Vayikra 16:7-10, 21, 22 – To azazel, to where?

Vayikra 16:7-10 record that as part of the service, avodah, on Yom Kippur, Aharon, the high priest, would take two goats and by lottery choose one for/ to G-d and one for/ to azazel. Afterwards, 16:21,22 record that Aharon would confess the sins of the people on the goat that was for/ to azazel, and the goat was then sent to the desert, possibly to die.  What does the term azazel mean? The term appears four times in the chapter, 16:8, 10(2), 26, but nowhere else in Tanakh. There are at least four definitions to the word, all of them educated guesses.

Before reviewing the various definitions of the word azazel, we need to review the reason why this goat is part of the ceremony of Yom Kippur altogether. The point of the ceremony of Yom Kippur was to le-taher, purify, the ohel moed/ mishkan, 16:30, see our discussion on 16:3-34, “The avodah on Yom Kippur.” This means that all the elements of the ceremony were to contribute to this taharah, purification, process. With regard to the goat that was sent to azazel, 16:22 records that the goat was to carry the sins of the people to eretz gezerah in the desert, which seems to refer to a remote desolate place in the desert. Clearly, the goat could not literally carry away sins, but even symbolically, how is this carrying to be conceived? The goat “received” the sins from Aharon’s confession, but could Aharon really confess the sins of other people he did not even know? Instead, the problem on Yom Kippur of the sins of the people is that they caused the ohel moed/ mishkan to be tamei. The goat was then “carrying” away the tumah that derived from the sins of the people, and since this tumah is symbolic, the whole process of Aharon placing the sins of the people on the goat and the goat carrying away the tumah from sins works on the symbolic level. This process parallels the sending away of the bird in the purification ceremony of the person with tsara’at that the bird carried away the tumah of the person with tsara’at, 14:7. (The parallelism between these cases has been noted by many people.)

Indeed, the purification process of the person with tsara’at with two birds is exactly the same as the process with the two goats on Yom Kippur but on a lower level since the person with tsara’at generated less tumah than the sins of the people. Thus, on Yom Kippur a goat was used to send away the tumah, while by the person with tsara’at, a bird was sent away. Also, while the bird was sent out on the field, the goat was sent to a remote desolate region (16:22) since it encompassed more tumah. In both cases, the animal can take away the tumah since tumah is a symbolic concept and symbols can be “moved.”

To return to a review of the various definitions that have been proposed for the word azazel. One definition is based on the goat's destination. Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (on 16:8,10) suggests that azazel refers to the name of a mountain in the region of the people. Ibn Ezra (the beginning of his comments on 16:8) adds that maybe this was a name of a mountain near Mount Sinai, which was a mighty peak, and then this became the name for the goat even if the name was not relevant in future generations. Similarly, Rashi (on 16:8, based on Yoma 67b, also Bekhor Shor on 16:8) explains that azazel means a mighty peak that the goat was to be sent to a mighty peak. Milgrom (1991, p. 1020) quotes a variation of this idea that according to this approach, the term azazel means "a rough and a difficult place," without any reference to a peak or mountain. With this approach, the preposition lamed before the word azazel means to, to the mountain or to a remote and desolate place.

These explanations are based on the phrase, eretz gezerah in 16:22, since this phrase, eretz gezerah, can be understood as a synonym for azazel. Notwithstanding this textual support, still the lottery is then between G-d and a place, which is not parallel. Possibly to answer this question, Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (on 16:8,9) writes that when the Torah records that the lottery was to G-d, this was to the house of G-d. With this understanding, the two possibilities in the lottery are both to places. We will return to this approach since it has the most textual support of any of the other suggestions.

The second interpretation of the term azazel is that the term refers to the act of sending away the goat that the term azazel means the one or the animal to be sent away. This explanation can be found in the Septuagint, corresponds to the term in the Mishnah (Yoma 6:2) sair ha-mishtalleah, the goat that is sent away, and is the basis for the term scapegoat in English translations. However, this interpretation is difficult since it is not clear what the lamed, the preposition to/ for, before the term azazel means unless, the lamed is part of the word, and the term should be lazazel.

