AZAZEL - ‫ֲעזָאזֵל‬

'Azazel: the goat-demon, the bearer of transgressions,

wrongdoing or sins in the mythos of yahwistic
judgment and wrath--the doctrine of accusation,
hence the so-called "deserved" punishment of the
accused. In Yahwism and elsewhere, Satan is the
Accuser and Tormentor of souls... the cultic ritual of the
transference of alleged or accused sins onto a substitutional bearer or
"deliverer"... in the cult of YHWH

“Azazel”, 'Ayin - zayin / zayith - 'ahlehp - zayin / zayith - lahmadh /

lwul, kztzg, 'Azah'zail (proper name of an evil spirit dwelling in
the wilderness)-- Langenscheidt --

The following is from The Torah, A Modern Commentary, edited by W.

Gunther Plaut, Union of Hebrew Congregations, New York, Copyright
1981 The Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Leviticus
Commentary by Bernard J. Bramberger, page 859:

The most embarrassing feature of the ancient ritual is the

sending of the “scapegoat” to Azazel…

[page 860: The term “scapegoat” was apparently coined by William

Tyndale, the first great English Bible translator. Thereafter, it came to
be used for a person, animal, or object to which the impurity of a
community was formally transferred and then removed. This concept,
and the practices it inspired, is found among numberless peoples
throughout the world. But, in common usage today, a scapegoat is
someone whom the people blame for their own misfortunes, and even
for their faults and sins—though the original notion of a scapegoat
included the public acknowledgement by the community of its own
transgressions [[accused by the Accuser, YHWH_SATAN, in the
instance of the Jewish people]].
The latter [Azazel] was probably a demonic being, residing in the
desert, whose abode was regarded as a focus of impurity. Various
efforts were made to avoid this embarrassment. The old Greek
translation takes azazel as a common noun meaning “dismissal.”
Others rendered the word “steep mountain,” or “goat that departs,” or
understood Azazel to be the name of a place.

These apologetic efforts are not convincing. For apocryphal Jewish

works, composed in the last few centuries before the Christian era, tell
of angels who were lured by beautiful women into lust and, ultimately,
into rebellion against God. In these writings, Azazel is one of the two
leaders of the rebellion. And post-talmudic documents tell a similar
story about two rebel angels, Uzzah and Azzael. These mythological
stories, which must have been widely known, seem to confirm the
essentially demonic character of the old biblical Azazel [in Hebrew as:
‘ayin-zayin-’ahlehp-zayin-lahmath, pronounced as ‘azah’zail].

The more responsible Jewish teachers avoided the mythological notion

of rebel angels. The Talmud refers frequently to Satan; but he was not,
like the Satan of the New Testament, an enemy of [YHWH]. He serves
[YHWH] as prosecutor, though at times [often] he is overeager to get
convictions. But, as we shall see, the notion of Satan as a hostile power,
who must be overcome or appeased [as YHWH as Satan must, same
requisites, same problems of appeasement], was not entirely absent in
talmudic times [most ancient ritual is magical in intent or purpose, to
protect one or a people from calamity or ill-fortune]; and it emerged in
much more open and emphatic form from among the Kabalists of the
Middle Ages.

Page 744:

