Yoma, Chapter 8, Lesson 1
This transcript was produced automatically using artificial intelligence. There may be inaccuracies in the transcribed content and in speaker identification.
🔗 Link to the original lecture
🔗 Link to the transcript on Sofer.AI
Table of Contents
- The format of the lectures and the study plan
- Method of study and reservations about conceptual discussion
- Yom Kippur in the portion of Acharei Mot: the service of entering the holy
- “O Lord, the mikveh of Israel”: purification as entry, and atonement as the result
- Cessation on Yom Kippur: “a Sabbath of complete rest” as a model of suspending the mundane
- Maimonides: the Laws of Resting on the Tenth as the central structure of Yom Kippur
- Comparison to Tisha B’Av: “there is no difference between…” and understanding “appointed time”
- Taanit 29a: intercalating Tammuz, “He proclaimed an appointed time against me,” and Tisha B’Av as a target date
- The Yom Kippur–Tisha B’Av connection: encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He, and complete cessation
- The scapegoat to Azazel and the difficulty regarding the essence of atonement
Summary
General overview
The lecture presents the study format at the Institute during Elul and the plan for progressing through the eighth chapter of tractate Yoma, and then proposes a conceptual-halakhic framework for understanding Yom Kippur as a service of “entering the holy,” around which a public “cessation” is built. The text argues that the portion of Acharei Mot portrays the Yom Kippur service as a repair for the improper entry of Nadav and Avihu, and that affliction and cessation join as the public component accompanying the High Priest’s entry, even though today what mainly remains are affliction, cessation, and atonement without a Temple. It then presents a distinction between “derash / sermonizing” and “pilpul,” brings sources in Maimonides that define Yom Kippur as the “Laws of Resting on the Tenth,” and proposes an essential connection between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur around the concept of “appointed time” as an encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He. Finally, a difficulty is raised: the main atonement of the day is tied to the scapegoat to Azazel, and Nachmanides and Ibn Ezra are read as opening up a “secret” regarding its meaning, which is deferred to later.
The format of the lectures and the study plan
The Elul course is built out of three consecutive weekly meetings that require registration for all three, with the possibility of making up material through summaries, though full participation is preferred. The lectures focus on the eighth chapter of Yoma, divided into three parts: the prohibitions of affliction up to page 82, topics of saving life and severe transgressions from 82 to 85, and repentance-atonement-confession-prayer from 86 to 88. The study is done in a top-down thematic order rather than according to the order of the pages, and alongside that an independent run through the chapter up to 82 is suggested over the course of the month, in order to connect an overall view with topical lectures.
Method of study and reservations about conceptual discussion
The text expresses discomfort with dealing in conceptual dimensions because of a tendency toward “nice homiletic lines” and less rigor than in a halakhic topic, and brings the story of the Pnei Yehoshua, who refrained from aggadah in order to preserve commitment to the details of the passage. It defines “sermonizing” as an invalid argument with a correct conclusion, and “pilpul” as a valid inference that leads to an incorrect conclusion, and warns that conceptual discussions may fall into one of those two categories. It states that it will seek a conceptual framework connected to Jewish law and not disconnected “homiletics.”
Yom Kippur in the portion of Acharei Mot: the service of entering the holy
The reading of the verses in Acharei Mot presents the Yom Kippur service as a response to the death of Nadav and Avihu “when they drew near before the Lord,” while “with this Aaron shall come into the holy place” is interpreted as instruction for how to enter the holy properly, and not as the opening of a service already defined in advance as “Yom Kippur.” According to the text, only at the end of the passage do the commands appear, “on the tenth of the seventh month,” together with “you shall afflict yourselves” and “a Sabbath of complete rest,” and therefore a picture emerges in which the foundation of the service is a service of entry, to which on this day are added atonement, affliction, and cessation imposed on the public. It suggests that there are two dimensions here—entry into the holy, as against atonement-cessation-affliction—but the Torah ties them together, and raises the possibility that atonement is the result of the very entry into the holy, not the primary goal.
“O Lord, the mikveh of Israel”: purification as entry, and atonement as the result
The text proposes understanding Yom Kippur’s action as a mikveh-like purification, attributing to Rabbi Soloveitchik at the beginning of On Repentance the idea that Yom Kippur is purification and not only atonement, in the image of immersion in a mikveh, where the “mikveh” is the Holy of Holies. It explains that when the High Priest enters inside and the public gives “backing” through cessation and affliction, the public as a whole “immerses” collectively, and “the essence of the day atones” is interpreted as an innovation that allows a dimension of purification even without physical entry into the Holy of Holies. It suggests that one can achieve atonement even without the service when there is no Temple, but the dimension of entry is still lacking, and therefore atonement does not exhaust the essence of the day.
Cessation on Yom Kippur: “a Sabbath of complete rest” as a model of suspending the mundane
The text argues that “a Sabbath of complete rest” on Yom Kippur points to a more comprehensive cessation than the Sabbath and a Jewish holiday, including labor and pleasures, and that this cessation is a condition or framework for entering the holy, because entry into the innermost sanctum requires suspending “everything happening outside.” It compares this to Tisha B’Av as a day similar in the scope of afflictions, and adds that on Tisha B’Av there is even a prohibition on Torah study, so it is “a terribly boring day” on which a person is almost totally “shut down.” It discusses whether Yom Kippur is more like the Sabbath or like a Jewish holiday, and brings the possibility that acts of food preparation were not permitted on it because the cessation on it is complete like the Sabbath, as opposed to the possibility that the permission is simply irrelevant because there is no eating.
Maimonides: the Laws of Resting on the Tenth as the central structure of Yom Kippur
The text points to Maimonides’ title, “The Laws of Resting on the Tenth,” as evidence that all the laws of Yom Kippur are described as laws of a third kind of cessation alongside the Sabbath and a Jewish holiday. It cites Maimonides’ words counting four commandments: to rest from labor, not to do labor, to afflict oneself, and not to eat and drink, and emphasizes that Maimonides formulates “another positive commandment” of cessation from eating and drinking. It brings Maimonides’ language of “by oral tradition” regarding washing, anointing, wearing sandals, and marital relations, and emphasizes Maimonides’ understanding that “Sabbath” applies to eating and drinking while “rest” includes the other afflictions, as well as the comparison that cessation from labor and from affliction applies “both by day and by night.” The text sees in this reinforcement for the framework according to which the public cessation is the envelope for the act of entering the holy and suspending ordinary life.
Comparison to Tisha B’Av: “there is no difference between…” and understanding “appointed time”
The text brings the baraita in Pesachim 54, “There is no difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur except that in the one its doubtful case is forbidden and in the other its doubtful case is permitted,” and presents the comparison as something that does not seem merely accidental. It quotes a Mishnah in Pesachim about customs regarding labor on Tisha B’Av and Tosafot asking why another difference regarding labor was not counted, and suggests that among the Ashkenazic medieval authorities (Rishonim) it is implied that a place where the custom was not to do labor on Tisha B’Av may be understood as a cessation from Sabbath-type labors. It adds that in the halakhic decisors there are “festival” customs on Tisha B’Av by force of “He proclaimed an appointed time against me to break my young men,” and sets this up as a hint to a deep connection between the days.
Taanit 29a: intercalating Tammuz, “He proclaimed an appointed time against me,” and Tisha B’Av as a target date
The text cites the Talmud in Taanit 29a, which calculates the timeline from the establishment of the Tabernacle and the sending of the spies until the spies’ return, and brings Abaye’s statement that “the Tammuz of that year was made full” on the basis of “He proclaimed an appointed time against me to break my young men,” in order to reconcile the count of days so that the weeping would fall on the night of Tisha B’Av. It emphasizes that the Talmud portrays Tisha B’Av as an “appointed time” that precedes the events of the weeping, because the Holy One, blessed be He, arranges the date so that the calamity falls specifically on it. It interprets “appointed time” as a term of destination and meeting, and argues that Tisha B’Av is “the appointed time par excellence” because events happen on it because of its character as an appointed time, and not the other way around, and therefore in the future it can become a positive appointed time, because the fact of the encounter remains, and its coloring depends on the deeds of Israel.
The Yom Kippur–Tisha B’Av connection: encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He, and complete cessation
The text states that Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur share a foundation of encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He, and therefore both require suspension, even though their characteristics are opposite—atonement as against “to break my young men.” It argues that their being “opposites” hints at a shared basis, and formulates a logical rule according to which opposites are generated against a common denominator and not out of random difference. It describes Yom Kippur as an encounter that in the past was realized mainly through place—entry into the Holy of Holies—and Tisha B’Av as an encounter on the axis of time, when “the place was destroyed” and “the Temple in time” remained, so that cessation enables proper entry into the encounter and repair of its character.
The scapegoat to Azazel and the difficulty regarding the essence of atonement
The text raises a difficulty in that the main atonement of Yom Kippur is attributed to the scapegoat to Azazel, something perceived as “outside” and as something for which there is doubt whether it is even an offering, while the service of entering inward atones mainly for impurity of the Temple and its holy things. It presents Ibn Ezra, who states that the sent-off goat “is not an offering” and hints at the “secret” of Azazel “when you are thirty-three years old.” It presents Nachmanides, who interprets the secret as giving a “bribe” to Samael so that he will not invalidate the offering, describes the goat as being sent to “the prince who rules in places of ruin,” and emphasizes that there is no sacrifice being offered to him, but only the carrying out of the Creator’s will, and therefore it is done by means of lots. It concludes by saying that later it will return to clarify why Nachmanides refrained from explaining more because of “the Greek” and his students, and proposes as a direction that the scapegoat to Azazel is related to suspending everything beyond the holy as a condition for purification, before moving on to discussion of the day’s commandments and Maimonides in the Book of Commandments.
