cover.

יבא ויאמר ה׳ אל משה דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SPEAK UNTO AARON THY BROTHER THAT HE COME NOT [AT ALL TIMES INTO THE HOLY PLACE]! THAT HE DIE NOT as his sons have died (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 1 4). ולא ימות THAT HE DIE NOT — for if he comes into the Holy of Holies at any time other than Yom-Kippur he will die (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 1 4). כי בענן אראה means, for I constantly show Myself there with My pillar of cloud, and because the revelation of My Shechinah takes place there he should take care not to make it his habit to come there. This is the literal meaning of the verse. The Halachic explanation is: He shall not come into the Holy of Holies except with (i.e. on the occasion when he is going to raise) a cloud of incense on the Day of Atonement (Yoma 53a).

SPEAK UNTO AARON THY BROTHER. The meaning of the epithet thy brother is that “you are to warn him because he is your brother, for even though you are not under this prohibition against coming [into the holy place at all times, thus you might think that Aaron, too, is not subject to this restriction, since he is your brother, nonetheless] Aaron, your brother, is under the prohibition against coming [into the holy place at all times].”Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that this Scriptural section indicates that Aaron’s sons [died because they] brought the fire of incense into the innermost part of the Sanctuary. But in my opinion this is not correct. For the verses which mention their sin always say, when they offered ‘strange’ fire before the Eternal. And if [you accept as] proof that they entered into the innermost part of the Sanctuary, the prohibition with which G-d warned Moses concerning their father [i.e., Aaron], so that he die not [as Ibn Ezra said], then [you should] certainly accept as proof [that they died because] they entered the Sanctuary whilst intoxicated by wine, the prohibition that was said to Aaron himself immediately after their death, [Drink no wine nor strong drink etc.]! Moreover, how could it have occurred to them to enter on that day the [innermost] part [of the Sanctuary] which [even] their father did not enter, for Aaron burnt the incense on the “inner” altar [which stood in the Sanctuary proper], and why should they bring in their incense to a place further inside [the Sanctuary] than their father! Now I have already hinted at the nature of their sin, and the language of the verses point thereto. But the expression ‘b’korvatham’ (when they approached) [does not mean, as Ibn Ezra interpreted it, “when they approached by entering the innermost part of the holy place”, but] according to its plain meaning is like the expression ‘uv’korvatham’ (and when they come near) to the altar to minister. Thus the verse here is stating that Aaron’s sons died when they ministered before G-d. If so, [the sense of the warning here] is that He warned Aaron that he should only minister in the place which He commands [that it be done], and at the time He specifies for it. It is possible that the sense of the verse is similar to that which our Rabbis have said, that the people were speaking perversely of the incense, saying, “Through it Nadab and Abihu [Aaron’s sons] died etc.” Therefore Scripture stated that after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Eternal with the incense, He said to Aaron that he should come even nearer before the Eternal than they did, and with incense, for if he comes into the holy place [i.e., the Holy of Holies] without the incense, he will die, for with it he shall enter there first, just as He said, and he shall bring it within the Veil … and the cloud of the incense will cover the ark-cover that is upon the testimony, that he die not. This then is the meaning of the phrase [her...

"Into the holy place" — corresponding to the Tent of Meeting. "For in a cloud" — the meaning is that he may not enter except with incense that produces a cloud, so that the Glory will not be seen, lest he die. Its sense is: I will not appear to him except in a cloud. And some say the meaning of "for in a cloud" is: because I dwell in a cloud over the ark-cover, as in the sense of "Hashem said He would dwell in thick darkness" (1 Kings 8:12).

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. The Torah employs the "soft" language usually associated with the word אמור, although the subject matter is a dire warning according to Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah. The very warning was a demonstration of G'd's loving concern for Aaron, just as the physician who warned the patient of the consequences of not following his advice did so out of concern for the life of his patient. Alternatively, G'd demonstrated how much He valued Moses by showing that even when His message concerned primarily Aaron He did not address Aaron with that message but Moses. We may understand the very words ויאמר ה׳ אל משה in a way similar to Deut. 26,18: וה׳ האמירך היום, "and G'd achieved by speaking to you this day, etc." Bamidbar Rabbah 14,21 comments on this that even where we find the Torah reporting that G'd "spoke to Moses and Aaron," the meaning is that Moses was to tell Aaron what G'd had said to him. Our verse then is proof of that statement seeing that G'd addressed Moses even when the commandment He wanted to communicate was addressed exclusively to Aaron. ואל יבא, and that he must not enter, etc. In addition to the reason we offered previously for the unusual letter ו at the beginning of a message, we may say that inasmuch as Moses had told Aaron on the very first day of his anointment as High Priest to go ahead and offer his sin-offering on the outer altar (Leviticus 9,7) the meaning was that it was only the altar situated in the courtyard which Aaron had unrestricted access to. Our sages derive this from the principle called לאו הבא מכלל עשה, that the wording of a positive commandment contains within it a negative commandment which was not spelled out by the Torah specifically. The letter ו in the word ואל provides the clue to that negative commandment. בכל עת, at all times. The implication is that there are times when Aaron would be permitted to enter the Holy of Holies. Details of this are mentioned later beginning with the words בזאת יבא אהרון אל הקודש. Once every year Aaron was to enter the Holy of Holies. The reason the Torah had to introduce this information by the negative commandment that Aaron was not to enter the Holy of Holies before mentioning the exception, was to tell him that if he refrained from entering the Holy of Holies during the rest of the year he would merit entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. If, however, he were to enter the Holy of Holies during any other period he would forfeit the opportunity of entering it on the Day of Atonement at a time when permission had been granted. The Torah chose the expression בכל עת, so as to prohibit entering the Holy of Holies even on the Day of Atonement except in order to perform certain regulated activities, i.e. to burn incense and to splash blood of two sacrifices onto the dividing curtain. When we keep this in mind we derive another meaning from the letter ו at the beginning of the words ואל יבא. The letter relates to an additional war...

ויאמר ה' אל משה דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא בכל עת אל . the Lord said to Moses: “tell your brother Aaron not to enter the Holy of Holies at any time of your choosing, etc;”This paragraph, even though it deals with the laws of the Day of Atonement, was told to Moses on the day the Tabernacle had been erected , because on that very day the two sons of Aaron had died already because they had entered the Holy of Holies unnecessarily, and unbidden. As a result, the Torah warned Aaron, and of course everyone else. You might well ask why this paragraph had not been appended to the paragraph in Parshat Sh’mini, where we have been told what happened to these two sons of Aaron and what they had done? (Leviticus 10,11) The reason may be that even after learning about all the laws of impurity that disqualify a person in many instances from remaining within the camp of the Israelites, much less that of the priests and the Temple, we had not yet heard if these sons of Aaron had sinned deliberately or had committed merely an error, albeit with the best of intentions. Nor had we been told what manner of atonement would be appropriate for people who commit such a sin inadvertently. This is why the Torah continues here in verse 16: וכפר על הקודש, “he shall make atonement (the High Priest) for the holy place.”'בקרבתם לפני ה, “when they had approached the face of the Lord and died as a result.” (verse 1) They had deposited their incense on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, illegally. אל פני הכפורת אשר על הארון, “before the cover of the Holy Ark;” why did the Torah have to write that the lid was on the Holy Ark, when we have all been familiar with this? The reason is that we read in connection with the curtain dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of holies [in which the Holy Ark and this cover stood, Ed.] וסכות על הארון, “you shall screen the Ark with the veil.” (Exodus 40,3) This could have confused us into thinking that the dividing curtain was considered as a cover for the Holy Ark [seeing it screened it from all human eyes except once a year on the Day of Atonement. Ed.] We have therefore been taught that it was not the function of the dividing curtain to serve as a cover for the Holy Ark. ולא ימות, “so that he will not die as a result.” Now that we have heard the penalty for this sin, where do we find the warning not to commit this sin? It is part of the words: כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, “for I am capable of being seen above the lid.” [And we know that G-d had told Moses that no human being while connected to its body is granted the privilege to have a visual image of G-d’s essence. (Exodus 33,20) Ed.] כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, “for I will only appear screened by a cloud above the lid.” We have another verse explaining the same in Kings I 8,12: ה' אמר לשכון בערפל, “the Lord has said (of Himself) that He resides within a thick cloud.”

דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקדש, “speak to your brother Aaron -he shall not come at all times to the Sanctuary, etc.” The additional words: “so that he shall not die,” are an implied warning that what happened to his sons might otherwise happen to him. Our sages illustrated this by a parable, saying the matter is similar to a physician who enters the room of the patient telling him not to eat cold food and not to lie down on wet ground. A second physician comes and gives the patient similar instructions, adding: “so that you will not die like another patient who ignored this warning and died.” The second physician’s warning is more likely to be effective than that of the first. כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, “for in a cloud I will appear above the kapporet.” The Torah was careful not to write: כי אראה בענן על הכפורת. Had the Torah written these words in that order the meaning would have been that G’d appears inside the cloud. If that were so, what distinction did the High Priest enjoy over the rest of the people of Israel? They all witnessed a Presence of the Lord within the cloud on a year-round basis, or at least every time the Torah wrote והנה כבוד ה' נראה בענן, “and here the glory of the Lord had appeared within the cloud.” This was an appearance visible to all the people. They did not have to enter any Sanctuary in order to become aware of it. There are several other instances where all the people witnessed such a manifestation of G’d’s glory (Exodus 33,10). In our verse the meaning of the words is that after Aaron enters the Sanctuary [Holy of Holies] in a cloud of incense the glory of G’d previously encased in the cloud will leave that cloud and take up its position on top of the kapporet. In order for us to understand this clearly, the Torah wrote the words אראה על הכפורת as a single sequence without interposing the word בענן. Actually, in that Holy of Holies the glory of G’d would be situated on top of the kapporet on the other days of the year also; only Aaron, or anybody else, were not allowed to enter that Inner Sanctuary except on Yom Kippur. The cloud of incense (which normally was offered in the Outer Sanctuary, daily,) was needed in order to ensure that Aaron would not behold that glory with fatal consequences for himself. Our sages (in Yuma 53) understand the words כי בענן אראה על הכפורת to mean that G’d’s glory would appear within the cloud of the incense. As a result of such considerations the incense had to be offered in the Holy of Holies (the site of the kapporet) The High Priest was not to make the entire incense ready before he entered. [the view of the Sadducees, whose High Priests were so scared that their mentors could have been wrong that they declined to perform this service on the Day of Atonement for fear of dying. Ed]. In fact, the wording of verse 13 in our chapter, “the cloud of the incense shall cover the kapporet over the testimony” (the Holy Ark) will ensure that the High Priest will not die. It is stated clearly in the verse previous that the High Priest enter beyond the dividing curtain into the Inner Sanctuary before placing the incense on the fire. This is the reason why the Talmud, according to Rava, understands why this legislation was repeated. The first time the Torah had to issue the instructions not to enter at will. The second time was the warning that unless he performed in accordance with these instructions the High Priest would die.

Speak to Aaron your brother. Why did it mention brotherhood here? It’s to tell you that Aaron should not rely on the brotherhood, thinking that he will not die when entering the holy place due to the merit of his brother Moses, so that he shouldn’t be half his flesh consumed as Rashi explained in Parashat Beha’alotcha (12:12) on the verse let him not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed. Therefore it says: Even though he is your brother, nevertheless he should not rely on this at all. Or it says: Since he is your brother, and if he dies it would be as if half your flesh is consumed, therefore it is especially incumbent upon you to warn him. And some say: Even though he is your brother in prophecy, and it is written regarding the giving of the Torah and you shall come up, you and Aaron (Exodus 19:24), and he might think that just as Moses is permitted to enter at any time, for in all My house he is trusted (Numbers 12:7), like a trusted householder who enters his master’s house whenever he wishes, so too he [Aaron] may enter. Therefore you need to warn him especially. And he shall not come at any time into the holy place. The phrase at any time is not precise, because it implies that he shall not come at any time but occasionally he may come. And the truth is not so, for he only comes once a year. And I say that the reason for prohibiting his entry there depends on the sin of the people, for their iniquities separate between them and their God, and their corruption also prevents the priest’s entry because the guilt of the people is dependent upon him, as it is written: And bring near to you Aaron your brother from among the children of Israel (Exodus 28:1). This teaches that he only merited this drawing near through the children of Israel, and when Israel does not merit, neither does the priest who is dependent upon them merit to see the face of the Divine Presence, except on Yom Kippur when all of Israel are compared on that day to ministering angels who are above time and time has no dominion over them. Therefore, this holy day is as if it is not included in the “time” and “season,” because all the days of the year are included in “time,” meaning the temporal dimension, except for this day. And a hint to this is that HaSatan [numerically] equals 364, and the days of the sun [year] in number are 365, indicating that in all the days of the year, Satan and the evil inclination rule over all creatures without exception, except for this day when Satan has no dominion over it. Therefore it is not included in the time of all the days of the year, but it stands by itself, separate from all the days of the year. And when He said and he shall not come at any time, He hinted that he should not come at all on any day that is included in the [regular] time, but only on the day that is not included in the [regular] time, which is the day of forgiveness and pardon, when Israel is compared to the ministering angels who do not fall under [the constraints of] time. And it is not included in the days of the year when Satan, who causes sin, rules over them, and therefore it is not fitting that the representative of Israel should come to see the face of the Divine Presence. And He gave a reason for this: For in the cloud I will appear — meaning, if My Presence were revealed there directly, I would not need to prevent him from coming there, because no man shall see Me and live (Exodus 33:20). But since My Presence is in a cloud, he could see My glory, because the cloud enables this vision. Therefore it says, For in the cloud I will appear, and therefore I need to prevent him from seeing in all the days of the year when Israel accumulates sins.

ויאמר ה' אל משה, “Hashem said to Moses,” I am greatly perturbed by this apparent repetition. We have already been told that G’d spoke to Moses, without hearing what He said to him. Our verse appears as if G’d is rephrasing the tenor of what He was about to say without having said anything as yet. We do not know if G’d had interrupted Himself by speaking on some other subject first, the details of which have been withheld from us. Is the word ויאמר merely indicative of G’d taking up the broken thread of a previous conversation? Some commentators claim that the subject of G’d’s message in verse one was the legislation about the red heifer, the ashes of which would be used to purify the people who had been involved in the burial of Nadav and Avihu who had become ritually impure through their handling the corpses. According to that version, the message contained as part of verse one was delivered still on the same day these sons died, i.e. the first of Nissan, whereas in verse two we deal with what G’d told Moses on the second day of Nissan. According to that, the remains of the red heifer were burned on the second day of Nissan, and the Torah now instructs Moses that the ashes would be used to purify people who had become ritually polluted through contact with dead bodies. In order to make this clear, the Torah refers once more to the death of the two sons of Aaron, to indicate that the ashes of the red heifer are used in purifying those who had become impure through their participation in the burial of these two people. דבר אל אהרן אחיך, “speak to your brother Aaron.” Nachmanides writes that the reason G’d mentioned that Aaron was Moses’ brother, [something that all of us have been aware of for a long time, Ed.] was that G’d meant to emphasise that although Moses was not included in the injunction not to enter the Tabernacle at any time, Aaron was subject to such constraints. He had already been told to enter the Holy of Holies only once a year on the Day of Atonement, as we know from Exodus 30,10 וכפר אהרן על קרנותיו אחת בשנה, “he is to secure atonement on its corners once a year by the sin offering of atonement, etc. This is what has been referred to in our verse here.

כי בענן אראה על הכפורת. According to the plain meaning of the text, we are told that G’d would become manifest by means of the cloud which hovers over the spot where the lid of the Holy Ark is situated within the Tabernacle. Compare Exodus 25,22 where G’d told Moses: “I will speak with you from above the כפורת from the area between the two cherubs.” If the priest would see this area with his own eyes he would die. Therefore, when he would enter the Tabernacle (Holy of Holies) on the Day of Atonement to burn the incense and sprinkle the blood of the bull and ram of the sin offering on the dividing curtain, the cloud would first wrap the entire Tabernacle into darkness so that he would not be able to see what he was not allowed to see.

With this shall Aaron enter into the sanctuary: with a bull, a young ox from the herd, as a sin offering, and a ram as a burnt offering.

בזאת WITH THIS [SHALL AARON COME] — The numerical value of this word is 410, being an allusion to the 410 years during which the First Temple existed (cf. Leviticus Rabbah 21 9). 'בזאת יבא אהרן וגו WITH THIS SHALL AARON COME [INTO THE HOLY PLACE] etc. — And this, also, shall not be at any time he pleases, but on the day of Atonement, as it is explicitly stated at the end of this section (vv. 29—34). “In the seventh month on the tenth day of the month [ye shall fast … And the priest … shall make expiation]".