The third explanation, which is mentioned by Ramban (on 16:8), Hizkuni (on 16:8) and maybe by Ibn Ezra (end of comments on 16:8, though see alternative explanation of Ibn Ezra’s cryptic comment by R. Isaac Mehler, quoted by Klein, 2005, p. 194) is that the term azazel is a name of a demon that the goat was sent to a demon. With this idea, the preposition lamed can mean for, for the demon. However, Hertz (1960, p. 481) notes that once 17:7 denounces sacrifices that were offered to satyrs, goat demons, how could something, even if not a sacrifice, be given to demons as part of the service on Yom Kippur?

Maybe one can vary the third approach and argue that the term azazel was an anachronism even in the time of the Torah. The idea is that while people once believed in demons, the term had already lost its original meaning to the people in the desert, but by using the term the people could easier understand the idea of sending tumah away, see Luzzatto on 16:8, quoted in Bulah, 1992, footnote 11 on chapter 16. The problem with this explanation is that in 17:7 we see that some people still believed in demons, so if azazel refers to a demon, it was not an anachronism to all the people living at that time in the desert.

Or, maybe the idea of referring to a demon on Yom Kippur was to deny the powers of demons indirectly. Yehezkel Kaufmann (1972a, p. 114, quoted by Jacobson, 1986, p. 130) argues that the sending of the goat to azazel was a transformation of a pagan ritual. He claims that the original pagan ritual was an expulsion of the satyr azazel to the desert, but in the Torah, “the Azazel of chapter 16 is not conceived of either as (being) among the people or as the source of danger or harm; he plays no active role at all. He is merely a passive symbol of impurity, tumah… The world of old gods has become transformed into the desolate haunts of dancing satyrs who keep company with wild animals. All decisive power, divine and demonic, has been taken from them and given to the messengers of G-d.” The idea here is that while the term azazel might refer to a demon, the Torah gives azazel no power since azazel just receives the goat sent to it. This idea could accord with our explanation of Shemot 20:3 that the Torah does not prohibit belief in other gods, as it only prohibited to believe that they are equal or greater to G-d, see our discussion on Shemot 20:3, "Forces and gods."

Yet, if azazel refers to a powerless demon, why is it mentioned altogether? Maybe the idea is that it is better to acknowledge demons but to make them powerless since some people believed in them, than to leave demons to people’s imagination. Thus, maybe azazel is mentioned for those people who think demons exist that they should know that the supposed demons are powerless. I used to follow this idea, but from the actions with regard to the goat to azazel in the service on Yom Kippur, we see that the goat that was for/ to azazel was also to/ for G-d. This point was made by Rav Shmuel ben Hofni, the Gaon of Sura from 998 to 1012, quoted by Ibn Ezra on 16:8.

Firstly, the point of the lottery is that either goat could be for G-d or azazel, so then if azazel refers to a demon, then this would be making G-d equivalent to the demon and not making the demon powerless. Secondly, even after the goat was selected for azazel, 16:10 records that the goat was to stand before G-d, which shows that it too was to/ for G-d. Thirdly, the two goats work together. The blood of the goat that was selected to/ for G-d was sprinkled in the mishkan/ ohel moed to le-taher the mishkan/ ohel moed, and the goat that was selected to/ for azazel carried away the sins that caused the tumah which had to be purified. If the mishkan/ ohel moed was just sprinkled with the blood of goat to/ for G-d, then the problem of tumah would have remained if the sins of the people had not been carried away (symbolically) by the goat for/ to azazel. Fourthly, by the sprinkling of the blood by the goat selected to/ for G-d, and the carrying away of the sins by the goat selected to/ for azazel, the Torah uses the exact same words, 16:16,21, which shows that the goats are a team, and cannot be separated, as both are for/ to G-d.

A fourth definition of the term azazel is quoted by Hertz (1960, p. 481, also Hoffmann, 1953, p. 305 and Hartom, 1999, p. 53) that the term is based on the purpose of the sending away of the goat, and means "dismissal or entire removal." Hertz explains that the word azazel "is the ancient technical term for the entire removal of the sin and guilt of the community, that was symbolized by the sending away of the goat into the wilderness." The problem with this explanation is that it is an odd word to signify destruction and the term is not parallel with G-d by the lottery.