In the lecture in detail, the point here was that He said to intercalate Tammuz so that it would come out on the ninth of Av. Meaning, if it had not been intercalated, it would have come out on the eighth of Av—not the tenth, but the eighth. So He didn’t want it to be on the eighth. That’s what he said.
Full Transcript
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’ll explain the format. Usually the lectures at the institute—at least some of them, the newer ones, so we’ll learn how to bring them into the framework—usually the lectures at the institute have been run over the last two years in a university-style format. That means one lecture a week, every week—in other words, an ongoing course, meeting once a week. In Elul, some of the lectures are like that; I’m giving one like that today at two. And the daily lecture is three lectures that run in sequence, meaning that whoever signs up for these lectures needs to be signed up for all three. One on Sunday, one on Tuesday, and one on Thursday. Okay? So these lectures run more or less like, say, in a yeshiva or something like that—lectures, with study sessions around them and so on. Tuesday at two, Thursday at 12. Because for someone who can’t do all three, it’s a bit problematic. I mean, you can try to make it up—I usually send summaries—but ideally I suggest that only someone who can be present for all three lectures sign up. If not, then other lectures are also possible, or if someone is very insistent and wants to come twice and make up the third time, because these will be continuations—one thing depends on another—then okay, that’s also possible. Fine. The eighth chapter of Yoma, which we’ll try to touch on this Elul—we obviously won’t manage to cover all of it—is basically divided into three parts. The first part is the prohibitions of affliction, with a little bit at the beginning about prohibitions of labor but very little; most of it is the prohibitions of affliction: eating, drinking, and the five afflictions, and that goes up to page 82. From 82 to 85 it’s saving life, desecration of the Divine Name, severe transgressions and the like; there’s also the issue of a partial measure there. And in the third part, from 86 to 88, it’s repentance, atonement, confession, prayer—in other words, the more general aspects, let’s call them, of Yom Kippur. I’ll talk a little about that today, maybe—what those aspects mean. My goal is to cover the first part in Elul, more or less, as much as we manage. Now I’m not going to do it in page order; I’ll do it in thematic order. In other words, we’ll simply study the issues of Yom Kippur top-down, not according to the order of the pages. It’s worth bringing the tractate, although it’s not essential. What I suggest in terms of how to study is that you run through the chapter, at least, say, up to page 82—that’s where the chapter begins—up to page 82 over the course of the month. We have until Yom Kippur; it shouldn’t be a problem to finish it. Set yourselves something like a page a day, or even half a page a day—I think that could be enough. Anyone who also gets through the rest, all the better. But as I said, I don’t think I’ll manage to deal with it, maybe apart from half a lecture, and that I will deal with. And alongside that, in the three weekly meetings we have, I’ll deal with topics according to thematic order and not according to page order, so it will be almost independent. I hope that in the end it will come together—that in the end somehow the general perspective from going through the pages together with the series of lectures will join up. Overall I hope to give some kind of picture. But these two tracks are basically independent tracks, so I suggest somehow dividing the time. Since Elul is a time when there are more hours in the day, and the academic schedules are canceled for those who are around, then you can, say, allocate an hour or two to a page a day, a daily page, and the rest to discussion around the passage we’re dealing with, reviewing, preparing, and so on. So, as I said, I want to deal mainly with the first part, which is up to page 82. The order of the service—“service” in both senses—will be like this. Today I’ll give, and maybe I’ll have to take a bit from next time too, we’ll see how much I get through, I’ll give some sort of introduction to Yom Kippur in general: what its meaning is from the biblical perspective, and what its meaning is in a way that will later also carry halakhic aspects along with it. But for now I’ll talk about some meaning—we’ll call it conceptual. Even conceptual meanings, in some sense, have to be tied to Jewish law. After that, based on this, I’ll touch on the commandments of Yom Kippur—that is, the counted commandments. What are we dealing with? These are basically the chapter headings, say, of the laws of Yom Kippur. There are the commandments regarding labor, there are the commandments regarding affliction, each one separately and the relation between them. After that I’ll talk about the people obligated in the matter: women, minors, feeding a minor directly, I hope to get to that, and so on. Then I’ll go into the various afflictions: eating and drinking, and within that maybe half a lecture on things unfit for eating, eating in an unusual manner, things like that—both aspects that relate to prohibitions of eating in general, and things that relate specifically to Yom Kippur. Anointing, washing, wearing sandals, marital relations—all the afflictions, and each one on its own as well. I don’t think I’ll manage much more than that, but that’s at least the plan in general. So as you can see, I’m trying somehow to organize the view of Yom Kippur in some top-down scheme and not through the pages. Whatever emerges from the pages I hope will join the structure I’ll try to present in the lecture. Good, so I’ll start with the meaning of Yom Kippur. This is basically an opening lecture—not yet really touching the body of the matter—but it seems to me, I think, that when one deals with conceptual aspects, sin is always crouching at the door. You know that in the introduction to the Pnei Yehoshua he tells there that there was an earthquake in his city, and his family was trapped under the ruins; his daughter was buried there, and he himself was trapped under the ruins, and he vowed—or swore—that if the Holy One, blessed be He, saved him from there, then he would not touch aggadah, and he would engage only in halakhic passages. And in fact, look: the Pnei Yehoshua is one of the later authorities who never lets go. Every word of Rashi, every word of Tosafot, every line in the Gemara—he doesn’t let go. What was the initial assumption, what was the conclusion, he works out exactly how the argument proceeds—truly one of the later authorities most committed to the details of the passage. But at every stage of aggadah you’ll see: there is no Pnei Yehoshua. Once you get to aggadah, you’ll find him in the next halakhic section. He doesn’t deal with aggadah, and not for nothing. Because he even explains it there, I think—or if not, it’s also pretty clear. I think he explains it, but it’s pretty clear. Because in aggadah people usually say nice homiletic lines, and that’s a little problematic. In other words, the learning there is less rigorous, less unambiguous than in Jewish law. Of course in Jewish law too there is room for different interpretations and disagreements; I’m not claiming that Jewish law is an exact science. But still, there is much more rigor when you deal with a halakhic passage than when you deal with an aggadic passage. So as a rule I’m a little wary of dealing with the conceptual dimensions of passages, except maybe for an occasional remark here and there. But here I think it really does give some framework for the discussion, and I hope I’m not sinning too much against the truth in this discussion—that it won’t be too much sermonizing. I once said: what’s the difference between pilpul and sermonizing? When you study, when you make some interpretive or halakhic inference of some kind, it’s supposed to be an argument that ends with a conclusion that follows from the argument: premises, argument, and a conclusion that follows from the argument. Sermonizing is an invalid argument with a correct conclusion. A silly argument with a correct conclusion—but in the end, after all, you have to be righteous and humble and serve God, so who can argue with such a thing? Never mind that it has no connection to the midrash they brought or the argument they made. And that’s why people say—traditionally—one does not refute a sermon. Don’t ask how exactly it came out of the midrash; it didn’t come out of there. But I’m talking about sermonizing, not exegesis. Exegesis is something else. Sermonizing in the dismissive sense—that’s most of what we hear. That’s sermonizing. Pilpul is the opposite. Pilpul is a valid inference—or apparently valid—whose conclusion is clearly not correct, whose conclusion is silly. A kind of paradox. The example that always comes to mind for me in this context is what the authors of the rules bring regarding an a fortiori argument. They want to teach that a four-cornered garment is obligated in mezuzah. And so: if a doorpost, which is exempt from tzitzit, is obligated in mezuzah, then surely a four-cornered garment—except that the stringency and leniency on each side cancel each other out. That doesn’t completely solve the problem because you could still make an argument by analogy from a general principle. You can’t make an a fortiori argument, but you can still make an analogical argument. Okay, fine.
[Speaker C] So each side of the a fortiori argument undermines the other?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It turns it into an analogy from a general principle. In other words, no a fortiori argument, but an analogy you can still make. It’s not so—it’s tricky. Never mind, that’s a different discussion; I won’t get into it here. But I’m showing you—
[Speaker C] How can you reach the conclusion that an a fortiori argument that works in both directions is never right? Never.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Obviously. It’s not an a fortiori argument.
