5757

With God’s help

A.

In the after-mortem, the order of the work of the Yochka appears. The parasha opens by placing it after the death of the two sons of Aaron, who were present before God and died. Against this background, it is clear that the parasha comes to define how it is proper to enter the Holy Place. Indeed, in the wording of the parasha, it appears that there is no order of work for the Yochka, but rather an order of entry into the Holy Place. Only at the end of the parasha does a commandment to do this order every year on the 12th of Tishrei appear.

From this it follows that this parasha deals with the order of entry into the Holy Place, and the atonement and purification of Israel are also instruments for entering the Holy Place, and not a law in the Old Testament. There is a law in the Old Testament to enter the Holy Place, and therefore this entire procedure is obligatory. Atonement and purification are means, not goals.

And as we know from the GRA that during the time of the wanderings in the desert, if they had done this order, then it would have been possible to enter the Holy of Holies on other days of the year, and not just on Yom Kippur.

If so, there seems to be a difference here between the character of Yom Kippur during the time of the Temple and today. It is usually understood that there is a lack of atonement for the intensity of the day, due to the absence of the two goats and sacrifices in general. However, according to what we see here, the difference is different: then there was a day of entry into the Holy of Holies, and repentance and purification were the means to do this correctly. Today, the entire character of Yom Kippur is a day of repentance and atonement, and we have no entry into the Holy of Holies at all. Apparently, 'the main thing missing from the book.'

Therefore, it seems that the true nature of the day is a day of purification and atonement. However, during the time of the Temple, purification was a 'purification by association': everything that is connected to the pure is pure. Therefore, the intensity of the day was atonement. Israel's purification and repentance were a means to enter the Holy of Holies, and it was the entry that was atonement. Today, repentance itself is the atonement. Today, atonement is by a 'judicial' decision. If we have gone through all that needs to be gone through, God, the Blessed, forgives us of our sins.

And indeed, in the 20th chapter of the Ha-Ha and the Samaritan chapter of the 1st chapter of the 3rd

The entrance into the Holy of Holies is accompanied by the bringing of two goats, an inner and an outer. They are the main atonements for sins, that is, they constitute the essence of the entrance into the Holy of Holies. On the face of it, we would expect the inner goat to be the atonement, and the outer one to be the only one that has any function.

And here we hear that the inner goat atones for the impurity of the Temple and its holy things (which itself is a transgression of improper entry into the Holy Place, like Nadav and Avihu). However, the main atonement during the time of the Temple was actually by the goat that was thrown away. It atones for all the sins of all of Israel (see Rambam, Resh HaLesh Teshuva). This is a good and strange thing.

This is even more puzzling if we look at the Rishonim's explanations of the nature of this goat. Some Rishonim write that it is not a sacrifice at all (see Toss Rosh Shavuot 13, and Toss Shavuot 9 8a and 4a below). Others explain that it is as a sacrifice to the Lord, or as a propitiation for him not to interfere, etc. Apparently, this is a marginal function, to appease 'hostile' elements. According to the 7th, the main atonement is by the internal goat, and the one that is thrown is intended to prevent interference. If so, these explanations do not help us understand why the main atonement is precisely in the goat that is thrown.

Ibn Ezra (Leviticus 16:8): The secret of the goat. Contrary to Rav Shmuel, it is not a sacrifice, and therefore it can be understood that it is not for God.

Ramban (ibid.) reveals his secret.

It seems that the two goats constitute a theological experiment. We enter all the way in both directions, and discover what is in the depths of each direction. Through the inner goat, entry is made possible before and before. Through the scapegoat, entry is made possible into the depths of the area of impurity (see the Ramban, ibid.). After that, we reach a state where 'they will no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to goats.' And at the end of the Ramban's words, he writes that this goat is to take out the wicked Greeks and their disciples who have made up their minds to think that there is nothing but what they have achieved in their minds.