In the end, my guess is to slightly vary the first approach that the term azazel means a desolate forlorn place based on the phrase eretz gezerah in 16:22, but it was not a specific place. Anywhere in the desert which was particularly desolate and lacking any possibility of life would be called azazel.

The idea of the lottery is that the goat which would be for/ to G-d symbolized/ represented taharah since its blood was sprinkled in the inner room of the mishkan/ ohel moed, and the goat which was for/ to azazel, symbolized/ represented tumah due to the sins of the people being “placed” upon it. Both tumah and taharah are symbolic concepts and both are determined by G-d. Thus, both goats are before G-d in 16:7,9,10, and either goat could have been chosen to symbolize or represent the two concepts. The randomness of the lottery shows that G-d decides who and what are considered tamei and who and what are considered tahor. The goat which symbolized/ represents taharah goes to G-d since being tahor is a symbolic movement towards G-d, while the goat that symbolized/ represented tumah goes to a forlorn place, eretz gezerah, since tumah is a symbolic movement away for G-d to nothingness.  The parallelism of the lottery is a movement towards G-d or a movement away from G-d, but both goats remain symbolically before G-d, just a question of how distant. A variation of this idea is, following Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon, that the preposition, lamed, both in reference to G-d and azazel by the lottery, 16:8, means to a place, either a place associated with G-d, the Holy of Holies, by the goat which symbolized taharah, or to a place that is associated with desolation or nothingness by the goat which symbolized tumah.

My son-in-law Yuri Lubomirsky has pointed out to me that if azazel is referring to a specific place (like some of the proponents of the first definition claim), then the Torah should not have used the preposition lamed, before the term, and instead should have written azazelah, like midbarah in 16:10,22 and Sedomah in Bereshit 19:1, see Rashi on Bereshit 32:3. Also, he claims that when something is sent to a place, then there is no need for a preposition at all. However, if azazel is not a defined place, but a description of any forlorn place that occurs in the desert, then the preposition lamed could be appropriate. The idea being that the person who took the goat to azazel was to search in the desert to find a particularly remote and desolate area, azazel, in the desert to release the goat, 16:10,22.

Bibliography:

Bulah, Menachem, 1991, 1992, Vayikra: Da'at Mikra, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Hartom, E. S. 1999, Commentary on Vayikra, Tel Aviv: Yavne Publishing House.

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Kaufmann, Yehezkel (1889-1963), 1972, The Religion of Israel, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Tel Aviv: Dvir Co.

Klein, Alexander, 2005, The law of the scapegoat, in in Professors on the Parashah: Studies on the weekly Torah readings, edited by Leib Moskowitz, Jerusalem: Urim Publications.

Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, Leviticus: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

Vayikra 16:3-34 - The purpose of the avodah on Yom Kippur

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, see our discussion "Was the outer altar, or the inner altar or both purified on Yom Kippur?" 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/ ohel moed and led to atonement for the people. For example, Rav Soloveitchik (Peli, 1980, p. 57) explains that "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/ ohel moed 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/ ohel moed, which means the point of the day is only to purify the mishkan/ ohel moed. 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."

Both approaches agree that the service on Yom Kippur was to remove tumah from the mishkan/ ohel moed, i.e. to purify the mishkan/ ohel moed, 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/ ohel moed?

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/ ohel moed, the cause of the tumah, the sins also had to be removed. According to this approach, not only was the mishkan/ ohel moed 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/ ohel moed 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/ ohel moed. To purge the tumah from the mishkan/ohel moed, 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.

Bibliography:

Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, 2000, 2001, Leviticus: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

Pinhas, Peli, 1980, On repentance in the thought and oral discourses of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Jerusalem: Oroth Publishing House.

Kapparot

The Rama (16th century, Poland) in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh (Orah Chayyim 605:1) writes that on erev Yom Kippur, the day before Yom Kippur, "the custom in Europe was for a man to take a rooster, a woman to take a hen, a pregnant woman to take two chickens…." The chicken was swung over one's head, while stating that it was a replacement for the person, and then the chicken was killed. This custom is called kapparot since the idea of the custom is for a person to attain atonement, khapparah.