[Speaker C] Basically—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The authors of the rules write that when you have an a fortiori argument based on two data points and not three, you don’t make it. An a fortiori argument is always based on three data points: exempt, obligated, obligated. And then here too there’s obligation, because if this one is obligated and that one is exempt, then this one is stricter than that one. If this one is obligated, then this one is certainly obligated. If you have only these two and you don’t have this third one, then it could be that here is the exemption and there is the obligation, and it could be that here is the exemption and there is the obligation. You can’t generalize. In short, then, the difference between sermonizing and pilpul is that both are nonsense; the whole question is only where the nonsense is—whether the nonsense is in the argument or the nonsense is in the conclusion. Okay. Now, conceptual discussions have some tendency to fall into one of these two categories. So I’m warning you in advance, I’ve given fair notice. Afterward, check what you think about what I’m saying and decide for yourselves. Okay. Maybe I’ll begin—I’ll hand out the pages. Those who are sitting, maybe sit near a table because I didn’t prepare enough pages. We’ll be short maybe four, I think. So maybe bunch together a bit, okay? There are two pages here, one double-sided and one single-sided. You’ll need to squeeze together a bit, okay? There’s another set here if someone wants. By mistake we ended up with two. Okay, we’ve got another two sets. Okay. Good. Now, when you look at the portion in Acharei Mot, where the Yom Kippur service appears, you discover—and the Vilna Gaon already pointed this out—that our picture of Yom Kippur is either mistaken or at best partial. Because look at the beginning of the portion: “And the Lord spoke to Moses…” wait, “And the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of Aaron’s two sons, when they drew near before the Lord and died.” Sorry, is that how it begins on your page? Because on mine it isn’t; I just didn’t leave myself that page. “And the Lord said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, that he not come at all times into the holy place within the veil, before the cover that is upon the ark, that he die not; for I appear in the cloud upon the cover. With this shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering…” and then the whole Yom Kippur service begins. Now from the context—and maybe at the end we’ll finish with the end, because verse 29 says: “And this shall be for you an everlasting statute: in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month, you shall afflict yourselves, and you shall do no labor, the native and the stranger who dwells among you. For on this day he shall atone for you, to purify you; from all your sins before the Lord you shall be purified. It shall be for you a Sabbath of complete rest, and you shall afflict yourselves, an everlasting statute,” and so on. So basically the claim is: there is an entire procedure here—what is it meant to do? Yom Kippur isn’t mentioned at all. Not affliction, not atonement for sins, not anything. Rather, Nadav and Avihu entered the holy improperly, and “when they drew near before the Lord” they died. Now the Torah says to Aaron: you want not to die? You want to enter properly? “With this shall Aaron come into the holy place.” In other words: this is how you should enter the holy place. How? A young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering, and the whole Yom Kippur service. Or in other words, this isn’t the Yom Kippur service at all; it’s the service of entering the holy. In other words, this is how one enters the holy properly. Nadav and Avihu didn’t do it this way, and that’s why they were punished or struck down. So if one wants to do it properly, this is the repair for what Nadav and Avihu did, and this is how it should be done. And in fact the Vilna Gaon comments on this—that in the wilderness, at least, they did these things not only on Yom Kippur. When Aaron wanted to enter the holy, it involved doing the entire Yom Kippur service, and then he could enter the holy. Why did that stop in the Land of Israel? Why in the Temple was it no longer like that? That’s a different question.
[Speaker C] So what does “And this shall be for you—”
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “—an everlasting statute in the seventh month on the tenth”—that’s at the end, at the end.
[Speaker C] Everything you said until now was done only, like—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Not only. You’re just adding—that’s exactly the point. What it says at the end is that you do this whenever you want to enter the holy, but once a year you are obligated to do it. When? On the tenth of the seventh month, meaning on Yom Kippur. But then something else is added too. “With this shall he come”—meaning, “For on this day he shall atone for you, to purify you from all your sins; before the Lord you shall be purified.” Atonement is mentioned with regard to Yom Kippur; I don’t know if that applies every time one enters the holy. And “it shall be for you a Sabbath of complete rest, and you shall afflict yourselves”—also the commandment of “a Sabbath of complete rest,” we’ll still talk about what that means, whether it refers to labor or to affliction. But affliction and cessation—I’ll still talk about what cessation is. These things are mentioned at the stage after it says to do this once a year on Yom Kippur. It’s not entirely clear whether this is an addition that also belongs to the service of the priest’s entry into the holy, or whether the service of entry into the holy is just the offerings, and what is done on Yom Kippur here includes the additions of “you shall afflict yourselves,” atonement, and cessation—cessation from labor and from enjoyment. So what emerges is that the Yom Kippur service in its foundation is a service of entering the holy. What is added to this on Yom Kippur—and it’s not entirely clear that this really is added only on Yom Kippur—is affliction and cessation, which are imposed on the whole public, not only on the priests or the High Priest who performs the Yom Kippur service. This is basically some sort of backing given to the priest. When he wants to go inside, then we are, as it were, supposed to stand behind him. There is a collective role; there is something in this act that we too are doing. We need to enter into cessation. Okay? I think this gives some kind of perspective on Yom Kippur—I mean, this will continue with us for quite a few lectures, so I want you to notice this point. The claim, basically, is that on a fundamental level Yom Kippur has two dimensions, which may be connected and may not. One of them is entry into the holy, and the other is atonement, cessation, and cessation from labor. Today, when we have no Temple, then we don’t have the dimension of the service, nor the physical entry of the priest into the holy—he doesn’t enter, there is no High Priest, no one enters the Holy of Holies. But the other dimensions—the affliction, the cessation, the “Sabbath of complete rest,” these things—we do have. And apparently also atonement: “the essence of the day,” all the well-known disputes in the Talmud about whether the essence of the day atones, or the goat, and so on. So those dimensions remain even without entering the holy. On the face of it, that means there’s no connection between the things. In other words, there is basically the dimension of entry into the holy—that’s when there is a Temple—and there is the second dimension, which is added only on Yom Kippur, which is the Yom Kippur we know today, and there is no connection between them. But the Torah itself does tie them together. The Torah itself says that once a year this is what must be done, and besides that: affliction and cessation, a Sabbath of complete rest, and all these things. And that may perhaps be interpreted—and I stated my reservations at the beginning—as if this is actually the very essence of entry into the holy. Entry into the holy, in the end, is the basis that atones. True, there is some option for atonement even when there is no holy place and no High Priest, and then what can be done is only what the public does and not what the High Priest does. But still, at bottom, entry into the holy is itself part of the act of atonement, and cessation is connected to it. Cessation is basically the part we take in the priest’s entry into the holy, where entry into the holy is perhaps what atones in the end—what Rabbi Soloveitchik talks about at the beginning of On Repentance, “O Lord, the mikveh of Israel,” that the purification of Yom Kippur is not atonement, it is purification; that in essence it is like immersion in a mikveh. In other words, you are entering some place, and that entry purifies you. In this case, the mikveh is the Holy of Holies. But how do all of us enter the Holy of Holies? If the High Priest enters and we give the backing we are supposed to give, then in that way the public immerses. And therefore “the essence of the day atones” is the innovation—that even without entry into the holy there is some dimension of mikveh even in Yom Kippur itself, even without the High Priest’s entry into the holy being carried out. And then that means that there really is a connection between the two things. And maybe—maybe—we can take one further step and say that perhaps atonement is not even the goal. The goal is entry into the holy; atonement is the result. In principle, “with this shall Aaron come into the holy”—meaning the goal is entry into the holy. This is how one enters the holy. After that, “with this he shall atone for you from all your sins,” I don’t know—if we do this, there is a side effect, something that is the result of this action. Once you are in the mikveh, you become purified. Okay, but basically there is some entry into the holy that has the byproduct of purification. For that to be accepted, the whole public has to perform its part in the process: affliction and cessation and all the other things. So this is some kind of perspective—I don’t know if it’s necessary, but it’s at least possible—from the verses. I think it is actually quite natural: the essence of the commandments of Yom Kippur. The commandments of Yom Kippur are basically about doing our part in entry into the holy, as distinct from the High Priest.
[Speaker C] But in other places too, in Pinchas and in Emor, there it doesn’t—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There the service isn’t mentioned; there only atonement and such are mentioned.
[Speaker C] I’ll get to that in a moment.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] From there we learn that there is an option of purification even without entry into the holy.
[Speaker C] Yes, but here atonement is only a side effect of the service, which isn’t the goal?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] When the service is actually performed. You know, it reminds me of the ordination controversy in the sixteenth century. There was Rabbi Yaakov Beirav and his students in Safed, who wanted to renew ordination, and Rabbi Levi ben Chaviv and the sages of Jerusalem, with Rabbi Levi ben Chaviv at their head, opposed renewing ordination. The claim of the sages of Safed was that this wasn’t such a messianic matter as people usually think, although there were those dimensions there. In general, sixteenth-century Safed—Morgenstern wrote about this—had many messianic dimensions. But the main goal was that after the expulsion from Spain and the Marranos and so on, people needed atonement for their sins, so that they would be forgiven and not get beaten up Above. For that you need court-administered punishments. But court punishment doesn’t help if there is no ordained court. So what they wanted by renewing ordination was so that they could flog those liable to lashes, and through lashes, once they were flogged, they would be freed from their karet liability, and you exempt them from karet. But if there is no ordained court, then the lashes don’t help. Now Rabbi Levi ben Chaviv disagreed, and really, on the simple level, they were right. Because otherwise, what’s the issue—why do you need an ordained court? If I can achieve atonement without it, then what’s the problem? Or it’s the same phenomenon as here: when there is an ordained court and they flog, then release from karet requires the flogging; repentance alone isn’t enough. There are contradictions in Maimonides regarding those disqualified from testimony—what is the relationship between punishment and repentance? It’s a very difficult question; there are contradictions in Maimonides on this matter. Because in the laws of testimony they discuss when a person is atoned for and becomes fit again for testimony, a wicked person. But you see here that in principle you need an ordained court to decide on lashes and to administer them. But when we lost ordination and there are no ordained courts and no lashes, then what—two thousand years we are all basically in karet? No one liable to karet has any option of being purified? Rabbi Levi ben Chaviv argued that no. He argued that one is purified through repentance without a court. Then what’s the point of “Restore our judges as at first”? And even the other way around—it’s just annoying. If you can get rid of your karet even without the lashes, then why would you want to be flogged? Are you praying to get lashed? So there is something very problematic here. On the one hand, atonement without lashes—the lashes create the atonement. On the other hand, when we have no lashes, we can achieve atonement without it, through repentance.
[Speaker D] And now—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Without explaining it there, I’m saying you see the same thing here. Entry into the holy—when there is entry into the holy—that is basically a way of achieving atonement. True, the Torah says that even when the Temple is gone and there are no offerings and no High Priest, we still have an option of achieving atonement even without that. You’ll ask: then what do I need that for? To that I said earlier: that’s exactly the point. Here it’s clearer than with lashes, because here what I argued is that entry into the holy is not a means to atonement. On the contrary, atonement is the result; the goal is entry into the holy.