We will try to understand this through a halakhic tour following the scapegoat. Through its halakhic characteristics, we will try to understand the secret of Rabbah and Ramban.

on.

The steps in the scapegoat shipping process are as follows:

Choice. Dedication. Lottery. Tying of a ray tongue. Ordination. Confession. Delivery to a man of Ati (sending to the cliff of Azazel). Splitting of a ray tongue into two: one part is tied to the cliff and the second part is tied to its horns. Rejection from the cliff. Descent to be killed (if necessary).

We will now follow the halakhic status of the goat at each of these stages.

1. Selection (Mishnah Yoma 62a). Two goats are chosen that are equal in height, appearance, weight, price, etc. Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner ('Pahad Yitzchak' for Purim) explains that this is because we need to concentrate on distinguishing between them, and not on external distinctions. The purpose of the matter is to compare the offering to God and the offering to Hazael, and not on anything else. Here is the first hint that we are making an act of comparison.

It should be noted, however, that the similarity between the hairy goats is not a hindrance.

2. The dedication. The two goats require dedication like any other sacrifice. At this point, it is clear that both are holy in the holiness of the sacrifice. The Gm. Yoma 62:2 states that at this point, if one slaughters either of them outside, he is obligated to offer them as holy offerings outside. That is, both are considered holy (although see the Gm. in the stencil regarding the Zehorit language in the sheir mishtalach, which brought the possibility of a different interpretation in the Gm., but he proved that at least in the Rambam's opinion it is clear that this is because they are holy in the holiness of the sacrifice). And see the disagreement between the Rambam and the Rabbad Pih regarding the act of sacrifice 11, whether until the lottery or until confession.
3. Lottery. Regarding the lottery, the first and last disagreed about its status. Is it a work or not (and perhaps the aforementioned Rambam and Raved are involved in the dispute). The 'Gevorat Ari' Yom 39 A.D., 'Vahsagan' writes that the lottery is only a clarification and not a work, and therefore it is appropriate to raise one of the lots, and the other is self-evident. The statement 'La' Chetata' is also said only about the inner goat, and nothing is said about the other. Apparently, there is a first hint here to distinguish between them: no work is done about the inner goat, and nothing is said about it.

However, Rashi 39b states that one must offer both lots, and not choose one of them. This proves that this is not just a clarification, as the Gibba says, but rather it is actual work. If so, the two goats are still considered sacrifices, and work is done with both of them.

And Rambam, in the Ayyavah, 39:32, says that the lottery is not a work. Whereas Torah, 39:1, says Rabbi Yehuda, 20:1, that the lottery delays work and is necessary. It is possible that this is actually a disagreement between two rabbis in the G.M. Yoma, 39:2, and Es. And Rashi, 39:1, brought a question about whether the lottery is also kosher in the second degree.

And according to Meir 39:2, the word "lottery" and the word "assumption" mean that this is only the calling of the name and not work. Therefore, it seems that even those who believe that this is not work do not mean that holiness does not exist. There is holiness over both, but this stage is only the calling of the name, that is, instruments of work. For our purposes, the conclusion is that both are still holy.

4. Tied with a thread. Some opinions tied the two goats together: first, on the one that was sent, a tongue weighing two rocks. Then on the inner one, of some weight. There are some who did not tie the inner one at all (see 'Seder Yoma', p. 223, note p. 1. The piyyutim were also divided: Ba'ata Konnat 20, which also tied the inner one, and in the book of Amish, no power is mentioned). In Gvva 11a b, it is difficult to understand why the one that was sent was preceded by the inner one, since it is a ki'al that is sanctified first. And they say that the goat that was sent is holier than its companion (although according to some of the ways of settling the matter, and in the book of 'Seder Yoma', p. 221).