The secret of ‘b’zoth’ (With this) shall Aaron come into the holy place, is analogous to the secret of ‘zoth’ (this is) the token of the covenant which I have established. I have already explained it. Our Rabbis alluded to it in saying in Vayikra Rabbah: “Rabbi Yudan explained the verse [‘With this’ shall Aaron come into the holy place] with reference to the High Priest when entering the Holy of Holies: he came with many bundles of commandments [fulfilled by Israel] in his possession. He came in there by merit of [their studying] Torah, as it is said, and ‘this’ is the law; by merit of circumcision, as it is said, ‘This’ is My covenant, which ye shall keep; by merit of keeping the Sabbath, as it is said, Happy is the man that doeth ‘this’ [… that keepeth the Sabbath]; by the guarding influence of Jerusalem, as it is said, ‘This’ is Jerusalem; by the guarding influence of the [twelve] tribes, as it is said, and ‘this’ is that their father spoke unto them; by the guarding influence of Judah, as it is said, And ‘this’ [Moses said] for Judah; by the guarding influence of the congregation of Israel, as it is said, ‘This’ thy stature is like to a palm-tree; by merit of [Israel having observed the law of] the heave-offering, as it is said, And ‘this’ is ‘ha’terumah’ (the offering); by the merit of [Israel giving] the tithes, as it is said, and try Me now with ‘this;’ by the merit of bringing the offerings, as it is said, With ‘this’ shall Aaron come.” This text requires a lengthy exposition, but it is all explained in our commentary [in various places].

"With a bull, a son of the herd." The meaning is not that he brings the bull into the holy place, but rather that he first provides from his own resources a bull as a sin-offering to make atonement for himself and for the priests. Some say the Levites are included as well, because it is written "write Aaron's name on the staff of Levi" (Num. 17:18) — but this is far-fetched; rather, the Levites are counted with Israel.

בזאת יבא...בפר בן בקר, by sanctifying the bull as a sin offering, and the ram as a burnt offering, and by donning the appropriate priestly garments, the linen ones which had no decorative additions and consisted only of white linen. On the one hand, that High Priest was not to enter the sanctuary until after the burnt offering had been sacrificed, but he was allowed to enter for the purpose of offering the incense as soon as the sin offering had been slaughtered.

בזאת יבא אהרון, "Aaron is to enter with the following:" The reason the Torah repeats Aaron's name though it could have written merely: "with this he is to enter, etc.," is that what has been written in verse 2 applied only to Aaron. From this verse on the Torah deals with commandments applicable not only to the High Priest personally; seeing that Aaron's duties in the Sanctuary were performed on behalf of the entire people, and the clothing he wore while performing this service was as a representative of the people as a whole, G'd commanded His people to perform these rites using Aaron as their representative so as to obtain forgiveness once a year. Torat Kohanim emphasises that the linen tunic Aaron wore was paid for by the Temple treasury. The Torah hinted at this by mentioning Aaron by name as the people's representative.

בפר בן בקר, “by means of a bull, one year old;” the Torah does not mean that the bull itself is to enter the sanctuary, only its blood [i.e. its essence, Ed.] will be sprinkled within the Sanctuary.

בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש, “equipped with the following Aaron shall enter the Sanctuary, etc.;” according to the plain meaning of the text the word בזאת means “with this attribute;” in other words, the list of sacrifices listed immediately after these words are the “attributes” Aaron did take with him and performed the service on Yom Kippur. A Midrashic approach based on Vayikra Rabbah 21,5: The letters in the word בזאת, which have a numerical value of 410, the number of years the First Temple was standing are an allusion to the service in the Sanctuary in that Temple when all the necessary paraphernalia were available, i.e. breastplate, urim vetumim, Holy Ark, kapporet, etc. The word יבא “he will come, or “it” will come, is an allusion to the Holy Temple (as opposed to the collapsible Tabernacle) that would hopefully be built soon after the Israelites occupy their own land. A kabbalistic approach: The word בזאת is a reference to כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept represented by the Jewish people. The word יבא is proof that this is what the verse has in mind, i.e. that there will be a spiritual ascent leading to קדש, “sanctity,” i.e. the domain of true wisdom, the second highest emanation immediately below that of כתר. This emanation is the source of all blessing, and it is what David referred to when he wrote in Psalms 134,2: שאו ידיכם קודש וברכו את ה', “raise your hands towards the Sanctuary and bless the Lord” (normal translation). The sages steeped in mystical lore who were quoted in Vayikra Rabbah 21,5 mean that whenever the Torah mentions the word זאת, this occurs in connection with Israel fulfilling a commandment, such as the commandment of circumcision in Genesis 17,10 or the commandment of fulfilling the Torah in its entirety (Deut. 4,44), etc., etc. When the Torah uses the expression בזאת here, it emphasises that the measure of success Aaron (or any High Priest) may expect to accompany him on this Holy Day in his Holy Task are the “bundles” of commandments performed by the Israelites which he will “present” to the Lord on that occasion. The sacrificial offerings, are of course, included in the “bundles” of commandments as the word זאת here is followed by a list of these offerings. All of these “bundles” have one single destination, to be presented to the highest, the tenth of the emanations, to כתר on the way to Hashem.

“With this shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bull, etc.” And they said in the Midrash (Leviticus Rabbah 21:11) that the bull corresponds to Abraham, as it is said (Genesis 18:7), And Abraham ran to the cattle. And the ram corresponds to Isaac, for a ram was offered in his place. And the two goats correspond to Jacob, as it is said about him (Genesis 27:9), Go now to the flock, and fetch me from there two good kids. The intention of this Midrash is to say that just as we find that even to Moses, God appeared only in the merit of the Patriarchs, as it is written (Exodus 4:5), That they may believe that the Lord God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, etc., has appeared to you, so too the High Priest on Yom Kippur — God appears to him in the merit of the Patriarchs. And in all of these there is an allusion to Yom Kippur. For regarding what is written, And Abraham ran to the cattle, this Midrash believes that this was on Yom Kippur, as our Sages also taught (in Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer 29) On this very day Abraham was circumcised — that he was circumcised on Yom Kippur. And it believes that the entire episode from And the Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre all happened on one day. And even though he made a feast on that day, nevertheless, since the Torah had not yet been given, he was strict with himself but not with others. And regarding the ram of Isaac, there is [an opinion] in the Midrash that this event also occurred on Yom Kippur (see Yalkut Reuveni, Parashat Vayera 22:14), and the proof is from the verse, As it is said this day: On the mountain the Lord will appear. That every year on this day, The Lord will appear, because in the cloud the Lord will appear there. And regarding the two goats of Jacob, they said in the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 65:14), Two good kids — good for you and good for your children. Good for you, as through them you will receive the blessings, and good for your children, as through them atonement is made for them on Yom Kippur. And from then on, Jacob was assured of atonement on this holy day through the two goats.

בזאת, “herewith, etc.” the numerical value of the word בזאת is 410, a reminder of the number of years Solomon’s Temple was operative before the last two tribes went into exile.

A holy linen tunic he shall wear, and linen breeches shall be upon his body, and with a linen sash he shall gird himself, and with a linen turban he shall cover his head — they are holy garments — and he shall bathe his body in water and put them on.

'כתנת בד וגו [HE SHALL PUT ON] THE LINEN INNER GARMENTS etc. — This teaches us that he must not officiate in the “Interior" (in the Holy of Holies) robed in the eight garments which were the insignia of the High Priest (cf. Exodus 28:4ff) in which he performed the service outside (in the היכל and the עזרה) and in which there was gold interwoven, — because the prosecuting counsel cannot become the defending counsel) — but in the four garments (cf. Exodus 28:40), like an ordinary priest, all of these being on this occasion entirely of linen (whereas one of the four worn by the ordinary priests, the belt, was a mixture of wool and linen) (Rosh Hashanah 26a). קדש ילבש HE SHALL PUT ON [THE LINEN INNER GARMENT] OF HOLINESS (or, OF THE SANCTUARY) - This means that they shall be purchased from the Temple treasury (whilst his personal offering mentioned v. 3 had to be of his own) (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 1 10). יצנף — Understand this as the Targum does: יחת ברישה which means: he shall place upon his head. Thus, the verb in (Genesis 39:16) ותנח בגדו, is rendered by the Targum ואחתתיה (of the same root as יחת) “and she placed". ורחץ במים AND HE SHALL LAVE [HIS FLESH] IN WATER — That day he required immersion at each change of his garments! Five times he proceeded alternately from the service in the “Interior" to that performed outside and from the outside service to that in the "Interior", changing from the golden garments into the linen garments or from the linen garments into the golden garments. At each change he required to take an immersion and to wash his hands and his feet twice from the laver (viz., before he took off the garments he was wearing and after he had put on others — in all, 10 times during the day) (Yoma 32a).

HE SHALL PUT ON THE LINEN TUNIC OF ‘KODESH’ (HOLINESS). “This means that they [i.e., all the garments of the High Priest] must be of the Sanctuary [treasury, and not of his own possession].” This is Rashi’s language. Thus the following phrase which states, they are garments of ‘kodesh’ (holiness) must therefore mean that all the garments [even those of the ordinary priests], must come from the Sanctuary [treasury]. And [so] it is stated in the Torath Kohanim: “‘Kodesh yilbash’ (‘He shall put on’ the linen tunic ‘of holiness’), this means that these [garments of the High Priest] are to be of the Sanctuary. From this phrase I would only know concerning these garments [i.e., the four garments worn by the High Priest when he ministered in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement]. Whence do I know to include the other garments of the High Priest [i.e., the eight golden garments in which he officiated throughout the year], and the garments of his brethren the priests [that they too must all come from the Temple treasury]? Scripture therefore says, they are garments of ‘kodesh’ (holiness). It is a conclusion by analogy that all garments [worn by all priests] should be of the Temple treasury” [since they all come under the term ‘garments of holiness’].By way of the simple meaning of Scripture, just as He said, and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, referring to the eight [golden] garments, He states that these [four garments worn by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement] are also holy garments. Their secret is analogous to the man clothed in linen, and therefore He informed him that they are holy garments. And in Vayikra Rabbah the Rabbis have said: “As the Service performed Above, so is the Service below. Just as of the Service Above it is said, one man in the midst of them clothed in linen, so of the Service below it is said, he shall put on the holy linen tunic. HE SHALL PUT ON … HE SHALL BE GIRDED … HE SHALL BE ATTIRED. [The Scriptural use of these multiple expressions is] explained by the Torath Kohanim: “Since we are finally bound to include [among the requirements for the Service on the Day of Atonement] another set of [four linen] garments [when he brought out the spoon and censer from the Holy of Holies] in the afternoon of that day, then I might think that if he has no other set of garments he should not put on those he wore in the morning [when he first entered the Holy of Holies]. Scripture therefore says he shall put on … he shall be girded … he shall be attired” [thus indicating by the multiple use of these expressions that the High Priest may wear these vestments again in the afternoon].Now Rashi commented: “‘Yitznoph’ (he shall be attired). [The word is to be understood as the Targum rendered it:] yocheith b’reishei which means “he shall ‘place’ it upon his head.” This is like ‘vatanach’ his garment by her which the Targum rendered ‘v’achthethei,” meaning “and she ‘placed’ [his garment by her].” But Onkelos’ opin...

"A holy linen tunic." The ephod, the breastplate, and the robe of the ephod are not mentioned here, because they had already been mentioned in "and its sound shall be heard when he enters the holy place" (Ex. 28:35). From this verse the men of the Second Temple learned that they served without the Urim and Thummim — and there were also prophets there.

בגדי קדש הם, when angels appeared in human guise to the prophets they wore these kinds of garments. This is the meaning of the expression לבושי הבדים. (Ezekiel 9,3 and Daniel 12,6-7)

כתנת בד קודש ילבש, "He shall put on the holy linen tunic, etc." The reason the Torah used the word קרש, holy, in connection with the linen tunic and was not content to include it in the subsequently mentioned בגדי קודש, sacred garments, may be that the Torah was afraid that we would reason that G'd had only ordered three garments to be paid for from the treasury of the Temple seeing they are not garments an ordinary person has to wear anyway. Inasmuch as every person has to wear a tunic, it could have been reasoned that Aaron had to pay out of his own funds for that tunic. The Torah therefore added the word קדש, sacred, to teach that this tunic too was paid for by funds from the Temple treasury. The Torah added the words בגדי קודש הם, so that we should not think that only the tunic was to be paid for by the Temple treasury. The Torah wanted to make plain that the same rule applied to all four garments. Furthermore, the Torah may have intended to inform us that the material the tunic was made from was paid for by the Temple treasury. The same applied to the other three garments mentioned here. The Torah wanted to make this plain already when mentioning the first garment. The meaning of the words בגדי קודש הם, may be that the cost of constructing the garments, not only their materials, should be defrayed by the Temple treasury. The Torah may also have intended to convey that these garments are of holy character by writing the words בגדי קודש הם, One should not think that it is demeaning that the very servant of G'd who had been equipped with eight garments described in Exodus 28,2-5 as לכבוד ולתפארת, "for glory and splendour," should now wear only inferior garments when performing the service inside the Holy of Holies. Only the four garments listed here are suitable for the mission the High Priest was to fulfil inside the Holy of Holies. One of the reasons is that אין קטגור נעשה סנגור, that the accuser cannot also function as the counsel of defence, as we pointed out repeatedly. The presence of gold on the garments of the High Priest would have reminded the attribute of Justice of the episode of the golden calf. Alternatively, the reason such garments would not have been in place inside the Holy of Holies is based on Proverbs 25,6: "Do not be boastful in front of a king;" it is bad manners to harp on one's own importance in the presence of G'd Almighty. The words בגדי קודש הם are the Torah's reassurance to us that just these four garments are the sacred vestments suitable for the service about to be described in our chapter. Our sages see in the expression קודש ילבש a reference to where the tunic is to be worn, i.e. inside the Holy of Holies, the place where the Holy Presence of G'd resides. The apparent repetition בגדי קודש הם mean that all of these garments are to be the property of the Temple treasury. (Torat Kohanim).

כתנת בד קדש וגו “a holy linen tunic, etc.” why did the Torah have to repeat the word “בד” four times in this verse? It was to exclude the breastplate, ephod, the robe, and the headband, which did not contain any linen. The reason is that the priest is not to appear in the Sanctuary wearing those garments, although in connection with them the Torah had also used the expression: 'לפני ה, in the presence of the Lord. (Compare Exodus 28,29, 28,35,28,37.) על בשרו, “on his flesh,” covering his private parts, as in זב מבשרו in Leviticus 15,2. What is the meaning of the words: ילבש, יחגור, יצנוף? [if these garments could not be worn inside the Sanctuary? Ed.] Seeing that before nightfall the priest would still don those garments, it had to be mentioned that he would wear them, even if not during the morning and afternoon while Temple service was carried out. ובמצנפת בד יצנוף, “and he shall be attired with a linen mitre.” From the fact that the breastplate and the ephod are not mentioned here we learn that during the entire 400 plus years that the second Temple stood these latter garments were not available. There was no point in wearing them if the means of communication with G-d through the urim vetumim did not exist during that period. (Ibn Ezra) בגדי קדש הם, “they are holy garments;” this expression here teaches that that term applies to all the priestly garments. ורחץ במים את בשרו, “and he is to wash his flesh with water;“ Rashi comments on this line that on that day the High Priest is to immerse himself each time he changed his garments. It is no more than basic courtesy that someone who is a personal attendant of a king purifies himself before he commences a new task each time; this is in addition to the fact that his hands had become sullied each time he handled certain objects or materials. This is why the Torah requires the High Priest in addition to wash his hands and feet each time also. All this has been spelled out in the Talmud tractate Yuma, folio 32. Seeing that our verse inserted the words: ורחץ את בשרו במים, between the words: ופשט, “he is to disrobe,” and the words: ולבש, “and he is to get dressed,” it is clear that what is required is that prior to each changing of the garments he must immerse himself in a ritual bath. Seeing that those words were not necessary in order to teach us that he must immerse himself, they had to be applied to separate washing of hands and feet. As far as Rashi writing that he must sanctify hands and feet from the כיור, the special basin for this positioned near the entrance to the Tabernacle, it is clear that the water in that basin must be used for this purpose, the Mishnah in Yuma folio 43, concludes that there was a special golden ladle available on that day, not just the copper faucets used normally.