[Speaker C] The goal is entry into the holy? Yes. Entry into the holy is connection to the Holy One, blessed be He.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Only someone connected to the Holy One, blessed be He—“O Lord, the mikveh of Israel,” yes—such a person is atoned for; that is the result. So therefore, true, I can achieve atonement even without it, but I don’t enter the holy in order to be atoned for; I enter the holy because that is how one enters the holy. Nadav and Avihu too did not enter the holy in order to be atoned for. They wanted some sort of connection to the Holy One, blessed be He; that’s why they entered the holy. So the Torah tells us: how do you create the connection? How do you enter the holy? “With this shall Aaron come into the holy”—together with the whole envelope also required of the public. True, one can achieve atonement even without it. Okay? Here it is even clearer than with lashes. That’s why I said before that yes, atonement is the result—in other words, atonement is the side effect. And then it’s also clear why, although one can achieve atonement even without the service and entry into the holy, still something is obviously missing when we don’t have these dimensions of Yom Kippur. Even though we do have atonement. But not all these things were meant for atonement; atonement is the side effect. Okay? That seems to me what I think follows naturally from the plain meaning of the verses. Maybe I’ll continue. I’ll close the circle, even though it’ll still take me time to get to this conclusion, but I’ll already close the circle here so as to understand the meaning. There is discussion about what this “Sabbath of complete rest” means. “Sabbath of complete rest” appears in different places; the Sages interpret it in various ways, and also in parallel places we’ll soon see in the Torah itself, where Yom Kippur is commanded, it is called a “Sabbath of complete rest.” On the simple level, it seems to mean cessation both from labor and from affliction—I mean, from enjoyment. Unlike a Jewish holiday and the Sabbath, which are cessation from labor alone. On a Jewish holiday, it’s only acts of food preparation—in other words, except for food preparation acts, only laborious work and not food-preparation work; at least that’s Nachmanides’ view. On the Sabbath it is cessation from all labors. On Yom Kippur it is cessation also from pleasures: eating and drinking and the five afflictions. We’ll still see whether that is Torah-level or rabbinic when we get to the five afflictions. But this is a much more comprehensive cessation than Sabbath and Jewish holiday. And already here I’ll say that the only cessation that seems to me even more comprehensive than Yom Kippur is Tisha B’Av. Because on Tisha B’Av there is cessation—“there is no difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur except…” yes, and then there is the matter of gathering vegetables and another addition, the addition of Yom Kippur and the addition of Tisha B’Av only. And there are those who note that perhaps there are a few more things. But basically there is a comparison between them, and on Tisha B’Av Torah study is also forbidden. Tisha B’Av is a terribly boring day, terribly boring. There is nothing to do. You cease from labor, cease from all the afflictions of Yom Kippur—not like the other fasts—and also from Torah study. In other words, you are completely suspended. And I think these things somehow relate to what I said here. Cessation, in some sense, is a condition for entry into the holy. When you enter the innermost sanctum, you basically have to live what is inside, to suspend everything happening outside—the world in which we are constantly living. The deeper you go in, the broader the cessation has to be. And therefore on Yom Kippur—let’s set Tisha B’Av aside for the moment, since it isn’t really Torah-level—Yom Kippur is the fullest cessation, because on Yom Kippur we enter the deepest. When one enters deepest into the holy, then all mundane life—Torah study not, because apparently that is not part of mundane life; on Tisha B’Av it’s something even stronger, but that’s a different issue—entry into the holy requires suspension of all the mundane. Suspension of the mundane means labor and pleasures, the things we usually do, labor and pleasures, the things we occupy ourselves with.
[Speaker D] On the Sabbath there is a lighter kind of entry?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes—not entry into the Temple. There are Sabbath additional offerings, but I don’t think that’s really a dimension of entry into the holy. Maybe it’s some expression of the idea. It’s an encounter with holiness, a holy day. There is holiness in time, yes; the Temple in time. The Sabbath is called the Temple in time. So the claim is that cessation is basically connected to entry into the holy, and therefore Yom Kippur is a “Sabbath of complete rest.” It is a “Sabbath of complete rest” because the cessation has to be more comprehensive than on any other holy day. And why? Because the entry into the holy is done in a deeper way. The deeper you are in holiness, the more you have to suspend the world of the mundane. Just one remark maybe: there is a discussion among the medieval authorities (Rishonim), and even more among the later authorities (Acharonim), whether Yom Kippur resembles the Sabbath or a Jewish holiday. There are those who say it is a “Sabbath of complete rest” because it resembles the Sabbath and not a Jewish holiday, because acts of food preparation were not permitted on Yom Kippur. But that’s not so simple, because regarding Yom Kippur some commentators say that in principle acts of food preparation were permitted, only there was no need, because we don’t eat. In other words, in principle there was no need to permit those acts because we don’t eat, but fundamentally, say, if we were eating—there might be some practical implication from this in the case of a sick person, for example. A sick person, for example, maybe could do acts of food preparation in theory, because he in fact is permitted to eat in such a situation. It’s not an essential prohibition; there is simply no reason to permit it. That depends on the question of why acts of food preparation were permitted on a Jewish holiday—whether they were never prohibited to begin with, or whether it is a specific permission. If they were never prohibited, then that’s a different discussion. If it is a permission—not like Nachmanides, whom I mentioned earlier—then here you don’t need the permission. On the other hand, there are those who argue no: cessation, “a Sabbath of complete rest,” is a more comprehensive cessation. Just as there is cessation from enjoyment, there is also cessation from labor, including acts of food preparation. In other words, acts of food preparation were not permitted on Yom Kippur not only because they aren’t needed since we don’t eat, but because it is like the Sabbath. No labor at all is permitted. The prohibition of eating is eating something I prepared beforehand, but the prohibition on doing acts of food preparation on that day is a prohibition independent of the prohibition of eating itself. It is prohibited because the cessation has to be complete cessation, like on the Sabbath. And then, of course, that strengthens even more what I said earlier, that the cessation on Yom Kippur is a more comprehensive cessation.
[Speaker E] Why is Yom Kippur considered like the Sabbath—from the standpoint of holiness, or cessation?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That’s a different question. The fact that cessation is broader doesn’t mean it’s a more severe cessation. In my last column I wrote a bit about this issue: very often, the higher things carry a lighter punishment. Nachmanides writes this in Parashat Yitro, about the difference between a prohibition and a positive commandment. Why? Because when something elevates you to a higher level, then if you don’t do it, all that means is that you’re simply not there—you’re here. But if something is a basic requirement, then if you don’t fulfill it, you’re down in a pit, and that warrants a severe punishment. Very often, when you do something very significant, the reward you deserve for it is great, but the punishment for neglecting it is small. That’s what Nachmanides writes on Parashat Yitro regarding the commandment of the Sabbath in Parashat Yitro. He says the punishment is in inverse proportion to the reward. For the lighter things, the punishment is light and the reward is high, because the lighter things are really what elevate you higher. And for the more severe things, the punishment is severe and the reward is small, if there is any at all. Neglecting a positive commandment, refraining from a prohibition—the question is whether there is any reward there at all. So that’s regarding cessation on Yom Kippur. Just so you can see this a little more clearly, look in Maimonides, in the laws of the cessation of the tenth day. Let’s find it—probably on your second or third page. See it? Yes, at the beginning of the third page. At the beginning of the third page. The first sheet is double-sided, notice that. Do you see Maimonides, the beginning of the laws of the cessation of the tenth day? First of all, notice the name of these laws: the laws of the cessation of the tenth day. Strange. Why is there cessation of a Jewish holiday, cessation of the Sabbath—that’s the laws of the Sabbath—and then cessation of the tenth day? What is cessation of the tenth day? It’s the laws of the holiday with additional elements for Yom Kippur. Maimonides understands that on Yom Kippur it is a complete Sabbath-rest, and all the laws are laws of cessation. This is a third kind of cessation. There is cessation of the Sabbath, there is cessation of a Jewish holiday, and there is cessation of the tenth day. There are three kinds of cessation in Jewish law. And therefore all the laws connected to Yom Kippur are all laws of cessation on Yom Kippur. It’s not that cessation is one aspect of Yom Kippur, and besides that you also have to fast and things like that. No, no—everything in Yom Kippur is laws of cessation. It’s cessation from labor and cessation from pleasure. Look at it inside. Beyond the heading Maimonides gives this collection of laws—laws of the cessation of the tenth day—look inside. “The laws of the cessation of the tenth day include four commandments: two positive commandments and two prohibitions, and these are their details: to cease from labor on it, not to do labor, to afflict oneself on it, and not to eat and drink on it.” Yes, all of these are the laws of the cessation of the tenth day, including the affliction. But things become even clearer in the wording inside the laws. “It is a positive commandment to cease from labor on the tenth day of the seventh month, as it is said: ‘It shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you,’ and whoever does labor…” Every labor for which intentional violation on the Sabbath incurs stoning, intentional violation on the tenth day incurs karet, and everything for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering on the Sabbath, one is liable to bring a sin-offering on Yom Kippur. Right, so there is no stoning on Yom Kippur; it’s karet, not stoning. Fine. The comparison between Sabbath and Yom Kippur is complete. There’s a slight hint here that even the cessation from food-preparation labor is not because people don’t eat, but because on Yom Kippur the prohibitions are like those of the Sabbath. There is no difference between Yom Kippur and Sabbath. “And one may trim vegetables”—that’s what I mentioned earlier—that’s law 3. Law 4: “There is another positive commandment on Yom Kippur, and that is to cease from eating and drinking on it.” You see? Here it’s very explicit: Maimonides says, until now I was speaking about cessation from labor, which is like the Sabbath, including food-preparation labor. Now I continue with cessation as cessation from pleasures. And then he says, “to cease from eating and drinking on it, as it is said: ‘You shall afflict yourselves.’ By tradition they learned that the affliction of the soul is fasting, and whoever fasts on it fulfills a positive commandment, and whoever eats and drinks on it has neglected a positive commandment and violated a prohibition.” Fine? “And likewise we learned by tradition that it is forbidden to wash, anoint, or wear a sandal on it.” We’ll still talk about that issue. What does “by tradition” mean? Does it mean rabbinic? Torah-level? What exactly does that expression mean in Maimonides? When we get to the afflictions of Yom Kippur, we’ll talk about the meaning of that phrase. We continue. “And it is a commandment to cease from all these just as one ceases from eating and drinking, as it is said: ‘a Sabbath of complete rest.’ ‘Sabbath’ with regard to eating, and ‘complete rest’ with regard to these.” Now, that’s an explicit Talmudic text: from “complete rest” they derive the afflictions, the expansion implied by “complete rest.” Maimonides says, what does that mean? That the “Sabbath” that comes before “complete rest” is not dealing with labor prohibitions. Because if it were dealing with labor prohibitions, then “complete rest” would not be an expansion to include the afflictions like anointing and drinking, but rather eating and drinking themselves. And eating and drinking are written separately in the verses: “You shall afflict yourselves.” Right? So if eating and drinking are already there, how do they derive the other afflictions from “complete rest”? What does that have to do with prohibitions of labor? It should have been an expansion beyond eating and drinking, not beyond labor. Maimonides says no: the cessation, the “Sabbath” written at the beginning, refers both to labor and to eating and drinking, and “complete rest” refers to the other afflictions. All right? That’s actually precise in the Talmudic text. Maimonides just states it explicitly, but in fact it is precise in the Talmudic text.