The Gava further clarified there how it is permissible to tie a thread-like tongue on the head of the goat, and after all, this is a sacred work (it should be remembered that the tongue of a goat that is thrown is the weight of two stones. On the other hand, they tied a tongue of any weight). And according to what Matthew brought in Pesach 66 in the name of the Jerusalemite, any work that is for the purpose of the sacrifice is permissible (it is true that the Babylonians disagreed on this, and the latter disagreed on this, and so on). Therefore, while they are standing on the edge, where the tying is for their needs so that they do not mix (Zeb"z and others), they are permissible. However, while standing on the cliff, where the tying is for our needs (so that we may see our atonement), it is forbidden. And I wrote Tza.

And how did the Jewish scholars allow tying in the Torah, which is also a Torah prohibition? And the Jewish scholars also violate this because of a mahram (working with an animal in the Torah).

Apparently, on the question of the Gava, there was a problem that the goat is no longer a sacrifice after the drawing of lots (as we saw in Rabbah and Orr, and see below), and perhaps this is the interpretation of the Gamma of Yoma 62:2b, which wrote that the offering outside is obligatory until the drawing of lots (and in the Rambam, Pih, from the Ma'ak, Shek, until the confession). However, in the Mishnah of Shekels, it is proven that the language of Zehorit is taken from the donation of the Yishka, meaning that the goat is a sacrifice. And the Ma'ak is from forbidden crafts, which were forbidden in the Yom Kippur in general (and not from the fact that it is not a sacrifice). Therefore, the Rambam rules that the offering outside is obligatory until the confession, since even after the drawing of lots it is holy. This is according to the Gamma of Sacrifices against Yoma 62:2b (see in the Kassam of the Ma'ak, Ibid.).

And the Grach in the stencil resolves this in the Maimonides' Shia by proving that tying the tongue is the LBM, since it was forbidden to do so for these reasons (and he also proved this by what there is a lesson for the Zehorit tongue: two rocks). And in the Pizdah, the question of the Gava on working in holy places can also be resolved.

It should be noted that the Shabtawi 68:1-11, the Lord's 'distinguishes' 20, is a casually faded clay, and is proven not to be a graha, and all the difficulties are due to its doctrinal nature. Therefore, a special excuse must be found for any permission for prohibition in Sheir.

[In the Mishnah, Shekelim 44:42, it is stated that the tongue of a ray of light is not from the offering of the Lischka, and the tongue between its rays is not from the remnants of the Lischka. And the commentators differed in their explanation of the Mishnah (see 'Seder Yoma', p. 125):

The Bartanura 20 says that the first is a second worm that is thrown into the fire of the burning of the red heifer, and it is a requirement of the sacrifice and therefore comes from the offering of the Lishka. And the tongue between its horns is not a requirement of the sacrifice and therefore it is from the remnants of the Lishka.

Rivaban and Pnei Moshe in Yerushalmi 20 state that the same rosary was used in two periods. Initially, it was placed against the entrance to the temple. After the death of Shimon the Tzadik, who sometimes did not whiten, they established that it be placed between its horns and on the rock.

And the Torah 68b states that two tongues of thread were on the goat that was sacrificed: one, the tongue of thread, was tied to its head after the drawing of lots, and therefore it came from the offering of the Lishka. The other, they brought from the Eyvak to the Tzuk, and it is not necessary for the sacrifice.

And the Rambam says in the 4th chapter of the 20th century that the tongue between its horns came from the offering of the Lischka. And the Malam says in the 20th chapter, which is 19, because in the mishnah it is written that the tongue between its horns came from the remnants of the Lischka.

And the Grach in the stencil (as well as in the Grach Zevachim 17, p. 117, cf. 'Mahagrach') explained that a tongue of white was obligatory for a goat that was lawfully sacrificed in the mitzvah of Shiloah. The whitening is only a result and not the purpose of the tongue itself. Therefore, a tongue that was tied near the entrance to the sanctuary after the lot would have come from the donation of the lyshka. And the tongue between its horns in Shiloah and in the tzuk was obligatory for a goat since it rejects the prohibitions of Shabbat. However, from the fact that the prohibitions of work in the sacrifice and the kashrut in the zer were permitted, it is clear that the goat at this stage is no longer a sacrifice. In other words, it is the obligation of the day but not the work in the sacrifice.

