Vayikra 16:3-34 records the avodah, service, of the high priest on Yom Kippur. The high priest first offered a hatta`t sacrifice, 16:6,11, and then made a special incense to allow him to enter the Holy of Holies, 16:12, where he would sprinkle blood from the hatta`t on the kapporet (the cover of the aron), 16:14. Afterwards, he would offer another hatta`t, sprinkle the blood from this sacrifice on and in front of the parokhet (the screen that separated the Holy of Holies from the remainder of the mishkan proper), 16:15, and then take the blood from both hatta`t sacrifices to sprinkle on the altar, (Rashi – the inner altar, Ibn Ezra – the outer altar) 16:18,19. After finishing the sprinkling of blood, he would send away a goat to Azazel, 16:21, and then offer two olah sacrifices, 16:24.
The Torah records that the purpose of the hatta`t, the sprinkling of the blood and of the two olah sacrifices was le-khapper, 16:6,11,16,18,20,24. Furthermore, in the conclusion to chapter 16, 16:30-34, the Torah repeatedly mentions that the ritual described in the chapter was le-khapper. This term is the basis for name of the day, Yom Kippur, but what does it mean?
The traditional translation of the word le-khapper is atonement, which would mean that the sacrifices and the sprinkling of blood both purified the mishkan and led to atonement for the people. For example, Rav Soloveitchik, (1980, p.57) writes "Yom Kippur has a double function. The first is khapparah - acquittal from sin or atonement: (as it is written, 16:30), 'For the virtue of this very day shall acquit you of sin'… The second aspect of Yom Kippur is taharah – catharsis or purification. As it is written (16:30): 'For the virtue of this very day shall acquit you of sin, to cleanse you." Of these two aspects, the atonement has been understood as being the more important element (and after the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, more pertinent), and hence Yom Kippur is called "The day of atonement."
Recently a different approach to understanding the avodah on Yom Kippur has been suggested. Milgrom (1991, pp. 255, 1079-1084) notes that the term le-khapper is used in reference to the mishkan, 16:16,33, but how could the mishkan need atonement? He argues that the word le-khapper signifies wiping off or purging, and that it refers to tumah, that tumah is removed. With this understanding, the sprinkling of the blood purges the tumah from the mishkan, which means the point of the day is only to purify the mishkan. Thus, Milgrom (p.1011) translates 16:30, "For on this day, shall purgation be effected on your behalf to purify you of all your sins, you shall become pure before G-d," as only referring to removing tumah, and he calls Yom Kippur, "The day of purgation."
Note that both approaches agree that the service on Yom Kippur was to remove tumah from the mishkan, i.e. purify the mishkan, only that according to the atonement approach it was also to bring about atonement. This removal of tumah explains the placement of chapter 16 in the book of Vayikra since the chapter continues the discussion of tumah from chapters 11-15.
The two approaches to understanding the word le-khapper are also applicable to understanding the sending away of the goat to Azazel. As noted by the Ramban (end of comments on 16:8), the goat removed tumah, which is why the person who took away the goat became tamei, 16:26. Furthermore, as noted by many commentators, the goat was similar to the birds by the metsora, 14:7, that as part of the purification process of the metsora, one bird is sent away to remove the tumah that had existed by the metsora. Thus, the sending away of the goat removed tumah but did it also bring about atonement? 16:22 records that the goat carried away the sins of the people. Why were the people's sins carried off? Was this to bring them atonement or was this too related to purifying the mishkan?
Rambam (Moreh 3:46) writes “no one has any doubt that sins are not bodies that can be transported…but these actions are parables serving to bring forth a form in the soul so that a passion towards repentance should result: We have freed ourselves from all our previous actions.” The idea seems to be that by symbolically carrying off the sins, the goat allows a person to think of himself as starting with a “new slate” and to repent unhindered by previous sins. This understanding follows the atonement approach as with this approach the carrying away of the sins by the goat is part of the process of the people attaining atonement.
On the other hand, according to the purification approach, the sins also had to be removed, but for a different reason. The idea here is that it was the sins of the people that was causing the tumah, and hence as part of the process of purifying the mishkan, the cause of the tumah, the sins also had to be removed. According to this approach, not only was the mishkan purified by sending away the goat, but also the people were purified by this action, as indicated by 16:30,33,34.
The adherents of the atonement approach would argue that if the people are purified, then ipso facto, they must also have attained atonement. However, according to the purification approach, the people are purified in the sense that their sins would no longer cause the mishkan to be tamei, but personal culpability for their sins would remain.
One curiosity with the sending away of the goat is that the Torah does not state that the people have to repent for their sins to be removed. It is true that the High Priest confessed the sins of the people on the goat that was sent away (16:21), but still there is no mention that the people also had to confess. This absence of repentance is difficult according to the atonement approach for how can the people be forgiven for their sins without requiring them to repent? (See Talmud, Shavuot 13a.) However, for the purification approach, the absence of repentance is understandable since the removal of sins with the goat was to stop the sins from causing tumah in the mishkan. To purge the tumah it was enough for the High Priest to confess for the people, but the people themselves did not repent since they were not being forgiven for their sins.
No comments:
Post a Comment