[Speaker D] Why does Maimonides explain “complete rest” if it already says “Sabbath”?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Did I hear? There’s some other discussion there; we’d have to discuss what exactly is being expanded from that. Maybe the “rabbinic safeguards” of Nachmanides—you can discuss that, you know, Nachmanides in Parashat Emor says there is Torah-level cessation from certain non-labor activities. That’s another discussion. But here he says explicitly—and this is from the Talmudic text—that “complete rest” comes to include the afflictions. Which implies that the “Sabbath” before “Sabbath of complete rest” is talking about eating and drinking, not cessation from labor. So that’s in the Talmudic text, and here Maimonides writes it too, so it seems that in Maimonides at least the picture is very clear. It’s also the plain meaning of the Talmudic text, and as I told you earlier, it seems to me it’s also the plain meaning of the Torah.
[Speaker C] Also in law 6, yes, yes, both are forms of cessation.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “Just as one ceases from labor on it both by day and by night, so one ceases from affliction both by day and by night.” Fine? Again, cessation from labor and cessation from affliction. Both are cessation. The cessation includes both the labors and the afflictions. In short, in Maimonides I think there really is a very, very clear description here of what I was saying about the verses: that the cessation on Yom Kippur is basically a total cessation that provides the framework for the act of entering the holy, and that framework essentially requires us to suspend everything outside the holy, all ordinary life. Suspending ordinary life means ceasing from labor and ceasing from pleasure, including all the afflictions. At least “by tradition,” that’s what “complete rest” is—that’s what is learned from “complete rest.” In Maimonides, in the straightforward reading, “by tradition” is not rabbinic. There are some disputes about this; I think Rabbi Aviner has an article on the matter—what “by tradition” means in Maimonides. But from the context it’s clear: he learns it from the word “complete rest,” and the Talmudic text learns it from there. There are those who say it’s just an asmachta, and we’ll still discuss that. Okay, so that is the framework, and therefore I’m saying that basically here I finish the framework within which all our later discussion takes place. Because after this I’ll want to go into the labor prohibitions and the affliction prohibitions—how to understand both of them, what the relation between them is—but first we have to understand the framework. All of this is basically the detailing of the obligation of cessation on Yom Kippur, and the obligation of cessation is really the communal framework surrounding the priest’s act of entering the holy.
[Speaker F] But the preparations are the opposite. What? The food on Friday—you don’t eat a lot so that you’ll be able to eat a lot? So that on the ninth day you have to eat a lot so that… yes.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In the straightforward sense, that’s preparation for the day. The day itself is the opposite. So its eve is the opposite too. But the day itself is an opposite kind of day, because on the Sabbath there is no idea of ceasing from pleasure; the idea is to cease from labor. Of course, that is in remembrance of what the Holy One, blessed be He, did in the six days of creation—there He ceased from labor, not from pleasures. So we too do this in remembrance of creation. On Yom Kippur, it’s entry into the holy, and entry into the holy requires a full suspension of the ordinary.
[Speaker H] Is there some kind of suspension here where you feel that the entry is a goal in itself and not just a means?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What do you mean? What do you mean, significance?
[Speaker H] I mean—it’s not for the sake of
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] atonement but rather a byproduct, because the fact is that the atonement we don’t need to produce even without this.
[Speaker H] No. But maybe all the other entries were for other purposes, and this simply says: if you want to know how to achieve atonement, do A, B, C, D; one of them is to enter the holy.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So then why is there a need to enter the holy?
[Speaker H] Because it
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] generates the atonement.
[Speaker H] That’s how it works. So if you want atonement, enter the holy—and not because it’s the holy as such.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But on the rest of the days of the year, when one enters the holy without all the elements of atonement and affliction and all that? Although, by the way, it’s not certain that it’s without them—but let’s say for the sake of discussion. For other purposes. Meaning, why assume there are two purposes? By Ockham’s razor, why assume there are two purposes? One purpose. On Yom Kippur too, entry into the holy means entry into the holy; it’s just that on Yom Kippur it also produces atonement. But the entry into the holy is the same entry into the holy as during the rest of the year. Why assume it’s something else? They do the same thing on the tenth of the seventh month. I don’t see a reason to assume—again, it could be, but…
[Speaker H] It’s just that this entry of the High Priest once a year—even in the prayers we
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] For us, we don’t do that anymore the rest of the year.
[Speaker H] Because it’s
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Today we no longer
[Speaker H] do it
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] during the rest of the year, so fine, with the scarlet thread and all that. We’ll still get to it. But I’m saying that we aren’t doing that now. So there’s nothing else to do besides that. Only on Yom Kippur do we do it now. But say, in the wilderness, when they also did it on other days—what was it there? Apparently it was entry in order to encounter the Holy One, blessed be He, in some sense. So why assume that on Yom Kippur it’s different? On Yom Kippur too, atonement is obtained by entering into an encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He. More than that, as I said, maybe on the other days too—not Yom Kippur—the additions that appear at the end of the section, of cessation and affliction and atonement, may also have applied on the other days. It wasn’t stated only for Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur you have to do it, but maybe all these additions belong to every entry into the holy. I don’t know—you could read it that way too. Anyway, before I go off a bit into a parenthesis, let me close the loop. I want to comment a bit on the connection to Tisha B’Av. I spoke earlier about why Tisha B’Av is similar. So let me say something about the connection to Tisha B’Av. Look after Maimonides in your sources, on the third page. So the Talmudic text in Pesachim 54 has a baraita there: “There is no difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur except that in the case of this one, uncertainty is forbidden, and in the case of that one, uncertainty is permitted.” What does “uncertainty is permitted” mean? Doesn’t it refer to twilight? No—it’s as Rav Shisha the son of Rav Idi said, regarding uncertainty in fixing the month; here too, uncertainty in fixing the month. Fine, so if there are two days because we’re uncertain about the calendar, the question is whether one must be stringent because of that uncertainty or not. On Tisha B’Av, no; on Yom Kippur, yes. These things are well known—in Japan, in China, all the discussions during the Holocaust in the Mir Yeshiva about observing two days of Yom Kippur and when to mark Yom Kippur. So there is some comparison here between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur. On the face of it, this is merely a technical comparison, like what I said about Yom Kippur and Sabbath regarding food-preparation labor. On the face of it that’s a technical comparison. Meaning, the prohibition of food-preparation labor on Yom Kippur is not because it’s like Sabbath; it’s simply because one doesn’t eat on Yom Kippur. Basically it’s a Jewish holiday. But there too I said: no, it’s not necessarily technical. It may be a substantive comparison, that this too is part of the obligation of cessation. In addition, you don’t eat—but the prohibition of labor on Yom Kippur is not only because one doesn’t eat, but because there is an obligation to cease from all labor. Here too there is a comparison that seems technical. The content of these days is completely different.