According to Lauterbach (1935), “the oldest known form of this ritual is given by Sheshna Gaon of Sura in the middle, or the second half of the seventh century.” R. Sheshna Gaon states that he did not know the source for this custom, which suggests that it began by regular people and not as a rabbinic enactment. (This response by Rav Sheshna Gaon is partially quoted by the Tur, Orah Chayyim, 605, and more fully by Jacobson, 1989, vol. 5, pp. 174,175.)

R. Sheshna Gaon explains that fowl were used since they were easy to obtain, and more importantly, the Talmud in Yoma 20b, refers to a rooster as a gever which is the same word in Hebrew for man. This connection from the word gever increased the idea of substitution in the custom, and once this connection from the word gever was made, then a woman could not use a rooster so instead women use hens.

In the time of the Geonim, there was another version of the kapparot. Otzar ha-Geonim Yoma (quoted in Agnon, 1948, p. 149, Jacobson, 1989, p. 274, also see Rashi on Shabbat 81b) records that children would grow plants in a basket before Rosh Hashanah, swing the plants around their head saying “this is my substitute,…” and then thrown the plants into the stream. Lauterbach (above) suggest that this was an earlier form of the kapparot custom, but maybe it was a child’s version of the custom since most children would not want to or be able to swing fowl over their heads. In any event, this custom has been lost.

In the Middle Ages, the custom of kapparot seems to have been very popular amongst Ashkenazim and the Machzor Vitry (France, 11th century, quoted in Jacobson, p. 176) provides an interesting reason for the custom. He explains that the custom is an attempt to re-create the sending away of the goat to Azazel in the sacrificial service in the Bet ha-Mikdash on Yom Kippur (Vayikra chapter 16). In this ritual, the sins of the people were transferred to the goat, and then when the goat was sent away the people would attain atonement. With this rationale, after the destruction of the Bet Ha-Mikdash there was a desire to re-create the process of sending away one's sins through an animal, and hence the kapparot custom developed. The transfer of sins to the fowl by kapparot parallels the transfer of sins to the goat in the Bet ha-Mikdash. (Lauterbach above also quotes other Medieval sources for this idea, and Jacobson, p. 174 quotes this idea from the Shelah who in turn refers to the Ari.) Note with this idea, the kapparot could be done with other animals, and the Mishnah Berurah (605:4) quotes the possibility of using a goose or fish.

Machzor Vitry also quotes that the intestines of the bird are to be thrown on the roof, and this is quoted by the Rama, 605:1. Agnon (1948, p. 148) quotes two reasons for this. One, fowls eat worms and creeping things and the intestines are the first receptacles for this food so people should not eat them. Two, by throwing the intestines this enables other birds to eat them. A person is then showing compassion for the birds, in the hope that G-d will show compassion on the person. These reasons are difficult. If we worry about what chickens eat, then we should not eat any part of the chicken. Also, while we are feeding some birds from the intestines, the custom involves killing other fowl, which shows a lack of compassion on those birds. The Mishnah Berurah (605:9) quotes a variation on the first reason. He writes that chickens feed from stolen food and since the intestines are the first receptacles of the stolen food we should stay away from theft. Yet, again this is difficult since if we are worried about theft, then we should not eat any parts of the bird.

More likely, the throwing of the intestines was also to copy the goat being sent away. The Torah just records that the goat was sent away, but Chazal (Mishnah Yoma 6:6) explain that goat was thrown off a cliff. Most people do not live near cliffs and also people would not want to waste a whole animal, so instead a portion of the birds, the worse part, was thrown on the roof or out into the courtyards. The roof is closer to the idea of a cliff, but possibly this was not simple for everybody to do, so throwing into the courtyard was also considered sufficient.