כתנת בד קדש ילבש ומכנסי בד יהיו על בשרו ובאבנט בד יחגור ובמצנפת בד יצנוף, “He shall wear a sacred tunic; linen trousers shall cover his flesh; he shall gird himself with a linen sash, and cover his head with a linen turban.” The Torah mentions four linen garments, repeating the word בד, “linen” each time. Torat Kohanim, in justifying the repeated use of the word בד, comments: the first time the word is used is to contrast it with the breastplate which was not of linen; the second time it is used was to contrast it with the ephod which was not of linen; the third time it was used was to contrast it with the robe, the מעיל, which did not contain linen; the fourth time it was used was to contrast it with the tzitz, head-band which was not made of linen. The four garments which did not contain linen, did contain gold. The Torah wanted to drive home the point that a material which had once served to incriminate the people could not be used in exonerating them. This is why the four garments containing gold could not be worn inside the Inner Sanctuary. Interestingly, concerning all the garments which contained gold the Torah had written לפני ה', “before the Lord,” or “in the presence of the Lord” (compare Exodus 28,29; 28,12; 28,35; 28,38). Had the Torah not associated the description of these garments with the words “before the Lord,” which gave the impression that they were to be worn inside the Inner Sanctuary also, the extra words בד in our portion would not have been needed to make clear that when seeking expiation in the Holy of Holies for the sins of the Jewish people it was inappropriate to appear dressed in something which would remind G’d of the sin of the golden calf. The Torah emphasized that these linen garments were בגדי קדש, sacred garments, to teach that when the High Priest would wear them performing his duties in the Holy of Holies of the terrestrial Sanctuary this would parallel the service being performed in the celestial Sanctuary. If the High Priest on earth wore four garments when performing his service this corresponded to the four encampments of the Shechinah which similarly performed service in the Sanctuary in the celestial regions. Alternatively, the number four, i.e. four garments worn by the High Priest, were symbolic of the four holy chayot with their respective wings described in the opening vision of Ezekiel in Ezekiel chapter 1. Actually, the Torah could have been expected not to describe these garments as בגדי קדש but as בגדים קדושים, an expression meaning “sacred garments;” why did the Torah write בגדי קדש which should be translated as “garments of a sacred destination,” or “garments belonging to the Sanctuary,” or words to that effect? You will find this detail discussed in Vayikra Rabbah 21,10. The wording there is: “the service being performed in the celestial regions was to be duplicated in our terrestrial regions. The garments worn down here on earth symbolise those worn in the celestial regions which are קדש. Of those regions we are told that one man (the archangel Michael) is dressed in linen garments (Ezekiel 9,2). The vision of Ezekiel teaches that only linen garments were appropriate in the Inner Sanctuary, the House where G’d’s attribute of Mercy is at home.” If you will examine the word בד in greater detail you will find that within that word numerous wonderful concepts are alluded to. The word alludes to humility, simplicity; it alludes to G’d’s Unity; its colour, white, alludes to forgiveness, innocence; it also alludes to the קו האמצעי, the “middle,” or “central” line (in the emanations which are predominantly divided into “right” and “left.”) It also suggests submission seeing that flax sprouts from the earth in order to humble the High Priest, i.e. to remind him that even he is merely dust of the earth. This is in contrast to wool which is taken from living creatures, i.e. its origin is of a more elevated nature. We are told in Yuma 71 that the expression בד just as בד בבד, refers to plants growing as a single stalk not having any branches as do trees, etc. This is why the word alludes to the uniqueness, oneness, of G’d. He who communicates with Hashem as did the High Priest wears garments made of materials reflecting such an awareness. [Although the Talmud there discusses that each cord was twisted of six threads, the word שש משזר is used in the Torah five times, whereas the word בד is used once, to indicate that this word sums up the symbolic meaning of flax or the linen made of it. Ed.]. By contrast, canvas, hemp, from which ropes are made, are fibres which grow outside, attached to the trunk of a tree, surrounding it. The numerical value of the letters in the word בד is 6. In the Torah a different word for linen is שש, which itself is an allusion to the sixth emanation, the קו האמצעי, the “middle line.” This is the line which forms the “bridge” between left and right. You have heard already that the two cherubs on the kapporet symbolise the letters ה and ו respectively in the tetragrammaton. The High Priest represents the letter ו in that Holy Name. The letter ה, i.e. what it represents, the number 5, is included in the number 6, i.e. the letter ו. The number 6 which is the numerical value of the word בד symbolizes that garments made of that material are fit to be worn in the Holy of Holies when the occasion arises. I believe there is another matter that deserves mentioning in connection with our verse. It is well known that the human body is divided into three parts corresponding to the three parts of the universe, i.e. the terrestrial world, our earth, the domain of the galaxies, and the celestial spheres. The reason that our body reflects three such divisions is to make clear that man is indeed a microcosm. Through being such a microcosm, man, i.e. the High Priest, is able to draw unto himself the blessings from the celestial regions, and to convert the beneficial influences from the higher world for use in our terrestrial world. The immediate instrument helping to achieve this is the High Priest. When the High Priest wears linen trousers to cover his lower parts this represents the terrestrial predominantly physical part of the universe. The linen belt which the High Priest wears around his loins represents the “middle world,” the domain of the galaxies. The turban which he wears on his head represents the celestial spheres of the universe seeing the turban is worn on the head and the head symbolises the highest, most lofty spheres. This is the domain of the angels and is more distinguished than the other two parts of the universe. The order in which the garments are listed in our verse is that what is to be worn first is what is covering the lower part of the body, the other two pieces of clothing mentioned being in an ascending order. The order of putting on these garments directed the thoughts of the High Priest to progressively more lofty holy thoughts corresponding to the three layers of the universe. [I have not figured out why the author omits mention of the tunic in this analysis. Ed.] It makes sense now why our verse begins with describing the garments as holy and concludes by repeating that the garments are holy.

“He shall put on the holy linen tunic, etc.” At first glance, it appears that apart from the atonement, there is a second benefit to the High Priest entering to see the Divine Presence once a year: to strengthen faith, just as God appeared to all Israel at Mount Sinai to implant in their hearts the commandments I am [the Lord] and You shall have no other gods. Similarly, each year God wanted to appear to the priest, their representative, to renew faith in these two commandments which are the foundation of faith. If perhaps the Israelites transgressed You shall not murder and You shall not commit adultery, which correspond to I am [the Lord] and You shall have no other gods as we explained above in Parashat Ki Tisa regarding the verse and they rose to revel (Exodus 32:6), therefore the priest was commanded to wear a holy linen tunic. For our Sages said (Arachin 16a) that the tunic atones for bloodshed, and the linen breeches atone for sexual immorality, so that these sins would not contradict the two commandments I am [the Lord] and You shall have no other gods, and to establish a new covenant concerning them each year. And since with idolatry the Holy One, blessed be He, punishes even for thought, therefore it says and with a linen sash he shall gird himself, because the sash atones for impure thoughts of the heart (ibid. 16a). And since during this entrance, Aaron’s sons were punished for gazing at the Divine Presence with a haughty heart, therefore it says regarding Aaron and with a linen turban he shall wrap, because the turban atones for haughtiness (ibid. 16a). Another explanation for why these four garments were specified. Corresponding to the things that Aaron’s sons stumbled with. Now, the tunic and the belt are according to the explanation in the Yalkut (Shemini 524) that Aaron’s sons used to walk behind Moses and Aaron and say, “When will these two old men die so that we can assume authority over the congregation?” Rabbi Aibu said they spoke this with their mouths; Rabbi Pinchas said they contemplated it in their hearts. And it is difficult [to understand] what they are disagreeing about, and who told them that this is what they said or that this is what they contemplated in their hearts. And it appears that the opinion of Rabbi Ayvo is inclined to say, since the verse states “he shall wear a holy linen tunic” and the tunic atones for bloodshed, where do we find that the sons of Aaron were guilty of the sin of bloodshed? Rather, it must be that they spoke these words with their mouths and were whitening [embarrassing] the faces of Moses and Aaron by saying that they were not fit to be leaders except by virtue of their old age. And one who embarrasses his fellow is considered as if he shed blood. Therefore, this tunic comes to atone for bloodshed so that Aaron should not enter the Holy with the concern of this sin upon him, because the sons of Aaron were soiled with this sin and yet “they beheld God.” And since no hypocrite shall come before Him (Job 13:16), evil shall not enter His dwelling. For this reason, He warned Aaron about this atonement when he enters the Holy place, so that he should not enter the sanctuary soiled with this sin. And Rabbi Pinchas’s opinion is derived from the statement that with a linen belt he shall gird which atones for sinful thoughts; certainly they had such thoughts in their hearts, as we explained [the issue as it relates to the service on Yom Kippur] in the words of Rabbi Aivo. Rabbi Aivo [however] held that the belt atones for thoughts of forbidden sexual relations, because Aaron’s sons did not have wives, and one who is without a wife is full of sinful thoughts. Rabbi Pinchas held that the tunic, which atones for bloodshed, refers to their not engaging in procreation, which is comparable to bloodshed, as concluded in Yevamot (63b): “It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says, anyone who does not engage in procreation is as if he sheds blood, as it says Whoever sheds the blood of man (Genesis 9:6), and it is written And you, be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 9:7).” The reason for this is that the blood of his seed is required of him. And the linen pants, which atone for sexual immorality, [were needed] because they entered [the sanctuary] drunk with wine, which leads to sexual impropriety, as our Sages said (Yoma 75a), “Anyone who fixes his gaze on his cup, all forbidden sexual relations appear level to him, as it says When he puts his eye on the cup, he goes straight ahead (Proverbs 23:31).” And the linen turban atones for haughtiness, which includes several types of sins that our Sages attributed to them that are connected to haughtiness: that they gazed at the Divine Presence with an arrogant heart, that they issued rulings in the presence of Moses their teacher, and several other sins that we mentioned above in Parshat Shemini (10:1). And since Aaron’s sons died because they beheld God while they were still defiled with these sins, therefore He commanded Aaron that when he comes to see the glory of God, he should be clean of all the defilement of these sins, and he should wear these four white garments that whiten these sins — though they be red as crimson, they shall be as [white] wool. Furthermore, just as he comes to see the face of the Divine Presence, whose raiment was white as snow, so too he comes to be seen in white garments.

בגדי קודש הם, “they are sacred vestments.” The sages in Torat Kohanim use this verse as applying not only to this service in the Tabernacle on the Day of Atonement, but as applying to any time the High Priest performs duties in the Temple or Tabernacle. [Meaning that only the four vestments mentioned here are to be worn by him inside the Tabernacle, not the additional vestments which have been described as לכבוד ולתפארת, “for glory and splendour.” (Exodus 28,2). Ed.] Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text, seeing that in connection with the eight vestments the Torah had used the expression ועשית בגדי קודש, “you are to make sacred vestments,” (Exodus 28,2) the same terminology is used here. The Torah by emphasising the fact that the garments enumerated here are to be linen, בד, indicates that during service inside the Tabernacle only linen garments are to be worn. [Approaching Hashem in golden vestments when asking forgiveness would be the ultimate in bad taste. Ed.] In Vayikra Rabbah, 21,10 a comparison is drawn between the way service by the angels is perceived as taking place in the celestial counterpart to the Tabernacle on earth. In those regions the service is performed in linen vestments. The words כתונת בד קודש match what our sages used to describe as taking place in those regions. (Compare Ezekiel 9,1) Commenting on three different verbs used by the Torah for Aaron donning these vestments, ילבש, יחגור, יצנוף, when we would have thought that the word ילבש would suffice to describe all this, Torat Kohanim explains that seeing that the High Priest had to return to the Holy of Holies for the offering of the evening portion of the incense, he needed additional vessels to retrieve the spoon used for the incense, for instance, these extra words hint at these additional items the High Priest had to take with him.

And from the assembly of the children of Israel he shall take two he-goats as a sin offering and one ram as a burnt offering.

שני שעירי עזים לחטאת, the first to atone for sins which occurred inadvertently in the holy precincts, and the second one in respect of sins committed by the public at large who through mostly being in a state of ritual impurity would not have been in a position to offer this sacrifice on their own behalf at this time. Had they done so while in a state of ritual impurity and had entered holy precincts, they would have conferred ritual impurity on their agent the priest. [just as happened with the scape-goat who conferred ritual impurity on the man leading it to its death. (verse 26). However, in this case such impurity was not conferred on sacred ground. Ed.]

And from the congregation of the sons of Israel let him take two kids of the goats, without mixture, for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.

Aaron shall bring near his bull of the sin offering and make atonement for himself and for the members of his household.

את פרי החטאת אשר לו [AND AARON SHALL OFFER] THE BULL OF SIN OFFERING WHICH IS HIS — i. e. that mentioned above (v. 3). It teaches you here, by adding the words אשר לו, that it came (had to be purchased) from his own and not from the money of the community (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 2 2; Yoma 3b). וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו means, he shall make confession over it of his own sins and of the sins of his house (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 2 2; Yoma 36b).

"Aaron shall bring forward the bull of the sin-offering" — to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, according to the prescribed rule. The meaning of "and make atonement" is that by means of it he makes atonement for himself and for his household, after he has slaughtered it. Some say that the act of presenting it alive is itself the atonement.

וכפר בעדו, “he will perform atonement for his personal sins;” he will recite a confession by mouth. If you were to assume that the Torah here refers to an atonement by means of the blood of a sacrifice, our sages understood, after looking at verse 10 where we read the words: לכפר עליו in connection with the scapegoat, where it is clear that a confession by mouth is described, that the same expression being used here is meant to draw a parallel, i.e. that he is to recite a verbal confession. In verse 21 the words: והתודה עליו “he will make a verbal confession,” are spelled out clearly. This confession was in addition to the blood of the animal being sacrificed. If you were to ask why the High Priest did not also recite a confession over the male goat whose blood was sprinkled inside the Sanctuary, the reason was that it was destined for G-d, and it would be unseemly to make use of it for the needs of creatures here on earth. The Torah had especially written that this animal had been chosen by lot to be G-d’s. (verse 9) (Sifra). [According to Malbim, the unnecessary word עלה in this verse may be the reason for the Sifra’s comment.]

והקריב אהרן, in the courtyard, עזרה, את פר החטאת אשר לו וכפר בעדו. He will immediately pronounce his personal confession over the animal. According to the plain meaning of the text he will bring it into the courtyard in order to sacrifice it as atonement as explained by the line ושחט את פר החטאת אשר לו, “he will slaughter the bull of the sin offering for his personal atonement.(verse 11).

He shall take the two goats and station them before Hashem at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

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! In order to understand this whole subject we must first refer to a statement made by our sages in Avot 4,11 where we are told by Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov that if one performs a single מצוה one acquires an advocate on one's behalf; the reverse is true if one commits a sin. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov's words are explained by the Zohar volume 2, page 76 and elsewhere as well as by the Ari Zal. A sin is perceived as creating a spiritually negative force in our world. It is this spiritually negative force which is considered the actual sin perpetrated by the individual in question. We have explained Jeremiah 2,19 and Isaiah 64,6 as conveying this idea. When G'd forgave David in Samuel II 12,14, telling him he would not die, the message was also that the evil power David had created through his deed would be destroyed as a result of his repentance. This is why the prophet Nathan could say that "G'd has also removed your sin and you will not die." The sin man committed created the lethal force which has the power to kill the sinner. Once the sin has been removed, the force that potentially could have killed the sinner has been neutralised, is unable to kill. In other words, it is not G'd who kills but the forces created by the sinner are what cause death. Seeing that G'd much prefers our welfare to our death, He commanded that whosoever committed a sinful act unintentionally should offer a sin-offering; the owner should place his weight on the animal which is to serve as this offering, an act which drains him of the negative influences he has absorbed due to his evil deeds and transfers them to the sacrificial animal instead. G'd has informed us that this act of man when performed in the precincts of the Holy Temple is imbued with the unifying power of the אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, G'd's attribute as the spirit of all flesh. This is the mystical dimension of the need to perform סמיכה prior to the offering of sin-offerings. Every activity performed by man as part of the sin-offering procedure, i.e. the slaughtering, and the burning up of the animal's parts designated for this, he performs as a continuation of the act of placing his own physical weight on the animal first. The evil force his sin had created is neutralised, is completely ...

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). A Midrashic approach found in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 46: Satan was complaining that whereas G’d had given him authority over all the nations He had not given him any control over the Jewish people. G’d responded that on one day a year, namely, on Yom Kippur, he, Satan would have authority over the Jewish people in the event the latter were sinful. [I suppose it means that if they did not repent on that day and observed it properly. There could hardly be a question that they entered the day in a state of sin. Ed.]. The Israelites were given an opportunity to satisfy the aspirations of Samael by offering him a bribe. Whereas the offering presented to G’d was a burnt-offering, the one offered to Samael (Azzazel) was the sin-offering which was burdened with all the sins of the people of Israel. This gift to Samael was designed to deflect his intention to thwart the value of Israel’s offering on that day. By “playing up to the ego of Samael,” G’d hoped to neutralize him through flattery so that the purpose of the Day of Atonement could be achieved without interference from that source. When, as a result of receiving the “bribe,” Samael realised that on that day the Israelites were like angels, not eating, not drinking, etc., he too joined the chorus of Israel’s admirers telling G’d that Israel were as free from sin as are the ministering angels. Once G’d hears the testimony of our perennial accuser, He grants atonement to the people, to the priests, and the entire congregation. Thus far Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer. [Our author now addresses a difficulty in the text of that Midrash where he does not know what to make of the word יקריב in the line “this is why one gives a bribe to Samael so that לא יקריב את קרבנם,” which we translated “so that he would not try to thwart the value of our offering.” The text in our amended version of the Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer does not have either the word יקרב or יקריב which bothers our author. I will therefore omit his attempt at dealing with this problematic wording. Our text reads שלא לבטל את קרבן של ישראל, and is not problematic at all. Ed.] The word עזאזל continues to exercise the mind of our author who claims to follow the approach of Nachmanides in this regard. He suggests that it is a form of reinforcing the meaning of the word עז, strong, hard, obstinate. He also claims that Satanic forces to the extent that they too are rooted in the Divine seeing that there are no competing forces to G’d unless G’d Himself had created them and given them their authority, always end with the letters אל, a form of the name of G’d. The word עזאזל could be understood as equivalent to עזי-אל “my strength is G’d-like,” or something to that effect. He finds an allusion to Satanic forces being described as “strong, hard, חזק,” in the words of the Psalm 35,10 מציל עני מחזק ממנו, “He (the Lord) saves the poor from forces stronger than he” (the reference being to Samael). We find G’d described as עזוז וגבור, in Psalms 24,8. This is a redoubling of the normal עז, for “strong, tough,” etc. The word עזאזל may reflect the evil urge=Satan, Samael, (Baba Batra 16) in its most potent form. Our sages have told us that “Satan” and “evil urge” are merely two different words describing the same phenomenon. The word סמאל, Samael, Satan, also has a connotation of שמאל, “left,” as it places itself to the “left” side of a person, its potential victim. In addition the letters in סמאל remind one of something “hidden,” סמיות, and are reminiscent of the Torah writing that “bribes blind the eyes of even the intelligent and normally discriminating” (compare Deut. 16,19). In Bereshit Rabbah 65,10 the word עונותם in verse 22 is read as עונות איש תם, a veiled reference to Yaakov who is described in the Torah as איש תם, (Genesis 25,27). Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer deals with the phenomenon at length as we have described already. An additional meaning of the word עזאזל is derived if we break up the word into two words עז אזל, meaning “the powerful one has already gone away;” [the meaning is that due to being presented with the scapegoat the effectiveness of Samael-Satan-Azzazel has been broken. Ed.] If you will count the words from the first time the word עזאזל appears in our chapter (16,8-17,7) to the word לשעירים, you will find a total of thirty-three verses. This prompted Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra to comment that there are mystical aspects to this phenomenon which one cannot understand until one reaches the age of 33. He considers the key word in the procedure the word המדברה, “to the desert,” in verse 10. The message is that when the scapegoat is dispatched to the desert, an uninhabited region, the sins with which it has been laden will end up in a region where they cannot cause any damage, cannot contaminate human beings who come into contact with sins or sinners. Thus far Ibn Ezra. 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.

Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats: one lot for the Name of Hashem and one lot for Azazel.

השעירים גרלותשני על אהרן ונתן AND AARON SHALL CAST LOTS UPON THE TWO GOATS — He places one goat at his right and the other at his left. He then puts both his hands into an urn and takes one lot in his right hand and the other in his left. These he places upon them (the goats; i.e. one upon each of them). The goat upon which there fell that lot bearing the inscription 'לה, "For the Lord" was destined for the Lord, and that upon which there fell that lot bearing the inscription "For Azazel" was afterwards sent forth to the Azazel (Yoma 39a). עזאזל AZAZEL — (The word is taken to be a compound of עזז "to be strong" and אל "mighty"). It was a precipitous and flinty rock — a towering peak, for it is said (v. 22) "[and the goat shall bear upon it their iniquities into] an גזר) "ארץ גזרה means to cut) — into a craggy land (Yoma 67b).

AND THE OTHER LOT FOR AZAZEL. “This was a high mountain — a flinty precipitous peak, as it is said, a land which is cut off.” This is the language of Rashi. And in the Torath Kohanim [the Rabbis have said]: “For Azazel. This means the ‘hardest’ place in the mountains. I might think that it refers to an inhabited place; Scripture therefore says into the wilderness. Whence do we know that it be a precipitous peak? Scripture therefore says, unto a land which is cut off.” Accordingly the meaning of the word la’azazel is to “a hard” place, [the root of the word azazel being az — strong], with the letter za’yin doubled just like ‘izuz’ (strong) and mighty. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “Said Rav Shmuel: ‘Although it is [only] with reference to the goat of the sin-offering that it is written [explicitly] that it was for the Eternal, the goat which was sent away [to Azazel] was also for the Eternal.’ But there is no need for this [comment]. For the goat which was sent away was not an “offering’ since it was not slaughtered. Now if you can understand the secret of the word after ‘Azazel,’ you will know its secret [that of Azazel] and the secret of its name, since it has companions in Scripture. And I will reveal to you part of the secret by hint: when you will be at thirty-three you will know it.” [Thus far are the words of Ibn Ezra]. Now of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra it may be said that he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth a matter, and I will not be the talebearer who revealeth his secret, since our Rabbis of blessed memory have already revealed it in many places. Thus they have said in Bereshith Rabbah: “And the ‘sa’ir’ shall carry upon him, this is a reference to Esau, as it is said, Behold, Esau my brother is a man who is ‘sa’ir’ (hairy). All ‘avonotham’ (their iniquities), [read]: ‘avonoth tam’ (the sins of him who has been called tam, ‘a man of integrity’), as it is said, and Jacob was a man ‘tam’ (‘of integrity’).” It is explained more clearly in the Chapters of the great Rabbi Eliezer: “The reason why they would give Sammael [i.e., Satan] a conciliatory gift on the Day of Atonement, was so that he should not annul [the effect of] their offerings, as it is said, one lot for the Eternal, and the other lot for Azazel, the lot of the Holy One, blessed by He, to be a burnt-offering, and the lot of Azazel to be ‘the goat of sin,’ bearing upon it all the iniquities of Israel, as it is said, And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities. When Sammael saw that he could find no sin on the Day of Atonement amongst them [the children of Israel], he said to the Holy One, blessed by He: ‘Master of all worlds! You have one people on earth who are comparable to the ministering angels in the heavens. Just as the ministering angels are barefooted, so are the Israelites barefooted [i.e., do not wear leather shoes] on the Day of Atonement. Just as the ministering angels do not eat or drink, so is there no eating or drinking in Israel on the Day of A...

"Lots" — known from the received tradition of our fathers. The Gaon [Saadia] said that Azazel is the name of a mountain, so called because it is strong — the name having the same sense as "mountains of God," Jekuthiel, and the like. The Gaon ha-Levi caught him in error, pointing out that the alef in the word עֲזָאזֵל stands between two zayins. Some say it is a mountain near Mount Sinai, and that God commanded that the goat be led there and brought up to that place until it was slaughtered — whereas in the Temple period it was taken to a different mountain. The proof is that it says "and Aaron did," and likewise, in my opinion, on Shavuot, as I will explain in its place. Some say that the service of the Second Temple did not match that of the First, because the priest lacked the [full] vestments and there was no atonement. This commentator said the goat is sent into the wilderness, as it is written "and he shall send the goat to the wilderness" — and its sense is like the bird used to purify the leper, which is sent over the open field, a place without settlement, as evidence for "to a land of cutting off." We have replied that the goat is sent into the wilderness as written, and they pursue it until it flees and climbs to the rock — which is why the Sages said "he pushes it off." And Rav Shmuel said: even though the sin-goat is designated for Hashem, the sent-away goat is also for Hashem. But there is no need for this argument, since the one sent away is not a sacrifice, for it is not slaughtered. If you are able to understand the secret concealed after the word Azazel, you will know its mystery and the mystery of its name, for it has counterparts in Scripture. I will reveal to you a part of the secret by allusion: when you reach the age of thirty-three, you will know it.

גורלות, use of a lot, especially when handled by one of G’d’s intimates, in this case by Aaron, serves to confirm something G’d wants as we know from Solomon in Proverbs 16,33 בחיק יוטל את הגורל, ומה' כל משפטו, “the lot is cast in the lap, but one’s judgment depends on G.d.” [the gullible person imagining that as long as the lot has not revealed what it was meant to reveal the fate of the individual has not been determined, is in gross error. The fate had long ago been determined in heaven. (Alshich). Ed.]

וגורל אחד לעזאזל, “and one lot for Azazel.” This word is an alternate word for Samael, which means “Satan.” According to Rabbi Eliezer in Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 46, we are commanded to assuage the feelings of Satan on that day so that he will not attempt to interfere with the effectiveness of our repentance. When the Jewish people can enlist even Satan’s silence at the throne of G-d, there is no greater bribery than this. We are bidden to enlist this so that our sacrifices are not going to be in vain due to his citing our shortcomings.

“One lot for the Lord, and one lot for Azazel.” It appears that these two goats are very similar to the two young goats that Jacob prepared for Isaac: he made one of them into a delicacy as the material [physical world] desires, and this is the portion of Samael, who was given a bribe so that Jacob would receive blessings through his portion from the second goat, which he made as a Passover [offering] to the Lord, as it says in the Midrash (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 32) that on that very day, it was the first day of Passover. Isaac said, “My son, the storehouses of dew are opened today,” etc. Similarly, for future generations with these two goats, Samael is given his portion so that Jacob would receive his portion from the lot that is for the Lord. And thus the Midrash connects them (Genesis Rabbah 65:14), saying, “Good young goats. They are good for you, as through them you will receive the blessings, and good for your children, as through them they are atoned for on Yom Kippur.”

וגורל אחד לעזאזל, “and one lot for the one designated as destined for Azazel.” The word עזאזל is interpreted in Torat Kohanim as “a hard place in the mountains.” The word is linked to the word עז meaning “hard, tough.” By doubling the letters the point is made that the place is especially hard, unyielding. Nachmanides proceeds to explain the somewhat strange sounding rite of the scapegoat as follows: There used to be people who worshipped other deities, i.e. they ascribed divine powers to phenomena in nature. In fact these so-called deities are agents of the Creator whom we Jews perceive as מלאכים, loosely translated as “angels,” as they perform tasks assigned to them by the Creator, by Hashem. These misguided people offered sacrifices to these powers in the mistaken belief that these powers were able to do things on their own, things that G’d had not authorised them to do, or to fail to do. The Torah, had, of course, forbidden us totally to see in these powers anything resembling divinity. However, on the occasion of Yom Kippur, the Torah commanded that one of the two male goats designated as part of the Temple service would instead of being offered on the altar be dispatched to its death not as a sacrifice. The address to which this scapegoat was dispatched was the location in which the power perceived as possessing divine powers over nature was supposed to have its home. This power is equated in our thinking with the power that unleashes destruction [always at the command of Hashem, of course. Ed.] The “president” of these powers deserves to be acknowledged for what it is, though of course not to be deified, and that is why the scapegoat described in our verse is not slaughtered as opposed to sacrifices that are. The celestial body perceived as in “control” of all negative events in our universe is the planet Mars. Its counterpart among human beings is the nation of Edom, i.e. the descendants of Esau. Esau is the nation that has inherited the sword as the symbol of its power, ever since Yitzchok blessed his son Esau. In he animal kingdom the male goat represents the counterpart of Esau/Edom amongst the human beings. Parts of the domain of the male goats are the so-called שדים, satanic forces, the demons. The whole subject of the scapegoat must not, G’d forbid, be misunderstood as a kind of offering to these demonic forces from the Jewish people. On the contrary, the procedure demonstrates that we carry out the will of our Creator. Our sages have illustrated this in the form of a parable. When an individual prepares a feast in honour of his king, the king in turn, asks the host of this feast to also give a portion to a certain servant of his. Naturally, the individual tendering the feast to the king, in complying with his king’s request has not thereby done anything for that particular servant of the king. He has merely carried out a wish by his monarch. He had tendered a meal to the king, who had decided not to eat it all himself but to let another one of his servants share in the honour bestowed on him The reason why the king decided to give a portion to that particular servant of his was that he thereby wanted to perform an act of kindness for the host of this meal by ensuring that the servant who had not been invited to that meal but to whom the king diverted a portion now, had no reason to be jealous of the host and be upset that the host had not seen fit to invite him also as guest to that feast. A clear proof of the basic analogy presented in this parable is the fact that the scapegoat, though given to the demons had not been slaughtered, its blood had not been sprinkled on the altar, as was done with the part of the feast to which the king and his other servants had been invited. This is also the underlying reason for the lots which were drawn as to which of the male goats would be served to whom, -to continue in the language of the parable.- Both the fact that according to halachah both male goats had to be as near to twins as was possible, and the fact that only the drawing of lots determined which was to be served to whom, made it plain that the guest whom the king’s admirer had not invited was not considered inferior, else an inferior portion would have been set aside for him from the outset. Onkelos translates the words גורל אחד לה' as “one of the male goats was destined for the Hoy Name of Hashem,” whereas the other one was destined for Azazel. In other words, the first one was addressed to an attribute of Hashem, not to His essence, whereas the second was addressed to the essence of Azazel, not to an attribute of his. Such considerations prompted our sages both in Torat Kohanim and in Yuma 67 to comment as follows on Leviticus 18,4 את משפטי תעשו ואת חוקותי תשמרו, “Carry out My laws and observe My statutes.” The “laws” are the ones that are so self-evident that if the Torah had not spelled them out we would have had to legislate them ourselves. The former include legislation against robbery, murder, idolatry, etc.; whereas the latter include such statutes as not to mix wool with linen in a garment, not to allow the widow of a husband who had no children to remarry unless her brother-in-law had refused to enter into a levirate marriage with her (חליצה), not to eat pig’s meat, the red heifer, etc. The latter have been described as examples of irrational laws which the nations of the world ridicule, and thereby test our faith in the Creator Who has wanted to see if we would observe these laws although we do not understand their rationale. The legislation about the scapegoat also falls into the category of laws that afford the gentiles a challenge in that they feel that basically, we do nothing else than what they do. They cannot challenge all the various offerings that we offer to Hashem and hope thereby to undermine our faith in the invisible Creator. They thought that the absence of the mention of Hashem in the procedure of the scapegoat proved that we also pay homage to demons, etc. They thought they had found another proof of the irrationality of our faith in the red heifer legislation that appears to contaminate the very person who is preoccupied with purifying others. The wording of the Torah, as alluded to by Onkelos, makes it plain that the gentiles have completely misunderstood the phenomenon of the scapegoat. The major reason why the gentiles were misled is that both the red heifer procedure and the second half of the scapegoat procedure takes place outside consecrated grounds.

גורל אחד לה' וגורל אחד לעזאזל, “one lot for the Lord and one lot for Azazel.” Ibn Ezra, [at the conclusion of his commentary on this verse, Ed.], writes that when we get to thirty three, we will be able to understand the meaning of this procedure. [At the beginning of his commentary, he had already hinted that there is a mystical element, kabbalah, in all this. Ed.] What he meant was that when we count the next thirty three verses in the Torah and we get to Leviticus 17,7, the Torah will explain that the procedure described here is meant to teach us not to sacrifice to Satanic forces in the universe anymore. These Satanic forces are symbolised by the scapegoat. Just as the bird released into the air by the priest performing the ritual of the person afflicted with tzoraat is perceived as taking away his former sins, so the scapegoat is supposed to do this on behalf of the whole Jewish nation on the day of Atonement. Ibn Ezra understands the word עזאזל as a combination of two words, similar to גלעד in Genesis 31,47 or to בנימין in Genesis 35,18 or ראובן in Genesis 29,32, and many others. Whereas the first male goat is offered to the Lord as a burnt offering, the second one is symbolically tendered of the Satanic forces, the complete destruction of that animal pointing at the uselessness of idolatry The two words לעז אזל, “it went to waste, to destruction ” symbolise this concept.

Aaron shall bring near the goat upon which the lot for the Name of Hashem came up and offer it as a sin offering.

ועשהו חטאת means, when putting the lot upon it he names it (i.e. designates its purpose), using the words: "to the Lord as a sin offering״ (Yoma 39a).

"And make it a sin-offering" — that is, he shall slaughter it.

ועשהו חטאת, the lot determines which of the male goats is to be the sin offering for the altar. In the words of our sages (Yuma 40) “the lot determines which is the sin offering, and not the name.” [calling it such is meaningless unless confirmed by the lot drawn. Ed.]

ועשהו חטאת, “and it will be made into a sin offering.” This was determined by lot. The High Priest had no hand in which of the two animals wound up as the sin offering.

And the goat upon which the lot for Azazel came up shall be stood alive before Hashem to make atonement over it, to send it away to Azazel into the wilderness.

חי יעמד SHALL BE PRESENTED ALIVE — חי יָעֳמַד is the same as חי יוּעֲמַד (i. e. יָעֳמַד is a regular Hophal-form) — it shall be made to stand by others (i. e. it shall be placed). The Targum also renders it by: יתקם כד חי, “it shall be made to stand in a live state". — Why is it stated that it shall be presented alive; this is already implied in the word יעמד. it shall be made to stand!? But because it continues “to send it forth unto Azazel" and I would not know whether this “sending forth” means to death or to life (in the latter case it would mean “to let it go”; cf. Leviticus 14:7 where ושלח has this meaning), therefore Scripture states “it shall be presented alive” — its presentation must be made whilst it is alive and the animal remains so up to the time when it is being sent forth; it follows therefore that it shall be sent forth to death (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 2 6). לכפר עליו THAT HE MAY MAKE AN EXPIATION WITH IT — i. e. that he (the High-Priest) shall confess upon it (upon its head) Israel’s sins, as it is said (v. 21) “And Aaron shall confess upon it [the iniquities of the children of Israel]” (cf. Yoma 40b).

"Shall be stood alive" — this is the heavy-added binyan [Hoph'al], with the agent not specified. The yod should by right be vocalized with a shuruk, but it is broadened on account of the guttural letter — and similarly יָחֳרַם, "all his property shall be devoted" (Ezra 10:8). "To make atonement over it" — for the atonement is to rest upon it, and the meaning is to send it away.

