(1) GOD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they drew too close to GOD’s presence. (2) GOD said to Moses:
Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come at will into the Shrine behind the curtain, in front of the cover that is upon the ark, lest he die; for I appear in the cloud over the cover. (3) Thus only shall Aaron enter the Shrine: with a bull of the herd for a purgation offering and a ram for a burnt offering.— (4) He shall be dressed in a sacral linen tunic, with linen breeches next to his flesh, and be girt with a linen sash, and he shall wear a linen turban. They are sacral vestments; he shall bathe in water and then put them on.— (5) From the community of the Children of Israel he is to take two hairy goats for a hattat-offering, and one ram for an offering-up.

(6) Aaron is to offer his own bull of purgation offering, to make expiation for himself and for his household. (7) Aaron shall take the two he-goats and let them stand before GOD at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting; (8) and he shall place lots upon the two goats, one marked for GOD and the other marked for Azazel. (9) Aaron shall bring forward the goat designated by lot for GOD, which he is to offer as a purgation offering; (10) while the goat designated by lot for Azazel shall be left standing alive before GOD, to make expiation with it and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel.

.... since this section deals with the service of the great and awesome day of the Lord—the Day of Atonement—

it is fitting to examine it in depth.

Therefore, I will now undertake an explanation of that holy service in its entirety and in its proper order,

according to the instruction of the verses and the tradition of our sages, of blessed memory,

as it appears in Tractate Yoma—

and all this by way of exposition and narrative.

It is now appropriate to raise, regarding each of these services, three questions—so that altogether there will be twenty-one questions. And although I will mention here matters that have already been mentioned earlier, there is no fault or deficiency in doing so, for the proper order of investigation and clarification of the subject requires it.

Question 4 (Sin offerings):

Why is the sin-offering of the community a goat, while that of the High Priest is a bull? For in Parashat Vayikra they are treated equally… yet elsewhere the community sometimes brings a bull, sometimes a goat, and sometimes both. Why this inconsistency? The commentators have not addressed this at all.

Question 5:

Why is there a need for the sin-offering goat brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, when a goat has already been offered in the additional offerings of the day? Since both serve as sin-offerings for the same purpose, one would seem redundant.

Question 6:

Why are these sin-offerings so different in their laws?

The additional goat is eaten by the priests and its blood is applied to the outer altar.

But the Yom Kippur goat is not eaten—it is burned entirely outside the camp, and its blood is brought into the sanctuary, the curtain, and the Holy of Holies.

Why such distinctions?

Question 7 — The Scapegoat:

How could Israel offer that goat to Azazel?

Whether Azazel refers to the celestial forces (as Ibn Ezra says), or to evil angels (as Ramban says), it is certainly not fitting to offer a sacrifice to anything other than God alone—“one who sacrifices to other gods shall be destroyed, except to the Lord alone.”

And if one says that this is like offering to Samael so that he will not accuse—then if a man’s ways are pleasing to God, why would an accuser have power? Does God heed the words of such accusing forces? “One who trusts in the Lord shall be protected.”

Question 8 — The Twin Goats:

Why did the Torah command that the High Priest cast lots over the two goats, and that they be equal in appearance, height, and value, and that they be taken together—as is taught in the Mishnah in Yoma?

It is as if the Holy One, blessed be He, and Azazel were equal in status, and therefore their offerings must be equal, and determined by lot, without preference.

Would it not have been sufficient to designate one goat verbally for Azazel, without casting lots and without requiring such equality—something quite astonishing?

Question 9:

Why does the High Priest confess the sins of Israel over the scapegoat, and not over the goat whose blood is brought into the Holy of Holies—just as he confesses over his own bull?

And indeed, there are two confessions over the bull, one over the scapegoat, and none over the Yom Kippur goat.

And Maimonides already wrote that sins are not physical burdens that can be transferred from one person to another.

These are the twenty-one questions that I have found appropriate to raise regarding the service of this holy day.