[Speaker E] Yom
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Kippur is entry into the holy, atonement. Tisha B’Av is mourning. Memory, mourning. It seems like a completely different idea. But still, this comparison demands interpretation. Why is there really such a full comparison? If these are really two different things, then why such a precise comparison except for doubtful cases—because this is rabbinic and that is Torah-level—and there they discuss presumptions, yes, never mind. But in the plain sense it’s only because this is rabbinic and that is Torah-level. Meaning, according to that baraita, the comparison is complete; the only difference is that this is rabbinic and that is Torah-level. But the comparison itself is complete. So why a complete comparison? It’s less plausible to say that this is just accidental. So there must still be something shared by these two days. Also Sefer HaChinukh, in commandment 313, after finishing the discussion of Yom Kippur, goes on to devote a section to Tisha B’Av. Again, you could say he did it opportunistically. But opportunistically he could have inserted the entire Talmud there. If he inserted this, maybe he sees some connection between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur, even though he himself says that the roots of the two days are different; Sefer HaChinukh himself writes that there. But of course that only strengthens the question further: then why bring it here? By the way, there are also differences beyond the issue of doubtful observance of the day. Later authorities discuss this already. Tosafot on the spot already asks, and Lechem Mishneh and others—there are other differences that the Talmudic text didn’t mention, but I’m not going into that right now. I want to make a certain claim about this similarity between Yom Kippur and Tisha B’Av. But before I make that claim, I want us to look for a moment at the Mishnah there in Pesachim, the next source you have: “In a place where the custom is to do labor on Tisha B’Av, one may do labor. In a place where the custom is not to do labor, one may not do labor. And everywhere Torah scholars refrain.” And this, we observe with full embellishment. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: a person should always make himself into a Torah scholar. Okay, even if there is some issue of refraining from labor. Tosafot there asks a really surprising question. Tosafot on the words “there is no difference”—do you see? “There is no difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur except…” “Why doesn’t it count labor, which is permitted on Tisha B’Av in a place where the custom is to permit it?” Remember the baraita? We said the baraita we read above: there is no difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur except the doubtful observance of the day. Right? Tosafot asks: why? There is another difference. After all, there are places where the custom is to do labor on Tisha B’Av, so it is permitted to do labor, while on Yom Kippur labor is forbidden. At least in those places, the fact that the local custom permits it means there is another difference. That’s why I said that the medieval and later authorities note additional differences between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur. Tosafot there asks exactly that. “And Ri seems to explain that because later on it concludes by discussing the permissibility of labor in relation to the difference between Tisha B’Av and a public fast, they already said it in a different context, and therefore they didn’t bring it here.” This Tosafot is astonishing. What kind of labor are we talking about on Tisha B’Av? Which labors are forbidden on Tisha B’Av? The 39 categories of labor and their derivatives, with all the rabbinic prohibitions of Sabbath law? Is it forbidden to sort on Tisha B’Av? To make cheese? What is forbidden are labors that distract from the fast, right? Basically something perhaps a bit parallel to weekday-like activity on the Sabbath, or something that distracts you from the meaning of the day. Those are the labors that are forbidden. So according to the one who says that in a place where the custom is not to do labor, there it is similar to Yom Kippur—which kind of objection is that, what Tosafot asks? Tosafot says: wait, in a place where the custom is to do labor there is a difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur, and in a place where the custom is not to do labor there is no difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur? In a place where the custom is not to do labor, that means labor that distracts from the fast. There are no places where the custom is not to sort on Tisha B’Av. So Tosafot should still have asked that there is a difference between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur in general, regardless of whether the custom is to work or not. There is a difference. These are not the same labor prohibitions. What’s the connection? And maybe from here—and you can see this in other Ashkenazic medieval authorities too, the Ravyah and others—there are a few hints in Ashkenazic medieval authorities that Tosafot understood that “in a place where the custom is not to do labor on Tisha B’Av” means all the labors of the Sabbath. All the labors of the Sabbath—the primary categories of labor and their derivatives and the rabbinic prohibitions. In short, one must cease on Tisha B’Av as one ceases on the Sabbath. And then of course food-preparation labor raises the same question again: do we have to cease because of an obligation of cessation, or because on Tisha B’Av one does not eat, like on Yom Kippur? But practically it comes out similar to Yom Kippur. Whatever answer we give on Yom Kippur we can also give on Tisha B’Av. In short, what Tosafot is claiming is that in a place where the custom is not to do labor on Tisha B’Av—true, this is left to local custom, and by the way it is fitting that we all make ourselves into Torah scholars and refrain from labor on Tisha B’Av—and what does that mean? All the labors of the Sabbath, the primary categories and their derivatives. You can see this elsewhere too—I don’t know if I brought it here, I didn’t bring it, okay—you can see it in many other places: Terumat HaDeshen and the Ravyah and others. Magen Avraham brings more places where it is clear that we are speaking about labor prohibitions, the prohibitions that are forbidden on Tisha B’Av. And today we do not practice that way. But again—in a place where the custom is that way. In our place, that is not the custom.
[Speaker I] No, but how do you want to prove from that—that you can’t bring proof from the fact that it’s forbidden to cook a meal for a child. Meaning, if the prohibition on cooking for a child is because the day itself is built that way, then it’s not…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Are you speaking about Tisha B’Av?
[Speaker I] Also on Tisha… no, on Yom Kippur. So? Meaning, from the fact that it’s forbidden to cook a meal for a child, you could understand that… no, then maybe…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] You mean that in principle—fine, the question is whether what is forbidden is a Torah-level prohibition or a rabbinic prohibition. Because, because, because—for example, if a sick person cooks for himself. No, he is forbidden to cook for himself. In any case, there is some prohibition there. So even if I understand it as only a kind of exclusion from the permission of food-preparation labor and… sorry, I didn’t understand. I’m saying that Yom Kippur is like a Jewish holiday and basically food-preparation labors are permitted. It’s just that the permission is not relevant because one doesn’t eat. According to that conception, what then is the problem? For a sick person or for a child there should be no problem—you can cook. Whatever you answer in the case of the sick person, answer in the case of the child. What—non-distinction, or it’s an independent prohibition? That’s a discussion that has to be conducted separately. It may be that this really would not be a prohibition as a matter of strict law. So as I said, in several Ashkenazic medieval authorities you see that the labor prohibition under discussion on Tisha B’Av is like the labor laws of the Sabbath. Another thing you see…
[Speaker C] It still isn’t a conceptual connection between the two things.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] One second, in a moment. I’m working toward the conceptual connection; first I’m trying to show the halakhic indications. In several places you see in the decisors, at least, that Tisha B’Av has certain customs of a festival. “He called an appointed time against me to crush my young men”—they derive it from there. We don’t say Tachanun, “Your righteousness is everlasting righteousness,” all those things—there are certain festival customs. By the way, there really isn’t a source for this in the Sages. It somehow seeped into Jewish law over the generations. It isn’t completely clear to me—at least not completely clear to me—what the earliest source is. But practically, it already entered the Shulchan Arukh, meaning it is ruled as Jewish law that there are certain festival customs, and they derive it from “He called an appointed time against me to crush my young men,” where in the plain sense the appointed time is Tisha B’Av.
[Speaker D] But you’re reflecting on the first half and not the second half. What? You take the first half and not the second half? What do you mean? “To crush my young men”—that’s something you celebrate? I didn’t understand. “He called an appointed time against me to crush my young men.”
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, that’s the appointed time.
[Speaker D] So what is the appointed time?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It is—
[Speaker C] You mean he celebrates it? Exactly the opposite.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, it isn’t the opposite. Look, look—it isn’t the opposite.
[Speaker C] The very fact that the word “appointed time” appears is exactly the opposite, 180 degrees.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’ll explain why not, in just a moment. I think not. So what really is the meaning of this? This is basically the only thing called simply an “appointed time” without any qualifier—that is Tisha B’Av. That is very interesting in Scripture. By the way, the Talmudic text—look in Ta’anit 29 on your page—the Talmudic text says as follows: “On Tisha B’Av it was decreed regarding our ancestors that they would not enter the Land. From where do we know? How do we know that this was on Tisha B’Av?” About the spies, yes? “From where? As it is written: ‘And it was in the first month of the second year, on the first of the month, that the Tabernacle was erected.’ And the Master said: in the first year Moses made the Tabernacle, in the second Moses erected the Tabernacle and sent the spies. ‘And it was in the second year, in the second month, on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud rose from over the Tabernacle of Testimony.’ ‘And they journeyed from the mountain of the Lord a distance of three days.’ Rabbi Chama bar Chanina said: on that day they turned away from the Lord. And it is written: ‘And the mixed multitude among them lusted with desire, and the children of Israel again wept,’ etc.” So that brings us to the twenty-second of Sivan. “And it is written: ‘And Miriam was confined seven days,’” so that brings us to the twenty-ninth of Sivan, right? “And it is written: ‘Send for yourself men,’ and it was taught: on the twenty-ninth of Sivan Moses sent the spies.” Exactly on the twenty-ninth of Sivan, which is where we arrived, the spies were sent. “And it is written: ‘And they returned from scouting the land at the end of forty days.’” So that brings it to Tisha B’Av. Exactly—after the twenty-ninth of Sivan, count forty days, and it comes out to Tisha B’Av. Except that—no, it doesn’t. Those forty days are actually one less; Tisha B’Av is thirty-nine days, not forty. Abaye said: “The month of Tammuz of that year was made full,” as it is written: “He called an appointed time against me to crush my young men.” And it is written: “And the entire congregation lifted up and gave their voice, and the people wept that night.” Rabbah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: that night was the night of Tisha B’Av. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: “You wept a needless weeping, and I will establish for you a weeping for generations.” The Holy One, blessed be He, tells Moses our teacher to add a day to Tammuz. Why? Because He already knows that when the spies return and they receive the punishment, He wants it to fall on the date of Tisha B’Av. Because “He called an appointed time against me to crush my young men.” There is some appointed time here, destined in advance for calamity, and the Holy One, blessed be He, wants to arrange for the calamity to fall precisely on that day. Somehow He orchestrates it so that He tells Moses our teacher to make the month full. Now this is a very strange thing.
[Speaker F] But the sanctification of the month is by human beings, by us. What’s the problem? He tells Moses our teacher to do it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What’s the problem?
[Speaker F] He tells Moses our teacher to do it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Now Moses our teacher did it, and everything is fine. He did it because of that. Who says otherwise? If there is a divine command, then it’s not an act of Moses our teacher?
[Speaker F] Did someone say without taking the molad into account? What?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Without taking the molad into account? Many times it’s done without taking the molad into account.
[Speaker F] They made it a leap month without regard to the molad.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Many times they adjust the month without regard to the molad. They adjust a month for many considerations, not only considerations of the molad.
[Speaker F] The one who adjusted it here was the Holy One, blessed be He—
[Speaker H] He told him
[Speaker F] to do it. Wouldn’t he do it?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, He didn’t adjust it; He told him.