יעמד חי, shall be set alive, etc. These words need analysis. Yuma 40 and Torat Kohanim offer many explanations. According to our own approach the meaning is simply that Aaron was not to confess the sins of Israel on that animal immediately after the lot had been drawn, but was to leave it "alive" for a while. We have explained on several occasions that sinners are called "dead" even while they are physically still alive. An animal which carries the burden of the sins of the nation would therefore certainly be considered "dead" from the moment it assumed that burden. Consequently, the Torah had to mention that this procedure was not to take place immediately and that in the meantime the scape-goat remained "alive." Our interpretation is confirmed by the Torah as correct as you can see from verse 21. Only then does Aaron place his hands (weight) on the head of the שעיר החי, the "living goat," and confesses the sins of the people and transfers them to the head of that animal. At that point the Torah no longer adds the adjective "the live one," when speaking of the scapegoat. Seeing the animal is considered dead from that point on we can understand why the messenger who took the scapegoat to the place from where it was thrown off the rock had to immerse himself in a ritual bath. He had become ritually defiled by contact with an animal considered dead according to halachah though it had been walking all the time that the איש עתי accompanied it (verse 22).

יעמד חי לפני ה, “shall be standing alive before the Lord;” initially it will remain standing alive before the Lord, whereas its death will be caused by the rock from which it will be thrown. How long will it have to remain standing alive? According to Rabbi Yehudah, until the High Priest has completed all the procedures resulting in the atonement for the Jewish people, something hinted at in verse 20. (Sifra)

לשלח אותו לעזאזל המדברה, according to the plain meaning it means to dispatch it “alive” to the goats in the desert, similar to the one bird of the two bird offerings in Leviticus 14,7 being released live into the open spaces. The purpose of the procedure is to ritually purify the afflicted from his ritual contamination. Here in our verse too, the purpose of the procedure is to cleanse the entire Jewish people from the ritual contamination which they have been in by releasing the scape-goat to the desert, to an area where it can find grazing, as we know from Exodus 3,1 where Moses had taken his father-in-law’s sheep into grazing land behind the desert, According to the Talmud (Beytzah 40) the meaning of מדבריות, is בייתות, “domesticated.” [this would support the idea that the word המדברה here does not mean “to a desolate, desert region.” Ed.] לעזאזל. The letter ל at the beginning is not an integral part of the word. It is like the letter ל in ארבאל בית in Hoseah 10,14 where the word is really derived from ארב as in Deuteronomy 19,11 וארב לו “and he prepared an ambush for him.” The letter we are speaking about is similar to the letter ם which sometimes appears at the end of the word ריקם, empty, instead of ריק, but which does not add to the meaning of the word. Similar examples of apparently redundant letters are the letter ן in words such as עשרון, עצבון, and שגעון, In verse 22 the place called המדברה in our verse is called ארץ גזרה, a totally arid land, one that cannot produce a crop. It is literally “cut off,” גזורה, from all goodness.

Aaron shall bring near his bull of the sin offering and make atonement for himself and for the members of his household, and he shall slaughter his bull of the sin offering.

'וכפר בעדו וגו AND HE SHALL MAKE AN EXPIATION FOR HIMSELF etc. — This implies a second confession of sins which he was to make for himself and on behalf of his brother-priests, who may all be termed “his house”, as it said (Psalms 135:19) “Bless the Lord, o house of Aaron, etc." (cf. Shevuot 14a). Hence we learn that the priests become atoned for by means of it (the bullock). The expiation effected by it extended, however, only to those sins committed by causing uncleanness to the Sanctuary or holy things (i.e. by the priests having entered the Sanctuary or eaten of the holy things in such a state), as it is said (v. 16) “And he shall make an expiation for the holy place because of the uncleanness [of the children of Israel] etc.”.

"Aaron shall bring forward" — because the matter of the two goats has been drawn out at length, Scripture adds here to clarify: after he brought the bull and the two goats to the Tent of Meeting, he proceeds to slaughter his own bull.

וכפר בעדו, we have already learned by tradition that both the atonements which are mentioned in connection with Aaron personally refer to the confession recited by Aaron, this is why they took place before the actual slaughtering of the sin offering.

ושחט את פר החטאת, “he will slaughter the bull as a sin offering;” and take a full shovel. He shall then take some of the bull's blood and sprinkle it. It is necessary for him to give the bull's blood to another priest (Talmud Yoma 43) to stir it so that it does not congeal after the slaughter while he is bringing the incense into the innermost sanctum before the sprinkling.

He shall take a censer full of burning coals from upon the altar that is before Hashem, and his two handfuls of finely ground aromatic incense, and bring them within the curtain.

מעל המזבח FROM OFF THE ALTAR — i. e. the outer altar (that was in the fore-court) (Yoma 45b). מלפני ה׳ FROM BEFORE THE LORD — from that side of the altar which was before the entrance — that is, the west side (cf. Yoma 45b.) דקה [AND HIS HANDS FULL OF INCENSE OF AROMATICS] FINE — Why is it stated that it shall be fine? Was not all incense fine, for so it is said, (Exodus 30:36) "And thou shall rub some of it very fine” - ? But it is intended to teach that it (the incense used on the Day of Atonement) was to be of the very finest powder, for on the Eve of the Day of Atonement it (the ordinary incense) was put again into the mortar in order that it should be again beaten into a finer powder. (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 3 8-9; Keritot 6b; Yoma 45a).

"The fire-pan" — it is well known. "His handfuls" — both of them. "Fragrant incense" — the one already mentioned.

ולקח מלא המחתה, as soon as the sin offering had been slaughtered and he had previously recited his confession so that his sins had been removed, he was now ready to face the “King,” (G’d) who would look upon him with favour. This is what was meant in verse 2 with the reference to the cloud by means of which G’d would manifest Himself. At that point it was appropriate to honour Him by presenting the incense, much as the incense would be offered daily after the presentation of the daily communal offering, תמיד both in the morning and in the evening. (compare Exodus 29,42 עולת תמיד לדורותיכם פתח אהל מועד אשר אועד לכם שמה, “a regular burnt offering throughout your generations at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting where I manifest Myself for you.”

מעל המזבח מלפני ה, “off the altar before the Lord;” which is the altar that is described here as being “before the Lord?” According to the prefix letter מ in front of the word מעל, this is the copper altar in front of the Temple, only part of which is directly in front of the entrance of the Temple/Tabernacle.

He shall place the aromatic incense upon the fire before Hashem, and the cloud of the incense shall cover the cover that is over the Testimony, so that he will not die.

על האש UPON THE FIRE which was in the censer. ולא ימות THAT IIE DIE NOT — Hence, if he did not offer it according to regulation he was liable to the death penalty (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 3 10; Yoma 53a).

ונתן את הקטורת, “he will place the incense, etc.” this incense has been mentioned in verse 2 where G-d explained that he will be making an appearance above the lid of the Holy Ark, beyond the dividing curtain. At that point, Aaron, and of course, anyone of lower rank, is not to go there on pain of death unless commanded to do so by G-d. G-d had made clear that no human being while inside a body can ever have a visual image of His essence. In order to make this point quite clear the Torah writes that the cloud of the smoke from the incense will fill that area so that nothing can be seen.

And he shall put the sweet incense upon the fire before the Lord, and the cloud of the fuming incense shall envelope the mercy-seat that is over the testimony, that he may not die by the flaming fire before the Lord.

He shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger upon the face of the cover to the east, and before the cover he shall sprinkle seven times from the blood with his finger.

והזה באצבעו AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE IT WITH THE FINGER — One sprinkling only is implied (since the next phrase mentions a definite number), ולפני הכפרת יזה שבע AND BEFORE THE COVERING SHALL HE SPRINKLE [OF THE BLOOD] SEVEN TIMES — Thus we have one sprinkling upwards and seven downwards (Yoma 53b).

It appeared to us that "on the face of the ark-cover" and "before the ark-cover" should be taken according to their plain meaning. But the transmitters [the Sages] said that "on the face of the ark-cover" refers to between the poles, and "before the ark-cover" is known from their teaching — and this is correct.

ולקח מדם הפר, “he will take some of the blood from the bull;” he takes it from the priest who had kept stirring it. על פני הכפורת קדמה, “onto the top of the lid, eastward;” on the side of the ark facing east. על, according to our sages the word על means “upwards.” as in the reciting of the counting by the High Priest, recited in our liturgy on the Day of Atonement. שבע פעמים, “seven times.” This number is reminiscent of the Torah in Leviticus 26,24 speaking of G-d punishing us sevenfold for our sins.

על פני הכפרת קדמה ולפני הכפרת יזה שבע פעמים, “in front of the kapporet to the east as well as in front of the kapporet (west?).” There were a total of eight sprinklings of blood on Yom Kippur. Seven were aimed at the lower half of the Holy Ark and one at the upper half. Let me try and explain the symbolism in these sprinklings. The first sprinkling aimed at the Holy Ark was directed at the highest emanations which include the emanation of חכמה and בינה, “wisdom and insight.” The seven subsequent sprinklings aimed at the Holy Ark were to symbolize the remaining seven lower emanations. We have been taught in Yuma 53 that the High Priest had to count aloud while performing these sprinklings. This was the formula: “one; one and one; one and two; one and three; one and four; one and five; one and six; one and seven.” When the High Priest said: “one,” he meant the upper three emanations which were treated as one group. When he said: “one and one,” he referred to the first sprinkling which was in respect of the three higher emanations plus the first of the sprinklings in respect of the highest of the seven lower emanations. He continued in that vein to the end. The Talmud there (folio 55) states that though there is a disagreement among the scholars concerning the subsequent countings, they are all agreed that the initial counting is obligatory. Concerning the question why the High Priest always had to repeat the reference to the first sprinkling, i.e. repeating the word אחת each time, Rabbi Eleazar says that it was to ensure he would not make a mistake in the procedure. Rabbi Yochanan says that that this was based on our verse where the Torah wrote that seven sprinklings had to take place in front of the kapporet. He considered the word יזה the second time in that verse as redundant, seeing the verse had said earlier והזה, “he shall sprinkle.” As a result of the extra word Rabbi Yochanan considers the count accompanying the sprinkling procedure as obligatory and crucial, meaning that if the High Priest failed to count in this manner the whole procedure would be invalidated. We need to understand why, according to Rabbi Yochanan, the count in this fashion is so essential. According to Rabbi Yochanan even if the High Priest did not make a mistake in the procedure the fact that he did not count in the approved manner makes his service invalid. The Torah attributed so much importance to the sprinkling of this blood on and against the Holy Ark instead of merely on the Altar in the Sanctuary that the counting of the procedure became so important. The very name of the lid of the Ark i.e. כפרת indicates the ability of contributing to atonement which was part of the latent power of the Ark, the Lid and the Cherubs. (Compare Tanchuma Vayakhel 10).

He shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and bring its blood within the curtain, and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull — he shall sprinkle it upon the cover and before the cover.

אשר לעם [THE GOAT OF THE SIN-OFFERING] THAT IS FOR THE PEOPLE — Only for that which the bullock effects atonement for the priests (i. e. for ומאת מקדש וקדשיוט) the goat effects atonement for the Israelites. It (the goat spoken of here) is that goat upon which the lot “for the Lord" fell (Yoma 61a; Shevuot 2b). כאשר עשה לדם הפר AS HE DID WITH THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK, viz., sprinkling once upwards and seven times downwards (Yoma 53b).

"He shall slaughter the goat of the sin-offering that is for the people" — he now slaughters it upon going out, for some say it is slaughtered before the bull, but this is not correct.

החטאת אשר לעם. After he had completed offering the sin offering for his own atonement, also the people would be on the level where they could face the “King.” The sequence described here which at fist glance might seem as if the High Priest were more concerned with his own atonement than that of the people whom he represented, is confirmed by the prophet (Tzefaniah 2,1) in the words התקוששו וקושו, which is interpreted in Sanhedrin 18 as “attend to your own integrity before you attend to the integrity of others.”

אשר לעם, “intended for atonement of the people,” and not for other ordinary priests, not of the High Priest’s family. The question then arises by what means did those priests receive their atonement? Answer: by the bull that brought atonement of Aaron’s sins.

He shall make atonement over the sanctuary from the impurities of the children of Israel and from their transgressions, for all their sins; and so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting that dwells among them in the midst of their impurities.

מטמאת בני ישראל [AND HE SHALL MAKE AN EXPIATION FOR THE HOLY PLACE] BECAUSE OF THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — i. e. for those who entered the Sanctuary in a state of uncleanness without having finally become conscious of this fact (Shevuot 7b), for it is said לכל חטאתם, and the word חטאת implies a sin committed unconsciously. ומפשעיהם AND BECAUSE OF THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS — This implies atonement also for those who entered the Sanctuary presumptuously in a state of uncleanness (Shevuot 7b; cf. also Shevuot 2a and Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 1). וכן יעשה לאהל מועד AND SO SHALL HE DO FOR THE APPOINTED TENT — Just as he sprinkled in the “Interior" (the Holy of Holies) from the blood of both of them (of the bullock and the goat) once upwards and seven times downwards so he sprinkles over against the Partition Vail from outside (i. e. standing in the היכל; cf. Leviticus 4:6) once upwards and seven times downwards (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 5; Yoma 56b). השכן אתם בתוך טמאתם— This implies that although they are unclean nevertheless the Shechinah dwells in their midst (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 5; Yoma 57a).

"He shall make atonement for the holy place" — that is, the Holy of Holies. "And so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting" — he sprinkles seven times before the curtain and on the horns of the incense altar. The meaning of "he shall make atonement for the holy place" is that the blood serves as atonement so that it will not be corrupted on account of the impurity of those who are impure.

השכן אתם בתוך טומאתם, “that dwells with them amidst their contamination.” Even though the Jewish people are contaminated the Shechinah is amongst them (Sifra Acharey 4, 5). This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah in the Talmud Sukkah where he states his view that one may cover the Sukkah with material which is subject to becoming contaminated, although his view is not shared by the other scholars. He based his opinion on the text in our verse. We also have an opinion in Sanhedrin 37 according to which the words וירח את ריח בגדיו, “he inhaled the fragrance of his clothing” (Genesis 27,23) are understood as וירח את ריח בוגדיו, “he inhaled the fragrance of those who betray Him,” i.e. even though the person concerned is contaminated, seeing that they are Jews G’d does not totally reject them. Another allegorical approach along these lines is found in Shemot Rabbah 33,2 where the word עלית למרום שבית שבי (Psalms 68,19) are understood to mean that even if there were unfit Jews amongst the people this did not stop the Shechinah from being amongst them. The Midrash understands the words as a rebuttal to the Gentiles who believe that because Jews have served idols at one time they are forever cut off from G’d’s grace. Another comment by the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 18,8) on the words of Maleachi 2,16: “for I detest divorce- said the Lord G’d of Israel,” points to the fact that the prophet Malachi when mentioning G’d always uses the expression אלוקי צבאות, and only in this instance does he refer to G’d as אלוקי ישראל, “the G’d of Israel.” The author of the Midrash sees a clear message in this that the prophet wanted to reassure the people that G’d’s presence does not abandon the Jewish people even when they are sinful.

No person shall be in the Tent of Meeting when he enters to make atonement in the sanctuary until he comes out; and he shall make atonement for himself and for the members of his household and for the entire assembly of Israel.

"And no person" — meaning none of the priests. "To make atonement in the holy place" — inside. "He shall make atonement for himself and for his household" — with the bull of his sin-offering. "And for all the congregation of Israel" — with the goat of their sin-offering.

.וכל אדם, “not any human being, as non-priests never allowed into those precincts, but this is a warning to other priests not to be in these holy precincts during the period that the High Priest performs these functions. לא יהיה באהל מועד, “he must not be within the precincts of the Tent of meeting;” the reason why they were forbidden to be there was so that they would not become suddenly ritually impure, as the priest officiating would not be able to atone on their behalf on the same day.

וכל אדם לא יהיה באהל מועד, “No one shall be in the Tent of Meeting, etc.” Our sages in the Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 1,5 commented that even the creatures (angels) who have been described as having the likeness of אדם פני in Ezekiel 1,10 must also not be present in the Inner Sanctuary at the time Aaron performs this service. What a wonderful stature did the High Priest possess if he was allowed in a place where even angels were not allowed! This confirms that the High Priest was indeed מלאך ה' צבאות, “an angel of the Lord of Hosts” (compare Maleachi 2,7). The Sadducee High Priest (Yuma 19) who was struck down by the angel because he had arranged the fire and incense before entering the Inner Sanctuary had already left the Sanctuary before the angel struck him down. According to Rabbi Chiya a sound was heard in the courtyard, עזרה, at that time. When the other priests entered to see what had caused this sound they found a calf’s foot between the feet of that High Priest. The reason this happened to this High Priest was because he ignored the instructions of the sages that there is a tradition not to enter the Sanctuary with the incense already fixed on top of the fire in the censer. The reason for the traditional procedure was because of the fragrance which was so important at the time when the incense was prepared. The High Priest in question wanted to defy the tradition; this is why he was punished. May the Lord save us from punishment and requite us for the sake of His righteousness.

He shall go out to the altar that is before Hashem and make atonement over it; he shall take some of the blood of the bull and some of the blood of the goat and place it upon the horns of the altar all around.

