Lecture dated 14 Tishrei 5767, Part 1

Maybe the 4th of Tishrei, a lecture by Rabbi Michael Abraham at the Mishkan Yisrael synagogue. I think we can turn off the air conditioner. As for the continuation of this lecture, and on the other hand the suggestions for study topics from here on, we said we’d raise a few possibilities and the public would choose. The lectures will resume in the winter of 5779, not during the holidays, Wednesday or what? On Sunday. Sunday, the 17th of Cheshvan. So whoever comes until then has an entry sheet, and that’s that. Now then, should we renew it the day after Isru Chag? Yes, why not? Yes. What did you want, during bein hazmanim? During bein hazmanim. Fine, so as for the next lecture, it will be the day after Isru Chag. The topics I wrote here, these are six topics that occurred to me. If one of you is thinking of something else, that’s also possible. The problem is that it’s hard to choose. What? To choose. So what I suggest is, down here is my phone number, and I wrote “this week” here, because I myself really forgot too that we now have some kind of break, but actually that’s not bad. Meaning, it could be that it’s better if we finish this this week, so the page is still here with us and we haven’t lost it. So anyone who has preferences or other suggestions, we can also think about them, so call me and I’ll try to gather things together. Number 5 is already there. What? Okay. Fine, so that’s regarding the topics. Think about it during the week and tell me what you think. 3 and 5 are similar. Why? Similar. Three is the private presentation and five is the public presentation. 3 and 5 aren’t all that different. Right, actually the things overlap; it’s just a bit more a question of definition, what we’ll want more, whether one is better than the other. Anyway, think about it and tell me what you think.

What I want to do today, in preparation for Yom Kippur, is to deal a bit with the issue of the goat to Azazel, but to try to understand what exactly it conceals behind it. Not so much the details of its Jewish law, although we will also deal a bit with the laws connected to it, because I think they provide quite a good hint regarding what stands behind this strange process of the goat to Azazel and the goat for the Lord. And we’ll try a bit to understand—I know, I’ll try—because Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides are pretty intimidating here, so to say that I understand what’s going on here is already too presumptuous, with all the secrets they wrap this passage in. But I’ll try to suggest an explanation, and afterward you can of course decide how convincing it is, more or less.

Let’s start with the source sheet, with the verses, Parashat Acharei Mot. “And the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of Aaron’s two sons, when they drew near before the Lord and died. 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, so that he not die, for in the cloud I will appear 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 process of the Yom Kippur service begins, with all the offerings and basically the Yom Kippur service. After that I skip here—you see this is already verse 7—“And he shall take the two goats and place them before the Lord at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.” This is already within the Yom Kippur service, there’s the matter of the two goats. “And Aaron shall place lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord and one lot for Azazel.” And Aaron shall offer—first of all they cast lots between them, which one goes inside and which one goes outside. “And Aaron shall bring near the goat upon which the lot for the Lord came up and make it a sin-offering.” It is a sin-offering. “And the goat upon which the lot for Azazel came up shall be stood alive before the Lord, to make atonement upon it, to send it away to Azazel into the wilderness.” What does “to make atonement upon it” mean? Upon it, upon the Name. An interesting topic, but not for now. “To send it away to Azazel into the wilderness.” So they send it to Azazel. What is it? The first one is a sin-offering; what is the second one? Not entirely clear. They don’t offer it; there isn’t some procedure here of offering a sacrifice. On the other hand, they do have to do all sorts of things with it, as we’ll soon see, there’s quite a detailed procedure for what they do with it. It’s not explicit in the verses.

