Take the 2-minute tour ×

In the Yom Kippur service during Temple times, the Kohen would (Lev 16:7-10ff):

And he shall take the two goats, and set them before the LORD at the door of the tent of meeting. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the LORD, and offer him for a sin-offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before the LORD, to make atonement over him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness. (mechon-mamre.org)

הִקְרִיב אַהֲרֹן אֶת-פַּר הַחַטָּאת, אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ; וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ, וּבְעַד בֵּיתוֹ. ז וְלָקַח, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַשְּׂעִירִם; וְהֶעֱמִיד אֹתָם לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. ח וְנָתַן אַהֲרֹן עַל-שְׁנֵי הַשְּׂעִירִם, גֹּרָלוֹת--גּוֹרָל אֶחָד לַיהוָה, וְגוֹרָל אֶחָד לַעֲזָאזֵל. ט וְהִקְרִיב אַהֲרֹן אֶת-הַשָּׂעִיר, אֲשֶׁר עָלָה עָלָיו הַגּוֹרָל לַיהוָה; וְעָשָׂהוּ, חַטָּאת. י וְהַשָּׂעִיר, אֲשֶׁר עָלָה עָלָיו הַגּוֹרָל לַעֲזָאזֵל, יָעֳמַד-חַי לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו--לְשַׁלַּח אֹתוֹ לַעֲזָאזֵל, הַמִּדְבָּרָה.

These two se'irim are treated much the same way that Abraham treated his sons - one (Isaac) was sacrificed, and one (Ishmael) was sent into the midbar.

I know that Rashi (and maybe Talmud?) says that se'ir l'Azazel is thrown off a cliff, but the plain meaning is that it's sent to the midbar. I'm less concerned with the technicalities than the similarities between these two. (Also note that these are the leynings from both days of Rosh Hashannah and Yom Kippur.)

Why do we mimic Abraham's fathering? Alternatively, why did Abraham perform the Yom Kippur service? What do we learn from this? Are there any sources that make this parallel (aside from my own thoughts and later a painting I saw at the American Visionary Arts Museum in Baltimore)?

share|improve this question
@IsaacMoses I will check in with AVAM and see if they have a record of it. AFAIR, the painting was by a doctor (all art in the museum is amateur) and was a scale with Isaac and Ishmael on opposite sides. On Isaac's side it said, in Hebrew, 'לַה, and on Ishmael's it said, לַעֲזָאזֵל. It made me glad I wasn't the only one to see the parallel. –  Charles Koppelman May 18 '12 at 16:58
This isn't a Jewish source, but a little web sleuthing reconfirms that you aren't the only person to see this parallel. It's observed by Mary Douglas in Leviticus as Literature, page 250. –  Isaac Moses May 18 '12 at 17:24
@EEE I've added "seem to" to the title. –  Isaac Moses May 18 '12 at 19:16
@CharlesKoppelman In the piyut of Yom Kippur Mussaf about the avoda uses the phrase קָח מַאֲכֶלֶת חַדָּה וּשְׁחָטו כַּסֵּדֶר. Ma'achelet is a word strongly reminiscent of the Akeida. Just another parallel for you... –  Double AA Jun 1 '12 at 19:24
@CharlesKoppelman I found the painting! It's by a doctor, and it once hung in the AVAM. –  Isaac Moses yesterday

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

You ask “But surely we can get some meaning from this. That's my hope here - a source or someone's original interpretation.”

Here is an original interpretation without claims to authenticity.

Two modes of dealing with the yetzer hora:

(1) In this existence we are given the yetzer hora and we are to use it to serve HaShem. Devorim 5, 6; Rashi. ““With all your heart”: Love Him with your two inclinations (the good and the evil).

(2) In a future time HKB”H will kill and hence separate us from the yetzer hora. Gemoro Sukah 52a

(1) is represents the way we are to serve HaShem the whole year. (2), I suggest, is the meaning of sending the scape goat to Azozel in the wilderness on Yom Kippur.

Avrohom’s aspiration for Yishmoel was that he should serve HaShem reminiscent of mode (1). "Would that Yishmoel would live before you" (Gen. 17:18) and see Rashi there "in Your fear". Soroh’s prophetic vision was that the continuation of the Jewish people should be through Yitzchok separated from Yishmoel reminiscent of mode (2). Binding Yitzchok to the altar was, I suggest, symbolic of bringing Yitzchok near to the service of HaShem in the same way as an offering brings the giver close to HaShem .

In this way, you could make a case that “the Yom Kippur service seems to reeenact Avrohom’s treatment of his sons.”

share|improve this answer
That's a really good drash. Thanks a lot for thinking on this. –  Charles Koppelman Jun 7 '12 at 16:03

I suggest that the analogy drawn in the painting may be inaccurate. To show this I have taken points from an article on Ishmael from the Jewish Encylopedia and commented on it using the mishnayos in Yoma (references in brackets{}). Encyclopaedia text in italic.

Eldest son of Abraham. (1) Ideally the two goats should be identical {6:1}.

When Sarah saw Ishmael mocking her son Isaac, his brother, younger by fourteen years, she insisted that Abraham cast out Ishmael and his slave-mother. Abraham reluctantly yielded, having provided them with bread and a bottle of water. (2) The Kohen Godol chose which goat to send where by lots and not by human influence. {4:1} (No nourishment was provided for the goat.)

(3) The Kohen Godol confessed the sins of the nation on the goat. The goat was for atonement. {6:2} There was neither confession nor atonement associated with the sending away of Ishmael.

(4) The other goat (the "Isaac" one) was actually slaughtered and its blood sprinkled.{4:3}.

Ishmael was about to die of thirst when an angel showed his mother a well, repeating to her at the same time that Ishmael would become a great nation. (5) As you note in the question the goat was to die. {6:6}. I think we should consider the importance of the Mishnah as well as the Biblical text.

share|improve this answer
First, the idea was mine before I saw the painting. If you want to accuse something of inaccuracy, accuse me. Second, as far as I understand, G-d is the chooser of lots, just as G-d chose to have Sarah petition Abraham (or to respond "shma kolech"). Third, though no children were harmed in the making of Bereshit, you must admit that these rituals are evocative of the story. If there's no source that backs this up, that's fine, it can tumble in my head. But surely we can get some meaning from this. That's my hope here - a source or an someone's original interpretation. –  Charles Koppelman Jun 5 '12 at 15:55

Your Answer