Now I will proceed to explain the order of the service and the verses of the parsha.

As for additional textual difficulties, I have not listed them here in order to be concise; I will address them in the course of the commentary.

“And the Lord spoke to Moses after the death…”

It is proper to consider the difficulties in these verses.

The meaning of “And the Lord spoke to Moses after the death” is to teach that Moses, who was always prepared for prophecy, could enter the Holy of Holies at any time…

Even after the death of Aaron’s sons—who died because they approached improperly—the divine speech to Moses did not cease.

Therefore, the verse emphasizes again “and they died,” to show that their death was caused by their approach.

Thus, this passage is not primarily a command, but a statement of Moses’ unique level—that he could enter at all times—unlike Aaron.

Therefore, Moses is instructed to warn Aaron not to enter at all times, lest he die as his sons did.

And Moses was hesitant to say this to Aaron, out of embarrassment—so God commands him explicitly: “Speak to Aaron your brother.”

Meaning: do not hesitate to instruct him.

Moses could enter at any time to hear the divine voice from above the ark.

But Aaron does not receive prophecy there—so why should he enter?

It is a place of danger.

His sons died there.

“For I appear in a cloud”

The meaning is: only once a year, through the cloud of incense, will I be revealed there.

Therefore, Aaron must not enter at will.

“With this Aaron shall enter…”

The meaning is: through this service that will now be described, Aaron (and every High Priest after him) may enter the Holy of Holies—

and not otherwise.

The sin-offerings

As for the sin-offerings, which are the second category of the services of this day,....

As for the two goats that came from all the congregation of Israel for atonement, and likewise the sin-offering goats of the New Moon and the festivals, our sages gave the reason that communal atonement is always by goats in order to allude to and atone for the sin of the sale of Joseph, concerning which it says: “and they slaughtered a goat.” And the Guide wrote that the goat atones because at that time the people’s rebellion and transgression consisted in serving demons, as it says: “They shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat-demons after whom they stray.”

But these two explanations are insufficient. For how can, after thousands of years, atonement and forgiveness still be sought for something not committed in their own days—neither the sale of Joseph nor demon-worship?

Rather, the truth is that the sin-offering goat brought with the additional offerings came to atone for the evil inclination that brings a person to sin. Therefore it is called “the goat of sin-offering,” because it begins in a person while he is still young. As our sages said, the evil inclination precedes the good inclination by thirteen years, as it says: “sin crouches at the door.”

The scapegoat — first explanation: Jacob and Esau

As for the goat for Azazel, which is the third category of the services of this day, my view is that those two goats symbolize Esau and Jacob, who were both brothers, children of one man and one woman, twins born at the same hour.

Therefore the goats were equal in every respect, and their taking was together, as the Mishnah teaches. They were goats because Esau was by nature hairy, as it says: “Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man.” And Jacob was tza’ir by age; and the word tza’ir with a tzadi is like sa’ir with a shin, for the shin and tzadi interchange, as the grammarians have noted.

And the matter of the lots was that both were equal in nature and status. But by the providence of God and His compassion, Jacob was set apart for the Lord’s inheritance and portion, while Esau was distanced from the service and love of his Maker. As the prophet Malachi said: “I have loved you, says the Lord; yet you say: In what have You loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lord; yet I loved Jacob, and Esau I hated…”

To allude to this was the matter of the lots, as Solomon, master of wisdom, said: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every judgment is from the Lord.”

And the one goat upon which the lot fell “for the Lord” had its fat parts offered on the altar and its blood brought into the Holy of Holies and the sanctuary of the Lord, just as Jacob, who was separated in his innocence, for whom nearness to God is good, he and his seed merit the World to Come—which is symbolized by entry into the Holy of Holies.

And the goat for Azazel, which symbolized Esau—he is Edom, bitter and fierce in power and wickedness—was sent into the wilderness, to a land cut off; for so too was Esau in his youth “a man skilled in hunting, a man of the field.” And God distanced him and his inheritance from the inheritance of the Lord, as the prophet said: “I made his mountains a desolation.”