Then it says: “And when he has finished making atonement for the sanctuary…” “And when he has finished making atonement for the sanctuary and for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar, he shall bring near the live goat. And Aaron shall lean both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions for all their sins.” Earlier too there was a lottery, standing them there, and now this is leaning on the head of the goat, confession, and over all Israel and all their transgressions for all their sins, “and he shall place them upon the head of the goat and send it by the hand of a timely man into the wilderness.” Now the sending—yes, that’s the next stage. “And the goat shall bear upon it all their iniquities to a land cut off, and he shall send the goat into the wilderness.” And the one who sends the goat—what does “and he shall send” mean? So that’s pushing from the cliff apparently; after the sending there’s pushing from the cliff. “And the one who sends the goat to Azazel shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he may come into the camp.” So all this is with certain omissions. Verses that conclude the chapter: “And it shall be for you an eternal statute: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves, and you shall do no work, neither the native-born nor the stranger who dwells among you. For on this day he shall make atonement for you, to purify you; from all your sins before the Lord you shall be purified. It is a Sabbath of complete rest for you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it is an eternal statute.” Here Yom Kippur appears.

Meaning, basically the whole process from the beginning of chapter 16 describes the Yom Kippur service. The context in which it appears is what happened to Nadav and Avihu. So Nadav and Avihu entered the holy in a way that apparently was not the right way to do it. And now the Holy One, blessed be He, says: so that what happened to Nadav and Avihu won’t happen to you, you need to do it in a way that is correct. What is the correct way? Yes, that’s what is written here: “Speak to Aaron your brother, and let him not come at all times into the holy place,” as Nadav and Avihu did. Rather what? “With this shall Aaron come into the holy place.” So how does he come into the holy place? And here begins this whole passage of the Yom Kippur service, but Yom Kippur is not mentioned at all. And at the end, after they finish the procedure of entering the holy place, Scripture comes back and commands us: “And it shall be for you an eternal statute; in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves.” Now suddenly they add more laws: you have to fast, you have to refrain from labor. And afterward: “And this shall be for you an eternal statute, to make atonement for the children of Israel from all their sins.” What is “this”? Earlier too we already spoke of an eternal statute. But there it said, “and it shall be for you.” What is “and this shall be for you an eternal statute”? “This” means the service described throughout the chapter. Right? Verse 29 speaks of an eternal statute to observe Yom Kippur, to afflict yourselves, not do labor, and so on; and in verse 34 they tell me that on that same Yom Kippur, on which we fast and do no labor, we also have to carry out this whole procedure of entering the holy place to atone for the children of Israel from all their sins, and so on.

So first of all, what one learns from the structure of this chapter is that this procedure is actually not a procedure of the Yom Kippur service but of entering the holy place. It’s just that there is a law that on Yom Kippur every year one has to enter the holy place. The Vilna Gaon indeed learns from here that sometimes one can enter the holy place not on Yom Kippur, and still this would be the procedure. Meaning, this procedure doesn’t really describe the Yom Kippur service at all. It describes how one enters the holy place. But on Yom Kippur there is a law to enter the holy place, together with fasting and not doing labor and so on; one also has to enter the holy place. That too is part of the Yom Kippur service. But this procedure really stands on its own. This is how one enters the holy place. Why exactly this process is required in order to enter the holy place? Well, this process is very detailed and complex; there are a great many laws here. I want to focus on the matter of the two goats.

So Ibn Ezra in our next source says as follows. I’m quoting partially. “And this commentator said that the goat would be sent in the wilderness, for so it is written, ‘and he shall send the goat in the wilderness,’ and its meaning is like the bird used to purify from leprosy, which goes upon the open field, a place where there is no habitation”—that is, to a land cut off. “And we answered that the goat is sent in the wilderness as it is written, and one chases after it until it flees and climbs the rock; therefore the sages said: and he pushed it.” “And Rav Shmuel said, even though it is written concerning the sin-offering goat that it is for the Lord”—yes, it says “sin-offering goat,” that is the dead goat, the one that is offered—“also the sent goat is for the Lord, and not that the sent goat goes to someone else.” The sent goat too is a goat for the Lord. “And there is no need,” says Rav Shmuel. Ibn Ezra says: “And there is no need”—you don’t need to say that. The sent goat is not for the Lord, because “the one that is sent is not an offering, because it is not slaughtered.” After all, we don’t slaughter it at all; it isn’t an offering. “And if you can understand the secret that follows the word Azazel, you will know its secret and the secret of its name. It has companions in Scripture, and I will reveal to you a little of the secret by hint: when you are thirty-three years old, you will know it.” Quite a riddle from Ibn Ezra. Yes, so he gives all kinds of hints here around this matter, but he doesn’t elaborate further. But what he says, before he starts with the hints, is that this goat is not an offering at all. It is not an offering because obviously they do not do to it any of the sacrificial procedure: they do not slaughter it, they do not throw the blood.