אל המזבח אשר 'לפני ה [AND HE SHALL GO OUT] UNTO THE ALTAR THAT IS BEFORE THE LORD — i. e. unto the golden altar which is before the Lord viz., in the היכל. But why then (if the golden altar is intended) does Scripture state ויצא, “he shall go out" since he did not then leave the area where he officiated before? But because immediately before he made the sprinklings in front of the Partition Vail (cf. Rashi on the preceding verse) and was standing inwards (i.e. westwards) from the altar when sprinkling, whilst for the purpose of sprinkling the blood upon the horns of the altar Scripture forced him to go outwards from the altar (i. e. to its east-side, the side facing the exit) so that he should begin the sprinklings from the north-east corner, therefore it rightly Uses the term ויצא, he shall go out" i. e. move alongside the altar towards the exit (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 7-8; Yoma 58b). וכפר עליו AND HE SHALL MAKE EXPIATION FOR IT — wherein does this expiation consist? ולקח מדם הפר ומדם השעיר that HE TAKETH OF THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK AND OF THE BLOOD OF THE GOAT mingled one with the other and sprinkles it (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 9; Yoma 57b).

AND HE SHALL GO OUT UNTO THE ALTAR THAT IS BEFORE THE ETERNAL AND MAKE ATONEMENT FOR IT, etc. The sprinklings before the ark-cover [in the Holy of Holies] effected atonement for impurity that befell the innermost part of the Sanctuary and its hallowed things. The sprinklings in front of the Veil in the Tent of Meeting [which divided between the holy place and the most holy], effected atonement for impurity that befell the Sanctuary and its holy things, such as the candelabrum, the table, the showbread, and the Veil itself. The applications of the blood upon [the horns of] the inner altar and the [seven] sprinklings upon its top effected atonement for impurity that befell this altar itself and its holy things, such as the incense [which was burnt on it twice daily]. It is for this reason that Scripture divided them [these three parts of the Service] and mentioned “atonement” in each case. In the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis derived this interpretation from a verse written at the end [of this part of the Service], And when he hath finished making an atonement for the holy place, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar etc. On this verse the Rabbis commented: “Making an atonement for the holy place, this refers to the innermost part of the Sanctuary [i.e., the Holy of Holies]. The Tent of Meeting, this is the Sanctuary. The altar, that is the inner altar. This teaches that they are each a separate act of atonement. From this the Sages have deduced that if [the High Priest] made some of the applications of the blood within [the Holy of Holies], and the blood then became spilt, he must bring other blood and start again with the applications [done] within [the Holy of Holies]. But if he finished the applications within [the Holy of Holies], and the blood then became spilt, he must bring other blood and start again with the applications [done] on [the Veil] outside [in the Sanctuary]. If he finished the applications outside [in the Sanctuary] and the blood then became spilt, he must bring other blood and start again with the applications on the altar, etc. [since they are each a separate act of atonement].”

"He shall go out to the altar" — this is the altar of the burnt-offering.

He shall sprinkle upon it from the blood with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and sanctify it from the impurities of the children of Israel.

והזה עליו מן הדם AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE UPON IT WITH THE BLOOD — After he has made with his finger the application of the blood upon the horns of the altar he shall make seven sprinklings on its top (עליו signifies "upon it") (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 12). וטהרו AND THUS HE CLEANSES IT from the defilement that happened to it in the past, וקדשו AND HALLOWS IT for use in the future (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 4 13)

When he has finished making atonement for the sanctuary and for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar, he shall bring near the living goat.

והקריב את השעיר החי, “then he will present the live goat;” that goat had required to remain alive until this point. The first time (in our verse) the Torah had written about this goat, the vowel under the letter ה had been a segol, whereas subsequently (verse 21) it is a patach.

And when he hath completed to make atonement for the holy place, and for the tabernacle of ordinance, and for the altar, with confession of words, he shall bring near the living goat.

Aaron shall lean both his hands upon the head of the living goat and confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions, for all their sins; he shall place them upon the head of the goat and send it away by the hand of a man who is designated to go into the wilderness.

איש עתי A READY MAN — one who was held in readiness for this purpose from yesterday (Yoma 66a; Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 4 8).

AND HE SHALL PUT THEM UPON THE HEAD OF THE GOAT. Such an expression is not used with reference to the bullock of Aaron [over which he confessed his own sins and those of the other priests], nor in relation to the goat of the sin-offering of the Eternal, nor regarding the leaning of hands upon any of the offerings. This is because all offerings were brought for acceptance upon the fires of G-d [which burnt on the altar], and thus they effected pardon and atonement. But this [goat that was sent away to Azazel], since it was not for G-d, and the recipient thereof [i.e. Sammael] has no power to offer atonement or pardon, therefore the goat merely carries the people’s sins away, and [the accusing angel] must answer “Amen” against his will. When the Israelites are free from all sins and transgressions [as after the moment of confession of sins over the goat sent to Azazel], he indeed carries their sins away, as is mentioned in many verses in the Torah and the prophets. This then is [the meaning of the expression], and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities. That was the reason why the thread of crimson wool turned white at the time when the goat was sent away to Azazel, i.e., at the moment that he pushed it over the cliff, when it was broken in pieces, as is mentioned in the words of the Sages.

"And place them" — after they have been removed from Israel, it is as if they are given over to the head of the goat and carried off to a place where they will be remembered no more. Scripture speaks in a way that makes this comprehensible to all. "עִתִּי" — ready for its time, or it is his custom to go at each Yom Kippur; the yod affiliates it with time, as in פְּנִימִי. Those who interpret it as meaning "a wise man" — this is not correct in my view. The Sages said that the one who carries it is a priest, and their words are true.

את שתי ידיו, “both of his hands;” once the word שתי has been used here with the word for hands being in the plural, this is to teach us that whenever the word appears in the plural mode both hands are meant, without the word שתי needing to be written. והתודה עליו, “and he will confess over him;” how precisely does he word his confession? He recites the following words: אנא השם חטאו ועוו ופשעו בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel committed inadvertent sins, deliberate sins as well as sins reflecting their obstinacy against the Lord;” the people in turn will respond by saying that this was all true, and that they now blessed the glory of the Lord G-d. Thus far they had only confessed sins that they knew they had been guilty of. How do we know that their confession included sinful acts committed against their will through circumstances beyond their control, as well as possible sins that they had not even been aware of? This is covered by the word: כל עונות, “ail manner of sins.”The scapegoat that is thrown off the rock on the Day of Atonement results in atonement for sins committed by trespassing on holy grounds and abusing for personal use holy objects or foods reserved for consumption by the priests, etc.. It covers all manner of sins committed regardless of how severe the penalty for these sins if not repented. (Sifra) ביד איש עתי, “by the hand of a man especially (temporarily) appointed for this task.”According to a Midras (which I have not found) the word: עתי could be translated as: “whose time had come,” that is someone who was destined to die before this year is out. This would account for the fact that it was noticed that the man who had been entrusted with this task never lived out that year. [A well known commentator, author of K’lee Yakar, written several hundred years after that of our author, by the name of Shlomoh Efrayin ben Aharon, quotes this commentary, but attributes it to our author. Ed.] We must assume that in those days people used astrology to determine who was not destined to live out the year.

איש עתי, “a man designated for this particular task.” Our sages understand the word איש in this instance to mean that even a non-priest was fit for this task (Yuma 66). The word עתי means that even if the man was in a state of ritual impurity (temporarily) this did not disqualify him for this task. The man, even if impure, was allowed to enter the courtyard of the Temple in order to dispatch the scapegoat. The word עתי also means that the procedure transcends the laws of the Sabbath. The Torah means that if for some reason that scapegoat takes sick, the designated man may carry him to its destination on his shoulder. If the animal remained in good health it most certainly could be carried on the Sabbath as it is not forbidden to carry animals capable of walking, on the Sabbath. Even if the animal is sick and therefore as if tied up, unable to walk, the procedure is carried out on the Sabbath. All this is part of the meaning of the word עתי.

...elsewhere the sinner’s or his representative the High Priest’s placing his hands with all his weight on the animal offered as the sin offering is designed to regain the goodwill of Hashem for the sinner or sinners. In this instance (compare Shabbat 119) the scapegoat reluctantly agrees to carry the sins of the Israelites and says Amen.

ביד איש עתי, a man familiar with the paths and the desert regions, someone always available, on call, for such an assignment.

The goat shall carry upon itself all their offenses to an uninhabited land, and he shall send the goat away into the wilderness.

אל ארץ גזרה, “into the wilderness.” Basically, the meaning of the word גזרה, is “radically different from other lands.” We encounter it in this sense in Isaiah 53,8: כי נגזר מארץ החיים, “for he was cut off from the land of the living.” The reason for the choice of such earth to throw the scapegoat into was that if it had been thrown into productive soil it would have made that soil unproductive ושלח את השעיר במדבר, “and he shall dispatch the goat into the desert.” We find a similar construction in Leviticus 14,7 where our author commented on the meaning of the word.ושלח

And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities [avonotam]. The Sages interpreted (Bereshit Rabbah 65:15) [it as] “iniquities of the perfect one” [avonot tam], this refers to Jacob who was a perfect man [ish tam]. And it is just, for whoever causes the many to sin, the sin of the many is dependent upon him. And it is known that Samael constantly strives to cause Israel to sin, and so does Esau/Edom — all their schemes are aimed at causing Israel to sin, in accordance with the blessing and it shall come to pass when you shall break loose and cast off his yoke (Genesis 27:40). Therefore, it is fitting to place upon him all the sins of the children of the perfect one [Jacob], saying that Jacob, from his side, is perfect with God, and it was you [Esau/Samael] who caused them to sin. Therefore, he [the goat] shall bear their sins to Samael, the prince of Esau, who is called a hairy man [ish sa’ir], and his sending to a land of severance [eretz gezerah] is exactly similar to what is said And I will remove far off from you the northern one, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate (Joel 2:20). And send him by the hand of a designated man [ish iti] — the Sages said (brought in Chizkuni 16:21) this refers to one whose time [ito] has come to die in that year.

Aaron shall enter into the Tent of Meeting and remove the linen garments that he had worn when he entered the sanctuary, and he shall leave them there.

ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד AND AARON SHALL COME INTO THE APPOINTED TENT — Our Rabbis said (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 6 2; Yoma 32a), that this is not the proper place for this verse (it should be read after v. 25) and they gave a reason for this assertion in Treatise Yoma 32a. They said: The whole section is written in the order in which the rites actually took place with the exception of this "coming" into the appointed tent which was really done after he (the High-Priest) had offered his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people (v. 24) and also after the burning of the fat-parts of the bullock and the goat, which rites were performed outside the Sanctuary (i. e. in the fore-court) he being then attired in the golden garments. This having been done he immersed himself, sanctified himself (i. e. washed his hands and feet), took them (the golden garments) off, and put on the linen garments and only then, ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד DID HE COME INTO THE APPOINTED TENT in order to bring out the spoon and the censer in which he had burnt the incense in the "Innermost" (the Holy of Holies). ופשט את בגדי הבד AND HE SHALL PUT OFF THE LINEN GARMENTS — after he had brought it (the censer) out. Then he attired himself in his golden garments to offer the continual burnt offering due in the afternoon. Thus the order of the services on the Day of Atonement was as follows: The offering of the morning continual offering — in the golden garments; the service connected with the bullock and the ram the blood of both of which was sprinkled in the Interior, (v. 6—22) and the offering of the incense in the censer (in the Holy of Holies) — in the linen garments. The offering of his (the High-Priest's) ram and that of the people and one part of the additional offerings (the seven lambs mentioned in Numbers 29:8; cf. Yoma 70a) — in the golden garments. The bringing out of the spoon and the censer — in the linen garments. Finally the offering of the remaining additional offerings (the bullock and the ram mentioned in Numbers 29:8, 11) and of the continual burnt offering due in the afternoon and of the daily incense in the היכל. which was burnt on the golden altar — in the golden garments. The sequence of the Scriptural verses according to the rites as actually performed is as follows: "and he shall send the goat forth into the desert" (v. 22), then "and he shall lave his flesh with water …. and come out and burn his burnt offering etc." (v. 24) and the whole section up to "and afterwards he shall come into the camp" (end of v. 28), and only after this (v. 23) "and Aaron shall come etc." והניחם שם AND HE SHALL PUT THEM THERE — This teaches us that they (the linen garments) must be laid by and that he must not officiate in those four garments again on any subsequent Day of Atonement (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 6 7; Yoma 12b).

AND AARON SHALL COME INTO THE TENT OF MEETING. “Our Rabbis have said that this is not the proper place of this verse [which ought rather to follow Verse 25], and they explained the reason for their saying so in Tractate Yoma, stating: The whole section is written according to the procedure [which was actually followed in the Service on the Day of Atonement], except for this ‘coming’ [of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies] which was actually done after he offered his burnt-offering and the burnt-offering of the people [stated in Verse 24], and after the burning of the fats of the bullock [of Aaron] and the goat [of the sin-offering of the people], which rites were performed outside the Sanctuary [proper, as stated in Verse 25, i.e., in the Sanctuary Court, and therefore done by the High Priest dressed] in golden garments. [It was only after he had done these things that] he immersed himself [in a ritual pool] and washed his hands and feet and took them [the golden garments] off, and put on the linen garments, and then he came into the Tent of Meeting [as mentioned in our verse] to take out [from the Holy of Holies] the spoon and the censer in which he had burnt the incense in the innermost part of the Sanctuary. And then he shall put off the linen garments after he had taken them [the spoon and the censer] out, and attires himself in his golden clothes for the Daily burnt-offering brought in the afternoon.” All this is Rashi’s language. Now this is truly a case where the verse calls aloud for elucidation. For it is not at all conceivable that [the verse] should command that Aaron come into the Tent of Meeting for no purpose whatsoever other than that of taking off his garments and being naked in G-d’s temple, and that he should leave the garments there to decay! Rather, we must perforce interpret the verse thus: And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting to do some act of the Service which Scripture found it unnecessary to mention, that is, the removal of the spoon and the censer [which he had left in the Holy of Holies when he had burnt the incense there]. The explanation of the [order of the] verses is thus as follows. Having mentioned at first, And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Eternal, that the cloud of the incense may cover the ark-cover that is upon the testimony, that he die not, meaning to say that he is to place the incense upon the fire until the cloud of the incense goes up, and then he is to go out immediately, leaving there the spoon [in which he had carried the incense] and the censer [which contained the coals of fire, and upon which the incense was now burning], and which he would in any case have to remove later on from there, Scripture therefore says, and Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting in order to enter within the Veil [and to bring out] the things he had left there. Now the Scriptural section here did not mention all that the priest did at the beginning when [attired] in the golden garme...

והניחם שם, for he had offered them in the presence of G’d so that they attained additional sanctity, and it is not appropriate even for the High Priest to wear them after they had performed the assigned task. (according to Yuma 12 these garments are buried forthwith or otherwise locked away.)

ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד, “and Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting;” Rashi, in his commentary on the tractate Yuma folio 32, comments on these words by asking why, after having completed the service of the day in the Sanctuary the High Priest has to come to the Sanctuary once more, especially when the Torah does not even spell out what he is to do there. He answers that Aaron had to bring out the spoon and the censer that he had used during the performance of his duties there. These had been used for the sprinkling of the blood and the depositing of the incense. If you were to ask why did he have to make a return trip to the Holy of Holies for no real purpose, seeing he could have left these tools for the Day of the Atonement of the following year when the ashes in the censer would have cooled off in the meantime?Actually, this was not an unnecessary return, as it would have been discourteous in the extreme to leave behind items that had become useless and probably offensive looking and smelling in G-d’s palace. Rashi adds further that this was not the place where we would have expected the Torah to refer to this, seeing that up until now the Torah had described the entire service in the Tabernacle on that day in the order in which it had taken place. [I am summarizing now. Ed.] If we follow what took place in the Tabernacle, there would have been no need for the High Priest to immerse himself five times and wash his hands and feet ten times as the Talmud had explained, i.e. once for the daily morning sacrifice, followed by the special service required on that day, and again before the offering of the daily evening service. The extra trip into the Sanctuary for retrieving the spoon and the censer necessitated the need for additional immersions in the ritual bath. This is the reason why Rashi pointed out that here was not really the proper place to mention this, had it not been for the need to explain why five such immersions were indeed necessary. The removal of these items took place after the offering of Aaron’s burnt offering, a ram, and that of the ram offered on behalf of the people (verse 24). Offering a sacrifice at each service, i.e. the morning service, the Mussaph service, the evening service, and, on that day the sin offering on behalf of Aaron and his family and again on behalf of the people, according to the Talmud there, required an immersion in a ritual bath, etc.

והניחם שם, “and he shall leave them there.” He is not to use these garments again on the following Yom Kippur. Our sages (in Yuma 24) said that the source for the ruling that garments worn by the High Priest on one Day of Atonement must not be worn again on another Day of Atonement are the words והניחם שם. This expression means that they have to be hidden forthwith. They added that the combined weight of these garments totaled 18 מנה, (והניחם= יח מנה) 450 shekel. A further allusion to the fact that these garments were not to be used again is found in Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 7 by Rabbi Chiya who derives from the word ולבשם, “and to wear them,” i.e. the combination of the letters in that word, that ובלו שם that these garments are “to rot there”. This is an outright indication that these garments are not to be used again.

ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד, “Aaron shall come to the Tent of Meeting;” Rashi, quoting our sages (Yuma 32) says that the verse does not really represent the correct sequence of what happened. According to the sages the entire chapter is reported chronologically in proper sequence with the exception of this verse. Aaron did not enter the Sanctuary until after he had completed the procedures involving both the bull and the male goat offering. Afterwards he entered the Sanctuary in order to retrieve the ladle and the pan of the incense that he had left behind there earlier. Nachmanides agrees that the position of this verse in the Yom Kippur rites needs explaining. If we were to accept the verse at its face value, we would have to believe that Aaron made a special trip into the Sanctuary to do nothing else but retrieve the ladle and the censer which he had use earlier when offering the incense. For all this he would have to first change his golden vestments immerse himself in a ritual bath, etc, and don the linen vestments mandatory when entering the Sanctuary after first having stood nude in the Sanctuary. We must assume that Aaron entered the Sanctuary in order to perform service, some of the priestly functions. There was no need to mention that this service consisted of the retrieval of the ladle and the censer. The meaning of 16,13 ונתן את הקטרת על האש לפני ה' וכסה ענן הקטרת את הכפורת וגו', “he shall place the incense upon the fire before Hashem; so that the cloud of smoke of the incense will envelop the lid of the Holy Ark, etc.,” is that Aaron shall wait there until the cloud of the incense had enveloped the lid of the Holy Ark. When that had occurred, he was to leave immediately and leave behind the ladle and the censer [as they were too hot to handle at that moment. Ed.] Naturally, at some stage these two vessels had to be retrieved. This is what the Torah refers to when it writes in verse 23 “Aaron is to enter the Sanctuary, disrobe from the golden vestments and again don the linen vestments, etc.” The Torah did not mention at this stage what he had done prior to this while having worn the golden vestments, such as performing the rites of the daily tamid offering. Instead, the Torah commences describing the daily sacrifices that were offered while he was wearing the linen vestments. These rites are described sequentially. It is the custom of the Torah to relate procedures in order of their happening and to complete the report of them. In this instance, retrieval of the ladle and censer from the Holy of Holies was the last item on the agenda. Even though, as a result, there is some chronological inconsistency in the report here, the Torah rectifies this by reporting that Aaron had entered the Sanctuary again wearing the appropriate vestments in order to complete the final stage of the day’s Temple service in them. והניחם שם, “and he shall leave them there.” He was to leave these garments at the place where he changed into his golden vestments. We are taught by this that they would not be used again even on the Day of Atonement in the following year.”

He shall bathe his body in water in a holy place and put on his garments, and go out and perform his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people.

'ורחץ את בשרו וגו AND HE SHALL LAVE HIS FLESH etc. — Above (v. 4) we have learned from the statement "therefore shall he lave his flesh and so put them on" that whenever he (the High-Priest) changed from the golden garments into the linen ones he had to immerse himself (for on the occasion of that immersion, mentioned v. 4, he took off his golden garments in which he performed the service connected with the continual burnt offering due in the morning and put on the linen garments for the performance of the service peculiar to that Day); here, however, we are told that whenever he changed from the linen garments into the golden ones he had also to immerse himself (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 6 3; Yoma 32). במקום קדוש [AND HE SHALL LAVE HIS FLESH WITH WATER] IN A HOLY PLACE — i.e. in a place which has the sanctity of the fore-court. It (the immersion) took place (later on when the Temple was built) on the roof of the so-called Parva-compartment. Similarly also all the four immersions that formed a special obligation for the Day alone. The first immersion, however, (that which took place immediately before entering the עזרה to offer the תמיד של שחר) was taken in an unsanctified place (i.e. outside the fore-court) (Yoma 30a). ולבש את בגדיו AND HE SHALL PUT ON HIS GARMENTS — i. e. the eight garments in which he officiated on every day of the year. ויצא AND HE SHALL COME OUT from the היכל into the fore-court where was the altar of the burnt offering. ... ועשה את עלתו AND HE SHALL MAKE HIS BURNT OFFERING — "the ram for a burnt offering" mentioned above (v. 3) (cf. Yoma 70b). ואת עלת העם AND THE BURNT OFFERING OF THE PEOPLE — This is identical with "a ram for a burnt offering" mentioned above (v. 5) which begins with the words "And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel … [a ram for a burnt offering]".

"In the holy place" — in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, and they would spread a linen sheet for him. "His garments" — the ones he wore in daily service. Some say these are the ones mentioned [in this passage], and the proof is that it is not written "and he shall put on other garments." "His burnt-offering" — this is the ram, plus the people's ram, the people's bull, and their seven lambs, as it is written.

ורחץ את בשרו, after he had supported his hands on the scape-goat. ועשה את עולתו, this was after he had first obtained his personal atonement, followed by the atonement on behalf of the people at large with the two sin offerings consisting of the male goats. Even the “scape-goat” is referred to here as a “sin offering,” חטאת, when we consider it had already been referred to as such in verse 5 where the Torah spoke about שני שעירי עזים לחטאת, “two male goats as sin offering.” Both of these procedures had to take place before the burnt offering on behalf of the people was offered. This was standard procedure, i.e. that the sin offering preceded the burnt offering. This point has been made in Pessachim 59. וכפר בעדו ובעד העם, the atonement required for inappropriate thoughts which ought to precede matters requiring “clean” (sin free) hands and a pure heart. Such a sin free state is achieved by means of the burnt offering.

ורחץ את בשרו במים , “he shall wash his flesh with water. Here the Torah does not speak of an immersion in a ritual bath but of washing hands and feet as we have mentioned earlier on verse 4.

And the fat of the sin offering he shall offer up upon the altar.

ואת חלב החטאת AND THE FAT OF THE SIN OFFERING [SHALL HE CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES] — i. e. the fat parts of both the bullock and the goat. יקטיר המזבחה SHALL HE CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES ON THE ALTAR — i. e. on the outer altar, for if you say that it was burnt on the inner altar you are wrong, for it is written (Exodus 30:9) "Ye shall not bring up strange incense thereon, (i. e. on the inner altar) nor burnt offering, nor oblation".

"The fat of the sin-offering" — the fat of the bull of the sin-offering and the fat of the goat of the sin-offering, and also the fat of the goat, which is a sin-offering for the priest according to the rule, and it is not burned — and this is in the portion of Pinehas.

ואת חלב החטאת, “and the fat of the sinoffering;” Onkelos translates this verse in the plural mode, i.e. וית תרבי דחטווא, seeing that the Torah speaks of both the fat parts of bull and the male goat offered inside the Sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.

The one who led the goat away to Azazel shall launder his garments and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may enter the camp.

"He shall bathe his body in water" — and this suffices for him, for he does not become impure until evening.

והמשלח לעזאזל "And he who sends the scapegoat to Azzazel, etc." Who or "what" precisely is the "Azzazel?" We are told in Yuma 67 that it is something "tough and hard." This in turn has given rise to many explanations none of which are satisfactory. My eyes have been opened by kabbalists who are privy to the "370 illuminating lights of the Torah," who have written in the Zohar volume 2 page 157 that the barren desert is the habitat of Samael (Satan). In fact, the reason such a piece of earth is called "desert" is because it is Satan's habitat. An alternate name for this desert is Azzazel; a derivative of that name is עוזא, עזאל. Perhaps the word עזאזל is a composite of עז אזל, "a place where the glory of their existence departed." Alternatively, עזא זל, the site of the force of something base, mean; seeing that Samael is the basest of all spiritual forces, the description would be quite appropriate.

ורחץ את בשרו במים, “and he shall wash his flesh in water.” This was sufficient as his state of ritual defilement does not last longer than until the evening. (Ibn Ezra)

The bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the sanctuary, shall be taken out to the outside of the camp, and they shall burn in fire their hides and their flesh and their dung.

אשר הובא את דמם WHOSE BLOOD WAS BROUGHT into the Heichal and the Innermost (the Holy of Holies).

AND THE BULLOCK OF THE SIN-OFFERING, AND THE GOAT OF THE SIN-OFFERING … HE SHALL CARRY FORTH WITHOUT THE CAMP. In the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, ‘he’ shall carry forth means Aaron, who has been mentioned in this section, [and he is to do it] by commanding others [to carry them forth without the camp]. The correct interpretation is that it means: yotzi hamotzi (“whoever shall carry them forth, shall carry them forth” without the camp). Similarly, the expression and they shall burn [in the verse before us] means, “and they that burn them, shall burn them.” Scripture states it in the plural, and ‘they’ shall burn, in order to teach us that if many people were engaged in the burning thereof — such as if one brought the fire, another arranged the wood of the pile, and another kindled the fire — only the garments of him who kindled the fire in the bullocks themselves are rendered impure, as soon as the fire takes hold of the greater part of it. That is why Scripture goes back and states it in the singular, and he that burneth them shall wash his clothes.

"He shall take out to outside the camp" — stated as a command. "They shall burn" — the priests; and each one who burns shall wash in water and may immediately enter the camp. The proof is that it says "and afterward he shall come into the camp" — for otherwise what need would there be to say it?

ושרפו באש, “and there they shall burn it with fire;” the priests will burn their hides and their flesh and their excrement. Just as the hide, flesh and excrement mentioned in Leviticus 4,12 had been cut up before being burned, so here too they had to be cut up.

יוציא אל מחוץ למחנה, “he will take outside beyond the boundaries of the camp.” According to Ibn Ezra the subject of the word יוציא is Aaron himself. Nachmanides disagrees and understands that whoever was the person who had been designated to do this would at this stage proceed and take these animal carcasses outside the camp limits there to burn them with their skins, etc. The same interpretation is correct for the respective persons charged with ושרפו, burning these remains. ושרפו, “they shall burn (transitively);” the verb is in the plural mode to teach us that if there are a number of priests participating in that procedure, one may bring the torch or match, another may arrange the firewood, yet another may light the flame, seeing that only the one who brings the torch or match becomes liable to ritual contamination by the procedure. Seeing that the others do not become ritually contaminated, the Torah speaks of the one starting the fire in the singular mode, i.e. השורף, in verse 28. [Priests must not become ritually contaminated unless they perform a מצוה by doing so. The one starting the fire has to be מכבס בגדיו both immerse his body and the garments he wore in a ritual bath after having completed the task. Ed.]

The one who burns them shall launder his garments and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may enter the camp.

And he who burneth them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in forty seahs of water, and afterwards he may enter the camp.

And it shall be for you an eternal statute: in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month, you shall afflict yourselves, and no manner of work shall you do — neither the native-born nor the proselyte who has converted among you.

TE’ANU’ (YE SHALL AFFLICT) YOUR SOULS. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has already explained — in order to silence the words of the Karaites, may their name be blotted out — that all expressions of inuy (affliction) found in Scripture together with the word “soul,” mean fasting.

"A statute forever" — this refers to this service. "In the seventh month, on the tenth of the month, you shall afflict your souls." Since Scripture says "and your soul shall be satisfied with richness" (Is. 55:2), we know that affliction is the opposite of satisfaction, and that it means fasting. Furthermore, "a suffering soul He shall satisfy" — the meaning is like "and offer your soul to the hungry" (Is. 58:10), for it is the way of prophetic speech to be doubled. And since we have the received tradition there is no need to search further, and the verse "and I afflicted my soul with fasting" (Ps. 35:13) is not a proof from the mention of fasting, for the general rule is: every affliction found in Scripture paired with the word soul refers to fasting. "The native-born and the stranger who dwells among you" — we do not permit him to do work, nor do we impose karet on him on account of the fast.

לחקת עולם, even though G’d had provided a Temple wherein to perform the ritual called עבודה, sacrificial service, the Day of Atonement, in order to be fully effective, also requires that each person abstain from the kind of work forbidden on every Sabbath, as well as that he abstain from eating and drinking, i.e. עינוי.

והיתה לכם לחקת עולם, "and it shall become for you an eternal statute, etc." The reason the Torah had to add the word לכם, "for you," is that during the earlier part of the chapter G'd had told Moses to address Aaron. At this point Moses is to address the entire nation, to wit "the natural-born Jew and the stranger who had converted." The Torah wants to avoid our making a mistake and tells us that the commandment concerning the activities of the priests only appears at the beginning of the paragraph. We should not think therefore that the commandment to afflict oneself on that day applies only to the non-priests. The word לכם makes it plain that it applies to the whole nation including the priests. We might have reasoned that the priests do not need to afflict themselves, and that especially the High Priest's service on that day would take the place of the afflictions the people submit themselves to. People of the stature of Moses and Aaron might have thought that their bodies were pure enough not to have to undergo the affliction described. This is why the Torah wrote והיתה לכם, "it will be applicable to you" i.e. to Moses and Aaron. We might now have thought that the law to afflict themselves applied only to Moses and Aaron; therefore the Torah wrote האזרח והגר, "the natural-born Israelite as well as the proselyte." לחקת עולם, as an eternal statute. The reason for the word עולם is because some people would reason that the purpose of the affliction is to expiate for sins. He who feels he has not sinned might decide that he need not submit to the afflictions either. The Torah therefore tells us that the statute is not connected to the guilt or otherwise of the individual, or even of the nation as a whole. On a more profound level, the word עולם with its connotation of something concealed is a reference to the hereafter. Our afflictions in this world have a profound effect on our wellbeing in the hereafter. תענו את נפשותיכם, ''afflict your persons!" The meaning of the word נפשותיכם here is an affliction which is evenly distributed to all parts of the body and soul, i.e. the abstention from food and drink. Should you argue that what is meant is abstention from work such as on the Sabbath, such an affliction would not meet the criteria we just laid down. 1) the part of the body which performs a certain labour is more affected than other parts of the body when one either abstains from performing that work or performs it; 2) the Torah should have written תענו את גופותיכם, "afflict your bodies," seeing that the soul is not involved unless it is deprived of food and drink. The argument of the Karaites that the words are addressed to the hardship of not being allowed to perform physical labour is null and void. האזרח והגר, the natural-born Israelite and the proselyte. Torat Kohanim derives from these two words (the extra letter ה in front) that the wife of the natural-born Israelite as well as the wife of the proselyte are included in this legislation....

תענו את נפשותיכם, “you are to subject your bodies to discomfort;” according to Sifra on this verse he understands the word נפשותיכם as “the house of your soul,” i.e. your body. One subjects one’s body to discomfort by denying it food and drink.

For on this day atonement shall be made for you, to purify you; from all your sins before Hashem you shall be purified.

"He shall make atonement for you" — the priest. Therefore the commentators who said of the sent-away goat that "it shall be stood alive to make atonement over it" mean that its very standing is an atonement. "From all your sins" — as I explained, the word חַטָּאת is a general term, which is why it is found applied to both inadvertent and deliberate sin.

כי ביום הזה יכפר, the reason why the other factors mentioned just now are required in addition to the sacrificial service is that if the entire load of achieving atonement were to be placed on the shoulders of the High Priest this would amount only to “downgrading” of the seriousness of the sins which is what the term of כיפור is all about. The individual must prepare himself mentally for obtaining forgiveness from his Maker by these additional measures. לפני ה' תטהרו, absolute forgiveness, rehabilitation, can occur only in the presence of the Lord, which in turn can be achieved only by personal confession of one’s sin and one’s absolute undertaking not to commit such sins again in similar circumstances. The verse is introduced here to remind us that only the Lord Himself is aware of the sincerity of one’s teshuvah, one’s repentance.

כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם, “for on this day he will atone for you, et.;” a reference to the rituals performed by the High Priest. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah interprets the words: מכל חטאותיכם לפני ה' לפני ה' תטהרו, as meaning that G-d will forgive sins committed directly against Him, but not including sins committed against our fellow human beings unless we had obtained those people’s forgiveness first. (Compare Leviticus 23,28).

כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם לטהר אתכם, “for on this day he (the High Priest) will provide atonement for you to purify you, etc.” This verse is an assurance for Jews throughout the generations that the Day of Atonement is a day set aside especially for forgiveness and pardon. On that day the Israelites will be cleansed of all their sins against the Lord. Yom Kippur is ineffective, however, in bringing about forgiveness, atonement, etc., for sins committed against fellow human beings. Only after the person guilty of such sins has been granted forgiveness by the person whom he has wronged will G’d add His forgiveness. When the High Priest used to recite his confessional on Yom Kippur, he would recite this verse in his prayer. The name of G’d referred to in this verse is the one comprised of 42 letters. This is why we use the formula לפני ה' תטהרו on Yom Kippur in our prayers (a substitution for the tetragram we are not allowed to utter). The words mean לפני שם מ'ב “before the 42-lettered name of the Lord.” The name consists of seven words, the first six representing aspects of the attribute of Mercy, whereas the seventh word represents the attribute of Justice. This is the opinion of my teacher the Rashba. This 42-lettered name is broken down into six times 7 words according to some, whereas others break it down into 14 words of three letters each. [You will find the former version printed before the Sabbath eve hymn לכה דודי, as a prayer beginning with the words אנא בכח. This dates back to the Arizal. Ed.] This prayer was most appropriate as the Day of Atonement is a day on which the attribute of Mercy achieves prominence within the framework of the attribute of Justice. The seventh of the 10 emanations, counting from the bottom מלכות up is גבורה or דין, the attribute of Justice. On that day the High Priest had to plead with the attribute of Justice, i.e. with the Judge who was presiding over all of mankind parading in front of Him, determining their fates for the coming year [if it had not already been decided on Rosh Hashanah. Ed.] The 42-lettered name of G’d is the one He employed while calling the universe into existence. By means of this name G’d extracted a ראש, beginning from the letter ב which symbolized בהו, the state of chaos prevailing amongst the universe’s raw materials prior to G’d’s first directive that there be light. [There are 42 letters in the opening words of Bereshit. They conclude with the letter ב in the word ובהו in the first verse, compare בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ והארץ היתה תהו וב. The message is that up until that point all was chaos. At that point, i.e. #42, G’d intervened and began to create an orderly universe. Ed.]. The first three letters (i.e. the first three words) of the prayer אנא בכח גדולת ימינך, the one composed of 42 words corresponding to the 42-lettered name of G’d, begin with the first three letters in the aleph bet. When added to one another 1+2+3 =6 they allude to the six days during which the universe was created, the six directions there are, i.e. north, east, south, west, up and down; these directions are also considered the “seal” of the Creator as I explained in connection with the word יום הששי on Genesis 1,31. The seventh word, commencing with the letter ש, [what is meant is the beginning of the last line in the אנא בכח prayer starting with the word שועתנו, Ed.] meaning אש, is an allusion to the seventh emanation i.e. the attribute of Justice. [At this point the author deals with the meaning of the vowel shuruk which serves as signature of G’d, etc. I confess I have not understood this. Ed.] Some of our sages believe that Aaron mentioned the tetragrammaton (and not the 42-lettered name of G’d) during his prayer. Rabbi Saadyah Gaon belongs to that group of scholars. According to these scholars, when we say in our prayers on Yom Kippur the words לפני ה' תטהרו, this is a reference to what the High Priest said on that day, similar to when the Mishnah describing the count of the sprinkling by the High Priest quoted him by prefacing his words with: וכך היה אומר. Naturally, we are not allowed to repeat the exact word used by the High Priest when he said it, therefore in our prayer we allude to it by saying “this is (similar to) what he said when he was in the presence of Hashem.” In fact, the High Priest uttered the tetragrammaton on ten separate occasions during his service on that day. Yuma 39 writes: “the High Priest uttered the tetragrammaton ten times during the course of Yom Kippur; the first three times he uttered that name when reciting the first confession recited over the bull, when he commenced with the words אנא השם וגו'. The second time he uttered the tetragrammaton was when he recited the second confession over the he-goat, which was offered on the altar. During that confession he also uttered the Holy Name three times. The third time was when he recited the confessional on behalf of all the people over the scapegoat to be consigned to the desert. Here too he uttered the Holy Name three times. The last time he uttered that name was when he drew the lots.” You will find that the Torah mentions the tetragrammaton ten times in our paragraph commencing with 16,2, followed by verse 7, followed by verse 8, followed by verse 9; we find that name again in verse 10, followed by verse 12, followed by verse 13. In verses 18, 30 and 34 the tetragrammaton again appears in our chapter. We feel that the first opinion, the one speaking of the 42-lettered name of G’d being used by the High Priest is likely the correct one. This is why in our liturgy of Yom Kippur the wording is: “when the people outside the Temple heard the High Priest utter the holy name of G’d etc., they would prostrate themselves and proclaim G’d’s majesty using he words we use daily after the first line of the קריאת שמע, i.e. ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד, “blessed be the name of His glorious Majesty forever and ever.” When the paytan, composer of this piece of liturgy, refers to בקדושה ובטהרה, he did not mean that the people would pronounce the tetragram as the High Priest had done. He meant that the thoughts of reverence filling the minds of the people at that moment were holy and reverent but they had not heard the tetragram pronounced. This is also the meaning of our sages known as חכמי המרכבה, (a group of Kabbalists) when they said that “the names of G’d are not actually uttered in holiness but the person thinking about them is filled with holy thoughts when he does so.” The idea seems to be that the very air into which such words would be exhaled when someone utters them by mouth will contaminate he holiness of that name. If that were to happen the Holy Name of the Lord would have been desecrated. This is why even the High Priest when he started to form the letters of the tetragrammaton with his lips immediately “swallowed” it, not allowing the fully formed word to escape into the air around him. [He was reciting the confession while standing outside where the air was certainly less holy than inside. Ed.] compare verse 7, “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, the Sanctuary.” I have heard that the “swallowing” consisted of the individual words alluding to the Unity of G’d, i.e. words containing the letters in the word י-ה-ו-ה, to appear with the vowel pattern familiar from the word אליהו הנביא, or ישעיהו הנביא, and similar examples. In other words, the meaning of “swallowing the letters,” is to pronounce them with vowels other than the ones designated for them. This is also the meaning of the expression מבליעין described in Kidushin 71 where the Talmud says that the name of G’d consisting of 12 letters must not be revealed to anyone except the most chaste of the priests. The name consisting of 42 letters was revealed only to people possessing the following three qualities: 1) chastity, 2) humility, 3) at least 35 years old, 4) not given to anger, 5) not given to drunkenness. 6) not insisting on what he feels is his due. The chaste priests to whom the 12-lettered name of G’d had been revealed would “swallow” it i.e. utter it at a time when because of the four-lettered name of G’d uttered by the other priests at the same time the 12-lettered name could not be heard or identified by the listeners. According to the opinion of those who hold that the High Priest did indeed utter the tetragrammaton he did so using the traditional vowel pattern, even though the ultimate holiness of that name is dependent on the vowel pattern [the one we have changed and is read as elohim, especially when the letters of the tetragrammaton (consonants) appear in the Books of the Prophets. Ed.] There is a tradition amongst the Kabbalists that when the Holy Name is divulged to qualified students this is done only על המים, near the water; this is based on Psalms 29,3: “the voice of the Lord is over the waters.” In other words, the waters are to act as purifying agent for the name when it is “handed over,” much as a ritual bath acts as a purifying agent.

Before the Lord you shall be cleansed. For Yom Kippur only atones for those who repent (Shevuot 13). And before God forgives them, each person is obligated to purify themselves from head to toe from all the impurity of sin. Therefore it says, Before the Lord you shall be cleansed, where before serves as a term meaning “prior to.” And I found something even greater than this in the Zohar on the verse Before the elderly you shall rise (Leviticus 19:32), that before the time of old age, a person should rise from their deep sleep to return to God. This is all the more so, the term before [meaning prior to]. And this means, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord, you shall be cleansed through repentance, and afterward God will purify you through atonement. And it further warns about internal, heartfelt repentance, which is before the Lord, because matters entrusted to the heart are only revealed to God alone. One should not be among the hypocrites who fast, afflict themselves, and increase their supplications in order to be considered righteous, being a generation pure in the eyes of others while not having washed their internal filth. Therefore it says, Before the Lord you shall be cleansed. And our Sages (Yoma 85b) interpreted, specifically sins before the Lord, meaning those between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones for, but not for sins between one person and another. Therefore it says and he shall atone for all the congregation, meaning specifically when they become one congregation, united as one group, with a single purpose to serve God, then the Holy One, blessed be He, accepts their repentance, but not when their hearts are divided. And since it is customary in the world that on Yom Kippur people ask forgiveness from one another but the next day return to their rebellion, therefore it says And Moses gathered (Exodus 35:1) — the day after Yom Kippur he made them into one congregation so that they would remain so throughout the year. And since all disputes stem from dealings between people, he sat to judge the people the day after Yom Kippur, because through this they would become one congregation and all the people would come to their place in peace. For this reason, this day is called Sabbath of Sabbaths. Because the cessation of business activities and rest is a great cause for peace, and the rest is doubled because every person has external and internal movement and activity. The external comes through instruments of work in all labor, and the internal comes from the fat and blood that yearn after the pursuit of desires. On the Sabbath one rests only from external activity, but on this holy day one rests from both, for there is also no eating and drinking, therefore it is called Sabbath of Sabbaths.

It is a Sabbath of complete rest for you, and you shall afflict yourselves — an eternal statute.

"Sabbath of complete rest." Some say: rest for the soul and for the body. Others say it means the rest of rests, with nothing surpassing it. Both are nouns; sometimes the one comes before the other, and they are equivalent — and this is not far-fetched. "A statute forever" — to fast.

In order to make this point even clearer the Torah wrote concerning this Day of Atonement, שבת שבתון היא לכם, this refers to the uniqueness of this day. A Sabbath day is usually honoured with food and drink, whereas the abstaining from physical indulgences i.e. a צום, fast day, is meant to put us in the good graces of G’d. (Isaiah 58,3) The message here is phrased differently but is the same. The self-denial of the Jew on that day results in the concept of the Sabbath being observed at its highest potential. חקת עולם, even at a time when there is no Temple, and hence no sacrificial service, the day of Atonement does not lose its function, and the Sabbath observance, i.e. abstention from work as well as the self-denial consisting of fasting for twenty four hours remains in effect.

שבת שבתון היא, “it is a Sabbath of solemn rest;” the word היא, here is spelled with the letter י, not as frequently elsewhere with the letter ו. On the other hand, the same word in the same context in Parshat Emor, (Leviticus 23,32) is spelled with that letter ו. Both words are read in accordance with the way they are spelled. If we want to remember this easily we can try and remember Kings I 17,15: ותאכל הוא והיא, “he and she ate;” לכם, “for you (pl. masc.)” this is a reference to the day of Atonement, which has been sanctified for your sakes. On the other hand, the Sabbath of creation is known simply as שבת לה', “a Sabbath to be devoted to heavenly concerns.”

The priest whom he has ordained and who shall present his offering to minister in place of his father shall make atonement; he shall wear the linen garments, the holy vestments.

'וכפר הכהן אשר ימשח וגו AND THE PRIEST WHOM THEY SHALL ANOINT … SHALL MAKE EXPIATION etc. — This expiation on the Day of Atonement is valid only if it is effected by the High-Priest. Because in the whole of this section reference is made to Aaron alone, Scripture was compelled to state here (towards the end) that any High-Priest succeeding him shall be like himself (i. e. shall possess the same power of effecting atonement on Yom-Kippur) (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8 4). ואשר ימלא את ידו AND WHOM THEY SHALL CONSECRATE — Since it is stated "whom they anoint" I might say I have here only the law that he who has been anointed with the oil of anointing is capable of effecting expiation; How do I know that this is also the case with a High- Priest who is distinguished from an ordinary priest only by a larger number of official garments though he may not have been anointed? Because Scripture states "and whom they shall consecrate etc." (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8 4) — Such (i. e. מרובה בגדים only) were all the High-Priests who held office from Josiah and later, for in his days the flask of anointing oil was concealed (Horayot 12a). לכהן תחת אביו TO MINISTER AS A PRIEST IN HIS FATHER'S STEAD — The words "in his father's stead” are intended to teach us that if the High-Priest’s son is able to fill his father’s place he has to be given preference to any other man (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8 5).

AND THE PRIEST WHO SHALL BE ANOINTED AND WHO SHALL BE CONSECRATED TO BE PRIEST IN HIS FATHER’S STEAD. “I might think that only [the High Priest] who has been anointed with the oil of anointment [may perform the Service on the Day of Atonement]. Whence do I know that a High Priest who is [inducted into office only] by many garments [i.e., the eight garments which distinguish him from all ordinary priests who wear only four garments, that he too may perform the Service on that day]? Scripture therefore says, and who shall be consecrated, by attiring the [eight] garments. Such were all the High Priests who functioned after the days of King Josiah [until the destruction of the Second Temple], for in his days the flask of anointing oil was hidden.” This is Rashi’s language. Now the Rabbi did not intend to say that it was only from the days of King Josiah that there were High Priests who were [inducted into office only by means of] many garments, for in the Gemara we find that the Rabbis have said: “Who has precedence over whom [in being redeemed from captivity, etc.], a High Priest anointed with the oil of anointment, or one who was [inducted into office only] by his attiring himself in the many garments?” Again the Rabbis have said: “Does he [that killed a person unwittingly] return from the city of refuge [only] at the death of all of them [i.e., the High Priest anointed with the oil of anointment, and the one that was inducted into office only by his attiring himself in the many garments and one that had passed from his High-priesthood], or does he return at the death of one of them?” [Thus it is clear] that they can all be found at one time. Rather, [Rashi’s intent was that] if at any time [i.e., even when High Priests were still anointed with the oil of anointment], a priest was inducted [into the High-priesthood] by the many garments [worn by the High Priest], he was eligible to perform the Service of the Day of Atonement. For another priest was always prepared [in the High Priest’s stead] for the Day of Atonement, and he was not anointed. Thus if some disqualification occurred to the High Priest [such as by becoming impure etc.], this priest served in his stead, as he was eligible to do so through his induction [to his position] by his attiring himself in the many garments, even if he was not anointed.

"The priest shall make atonement" — Scripture now returns to explain all that he makes atonement for. "Whom he anoints" — the one who was anointed with the anointing oil after he filled his hands [was ordained]. "And he shall put on" — he is the one who puts on these holy garments, for no other may wear them.

ואשר ימלא את ידו...ולבש, also a priest wearing the High Priest’s garments though not having been anointed with the holy anointing oil may be the instrument of the people’s atonement. [The conditions mentioned in our verse are not understood as cumulative and absolute requirements. (compare Rashi who explains that the holy anointing oil ran out already in the days of King Yoshiyahu during the first Temple, never to become available again. Nonetheless, even in the days of the second Temple, when the red cord turned white after the killing of the scape-goat, there was a sign from heaven that the people had been forgiven. Ed.]

וכפר הכהן אשר ימשח אותו, seeing that the Torah had previously stated that the service on the Day of Atonement is to be performed by the High Priest, i.e. בזאת יבא אהרן אל , הקודש, the Torah had to make provision for an alternate to Aaron if he or the High Priest in his generation was not available. The priest who had been anointed as an alternate would then officiate.

He shall make atonement for the most holy sanctuary, and for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar he shall make atonement, and for the priests and for all the people of the assembly he shall make atonement.

"The holy of holies" — that which is within the curtain. "He shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the congregation" — the Levites are included with them, for they are not called priests; rather, every priest is a Levite, but not every Levite is a priest.

This shall be for you an eternal statute, to make atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins, once a year. And he did as Hashem commanded Moses.

'ויעש כאשר צוה וגו AND HE DID AS [THE LORD] COMMANDED [MOSES] etc. — When the next Day of Atonement arrived he (Aaron) did everything as is here set forth in order. And Scripture only states this in order to declare the praise of Aaron — that he did not attire himself with them (the official garments) for his own aggrandisement, but as one who was executing the ordinance of his King (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8 10).

AND HE DID AS THE ETERNAL COMMANDED MOSES. This means that Aaron fulfilled all that he was commanded, and he was careful all his life not to enter the Holy of Holies except on the Day of Atonement in order to bring his offerings, according to all that G-d commanded Moses.

"And this shall be for you" — He had already said this, to add: once a year. "And he did" — Aaron.

והיתה זאת לכם לחקת עולם לכפר, that the very day itself has the power to confer atonement even when there is neither a Temple nor a Temple service. In the words of our sages (Yuma 86) “repentance suspends the imposition of retribution and the arrival of the date of the Day of Atonement completes the atonement.”

והיתה זאת לכם לחוקת עולם, "and this shall be for you an eternal statute, etc." This verse refers back to the priests and in particular the High Priest to whom the Torah addressed itself at the beginning of our chapter. The legislation mentioned there is described now as everlasting, i.e. when the facilities exist the procedures of the Day of Atonement are irrevocable. The procedure by means of which atonement is attained on that day contains mystical elements which can only be activated by the High Priest, etc. Another reason for the verse here is that we might have thought that the restriction on wearing his golden garments applied only at that time and only to Aaron seeing he himself had been involved in the golden calf episode and it had not yet been fully atoned for. In the future, however, the respective High Priest would be able to discharge his duties in his full regalia. The Torah therefore had to inform us that this is not so. The Torah adds the words לכפר על בני ישראל to tell us that although all of Aaron's share in that sin had been completely erased even in the celestial spheres, the same could not be said of the people. They would need further instalments of atonement year after year indefinitely. Seeing this was so Aaron became part of that vicious circle once again. ויעש באשר צוה ה׳ את משה. He did as the Lord commanded Moses. Torat Kohanim writes that this verse is a compliment to Aaron who did not perform all these procedures in order to attain greater stature amongst the people and to aggrandize himself, but who performed all his duties only as a servant of G'd with no ulterior motive. It appears that the Torah also compliments Moses himself seeing that G'd had not spoken to Aaron except via Moses. The Torah goes on record that G'd did not address the person to whom His message was intended directly, but did so only via his trusted servant Moses. When the Torah stated that Aaron complied exactly with what G'd had said, this is proof that Moses had relayed G'd's instructions without adding or omitting one iota. The fact that Moses replicated exactly what G'd told him without adding or detracting is the foundation of our belief in the authenticity of the written Torah, i.e. that it reflects G'd's word no less and no more.

ויעש כאשר צוה ה' את משה, “Aaron did as G’d had commanded Moses.” He carried out all that he had been commanded to do and he remained careful for the rest of his life not to enter beyond the dividing curtain except on the Day of Atonement, on which day he performed the sacrificial service in strict compliance with what the Torah had instructed Moses.

ויעש, when that day arrived Aaron performed, כאשר צוה ה' את משה, as G’d had commanded Moses.