In fact, there is a fundamental problem here: if the tongue is tied while it is a sacrifice, then it is a work of sacrifice. And if it is tied afterwards, then it does not require a sacrifice, and therefore must come from the remnants of the Lischa.

According to the Rabbinate of the Rambam, it seems that this is a necessity for the sacrifice, as it is tied after the drawing of lots and before the confession. And apparently the prohibition of clay and work in holy places are permitted because of the LBM, and as stated in the Mushnet. Indeed, as we have seen, and will see again, after the confession the goat is no longer a sacrifice, and therefore the language comes from the remnants of the Lishka.

The basis of the debate is the question of whether the tongue is a necessity of a sacrifice, since without it it cannot come from the offering of the Lishka. According to some of the early ones, the goat that is thrown is not a sacrifice, and therefore the tongue of the Zahorit comes only from the remnants of the Lishka. In any case, the tongue that is tied to one's head on a cliff no longer requires a sacrifice, almost to the point of being a sacrifice. That is, there is already a place where a sacrifice is made.]

5. The rabbinic court was relying on the goat. The latter debated whether this was a normal ordination of sacrifices. And in the Temple, David proved that this was a normal ordination of sacrifices, from the rabbinic court of Minchot 22, which writes that this ordination is the ordination of the owner over his sacrifice. And so on, where the law of the ordination of slaughter is fulfilled in the transportation. If so, here it seems that the goat that is sent is still a sacrifice.

In fact, if there were no ordination of a sacrifice here, it would be forbidden, since it is a work of sacrifice (as in the discussion about the ordination of women).

6. Confession. In the book of the King's Work, it is difficult to understand why the confession of the rabbi does not mention acceptance for the future, and it remains in the book of the rabbi. In the book of the Shefa, it is difficult to understand why he does not detail his sins.

In the work of the day (S. Avodat Hayom) (32) he proved from the language of the confession of a bull (which is the same language as the goat) that confession over a bull is not a confession of repentance but a confession of sacrifice. And he proved this from the words of the R.S. on the Tok. Indeed, in the confession over a goat, why does the priest not detail his sins and not accept the future, since the goat is not a sacrifice? And in fact, the Rambam brought the laws of confession over a goat in the first chapter of the Teshuvah and not in the second chapter of the Ayvak. This is also proven in the G.M. Yoma 36b, which provides evidence for the wording of the confession of repentance from the confession of a goat.

And therefore it is clear that the priest on the goat confesses on behalf of all Israel, and therefore cannot detail, nor accept for the future, and simply. In any case, it seems possible that at the stage of confession the goat is no longer a sacrifice.

7. The offering of the goat is kosher even for a stranger. Hence it seems that it is not a work (and above we saw from the Maqdad that it is like slaughtering, and it is also kosher for a stranger). The man Ati enters the Temple even in impurity, and goes outside the precincts even on Shabbat (see Yoma 66b). And in Shtamk, Kiryatut 14a, in the omissions and innovations, letter 12 (and see also in the case of Avraham, 2nd ed., 8th, end of section 7), it is difficult to explain why they should not bring the goat to him. And there are two excuses: 1. It says, "in the hand of a man Ati before the Lord." 2. Do not say that the offering of the goat is a work and that it should not be done in impurity. And so there is the Damat of the offering of the goat is kosher for a stranger.

And it is apparently proven that at this point the goat is no longer a sacrifice. Although there was room to reject the idea that slaughtering a sacrifice is not work, the sacrifice is a sacrifice, and the הנה is in the transfer.

However, we find in Torid Shefi's Mishnah that the wise would tear the hair of the goat at the time of the sacrifice (Yoma 66a) that there is a prohibition on tearing it on Yom Kippur. And we see that what they did to the sacrifice is not prohibited. If so, it means that it is no longer a sacrifice.