And our sages in their wisdom already alluded to this symbolism in Bereishit Rabbah 65, where they said: “‘And the goat shall bear upon it…’—this is Esau; ‘all their iniquities’—the iniquities of the innocent one (tam), as it says: ‘Jacob was a wholesome man (ish tam).’”

Thus, the scapegoat was not an offering to Azazel. Therefore it did not merit slaughter or sacrifice upon the altar, but rather total removal and being cast into a land cut off where there is no habitation.

It was as though this was a prayer to God that so He should do to His enemy. And this is what they meant when they said that it was “so that he not accuse Israel”—that is, so that his seed should not be a stumbling block, a snare, and an adversary to us.

And the confession that the High Priest confessed over it—the sins of the children of Israel—all these acts were symbolic means to cast fear into the soul, so that it would be moved to repentance. The High Priest showed through this act that the sins and iniquities that the children of Israel had committed deliberately were not fitting for the seed of Jacob, but for the seed of wicked Esau. Therefore those impurities and sins should fall upon the seed of Esau, not upon Jacob.

And this is the meaning of: “And the goat upon which the lot fell for Azazel shall be stood alive before the Lord, to atone upon it, to send it away…” The meaning is not that the Holy One atones for Azazel, nor that He forgives its sins, but rather “to atone upon it” means: to confess upon it. Because confession is the cause of atonement, the Torah uses the term atonement for it.

So too you find with the High Priest’s bull, immediately after its taking: “and he shall atone for himself and for his house.” The meaning, as the commentators wrote, is that he shall confess over that bull for himself and for his house. For it had not yet been slaughtered nor had its blood been sprinkled, so how could it say “and he shall atone” if atonement is impossible except after the sprinkling? Though in that verse I have yet another explanation, which you will hear later.

And there is no doubt that the High Priest also confessed over the Yom Kippur sin-offering goat the deliberate sins of Israel, though Scripture did not state this, for our sages already explained in Tractate Zevachim that every sin-offering necessarily involved confession.

V. The scapegoat — second explanation:

both goats symbolize Israel

But the interpretation that seems most correct to me in this matter is that the two goats symbolize the congregation of Israel as a whole, but under two different conditions:

When they are good and upright, walking after the Lord their God and cleaving to Him, they are “for the Lord.” Their fat parts and inward parts—which, as I explained, symbolize their inward thoughts—are offered upon the altar of the Lord, and their blood is brought within the veil and sprinkled upon and before the Ark-cover. All this symbolizes cleaving to God, and that they will merit the life of the World to Come and be תחת כנפי השכינה. Concerning this it says “one lot for the Lord,” for the word goral (“lot”) can mean the reward given a person according to either righteousness or wickedness. And reward is called goral, as in Daniel: “You shall rest and stand in your lot at the end of days.” It is called a lot only because “its every judgment is from the Lord” and is providential, not accidental.

But if Israel is evil and sinful toward the Lord and does not keep His charge and the honor of His sanctuary, then its lot and portion is to be for Azazel—that is, to be distanced from the blessed God and His holy ones, and to become a fierce people going into exile before an oppressor. For Azazel is a compound name of two words: az and azal—meaning, “this people will go away and be sent off from its land because it is a fierce-faced people.” Its punishment in this world will be that it is dragged from the land and distanced from the delight of the righteous and from the radiance of the Divine Presence. All this is included in the name Azazel: the fierce one shall go away to shame and everlasting disgrace.

The truth of this symbolism is indicated by the style of the verses:

First, it says: “And from the congregation of the children of Israel he shall take two male goats for a sin-offering,” showing that both symbolize the nation as a whole according to its deeds, whether for good or ill.