In the 14th century, the Maharil (1365-1427, Germany, quoted in Darkei Moshe) quoted three additions to the custom. One, that instead of giving the chickens to the poor, one could estimate the value of the bird and give the money to the poor since the poor might feel insulted that they were given a bird that had many sins. This would make the custom more expensive since a person needs to have a chicken for every person in the family, and money for the value of all the chickens. Two, that a mother was to do kapparot even for a fetus. The mother is to take a rooster and a hen. A rooster in case she had a male child, and if she had a girl, then the hen would count for herself and the girl, see Mishnah Berurah 605:3. Three, that a person should take a white chicken based on the verse (Isaiah 1:18) that “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.” This last idea was also relevant to the goat that was sent away to Azazel since according to the Mishnah (Yuma 6:8) there was a red scarlet that turned white in the Bet ha-Mikdash when the goat reached the desert.

This idea to take a white chicken was accepted by the Rama (605:1), but later authorities (see Mishnah Berurah 605:4) thought that if a person makes a special effort to get a white chicken then this would be considered as being darkei amori, a superstitious practice that would be forbidden. Why would using a white chicken be considered superstitious? Schauss (1962, p. 166) writes that the idea of a white chicken is to scare or chase away the devil, and this is also the reason for swinging the chicken over the person’s head.

In the Middle Ages, the Sefardim challenged the custom of kapparot. The Rambam did not mention this custom. The Ramban (1194-1270, Spain, quoted in Bet Yosef, 605) forbade the custom arguing that it was a pagan custom. The Rashba (1235-1310, Barcelona, a student of the Ramban, quoted in Bet Yosef, 605) writes that while he was told (by Rabbenu Asher, who stayed by him?) that all Ashkenazi Rabbis do kapparot, he stopped people from doing kapparot in his city. In our editions of the Shulchan Arukh, R Yosef Caro (1488-1575, 605) writes that one should stop people from doing kapparot, while in the earlier editions of the Shulchan Arukh, R. Yosef Caro called it a foolish custom, see Jacobson, p. 177.

It is possible that the difference between the Ashkenazim and the Sefardim is based on the background of each community. It could be that kapparot developed in Israel in the first millennium since they had a greater connection with the Bet ha-Mikdash. Thus, since medieval Ashkenazi Jewry had a greater connection with the community in Israel, the custom was more ingrained than amongst Sefardim, who were more connected with the communities in Bavel. If the custom developed in Israel, then this could also explain why R. Sheshna Gaon was not aware of the basis for the custom, while the Machzor Vitry was.

Dr. Shnayer Leiman (lecture on tape titled “Two types of tshevuah, http://leimanlibrary.com/tape_library.html) suggests that there was also a conceptual difference between the Ashkenazim and the Sefardim. He explains that according to the Rambam, and the Sefardim who followed him, repentance is a mental action, where a person confesses, feels contrite about one’s sins and resolves not to sin again. However, for Medieval Ashkenazi Jewry, repentance also required atonement, that there was some penalty to be paid if one sinned. For example, this viewpoint would instruct people to fast to gain repentance since the suffering from the fasting would be considered atonement. (Another example is the Rama's comment in Orah Chayyim 343:1, where he writes that if a child sins, then while he technically does not need to repent when he gets older since he sinned when he was a child, still he should accept upon himself some form of repentance and khapparah.)

Thus, for Ashkenazim the killing of the bird by the custom of kapparot was the atonement that was needed for a person to gain repentance. However, if one believes that the repentance is a mental action, then it is up to G-d to determine whether punishment is required for a sin and it is up to G-d to do the punishing. With this understanding, the swinging and killing of a chicken/ rooster would be silly: if the person had done real repentance there was no reason for the ceremony and for the rooster to die, and if the person had not done real repentance, then the ceremony and death of the rooster would not stop G-d from punishing the person. While the kapparot might have been an attempt to re-create the sending away of the goat, that was commanded by G-d, but G-d never commanded the killing of the fowl.

With this idea, Leiman also explained the shocking idea that a mother needs to do kapparot for her fetus. What could a child or a baby in the womb have done that necessitates atonement? Leiman explains that the basis for the atonement of the children are the verses in Shemot 20:5, and 34:7, that G-d punishes the sins of the parents on the children up to four generations. A human court cannot punish children for their parents’ actions (Devarim 24:16), but there is the idea that G-d can punish children for the sins of the parents. Thus, if G-d can punish the children, then children would also need atonement.