But what do you mean it’s not for the Lord? So here Nachmanides comes in, in the next source: “And behold, Rabbi Abraham is of a faithful spirit and conceals a matter, but I am one who goes about as a talebearer revealing secrets.” “A faithful spirit conceals a matter, but one who goes about as a talebearer reveals a secret”—so this is a paraphrase on that verse. Nachmanides says that Ibn Ezra is “of a faithful spirit,” he doesn’t want to reveal too many great secrets, but I—if he already revealed half of it, let’s not leave the job half done—“I will reveal his secret, which our rabbis have already revealed in many places. And this is explicit in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer the Great: therefore they would give him to Samael as a bribe on Yom Kippur.” That’s why Ibn Ezra said it is not for the Lord; this goat to Azazel is for Samael. It’s a bit hard even to hear that. “A bribe on Yom Kippur, so that he should not nullify 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 iniquities of Israel are upon it.” “And behold, he has informed us of its name and its act, and this is the secret of the matter. For those who worshiped other gods”—that is, the angels—“would offer sacrifices to them and they would be to them a pleasing aroma. And behold, the Torah completely forbade acceptance of their divinity”—to worship angels as gods, and any service to them, the Torah forbade this too entirely. “But the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded on Yom Kippur that a goat be sent in the wilderness to the prince who rules in places of desolation.” There’s something kind of strange here, a sacrifice not to the Holy One, blessed be He, but to the prince who rules in places of ruin. “And it is fitting for him, because he is their owner, and from the emanation of his power come ruin and desolation, for he is the one who has to do with the stars of sword and blood and wars and quarrels and wounds and blows and division and destruction.” “And the intention of the sent goat is not that the offering be from us to him, Heaven forbid, but that our intention be to do the will of our Creator who commanded us thus, and this is the meaning of the lots. For if the priest were to dedicate them verbally to the Lord and to Azazel, it would appear as though he were serving him and vowing in his name.” That would look as if one were worshiping that prince responsible for destruction and desolation. “But he places them before the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”; therefore the priest does not do it that way, but rather places both goats at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, because both are a gift to the Lord.

And so, despite the fact that this goes to Samael and to that prince and so on, still both are for the Lord. What is the meaning of this? Well, decide: is it for the Lord or not for the Lord? Ibn Ezra started by saying it’s not for the Lord. Nachmanides explains Ibn Ezra’s secret and says that we hand it over to Samael, to the prince in charge there over all the problems, evil and so on—and yet both are a gift to the Lord, so that we should not think this is idolatry or something. “And Rabbi Abraham hinted to you that you will know its secret when you reach the verse: ‘And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat-demons,’ when you are thirty-three.” And according to him—you count thirty-three verses later. Thirty-three verses later is: “And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat-demons.” And after we send the goat to Azazel, somehow we learn from this the lesson—it’s not clear how—that there is no point in sacrificing offerings to goat-demons. Meaning, from here it will somehow become clear that we should no longer sacrifice offerings to goat-demons. “And I cannot explain more than this,” Nachmanides says, “for they needed to stop the mouths of those who are overly clever in nature, who are drawn after the Greek, who denied every matter except what is perceived by him, and in his arrogance thought—he and his wicked students—that every matter which he did not attain in his reasoning is not true.” What is all this referring to? It’s referring to that wicked Greek, meaning Aristotle, who in his arrogance thought that only what he grasped in his own intellect exists, and everything else is simply nonsense. But how does this connect? Why is that the lesson from all the secrets mentioned before? What does this have to do with everything he described earlier? Meaning, “I couldn’t explain, I said only what I needed in order to remove us from the opinion of that Greek.” How is that connected to that Greek? So what does this explanation help us with in this matter? It’s really not clear.