Second, it says: “And Aaron shall take the two goats and place them before the Lord at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.” Why should the goat sent away stand “before the Lord,” directed westward toward the Holy of Holies, together with the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord, if not because both symbolize the congregation—whether holy or sinful? Therefore both are brought near that holy place, as if to say: Here, O Israel, is the place of your holiness, if only you are willing and obedient. The Lord waits to be gracious to you. But if you turn away from Him, the hand of the Lord shall be against you and He will send you from your land.

This is also shown by: “Aaron shall place lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord and one lot for Azazel.” The matter is equal in the goats, for both signify the nation, but the lot represents divine judgment and reward. One lot will be “for the Lord” when they fear Him and think upon His name, as Scripture says in that sense, “I am the Lord’s.” And one lot will be otherwise—that is, in that same congregation, when it becomes sinful; then it will be “Azazel”: fierce and gone, removed from before the Lord and from His land.

This is shown a third time by: “Aaron shall bring near the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord and make it a sin-offering.” That is: when the nation is the Lord’s people, it is brought near to Him, dwelling in His land, submitted in His sanctuary, delighting beneath the throne of glory.

But the goat upon which the lot fell for Azazel—that is Israel when it becomes brazen and goes into exile—that goat “shall be stood alive before the Lord to atone upon it, to send it away to Azazel into the wilderness.” How great is this statement and how mighty its promise! For that sinful goat, symbolizing the congregation of Israel, will not perish nor be consumed in exile, but “shall stand alive before the Lord”—that is, preserved in its religion and in the maintenance of its Torah—until the time and moment come, at the end of its exile, when He will atone for it because of the sufferings it endured in exile. This is the meaning of “to send it away to Azazel into the wilderness”: that He will atone for it at the end of its exile and redeem it.

Or the lamed of leshalach may mean “because of,” as in other usages. Then the meaning is: He will atone for it because He sent it away to Azazel into the wilderness, which alludes to exile, for exile atones for sin.

This is shown a fourth time by what is explained concerning the scapegoat: “Aaron shall place both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel…” How can he place his hands on that goat and confess over it the sins of Israel unless it symbolizes Israel itself, as I have explained? Therefore it says: “and he shall place them upon the head of the goat, and send it away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness.” This symbolizes that the sins of Israel will come upon their own heads in their exile from the holy land, and it will be “by the hand of an appointed man”—that is, a man of great standing in his time—namely Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, through whom they were punished.

And to allude to their exile it says: “And the goat shall bear upon it all their iniquities to a land cut off”—that is, the land upon which a decree was issued that they should be removed from it, which would become like a wilderness desolation in relation to Israel when they were exiled from it.

Thus it has all been explained למה רומזים השעירים ומה ענין שעיר עזאזל: in this the Torah symbolized for Israel all that would happen to them—good, if they walked after the Lord and kept His Torah; and punishment, exile, and evil, which would be decreed upon them if they transgressed His covenant; together with a promise of what would in the end be theirs: atonement and redemption.

And thus the three questions I raised about the scapegoat—numbers seven, eight, and nine—are resolved, and the whole matter has been fully clarified.

“Jacob said to Rebecca his mother: Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a man of smooth skin” (Genesis 27:11).
Rabbi Levi said: This is analogous to one with a full head of hair and a bald person who were standing at the edge of the threshing floor. The chaff went up onto the one with the full head of hair and became entangled in his hair. The chaff went up onto the bald person, and he placed his hand on his head and removed it. So, Esau the wicked is sullied with iniquities all the days of the year, and he has no means with which to gain atonement. But Jacob is sullied with iniquities all the days of the year, comes Yom Kippur, and he has the means with which to gain atonement, as it is stated: “For on this day he shall atone” (Leviticus 16:30).
Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This is not related to that and that is not related this. Rather, “the goat shall bear upon itself” (Leviticus 16:22) – this is Esau, as it is stated: “Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy [sa’ir] man.” “All their iniquities [avonotam]” (Leviticus 16:22) – the iniquities of the simple man [avonot tam], as it is stated: “Jacob was a simple [tam] man” (Genesis 25:27).