As mentioned above, the Rama in the Darkei Moshe (605:5) and in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh (605) defended the custom of kapparot. The Bach (1561-1640, Poland) also defended the custom of kapparot but he agreed that buying a white chicken was a pagan practice. The Taz (586-1667, Poland, 605:2) and the Magen Avraham (1637-1683, Poland, 605:3) accept the Bach's comments with regard to white chicken. R. Avraham Danzig (1748-1820, Vilna, Chayei Adam 144:4) also agreed that using white chickens was a pagan practice, but he noted that in his time the popular custom amongst the women was to seek out white chickens and to pay more for them.

R. Danzig also noted that because there was great pressure on the butchers to slaughter so many chickens and the butchers were tired from working all night there was a high probability that the chickens would not be slaughtered correctly. Thus, he writes that it is better to swing money over one's head instead of a chicken unless one can be sure that the chicken was slaughtered correctly. A friend of mine, Yair Alek, pointed out that once a person is using money, then there is no reason for a person to swing money over their heads, but I think that is what is done by people who use money instead of chickens.

This suggestion to use money was novel though R. Danzig writes that poor people had being doing this on their own if it was too expensive to get a chicken. He notes that if people did use chickens, then they should know that this custom does not bring the person atonement, only that it should induce the person to repent. I wonder if his suggestion to use money is not only because of the danger of eating non-kosher chicken, but also because he was concerned about the opinions that it was a pagan practice.

The Mishnah Berurah (605:1) quotes the idea of using money, but from my conversations with several people who lived in Europe prior to Holocaust, it seems that prior to Holocaust, almost everybody in Eastern Europe did kapparot with chickens, see comments of Arukh Hashulchan 605:5.

Even though R. Yosef Caro was against this custom, it became popular amongst Sefardim due to the Ari z”l since it was “known” that the Ari did kapparot (see Magen Avraham 605:1 and Jacobson pp. 173,174). Did the Ari z”l do kapparot because some of his family was Ashkenazi?

Not all Jews accepted the custom. Agnon (1948, p. 150) quotes from the Sede Hemed (1832-1904), that in the 19th century, the Jews of Yemen were unaware of this custom, and that a majority of the Jews in Constantinople did not do kapparot.

My own impression is that in the 1980s most people in the US did the ceremony with money and not chickens, while only those people of a kabbalistic bent used chickens. In 2019 living in Israel, I think more people (not me) are doing kapparot with chickens, which has generated a backlash from animal rights organizations. 

Bibliography:

Agnon, Shmuel Yosef (1888-1970), 1965, Days of Awe, New York: Schocken Books.

Jacobson, B. S. (1901-1972), 1989, Netiv Binah, (Hebrew) Tel Aviv: Sinai Publishing.

Lauterbach, Jacob (1873-1942), 1935, The ritual for the Kapparot-cermenony, in Jewish studies in memory of G. A. Kohut, eds. Salo W. Baron and Alexander Marx, New York: The Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, pp. 413-422.

Schauss, Hayyim (1884-1953, born in Lithuania and moved to the US in 1910), 1962 (first printed 1938), Guide to Jewish Holy Days: History and observance, New York: Schocken Books.

Yonah

We read the story of Yonah at Minhah on Yom Kippur. What is the message of this fascinating story, and why do read it on Yom Kippur?

Ehud Ben Zvi (2004, pp. 1198-99) notes that many themes have been suggested to the book of Yonah, but he argues that none are definitive since the “book of Yonah cannot be reduced to one main theme.” This is probably correct, but we will review some of the suggested themes and suggest our own.