It should be remembered that the Torah itself states that the lottery is a work, meaning that then the Lottery is indeed a sacrifice. And the Khazanah states that its sanctity expires at this stage. And so it is with the above-mentioned Hadiya of the Grach.

Although there are those who disagree about the mission and believe that it is a work, and the man is the messenger of the Almighty. And evidence for this is that the man repeats and says to the Almighty: 'I, the Almighty, have fulfilled your mission' (Yoma 1:1).

According to Rashi, 65:1, it states that the shipment does not delay at all. And the Meiri (45:1, i.e., "three" and 66:1, i.e., "they said") brought a disagreement on this. And also in Rashi, 25:1, after Parashat 4:8.

It should also be noted that a person is also permitted to eat on Yom Kippur, even though at least part of his action does not hinder it.

8. The rejection. It does not delay the marriage, and of course is done by a stranger.
9. After the rejection, the organs are permitted to be enjoyed (Yoma 67a), without mentioning that it is sent to the fault.

And here is the Geraiz Yoma SA, where the verse "And here" proves from the Gava that if it remains alive, it is permissible to slaughter it and eat it. And according to the Menach 15:15, if the man went down after it and slaughtered it, perhaps it is permissible to eat it. And so is the Farach Ayvak 5:22 (in the book of Mayim Chaim).

Although the G.M. (66b) states that if he does not die, one must go after him and kill him in any way.

And the latter have made it difficult how they have refined the work of taking a soul, and after all, it is already a mitzvah. And they explain that the postponement is a new mitzvah and not part of the atonement, but it is also a mitzvah, and it postpones the whole (see the above-mentioned Berech, and in the commentary of Rabbi Aryeh Leib, Ch. 2, 33. And he brought there a NEP for washing clothes afterwards).

And the Rabbi S. Hisar's answer to the question 2:55 means that its rejection is like actual slaughtering (and apparently this is how it is explained in the G.M. concerning him and his son. See the aforementioned Menach, 2:55). He cited there some who wanted to prove from this that after rejection it is permissible to enjoy and eat it even without slaughtering it (the rejection is the slaughtering). However, the Rabbi himself erred, and claimed that it is faded like the slaughtering of an oleh that does not permit eating.

In any case, even according to the Rabbis, if he did not reject but slaughtered and ate, it is possible that eating is permissible (and so the Manach sided with him there). The debate is only about the question of whether rejection is like slaughtering, and not about the actual permissibility of eating itself.

And the Garach (ibid.) proved from this that sending and rejecting are valid in a foreigner, that they are a new mitzvah and are not part of the atonement and the daily service. That is, at this stage (starting from confession) the goat that is sent is not a sacrifice.

third.

We see a very strange phenomenon here. At the beginning of the journey, we have two goats, both of which are holy in the sanctity of the sacrifice. Then the sanctity begins to weaken. The first signs are already revealed in the work of drawing lots (which may not be work, at least not in the goat that is being sent away). Then in the tying of the tongue (although perhaps this is the use of holy things). Then in the ordination, it still seems to be a sacrifice, since otherwise there is a problem of using holy things. Then in the confession, there are signs that it is no longer a confession of a sacrifice. The sending away and the rejection are almost completely no longer a work in a sacrifice, and they do not hinder either. And finally, the greatest wonder: the meat is permitted for enjoyment, and perhaps one can even take the goat and slaughter it and eat it.

As is known, the sanctity of the body does not expire for no reason (R. Nedarim 29). Sanctity cannot be forfeited from a sacrifice except by an act. There is no situation in the entire Torah in which any sacrifice suddenly ceases to be a sacrifice. And if it were to be rejected after its mitzvah was performed, there are examples of this. However, here it is rejected already in the confession, and the shiloach is a delay according to almost all opinions (perhaps according to Rashi, who believes that even the shiloach does not delay, it can be said here that the confession was already a mitzvah and therefore it is rejected).