So let’s nevertheless try a little to understand the matter as much as possible, with some caution because of all these warnings, but let’s still try to extract something. Let’s try to trace the path of the goat a bit and see that a very strange halakhic phenomenon happens there. I think it is a hint to that secret whose meaning we are looking for. In the first stage, in tractate Yoma 62b, the Talmud says that anyone who slaughtered either of these two goats outside has transgressed the prohibition of outside slaughter. And before they cast lots “for the Lord” and “for Azazel,” there are two goats here, alike in height, in weight, and in value, as the Mishnah says, and anyone who slaughtered either of them outside—that is, outside the Temple courtyard—is considered as though he slaughtered outside slaughter. He transgressed the prohibition of outside slaughter. The prohibition of outside slaughter exists only with offerings. There is no prohibition against slaughtering animals outside the Temple courtyard. The prohibition is to slaughter an offering not in the Temple courtyard; an offering must be slaughtered only in the courtyard. If one slaughters it outside the courtyard, that is called the prohibition of outside slaughter. It is forbidden to offer offerings outside. If there is a prohibition of outside slaughter, what does that basically mean? That at the moment these two goats are offerings. They have the status of an offering, right? Meaning, as long as we haven’t yet cast lots, at least at this stage, after we have dedicated both of them—we separate both of them, we haven’t yet offered either one—both still have the status of an offering, and therefore it is forbidden to slaughter them outside.

This is interesting because Ibn Ezra said they are not an offering and there is no need for what Rav Shmuel said. And Tosafot in Shevuot 33 also says that it’s not an offering. In Tosafot there’s a place that also says that it isn’t an offering; the goat to Azazel is not an offering. So why is one liable for outside slaughter? If it’s something that is not an offering, what’s the problem? Why is there a prohibition against slaughtering it outside? Fine, before the lottery you still don’t know which is the offering and which is not. So it could be a doubtful offering, and there is still a problem. Stage two is the stage of the lottery. When they do the lottery, there is a dispute among the commentators as to exactly how it is done. Gevurat Ari on the Tur and on Shaagat Aryeh explains it this way: they say of one goat “for the Lord,” and automatically the second is for Azazel. They do not say of it that it will be for Azazel. It may be that this is connected to what Nachmanides says above, that they place both before the Lord so that we won’t think one of them is dedicated to the Lord and one of them is dedicated to someone else. So regarding the one for Azazel they don’t say anything; it becomes clear automatically: if this one is a sin-offering for the Lord, then the other is apparently for Azazel. Rashi there writes that one must bring up both lots, meaning one must also bring up the sin-offering for the Lord and also call out over the second that it goes to Azazel. It is not enough for it to become clear on its own. Rashi explains there why: because this is part of the service of this offering. Part of the service of this offering is to assign its designation: this is a sin-offering for the Lord, this is the goat to Azazel. So at least according to Rashi, even after the offering there are still actions of service done with this offering, meaning it is still an offering, at least according to Rashi.