Possibly the earliest evidence for the institution of the scapegoat comes
from the Hittite texts of Anatolia, where a sacrificial animal is
described as nakkushshish is loaded with the impurities of the penitent
and sent on its way . The Hittite technical term was borrowed from
Hurrian and appears to be composed of “to let go” (nakk-) and the
abstract suffix (-shi), providing an interesting parallel to etymologies
for azahzail, the “goat that departs” which by “loan translation,”
became caper emissarius in the Vulgate and “scape-goat” in English.

~~~~~~
THE GOAT DEMON, AZAZEL, THE SCAPEGOAT,
BEARER OF THE ACCUSED SINS OF THE PEOPLE
Text from Volume 8, pages 1120 through 1121, Man, Myth & Magic, An
Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Supernatural, Copyright BPC
Publishing Ltd., Marshall Cavendish Corporation, New York.

Another possible source of the goat's link with the Devil can be found
in both classical and Jewish traditions, and is again connected with one
of the features of witchcraft which most obsessed the persecutors--the
orgy in which the worshippers copulated with their master and
sometimes with his subordinate demons. There were plenty of classical
myths in which human beings had intercourse with the gods--who to
Christians were devils--and the belief that the powers of darkness
desired the love of women also occurred in Jewish lore, especially in
the legend of the Watchers, the fallen angels who sinned through their
lust for the daughters of men.

The leader of the Watchers (according to 1 Enoch, a Jewish apocryphal

book) was Azazel, who was associated with Mars, the planet of war, and
who, after his descent to earth, taught men evil by showing them how
to make weapons of bloodshed. This same Azazel was connected with
the Jewish scapegoat ritual. Down to 70 A.D., a goat was selected each
year 'for Azazel'. It was formally loaded with the sins of the people and
sent away into the wilderness 'to Azazel' (Leviticus, chapter 16). The
ritual was not forgotten and in the 13th century Rabbi Moses ben
Nahmen explained that:

God [YHWH in this instance] has commanded us, however, to send a goat on
Yom Kippur to the ruler whose realm is in the places of desolation. From the
emanation of his power come destruction and ruin; he ascends to the stars of
the sword, of blood, of wars, quarrels, wounds, blows, disintegration and
destruction. He is associated with the planet Mars. His portion among the
peoples is Esau, a people who live by the sword; and his portion among the
animals is the goat. The demons are part of his realm and are called in the Bible
seirim (he-goats); he and his people are named Seir.

The scapegoat ritual tended to connect the goat with evil and, through
the link with Azazel, with the fallen angels and the Devil. This
association was hammered home by St. Matthew's gospel (chapter 25)
in which jesus likens the righteous to sheep and the wicked to goats,
and says that the goats will be condemned to 'the eternal fire prepared
for the devil and his angels'.

The seirim or goat-demons assigned to Azazel by Rabbi Moses ben

Nahmen are mentioned several times in the Old Testament, Azazel and
the Watchers lusted for mortal women and it seems that the seirim
may have done so too, for Leviticus 17.7 says, 'So they shall no more
slay their sacrifices for satyrs (seirim), after whom they play the harlot'
(and, 'neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it'--
18.23). The translation 'satyrs' itself indicates the mingling in western
Europe of classical and Jewish traditions about goatish beings which
desire women.

The link between the scapegoat, Azazel, the Watchers or fallen angels,
and the lecherous goat-demons may have influenced the medieval
belief that witches adored the Devil by copulating with him in the form
of a goat. The belief was probably strengthened by the passage in
Exodus (chapter22) which was so frequently cited as a justification for
witch-hunting: 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', followed
immediately by, 'Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to
death. He that sacrificeth unto any god save the Lord only, he shall be
utterly destroyed' (Authorized Version).

OBSERVE:

The Hebrew word ‘az means strong, powerful, firm; fierce, violent,
hard, bold; substantive, strength, power. ‘Aiz designates a goat, she-
goat. ‘Oz and ‘woz mean strength, power, might; firmness; violence,
boldness; protection, refuge; splendor, glory, praise. ‘Ehzwuz, might,
power, strength, and as an adjective, strong, mighty. ‘Ahzaz, to be or
become strong, firm, powerful; to be bold, hard; to harden, to make
bold.

