Shadal brings the Arabic cognate goralon, which means stone: גרלון בערבית אבן. This word apparently is the source of the word coral -- see this post at Balashon, towards the bottom.
There are two issues with a goral to Azazel parallel to a goral to Hashem. One is theological -- how in the world can we send something off to some other entity? Is this not idolatry that the Torah is commanding us here to engage in?
Secondly, we know that the practice in Rabbinic Judaism was to throw the goat to Azazel off a cliff. But the local pesukim just seem to speak of sending it off, and later in the same perek,
earlier post on Achrei Mot, where I note that in the years leading up to the destruction of the Second Temple (when there were Sadducee priests), the goat would accidentally escape into the wilderness where it was eventually caught and eaten by bandits. And I suggested that this recurring accident was not accident.
Rashi solves both problems in his way -- he says that Azazel was not a deity or a goat-god, but rather a cliff. And that is the meaning of the later pasuk 22. Thus, citing Rabbinic sources:
Azazel This is a strong and hard mountain, [with] a high cliff, as the Scripture says [in describing Azazel] (verse 22 below),“a precipitous land (אֶרֶץ גְּזֵרָה),” meaning a cut-off land [i.e., a sheer drop]. — [Torath Kohanim 16:28; Yoma 67b]Thus, Azazel is the cliff to which the goat is sent. And the cut off-land does not mean a wilderness, put rather a sudden cut-off, namely a cliff, which is in the wilderness.
Shadal sees this Rashi, but endorses a different explanation. To put it in my own words and using my own mashal first, an atheist might have no problem telling me to go to hell. This does not mean that he believes in hell. Rather, there is a conception in society of hell, he does not subscribe to the reality of it, but still can use this as an idiom. And many people who say "go to hell" do not mean it literally.
Similarly, in Israeli society today, and especially in subtitles of movies, every curse word becomes "lech la'Azazel." This does not mean that they believe in the reality of a goat-demon, if that is what Azazel really means. Nor does it mean that they even really literally want the person to be cast off a cliff, which is more of the meaning.
So, Shadal says:
עזאזל : נראה שהיה מקודם של האל הרע , ושטן , אל עז , ומילת עזאזל מן עז עז אל . והמאמינים באחדות האל שלא האמינו במציאות האל הרע נשארה אצלם המילה הזאת להוראת הרע הגמור והאבדון , על דרך שגם היום אומרים " שטן " להרות על כל רעה גדולה ועל האבדון ; והנה השעיר היה משתלח לאבדון במדבר שימות ברעב . והנה בזמן שהיתה ארץ ישראל רחבת ידים לישראל להיותם המעט מכל העמים היה אפשר למצוא בתוך ארצם ארץ גזרה ו רחבה שיתעה בה השעיר וימות , אבל אחר זמן , כשרבתה האומה ונתיישבה הארץ ולא היתה שם ארץ גזרה , הוצרכו להתקין שיידחף השעיר מעל הצוק , שאם לא כן היה נכנס לעיר נושבת . ואמנם המכוון בשילוח השעיר לעזאזל נראה שהוא על דרך ( מיכה ז ' י " ט ) ותשליך במצולות ים כל חטאתם , כי הכהן בדיבורו היה נותן כל עונות העם על השעיר , ואח " כ היה משלח השליח ועמו העונות כולם אל ארץ גזרה , והעם היה נשאר נקי מכל עונותם .
That is, he claims that it initially did mean some opponent, some Satan, to God. But those who believe in the Unity of Hashem do not believe in the existence of an evil God. Even so, this word was preserved for them, to convey complete evil and devastation. And this was the meaning in Biblical times. He compares it to the word Satan.
This goat was sent into the wilderness, where there was desolation, to die of hunger. And so the word was fitting.
And what about this shift? Well, this was an historical shift rather than a dispute in meaning. All the while, it was agreed that it was to be sent to destruction with their sins, in the same manner we see in Micha 7:19 the idea of sending sins into the depths of the sea. But initially, when Eretz Yisrael was not so settled, they could send it into the wilderness and it would not wander into some settled city. When settlement expanded, they could no longer do this so they fulfilled this by sending it off a cliff.
This goat was sent into the wilderness, where there was desolation, to die of hunger. And so the word was fitting.
And what about this shift? Well, this was an historical shift rather than a dispute in meaning. All the while, it was agreed that it was to be sent to destruction with their sins, in the same manner we see in Micha 7:19 the idea of sending sins into the depths of the sea. But initially, when Eretz Yisrael was not so settled, they could send it into the wilderness and it would not wander into some settled city. When settlement expanded, they could no longer do this so they fulfilled this by sending it off a cliff.
Let us now give the Karaites a change to be frum. The block text images are from the Karaite scholar Aharon ben Yosef, and the images in Rashi script are the words of a Karaite supercommentary.
In terms of the definition of Azazel, he Aharon ben Yosef strongly rejects the idea that it refers to a bribe to Samael. He considers such to be idolatrous, and rejects this idea as expressed by Ibn Ezra, Ramban and Pirkei deRabbi Yishmael.
He rejects it as well on the level of peshat, not just out of religious conviction. See inside. He views every goat offering as a rejection of the practice of Egypt of sacrificing to seirim.He also rejects the deconstruction of the word, as offered by Rashi citing Chazal. He argues that it is the name of a place, and offers other examples such as II Divrei HaYamim 20:16 with midbar Yeruel and other constructions, dismissing the problem of the aleph between the zayins in עזאזאל.
eretz gezeira as a cliff,
and thus in accordance with Rabbinic practice. There is more to read inside. Enjoy.
No comments:
Post a Comment