After the lottery comes the stage of tying the crimson wool. They tie a strip of crimson wool to the horns of the sent goat. In fact, it may be that there are two strips of crimson wool, before slaughter and before sending; I won’t get into that distinction now, those are disputes. The commentators ask: how is this permitted? After all, this is making use of an offering, this is using an offering for work; it is forbidden to use an offering for any purpose whatsoever. To tie on it a strip of crimson wool that is not part of its service—that is only an indication for us to see whether we have been atoned for or not. The color of the strip of crimson wool signals to us whether we were indeed atoned for or not. So several commentators ask this. Gevurat Ari asks, Rabbi Chaim asks: after all, this is using an offering for work. It is forbidden to do this. Meaning, they already assume at this stage—after the lottery, after tying the strip of crimson wool—it is still understood by them as an offering. Therefore they ask how one may tie a strip of crimson wool onto it. If it were not an offering, then what is the problem? You’d even be allowed to ride it. If they assume that it is forbidden to work with it, forbidden to use it, that means it is still an offering.

After the lottery there is leaning of hands. The priest has to lean his hand on the goat’s head. The book Mikdash David, on the laws of the Yom Kippur service—well, it’s on offerings in general, but when he discusses the laws of the Yom Kippur service, he proves that this leaning is like the law of any other offering. He has several proofs for this. Again, I won’t get into all the halakhic details, but this leaning is like the leaning in every offering, meaning that even here we are dealing with it as with a regular offering. After that comes the stage where one confesses over the goat, “and he shall confess over the head of the goat,” and so on, that it goes to Azazel. Rabbi Chaim of Brisk writes that from this point onward, from the stage of confession and on, this goat no longer has the sanctity of an offering. There is a practical consequence there regarding where to take the money for the strip of crimson wool that they buy, whether from the Temple treasury contribution or not—the question is whether this is an offering or not an offering. But for our purposes, he argues that from this point on it suddenly stops being an offering. Mikdash David is not certain that he agrees with him; he brings a dispute among the medieval authorities (Rishonim), and it may be that the confession is part of the laws of the offering, in which case according to at least some of the medieval authorities (Rishonim) it is still an offering after the leaning of hands, at the stage of confession.

The next stage is sending the goat to the cliff. At this stage they send the goat by the hand of a timely man. What is a timely man? So the Talmud says: a timely man can even be a non-priest, not only a priest. You can send it with anyone; it doesn’t have to be specifically a priest. Here this is already the first hint that in fact the service has stopped; it is no longer an offering. The subsequent actions done to it can already be done even by an ordinary Israelite. Actions done to an offering cannot be done by an ordinary Israelite, except for slaughter, which is a complicated passage unto itself, but we won’t get into that here. Indeed, the Talmud says this is not Temple service, but that is another passage. So here a stage already begins where the sanctity—we saw a hint to this earlier too; Rabbi Chaim already argues it from the tying of the crimson wool—but at the stage of sending, when the timely man takes it, it becomes much clearer that it has stopped being an offering. Shitah Mekubetzet writes this in Keritot and elsewhere. There are those who hold that even the sending is still service, and indeed when the timely man returns he says to the High Priest in this language: “My lord High Priest, we have done your service,” meaning I fulfilled my mission. Now if he really is an agent of the High Priest, then it may be that this is still service, except that in this service the priest himself is not required to do it; even his agent can do it. But still, the fact that he is the High Priest’s agent suggests that this may indeed be service.

Fine, these are disputes; I’m not getting into the details. Really I’m only sketching from above so we can see the whole course. In the last stage it reaches the cliff, and there they push the goat from the top of the cliff. This is called the pushing away—they push the goat down. This pushing is not indispensable at all; in principle one could simply not push it, but ideally one should push the goat down. After the push from the top of the cliff, the limbs of the goat are usually smashed; it falls into a very deep ravine below, and generally the limbs are crushed. At this stage the limbs are permitted for benefit, as is explicit in the Talmud. The limbs are permitted for benefit. An offering—one is forbidden to derive benefit from an offering. No, at this stage it is clear that it is already ordinary status. If they didn’t push it, there are opinions that go even further—I think this is Rabbeinu Tam, if I remember correctly; the Chinukh talks about it. Fine, there are different opinions here. There are views in Jewish law that if they didn’t push it, one can take it, slaughter it, and eat it. Simply eat it. Not priests specifically—whoever wants can take it and eat it. Now since, if they did push it, there is a dispute: the question is whether the pushing itself counts like slaughter, and then the limbs could be eaten; or whether the pushing is a killing that is not slaughter, in which case the meat is forbidden to eat because there was no slaughter, but it is still permitted for benefit. But for our purposes what matters is that it is no longer an offering; it is permitted for benefit. There are those who say that one can simply take this goat, slaughter it, and eat it as though nothing happened.