The whole purpose of the goat is to send it to hell in the desert. When this is accomplished, it is no longer a sacrifice. Moreover, this whole 'main purpose', which is supposedly the explicit purpose in the Torah (sending it to hell), does not delay. It does not need to be done at all. For Rashi, it is already from the sending, and for the rest of the Rishonim from the delay. If so, the main purpose of the goat is the journey and not the arrival (Azazel = a goat that has run out).

More than that: there is nowhere to go. After all, when the whole story is over, we find ourselves at the starting point. We have a common goat, which we can slaughter and eat. As if nothing had happened so far. Waking up from a dream, like Alice in Wonderland.

This is the interpretation some commentators have suggested for the name 'Azazel' – the goat is gone. The goat walks and this is the atonement. It is not the arrival but the walking towards the goal that atones.

And why all the permits for a man of the Ati? They are unnecessary, and do not hinder at all. We allow him to make a camel, work in the holy places, go outside the area, eat on a Yom Kippur, tie a Yom Kippur, enter the Temple in impurity, and all this for crafts that he does not need to do at all. They do not hinder at all. Entering the Temple is unnecessary at all (when it is TMAK). We also prohibit slaughtering the goat outside until the confession so that… they do not necessarily have to do anything with it (usually in our eyes it is appropriate to open the Tent of Meeting, that is, for slaughter. Here he is appropriate to do what the man of the Ati wants to do with it. Nothing hinders). All the permits indicate that there is an important purpose, and we discover that there is no purpose in mind. Everything does not hinder. All the halachic permits are, so to speak, to allow you to do whatever you want!?

Raba writes that if we know what is after the word Azazel, we will know his secret. If we know what is after the walk. But after the walk there is nothing. We walk and finally discover that there is nothing here. That we are at the starting point.

The Ramban explained that the land of the cut-off is the place of the abode of impurity and the goats. It is to the governor there that we supposedly offer the sacrifice.

Ostensibly, this is a picture of two authorities: holiness and impurity. And we sacrifice to both. When we try to get closer to the depth of each of them, we suddenly discover that there is only one. At the base of the authority of the goats, there is nothing. The sacrifice fades away and becomes profane. It is all a dream and imagination, and evil has no real reality at all. Goats are demons, whose Kabbalistic definition is imaginary realities (without a root above. The essence of the duality).

The Ramban writes that when the words of the Rabbis are 33 years old, you will know, referring to the verse that is found 33 verses after the verse of Hazazel: 'And they shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to goats.' If they understand that there are no goats, that they are an image. This is the recipe for not sacrificing to them anymore. Let them understand that they are nothing and vanity, and there is no reality in them.

When we walk towards evil, we walk without any halachic restrictions. The man is allowed to eat. He is allowed to ride. He is allowed to tie. He is allowed to go outside the boundaries (on Shabbat and on the Sabbath). He is allowed to pull out his hair. We enter the Temple in impurity. And all this without any real reason, since nothing here is necessary (like entering the Temple in impurity, when the TMAK is circumcised), and at least it does not hinder.[1]

The law (laws) are abolished, and we go towards evil without any protections, in order to reach it. And when we arrive, we see that there is nothing there. These protections are not needed, and in the future to come, when the name of God will be unique and clear in a world of empty commandments. The commandments are a guide to a world of secondness, a world that seems to have an existence for the goats.

That is why it was so important to the Sages to ensure that the goat was not a sacrifice (according to the Shtamak on cuttings), that they permitted entry into the Temple in impurity. They wanted us to know the essence of the goat, and this is equivalent to the prohibition of cutting. This is also to teach that the commandments have no meaning in such a situation.

Whoever discovers this will no longer sin. As the Ramban says: He will no longer sacrifice to goats, and will discover that there is no one else besides him. Everything else is imagination.