One very popular idea is that the theme of Yonah is repentance, as the people of Ninveh repent very quickly after Yonah told them that Ninveh was going to be flipped (destroyed), 3:4-10. This unbelievable response is surely another miracle of the story, which has numerous miracles. Their repentance is noted in the Mishnah, Ta’anit 2:1, and this theme would accord with our reading of the book on Yom Kippur. However, the verse quoted in the Mishnah is the last verse of chapter three, 3:10, and this suggests that if the point of the story was to teach about repentance, then both the book of Yonah and the reading of Yonah on Yom Kippur should have ended with chapter three, but the book of Yonah has a fourth chapter, which we read on Yom Kippur. A possible answer for this approach is that chapter four is to explain why G-d accepts repentance, that G-d cares about people, the last verse of chapter 4, 4:11. Yet, the repentance of the people of Ninveh seems too quick to be realistic, and also it includes repentance of the animals, which also seems unrealistic.

A second idea is from Herman Melville in the great novel Moby-Dick that the point of the book of Yonah is obedience to G-d. Yonah eventually went to Ninveh, but not willingly, and hence the point of chapter four is to obey G-d. According to this idea, we read Yonah in the afternoon since after praying a full day, all that is left for us to do is say that we will follow G-d. A small proof for this idea is that the last prayers of the day are not to ask for forgiveness but to say Shema Yisrael, which is our acceptance of G-d. After speaking about this in my synagogue, a congregant pointed out that this idea of Yonah also accords with beginning of the Torah reading at Minhah, as Vayikra 18:4,5 records that one must follow G-d’s laws because G-d commands them.

Aviva Zornberg (2008) makes some fascinating points about the story of Yonah, and she suggests that the theme of the book is Yonah’s relationship with G-d. The book begins with Yonah attempting to flee G-d which shows his poor relationship with G-d. Zornberg notes that the name Yonah signifies flight. Yonah cannot fly but instead he went down. He went down to Yaffa, 1:3, he went down to the ship, 1:3, and he went down to the bottom of the ship, 1:5. Zornberg quotes from the Mechilta that Yonah went to the sea to die, and later he stated that that he wanted to die, 4:3,9. He did not want to commit suicide but he was hoping to die at sea.

Yonah wanted no relationship with G-d, and even during the storm, Yonah did not call out to G-d, while the sailors cried out to their gods 1:5. Yonah told the sailors that he feared G-d, 1:9, which meant that he worshiped G-d, but this seems to be a false statement because he was running away from G-d. Yonah also offered to be thrown overboard, 1:12. This is not a heroic request but as Zornberg notes (p. 281) just a manifestation of his desire to die. The sailors were afraid to do this, and they cried out to G-d, 1:14. 1:16 records that they were fearers of G-d and this was a true fear as opposed to Yonah's false fear.

Yonah wanted to die but unfortunately for him, bad luck, G-d arranged for him to be swallowed by the big fish, which became a type of prison for him, see Uriel Simon, 2000. Yonah was trapped, he could not die and he could not leave the fish. He waited three days, and then he realized that the only way to get out of the fish was to pray, 2:1,2. Yonah offered a weird prayer where he seems to be praying about the past instead of asking to be saved. Yet, he ends the prayer by pledging to fulfill his vows, 2:10, and vows are the quintessential prayer in Tanakh. G-d responded to Yonah's prayer, and the fish brought Yonah to dry land, 2:11. It would appear that the experience with the big fish taught Yonah that he needed to have a relationship with G-d.

G-d then called out to Yonah a second time, and Yonah now fulfilled G-d's command, 3:1-4. However, after the people of Ninveh were saved, 4:1 records that Yonah was angry that G-d saved Ninveh, which demonstrated that Yonah's relationship with G-d was still deficient. Yonah then partially quoted the 13 attributes of G-d, and explains why he ran away, 4:2, which indicates that Yonah had moved forward in his relationship with G-d since now he expressed his reason for running away. Yet, instead, of seeing G-d as good and giving life, he wanted G-d to be harsh and cruel, and he wanted G-d to kill him, 4:3. As has been noted by many (see Zornberg, p. 294), Yonah’s second name refers to emet, truth, 1:1, and he leaves this attribute of G-d out in 4:2. Yonah is disappointed with G-d since he thought that G-d was not running the world based on truth.