We went through the whole way: all of Yom Kippur, dedication, the prohibition of outside slaughter, service, sacrificial service, it is forbidden to use it. And what happens at the end? We have some goat—one simply takes it, slaughters it, and eats it with appetite. After Yom Kippur, of course, although the timely man is allowed to eat on Yom Kippur, but I assume not the goat. So this process is very strange. The process is strange just on the face of it when you look at it, but it is strange on a very clear halakhic level. And for that let’s move for a moment to the next section on the source sheet.

This is a sugya on its own in the Talmud in Nedarim 29. The Mishnah on 28 discusses the following case: “These plantings are an offering.” Keep for us the procedure I described earlier, and in a moment we’ll return to them. “These plantings are an offering if they are not cut down.” Yes, there are plantings and I want to dedicate them so that they be holy if they are not cut down—on condition that they not be cut down. “This cloak is an offering if it is not burned.” This is the form of dedication by which a person dedicates these things, or dedicates the cloak if it is not burned, the plantings if they are not cut down, and so on. The Mishnah says: “they have redemption.” Meaning, they are holy. Whoever wants to redeem them can redeem them, and then of course they are redeemed. “These plantings are an offering until they are cut down.” Here it is no longer a condition—if they are cut down or if they are not cut down—but a time limit, meaning they are an offering until the stage at which they are cut down. “This cloak is an offering until it is burned”—“they have no redemption.” They have no redemption at all. What does it mean, they have no redemption? So the Talmud says in the next section: Bar Padda said: “If he redeemed them, they become holy again. If he redeemed them, they become holy again.” Every time he redeems them, they return and become holy again; the redemption won’t help until they are cut down. “If they were cut down, he redeems them once and that is enough.” Why? Since they were cut down, he no longer redeems them. After all, they were holy until they were cut down. Now they have been cut down, they are no longer holy—so why does he need to redeem them? The first opinion says that redemption is effective in such a case, unlike the previous case. The second opinion says that one doesn’t need redemption at all, because it is already not holy.

Then a discussion begins in the Talmud. Rav Hamnuna said to him: “Where did their sanctity go?” What do you mean he doesn’t need redemption? What, does sanctity just suddenly fly away? It can’t be. Sanctity cannot simply suddenly stop. “And if a man were to say to a woman, ‘Today you are my wife and tomorrow you are not my wife,’ would she leave without a bill of divorce?” Can a person betroth a woman for a week? He betroths a woman for a week, and after a week she stops being his wife and he doesn’t even need to give a bill of divorce? The betrothal just lapses? There is no such thing. So sanctity too—there is an analogy between betrothal and sanctity, and this analogy appears in several places in the Talmud. It says that it is impossible for something simply to have bodily sanctity fly off it; sanctity cannot lapse by itself.