The Ramban concludes that his words came to remove the perception of the evil Greek and his disciples (Aristotle) who convinced themselves that only what they achieve exists. We discover here exactly the opposite: only what we do not achieve truly exists. All matter and existence outside of holiness does not exist at all. What we achieve is, often, an imaginary illusion.

The picture is reminiscent of Ishmael and Isaac. There are many parallels here (the awakening in the morning, a surprising discovery at the end, the sacrifice of sons, and much more), and in fact these are two connections: Isaac is brought up before and before (on Mount Moriah), and Ishmael is sent (to hell) into the desert. Hagar is the Hethite man (who is a stranger = non-Jew).

Abraham discovers that he should sacrifice Isaac, but the ram, but this is considered to him as if he had sacrificed Isaac (his ashes are gathered on the altar). Hagar discovers that the place where she is is not desert at all. There is a well of water there that she simply does not see. The world is desert, but within it there is a real reality of water, which is not always seen. The Attic man discovers that there is nothing desert in the desert to which he is going. The Attic man also does not sacrifice his sacrifice, since he is not a sacrifice. He can be brought back. Ishmael returns as he is, but Isaac is supposedly sacrificed (his ashes are gathered on the altar).

Isaac discovered the secret of sacrifices, and Ishmael discovered that there is nothing beyond them.

Therefore, we read in the Book of Genesis these two parshas of the Akeidat, and in general the parshas of the two goats.

Entering the Holy requires this opposition. One must discover the way to approach God, that is, to enter the Holy, and on the other hand the fact that nothing has a real root on the other side. Living in such an experience prevents sin, and constitutes a total repentance, without limitations, what we called above 'purity in conjunction.'

The Kasam asks the Rambam how minor sins are atoned for by the goat, and the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination without repentance. According to us, the Lord is right, for this is a purification in connection with the two. The goat is not a sacrifice, and therefore atonement by it is not an atonement for sacrifices. It does not require repentance.

We also find in the atonement of the goat sent. In the Toda, Debar, Shavuot 13, 11, 20, the goat also atones for offenses committed after it was sent. In the Gava, 5, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59

And it is proven that the atonement of the goat is not like the atonement of sacrifices, since these atone only for offenses committed before they were brought. And so is the above-mentioned Toss. Therefore, the sending away is not an act of sacrifice but a different type of atonement, as we saw above.

To begin with, we must kill the goat and complete the act of sacrifice, since it is impossible to live in such a sphere. We are unable to live in a situation where everything around us is an imagination, and only God exists. Therefore, we make a reduction. It is impossible to live in a place where there is no evil at all. Absurdly, this is the place of the goats. There we see that they do not exist, and therefore there in fact exists a reality in which there is no evil at all. Outside of this place, we think that there is evil there, and there is also good, and therefore we live in seconds. When we are there, we discover that we are in the very source of holiness. There is no other source of any reality.

In everyday life we live in a state of imaginary reality and fight against it through the mitzvot. It is forbidden to live like this during ordinary life. We need to keep it in our consciousness, in the background, but not live like this. This experience can only be touched on Purim and Kippur. There we are exempt from the mitzvot, but during life we must not live like this.

Mitzvot are void for the future, and so are the books of the Nakh. Except for Purim and the Megillat Esther. For the future, we will live like this all the time. This will be a life of consciousness that has no other, and therefore we will not need mitzvot. Purim will be all year round.

The Messiah will bring back the goat, but it will be the entire life of a goat, and not a goat once (or twice) a year. All life will be in the experience of there being nothing else besides Him, and therefore we will all become a man of time, and we will live without commandments (and without the books of the Law).

D.

We will delve further into this point.

In the Passover Haggadah, the wicked son (not the foolish, naive) is the opposite of the wise. Opposite the gates of wisdom stand the gates of impurity (not the gates of foolishness).

A wicked man is wise like the Greek in the Ramban: one who believes only in the reality he sees, and not in what is beyond it. In effect, he believes in a reality without a root. Impurity is a complex entity without a root (dead – the ancestor of impurity: a body without life). The gates of impurity are the gates of understanding without the belief in the root within them.