[Speaker F] He told him to do it, so he did it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] By the way, by the way, He told him to observe Passover in the second month. In the baraita in tractate Rosh Hashanah there is a three-way dispute among the tannaim about what happens when the religious court does not sanctify the month. Whether it has to sanctify the second day of the new month, or whether from heaven it is already sanctified. It is already sanctified from heaven; automatically it is sanctified. And here, in this case, he wouldn’t even have had to do anything. Moses our teacher would only have had to refrain from sanctifying, according to that view. And then automatically it would already become sanctified; you wouldn’t even need that. But let’s leave those pilpulim, we don’t need to get into that. Moses our teacher was told, and the Holy One, blessed be He, told him, and that is what he did. But this is strange, because when we understand Tisha B’Av as a day destined for calamity, we usually understand that as following the sin of the spies. Because the sin of the spies happened on that day—“you wept a needless weeping, and I will make it a weeping for generations.” But it turns out no: the needless weeping itself, the Holy One, blessed be He, already arranged so that it would fall on Tisha B’Av. Meaning there was something about Tisha B’Av even before that, such that the Holy One, blessed be He, had some interest in having that weeping fall on it. Why? And if it had fallen on the tenth of Av—by the way, it did fall on the tenth of Av; we know the main calamity was on the tenth of Av—but if it had fallen on the tenth of Av, then what would have been the problem? Then the tenth of Av would have been the weeping for generations. What is sacred about Tisha B’Av?
[Speaker B] That’s the question, the question. If the Holy One, blessed be He, knows everything, then how can there be free choice?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What? That’s not the question, the question.
[Speaker B] It has nothing to do with Tisha B’Av.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No—why is there free choice? There is no free choice here. Fine, so still—why did He arrange it for Tisha B’Av? Let Him leave it for the tenth of Av. And then there would be weeping for generations over the tenth of Av—what’s the problem?
[Speaker B] The tenth of Av, that’s not…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, knows it will happen—that’s not… but here He made the calculation.
[Speaker F] What does “knows”
[Speaker B] that it will happen mean?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Here He tells Moses our teacher to make the month full so that this day will fall on Tisha B’Av. It’s not something in the subtext; it’s the text. Meaning, the Holy One, blessed be He, makes the calculation and causes it to fall on Tisha B’Av. So I’m saying: what was there in Tisha B’Av before the people of Israel wept? Tisha B’Av became a day destined for calamity because of that weeping. So why fix that weeping on Tisha B’Av? Set it there—and had it fallen on the tenth of Av, then from then on the tenth of Av would have become the day destined for calamity. You see that there is something in Tisha B’Av
[Speaker E] that is
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] prior to the events that happened on it. There is something about this day, that it is a day upon which calamities fall.
[Speaker D] You could also explain that the Holy One, blessed be He, didn’t want it to be on the eighth of Av, and that’s really the novelty.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Doesn’t matter—what difference does that make?
[Speaker D] No, on the tenth of Av there were already also calamities, so it’s not that the tenth is unproblematic. But maybe the eighth doesn’t fit. Wait, let’s do the calculation.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] If Tisha B’Av is thirty… if He had not…
[Speaker D] If He had not
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] made the month full, it would have happened on the tenth of Av, not the eighth.
[Speaker D] If He had not… if He made it full—if He had not made it full, it would have happened on the tenth?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes. So what is the meaning of this? I think it’s connected to what we saw earlier in Lamentations: “He called an appointed time against me to crush my young men.” That Tisha B’Av is called an appointed time, even without any qualifier. The concept of appointed time, in and of itself, in its purest form, is Tisha B’Av. Because all the other appointed times are appointed times that were established as such because of events that occurred on them. Tisha B’Av is an appointed time in which the events happened because it is an appointed time; it did not become an appointed time because the events happened on it. Therefore it is simply an appointed time, plain and simple. The appointed time in the plain sense is Tisha B’Av. What is an appointed time? A time?
[Speaker J] A date? Think about the root. Va’ad—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Mo’ed, from the language of designation.
[Speaker J] What is it? People meet. To meet, right.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] An appointed time is to meet. “The house appointed for all the living”—that’s where ultimately we all meet, right? That’s where we all end up. Meaning, a meeting-place is the place where people gather; an appointed time is, sorry, a time at which people meet. That’s called an appointed time. Meaning, an appointed time is basically a target date, target in the sense of appointment, for a meeting with the Holy One, blessed be He. Now, what kind of meeting will it be? That depends on us. Meaning, it can be a not-so-great meeting; it can be a positive meeting. That depends on what we do. If what we do warrants a positive meeting, there will be a positive meeting. If not, then there will be a negative meeting. But either way, there will be a meeting on Tisha B’Av. That is the meeting in the plain sense. You know that fatalistic expression? Meaning, something that will happen one way or another; we can only color it with one shade or another, but in the end it will happen. And the Sages also say that in the future these days will become days of joy for Israel, right? Because Tisha B’Av, Yom Kippur—and in the future it will be so as well. Why? Because the fifteenth of Av, Yom Kippur, and in the future also Tisha B’Av and the tenth fast. Why? Because it will continue to be a meeting with the Holy One, blessed be He. It isn’t because of the weeping at all. If it were because of the weeping, then in the future it would be canceled and all would be fine, and it would return to being an ordinary day. Why does it revert to being an appointed time, a festival day? Because it always was an appointed time. The question is what kind of meeting there will be there—that depends on us. So the fact that they wept—“I will establish for you a weeping for generations.” This appointed time will be the kind of appointed time that you yourselves colored it as, with the colors with which you colored it. When it is atoned for, when it is put right, repaired, however you want to put it, then perhaps in the end it will become an appointed time in its positive sense. So basically what we learn from here is that Tisha B’Av is perhaps—I would even say—the paradigm of appointed time, yes? Appointed time in its pure form. It’s not— all the other appointed times are contingent appointed times. They left Egypt on the fifteenth of Nisan, so it became Passover, it became an appointed time, because something happened; we met with the Holy One, blessed be He, and therefore it was fixed as an appointed time. Shavuot—the Torah was given; or however you define Shavuot. Sukkot too—there’s the question with Sukkot, since that was in Nisan and we celebrate it in Tishrei. But in principle it commemorates events that happened. Okay? On Tisha B’Av the events are because of the nature of the day; the day does not receive its nature because of the events. Therefore, if there is an appointed time in the world, it is Tisha B’Av. But now I return to your earlier remark that I’m ignoring the second half of the verse. I’m not ignoring the second half. An appointed time is not necessarily a time of joy. An appointed time is a meeting with the Holy One, blessed be He, an encounter with Him. Here it is “He called an appointed time against me to crush my young men.” Meaning, because we colored this appointed time in problematic colors. We could have colored it differently, and then it would have looked different. Okay? So that’s why the second half of the verse does not contradict the first half. There is an appointed time; the encounter will happen. Will it be optimistic or pessimistic? What will its character be? That depends on what we do. Okay? Now maybe we can also understand the nature of Tisha B’Av and its similarity to Yom Kippur. Because if indeed it is a place where we meet with the Holy One, blessed be He, then it is no wonder that we are supposed to carry out a full suspension. Right? We said that the suspension on Yom Kippur too is basically a kind of framework that enables us to meet with the Holy One, blessed be He, to enter the innermost holy place and meet with the Holy One, blessed be He. On Tisha B’Av too it is a meeting with the Holy One, blessed be He, and therefore it just happens not to be located in place, but only on the axis of time. On Yom Kippur there is both place and time. More than that: on Yom Kippur it is more about place than time. Because after all, one can enter the holy even on a day other than Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur it is obligatory, but one can do it on another day too. So basically the main thing on Yom Kippur is the place. It is entry into the physical holy place, the Holy of Holies. Okay? On Tisha B’Av there is no issue of place at all. It is entry into the holy in the opposite sense: on Tisha B’Av the place into which one enters was destroyed, and what remains is only the Temple in time, only holiness in time. And then one can, as it were, enter the Temple in time, meet with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the Temple in time. But here it depends on what we do. And if we entered the Temple in time incorrectly, and therefore colored it as “an appointed time to crush my young men,” then the way to repair this is to enter correctly. And to enter correctly means to suspend the things that make up our ordinary life, and then to enable the Holy One, blessed be He, to rebuild the Temple and allow us to enter the holy, and to transform the appointed time in the future into an appointed time that is not “to crush my young men,” but into an optimistic appointed time. Through our actions we can meet with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the positive sense of the concept of appointed time and not in its negative sense. And I think that is the connection between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur. The fact that—and this should always—this is just a logical rule, a rule you should keep in mind: very often, when two things have opposite characteristics, that means there is some connection between them. At a deeper level, if you look deeply you’ll see that two things can be opposites only on the basis of something shared. Because two things can be opposites only on the basis of something shared. A bird is not the opposite of a table. There is no connection between them; they are just two different things, right? You can say that a bird is the opposite of a fish in some sense. Why? Because both are animals, only one is in water and the other is not. Right? Then you can say that this is the opposite of that because they have a common underlying basis and one property distinguishes this from that, and therefore they are opposites. Where there is no common basis, they are just different, not opposite. For one thing to be the opposite of another, there has to be some shared foundation. And in that sense Yom Kippur and Tisha B’Av have a shared foundation of meeting with the Holy One, blessed be He. Both are appointed times, and therefore both require suspension. Their characteristics are opposite: here it is an appointed time “to crush my young men,” there it is an appointed time for atonement. But it is still an appointed time: a positive meeting with the Holy One, blessed be He, a negative meeting with the Holy One, blessed be He—but still, both are meetings. If both were not meetings, you couldn’t speak of them as opposites; they would just be two unrelated things. Therefore, very often when two things have opposite characteristics, look for the common plane. It means there is something shared, and because of that shared thing these two things are opposites. Okay, so that’s regarding the framework. What I still want—just a bit more—I want, I hope, to finish this, and then we’ll complete this whole introduction briefly. I want to return to Yom Kippur, because that is really our whole topic. The atonement of Yom Kippur, at least as a day without the entry into the holy—what we are left with, ostensibly, is only the atonement. But it seems to me that if you carry this logic further, then today too the atonement is really only a side effect. We are supposed to meet with the Holy One, blessed be He. The result will be atonement. True, the meeting is no longer carried out in the way it once was, through entry into the holy and the Yom Kippur service, but there is still some sort of meeting with the Holy One, blessed be He, and the atonement is a result. That is why, for example, Rosh Hashanah precedes Yom Kippur, and that is the coronation of the Holy One, blessed be He. There is some kind of construction of a meeting here, whose result, whose culmination, is atonement. Okay? What is the main element of the atonement on Yom Kippur? We would have expected it to be the inner goat, the priest’s entry into the holy. And you know that the main atonement of Yom Kippur is the goat to Azazel. And that is really strange. Specifically the thing furthest outside—not the one that… the thing about which there is even doubt whether it is a sacrifice at all, the goat to Azazel. The inner goat is a full sacrifice in every respect; the goat to Azazel is not really a sacrifice. They do all kinds of things with it outside; I’ll still talk about that. But it isn’t really a sacrifice. And that is the main atonement of Yom Kippur. How is that connected to entry into the holy? How is atonement created as a result of entry into the holy, when in fact the main act of atonement is precisely what goes outward and not what enters the holy? What enters the holy atones for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things—perhaps for oaths.