G-d asked Yonah whether he was angry and Yonah did not respond, 4:4. Instead, Yonah left Ninveh and camped outside the city to see what would happen, 4:5. What was he expecting to happen? Goldman (1948, p. 148) and Henshke (1998, p. 81) suggest that Yonah thought that the people of Ninveh would revert to their evil ways that their repentance was false.  I wonder whether he could see this from outside the city. Also, surely Yonah must have known that if all the people repented so quickly then their repentance was an act of G-d. My guess is that Yonah went outside the city of Ninveh to see whether G-d would listen to him and overturn the city.

It is clear that the lesson of the big fish was insufficient, so G-d devised another lesson with the gourd (some type of tree) and the worm, 4:6-8. (Note, the same word, va-yiman, appears by the two lessons, by the big fish, 2:1, and by the gourd/ tree three times, 4:6-8.) In this case, Yonah had built a sukkah, 4:5, but apparently it did not give great shade, so he was happy when G-d had a tree grow above the sukkah, 4:6. G-d then had a worm devour the tree in one night, which was another miracle, and then sent a strong wind, which seemed to have destroyed the sukkah, 4:7,8.

After Yonah was depressed again due to the withering sun, 4:8, G-d repeated the previous question are you angry (4:9, 4:4)? Finally, Yonah responded that he was angry, 4:9, which shows some relationship with G-d, but his understanding of G-d and hence his relationship with G-d was still wanting. G-d attempted to explain His ways to Yonah. G-d asked Yonah that if he cared about the tree, then surely G-d cared about the people and animals of Ninveh, 4:10,11.

For the reader maybe the point of the story is that G-d is good and cares about people and animals, his creations, and hence man is supposed to cry out and establish a relationship with G-d, as did the sailors, the people of Ninveh and possibly Yonah. This message of establishing a relationship with G-d is appropriate to Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur, man prays to G-d and separates from the world, which should lead him to establish a relationship with G-d. (Is repentance the way to establish a relationship with G-d or after one has a relationship with G-d then one repents?) Furthermore, we repeatedly state as part of the Selihot that G-d is good and does not wish evil on us, exactly the opposite of Yonah's claim. Thus, maybe we read Yonah at Minhah, towards the end of Yom Kippur, to encourage us to pray fervently, in the fleeting moments of the day, to G-d, who is good and who will listen to our prayers.

While this is a nice reading of Yonah, we do not know Yonah's response to G-d’s statement in 4:11. Did he get it? Did he understand that G-d is good or did he continue in his beliefs about truth and being exacting? Was he able to establish a relationship with G-d?

The numerous animal elements in the story offer another or different perspective on the story of Yonah. First, there is the great fish that swallows Yonah, and then the worm, one of the smallest creatures, eats the tree in one night. Secondly, when the people of Ninveh repent, also the animals fast and wear sackcloth, 3:7,8. Thirdly, the book ends by recording that G-d cares about many animals in the city of Ninveh, 4:11. Fourthly, the name Yonah, is a name of a bird. What is the point of these references to animals?

Significantly, when the sailors ask Yonah to explain himself, he says he fears G-d who created the sea and the land, 1:8,9. While it is hard to take Yonah’s fear of G-d seriously, still his statement that G-d created the sea and the land could be the main or a theme of the book. The story shows how G-d controls the wind, 1:4, 4:8, G-d controls the vegetation, 4:6, G-d controls the seas, 1:4,15, and G-d controls the animals. Also, the people of Ninveh believed that G-d had the power to flip and destroy their city. Thus, the book shows G-d’s control of the world. This could also be an appropriate message for Yom Kippur as in many of the prayers, we refer to G-d as the ruler of the world, and a recognition that G-d controls the world, should cause people to repent and worship G-d.

Bibliography

Ben Zvi, Ehud, 2004, Jonah in The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goldman, S., 1946, Esther: Introduction and commentary, in The Five Megilloth, edited by A. Cohen, London: The Soncino Press, pp. 192-243.

Henshke, David, 1998, The meaning of the book of Yona and its relationship to Yom Kippur, Megadim, 29, Iyar 5758, pp. 75-90.

Simon, Uriel, 2002, True prayer and true repentance, Megadim, 31, Tevet 5760, pp. 127-131.

Zornberg, Aviva, 2008, Jonah: A fantasy of flight, Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 18, pp. 271-299, and 365-370.