The Gra in Proverbs 16: "All the Lord's work is for his own benefit, and even the wicked for the day of evil" (Proverbs 16), interprets: 'All' – Gematria 50, the gates of understanding (those the Lord has worked for his benefit). 'And' Gematria 49, the gates of impurity (among them the wicked). There is no gate of impurity 50.

The Ramban also writes in the introduction to his commentary on Genesis that the fifty-second verse is different. It is not exactly a Bina.

The fifty-first gate is wisdom, the root of understanding (to understand one thing from another). The axioms. Understanding is logic, analytical wisdom.

The term 'gate' describes a passage from room to room. This is the understanding. A chain of 49 gates of understanding can end in one of two ways: either in a room without a gate at the end (wisdom). Or return to the starting point, and close the circle.

Intelligence without wisdom teaches nothing. If the axioms are arbitrary, the entire mathematical structure built on them says nothing. Therefore, intelligence constitutes a great intelligence that is of no use. Wisdom gives it all its meaning.

Whoever believes in knowledge without wisdom is himself the gates of impurity. Knowledge without a root is a detached thing that has no meaning. This is a mere illusion. There is a feeling that there is great wisdom in mathematics, but it is all illusion. All meaning is given to it from the axioms. From the root point that animates it. Without the axioms we do not know that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180, but only that if the axioms are true, this is also true.

A chain of gates with no room at the end leads nowhere. It repeats itself, and is meaningless. This is the journey to hell. Discovering that the complex and intelligent structures we encounter have no meaning, without the root point that animates them. Intelligence without wisdom is worth nothing. This is an imaginary illusion. The land of the goats, or hell.[2]

We have seen that when we are in the place of the goats, we are actually at the root point of evil, and discover that it is the root of goodness and holiness. There is no other root. The fiftieth gate that animates the gates of understanding also animates the gates of impurity.

The Ramban mentions Esau, who is on Mount Seir (and he is also a man of Seir). The sacrifice is also called a goat, and it is also sacrificed to goats.

Amalek, the son of Esau, is in the Lord of doubt. He attributes everything to chance. A reality without a root. Therefore, 'his end is a lost cause.' We destroy him on Purim and on Yom Kippur.

Amalek is the root of the Greek and the goats concept, which the work of today works against. In the future, we will discover that Amalek is nothing more than an imagination. The reality of evil is a reality without a root, and therefore has no real existence. This is what we discover in the journey to hell.

The Sages call Esau a converted Jew. In fact, he is the only one who succeeded in becoming a truly converted Jew, that is, becoming a Gentile. Today, this cannot be done (even though Israel is a sinner). Reality cannot truly be separated from its roots. A Jew who sins, or converts, lives in the imagination that he is separated from his roots. Esau embodies the idea of separation from the roots.

Much of the modern world is a reality without roots. A collection of things that seem impressive and powerful, and in fact there is nothing in them. Emotion instead of reason, because of the despair of reason (intelligence without wisdom).

The philosophical root of all this is postmodernism. It is Amalekism. A view that there is no truth, that believes only in what is clear and proven and perceived.

[1] We find this on Purim: Rabbinic hybrids. Men's clothing on women and vice versa. Harmful out of joy. Yom Kippur = Yom Kippur. In both, we enter a state of impurity to the end. Mitzvot are void for the future except for Purim. And so are the books of the Bible except for the Book of Esther.

[2] The author of Leshem challenges the Gra in the parables from the Midrash of the Sages about Israel in Egypt, saying that if they had waited a little longer, they would have sunk into the fifty-fold gate of impurity. And by virtue of this, there is a fifty-fold gate. And the excuse is that this gate is nothingness. And from it, indeed, there is no escape. You cannot teach someone analytical, who believes in understanding without wisdom, anything. If he does not accept the concept of truth, the debate is not about one truth or another.