[Speaker C] To enter the holy, first you have to get rid of all the external things.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Of course. I would have expected that to be a condition, and then you enter the holy, and then there is atonement. But that’s a condition; it’s not the thing itself. Here it seems to be the thing itself. There is something strange here. And in general this goat to Azazel is a real riddle.
[Speaker E] What is it?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What is this scapegoat? What is the meaning of this whole thing? Quite a few commentators on the Torah went on at length about this issue: what is the scapegoat? We take some kind of magical thing like this and send it off to the goat-demons in the wilderness. Why? If it’s supposed to be a sacrifice, then give me a sacrificial procedure, like we do with every sacrifice, and everything is fine. In a moment we’ll see that there are several indications that it’s not a sacrifice at all. So what is it then? What is the meaning of this matter? You have to remember that the very core of Yom Kippur is entry into the holy: “With this shall Aaron come into the sanctuary.” So how is all the atonement actually accomplished with the scapegoat? That brings back the question I opened with: what is the relationship between the atonement of Yom Kippur and the entry into the holy on Yom Kippur? Is one the result of the other? Are they just two aspects? Interdependent aspects? How does this whole business work? I want to take a look for a moment—do you have the… I brought Nachmanides and Ibn Ezra, right? For some reason I forgot to leave myself a copy. The scapegoat, there’s the… one second, I’ll read it. Ah, here it is. Sorry, I’ll read it. Ibn Ezra in the second source, yes, it’s on the first page, the second source. “And Rabbi Shmuel said: even though regarding the sin-offering goat it is written ‘for the Lord,’ the sent goat too is for the Lord.” Of the Lord, of course—whose else would it be? “And there is no need,” says Ibn Ezra. No, there’s no need to say that, because the sent goat is not a sacrifice, since it is not slaughtered. Is it for the evil inclination, for Satan? In a moment we’ll see, in a moment we’ll see with all this magic business, in a moment we’ll see. So it’s not slaughtered, and therefore it’s not a sacrifice, and there’s no need to say that it too is for the Lord. So what then? So it’s not for the Lord? I don’t understand. If it’s not a sacrifice, then what is it? To whom is it… is it for someone else? Is it not for the Holy One, blessed be He? What is the meaning of this? “And if you can understand the secret that follows the word Azazel, you will know its secret and the secret of its name, for it has counterparts in Scripture. And I will reveal to you a little of the secret by hint: when you are thirty-three years old.” Yes, that’s the riddle Ibn Ezra wrote. Meaning what? There is some secret behind the word Azazel, it has counterparts in Scripture, and when you are thirty-three you’ll know it. What is the meaning of that? So Nachmanides there writes as follows. Sorry, I’ll read from where… here is the place. “Now Rabbi Abraham, faithful of spirit, conceals a matter, but I, a talebearer, reveal his secret,” says Nachmanides. “A faithful spirit conceals a matter, but a talebearer reveals a secret”—that’s a verse in Proverbs. He’s making a big show as if he has some secret, but our rabbis already revealed it in many places. “And it is explained explicitly in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer the Great. Therefore they would give Samael, Satan, a bribe on Yom Kippur, so that he would not invalidate their offering. As it is said: one lot for the Lord and one lot for Azazel. The lot of the Holy One, blessed be He, is for a burnt offering, and the lot of Azazel is the sin-offering goat, and all the sins of Israel are upon it. Thus it has informed us of his name and his deed. And this is the secret of the matter.” So in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer it already tells us what the matter is. This goat goes to Azazel, to the Other Side, Satan, and all our sins go onto it, and everything is fine. And that is basically what Ibn Ezra meant. “And this is the secret of the matter, for those who worshiped other gods, namely the angels, would offer sacrifices to them, and they would be for them a pleasing aroma. But the Torah utterly forbade accepting their divinity and any worship of them. Yet the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded that on Yom Kippur we send a goat into the wilderness to the minister who rules over places of destruction. And that is fitting for him, because he is the master of desolation, of the wilderness. And from the emanation of his power come drought and devastation. For he is the one associated with the stars of sword and blood and wars and quarrels and wounds and blows and division and destruction.” So therefore you have to sustain him with some scapegoat so that he won’t destroy the world, so it won’t become too destroyed. “And the intention with the sent goat is not, Heaven forbid, that it should be our sacrifice to him”—we do not offer a sacrifice to Satan—“but rather that our intention should be to do the will of our Creator, who commanded us thus. And this is the meaning of the lots.” And this is the meaning of the lots: if the priest had verbally consecrated them to the Lord and to Azazel, it would be as though he were worshiping him and vowing in his name. Why do they make a lot? When a sacrifice is offered, they determine which lot is for the Lord and which lot is for Azazel. Because if we didn’t do it by lot, then the priest would have to consecrate one sacrifice to the Lord and consecrate one sacrifice to Satan. And then that really would be offering a sacrifice to Satan. So no, no—we’ll do a lot, and whatever comes out, comes out. By the way, that assumes something about the lot; we’ll see that later. “But he would place them before the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, because both of them are a gift to the Lord.” And this is indeed a gift to the Lord, unlike Ibn Ezra who says it is not for the Lord. “And Rabbi Abraham hinted to you that you would know its secret when you reach the verse ‘They shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the goat-demons.’” How did he hint to it? Sorry, verse thirty-three? That is thirty-three verses after
[Speaker C] the scapegoat.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Count, and you’ll get to “They shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the goat-demons.” All right? That’s “when you are thirty-three years old, you will know it.” “And I cannot explain further, because we would have to shut the mouths of those who are over-clever in matters of nature, who are drawn after the Greek”—that is Aristotle—“who denied everything except what was perceptible to him. And in his arrogance he thought, together with his wicked disciples, that anything he could not grasp with his reasoning was not true.” So this is some unclear addition—suddenly Nachmanides stops revealing the secrets. Up to now he said, “Rabbi Abraham, faithful of spirit, conceals a matter, and I, a talebearer, reveal his secret.” Now suddenly he too becomes faithful of spirit and conceals; there is some secret here that he cannot explain further because of the Greek—that is Aristotle—and his wicked disciples, who think that only what they understand exists, and therefore I cannot explain. Because if I explain and then they understand, they’ll understand that it exists. What—so you leave it unintelligible; what have you gained? Why does Nachmanides suddenly retreat here and go on concealing? What does he decide to reveal and what does he decide to hide? What’s the subtext? What is happening here behind all the… There is a much longer Nachmanides here—you see there are three dots in the middle that I’m skipping—I only read the parts that are mainly important for our purposes. So I want to suggest some proposal. I see I’m not going to manage it here, because it will still take me too much time. I want to suggest some… all right, I’ll stop here. I just want… next time, I hope it won’t take the whole class but only part of it, I’ll try to suggest some explanation of what Nachmanides means here, and that will bring us back to the cessation of Yom Kippur. The scapegoat, in its essence, is the neutralization of everything beyond the holy. That is the essence of the scapegoat. Therefore when it goes out, it goes to the place furthest from the holy, and as we’ll see, in a certain sense it neutralizes it, and only then are the sins truly atoned for. But in order to understand this more through the laws of the Yom Kippur service, I want to deal with that next time, and then that finishes the introduction and we’ll go in. The next stage—take a look, just as preparation, look only at the commandments of the day. In Maimonides, in Sefer HaMitzvot, look there at the commandments of the day: how the commandment of affliction and the commandment of cessation are defined, what the relationship is between them, if there is any relationship between them at all; this is a positive commandment, this is a prohibition—why are there both a positive commandment and a prohibition here, what is the relationship between them, okay, these things. Okay, let’s stop here. Should I hand out the pages and we’ll read?
[Speaker F] No, no,
[Speaker D] I
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] will send a summary.
[Speaker D] In the class, to be precise, the man here said to intercalate Tammuz so that it would come out on the ninth of Av. Meaning that if he had not intercalated, it would have come out on the eighth of Av. Not the tenth, but the eighth, therefore
[Speaker G] he didn’t want it to be on the eighth. That’s what he said. If he had not intercalated, it would have come out on the eighth.