Not yet bodily sanctity. Rava said to him: “Are you comparing monetary sanctity to bodily sanctity? Monetary sanctity lapses on its own; bodily sanctity does not lapse on its own.” What is he saying? He says like this: there are two types of sanctity, two types of consecration. There is monetary sanctity and there is bodily sanctity. There are things that we dedicate for their monetary value, meaning they can be sold and then the money can be used in the Temple for all sorts of Temple needs. There is bodily sanctity. Bodily sanctity means, for example, taking an animal and turning it into an offering. Now this cannot be redeemed, and it cannot be turned into money and used even for the Temple. It has to be offered as a sacrifice. That is bodily sanctity. There is a difference between monetary sanctity and bodily sanctity in many respects. In our context, there is a difference regarding whether it lapses on its own or does not lapse on its own. What does that mean? After all, what was the question? The question was: I dedicated plantings for a week, until they are cut down—or for a week; let’s take a simple case—I dedicate them for a week. The Talmud says: how can it be that the sanctity suddenly disappears on its own after a week, without anything having happened? Suddenly a certain moment arrives, and a moment before it was holy, and a moment afterward it stops being holy. How can that be? Let me remind you already of the goat, the goat to Azazel. How can there be such a thing, that sanctity just goes away by itself? The Talmud says: yes, that can happen. It can happen with monetary sanctity, but not with bodily sanctity. Meaning, an offering cannot be dedicated with sacrificial sanctity for a week. There is no such thing. Bodily sanctity is, by definition, permanent. Even if I dedicated it for a week, it will continue forever. Just as with betrothing a woman—a woman’s betrothal is parallel to bodily sanctity. Since that is so, if one betroths a woman for a week, she is betrothed forever. It does not lapse after a week, and not only does it not lapse after a week—the betrothal does not take effect in that limited form at all; she is betrothed forever. And the same thing with bodily sanctity: bodily sanctity that one dedicates for a week or until a certain event continues forever. Bodily sanctity does not lapse on its own—that is the accepted halakhic term. Bodily sanctity does not lapse on its own.

Abaye disagrees here. I mentioned him, so perhaps it’s worth your knowing that this is a law that is disputed, but according to most halakhic decisors the law follows Rava, because in disputes between Abaye and Rava the law generally follows Rava. And bodily sanctity does not lapse on its own. Now let’s return. This is also how Maimonides rules; look in the laws of misuse of consecrated property—I brought Maimonides here—where he says that bodily sanctity does not lapse. For our purposes, what does this mean? Basically it means this: bodily sanctity is some kind of reality in the body of the offering. A reality cannot simply be changed just like that. A reality cannot stop after a certain time and vanish. There has to be something that removes it. All right? Now here, with offerings in general, offerings never become ordinary status. Sometimes there are portions that are given to the owners, and even those have rules for exactly how they are eaten and until when they are eaten and so on. But in principle, offerings never stop being holy. If the goat to Azazel is some kind of offering, as we saw at the beginning, then its sanctity also cannot simply lapse. It cannot suddenly stop. That’s it, all of a sudden the sanctity is gone. What happened? A moment before it was holy, a moment afterward it is no longer holy. It depends when—after the pushing, after the sending, each according to his view—but each one at some stage identifies that some transition occurs. At first it is holy with bodily sanctity, just like an offering. There is a prohibition against offering it outside, all the prohibitions of an offering. And a moment afterward it suddenly stops being an offering. What happened? Bodily sanctity does not lapse on its own—how can there be such a thing?

Well, of course once the Torah determines this, then apparently it can be, but the question is what it means. What is the meaning of this, that on the one hand it is holy with bodily sanctity, and on the other hand after a certain moment it disappears—again, evaporates. In fact, it seems to me that what this tells us connects to Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides. The two goats on Yom Kippur—I said, I mentioned the Mishnah—that they need to be equal in height, in weight, in value, ideally at least. It is not indispensable, but ideally they must be completely identical. Why do they need to be? I mentioned this on a previous occasion, like “until one cannot tell the difference” between “cursed is Haman” and “blessed is Mordechai.” I mentioned it sometime. The Maharal of Prague explains that in order to distinguish between two things, we must make them equal in all the other respects except for the one respect in which we want to distinguish them. So there will be a contrast, so it will be clear what the parameter is that distinguishes between these two things. If in children’s books they would draw the wicked people as ugly, repulsive types with evil eyes…