Zayin and tzahdhaiy can cross-play in Hebrew, as well as taiyth / tiyt.

Tzail is shadow; protection, shelter; transitoriness. Tzahlah is to roast.

Tzahlach is to pass through, to get on, to thrive, to succeed, to fall upon,
to come over… to bring to an end, to cause to thrive, to lead to success;
to be successful or blessed. Tzahliy is something roasted, roasted meat.
Tzahlal is to sound, to tinkle, to tingle, to clatter, to quiver… to give
shadow, to become overshadowed… to shade, to give shadow. Tzil_lwo
and tz_lahliym are related to tzail mentioned above. Tzehlehm is an
image, likeness, idol; shade, phantom, nothingness. Tzal_mwon is
shady, dark; darkness. Tzal_mwehth is equivalent either as tzail plus
mahwehth, shadow of death, or tzal_mwuth, deep darkness or terror
[such as the deep darkness of the Holy of Holies]. Tzal_monah was a
station in the desert.

Zullwuth, beginning with zayin, is baseness. Zahlal has the meaning:

to be a glutton, to squander, to debauch; to be mean, miserable,
despised; nahzol, to be shaken, to quake; hizzwl, to despise. Zimmah is
a plan or counsel, or an evil deed, lewdness, incest, apostasy.

If you weigh these definitions carefully, and reflect on them over time,
you can easily see the cross-connections and relationships to the term
‘azah’zail.

’Ahz, beginning with an ’ahlehp [‘ayin and ’ahlehp are sometimes

interchanged in Hebrew] is an adverb that means, then, at that time;
therefore; mai’ahz [= miz ’ahz] formerly, heretofore, of old; as a
preposition, since.

The closure to ‘azah’zail is the suffix ’ahzal (’ahlehp-zayin-lahmath)

which means, to go away, to go out; to fail, cease, vanish.

’Ehzehl (’ahlehp-zayin-lahmath) in ehvehn hah_’ehzehl is a stone of

departure [a memorial stone].

In all of these, we have the following implications of meaning: The goat

is strongly suggested, and young goats (kids) were certainly sacrificed
in the Temple rituals as Leviticus suggests. There is also the strong
suggestion of antiquity in all this, of strength and power, of passing
through, perhaps a transition in some form or kind or crisis. The
purpose of the goat was to bring to an end the “sins” or wrong-doings
of a people, to let them depart, to send them away into the wilderness
of undoing and release. These “sins” or wrong-doings were imparted
upon the goat who would then be led out from the community or
driven into the wilderness. In some cultures, the goat was sacrificed,
roasted, and eaten.

To drive the goat into the desert, the community would naturally have
make loud sounds by clattering objects together, possibly with
tambourine-like instruments, cymbals, and other small bell-like
instruments. Even powerful dances could serve the same purpose,
encircling the goat in contracting waves until the terrified creature
could break free.

The sense of the presence a shadowy and terrifying phantom of

darkness was there, buried in the words contracted into a name or
designator, perhaps the darkness of “evil” itself, or its personification,
even Death, or an ill-event.

These are ancient fears of a prehistorical world-view lost in antiquity.

The words seem to struggle to retain and capture some ancient
understanding, but cannot fully convey the sense of the past. It is lost
to us.
The demon hidden in the desert is definitely a dark presence and terror,
one that can rend and tear the body and soul apart, of individuals or a
people.

In periods of reflection, the worst of the deeds of the people were

recalled. It took a deep honesty, introspection and self-reflection to
come to grips with one’s own shortcomings, but it was necessary for the
survival of the group.

The elders and their fold would gather together, often at a prescribed
time, season or period of the year in common reflection.

In this way, in rituals designed to cleanse the mind and soul of

insufficiencies and improprieties, the misdeeds and confessions of the
people were then transferred onto the presence and body of the
conveyance, the goat.

This was done in the hope that the animal would carry their “sins’, the
very improprieties and threats that could destroy them, away, that they
might be delivered once again from the ravages and terrible
consequences of their wrongs.

This ritual tendency is very ancient and reflected the world view of
humans caught up in a very perilous and capricious world, one they did
their very best to understand.

Sometimes a memorial stone or mound of stones marked the place of

departure.

The function of the goat was a form of spiritual deliverance.

Additional understandings suggest “the go-away goat”, the “vanishing

goat”, the “vanquishing goat”, or “the goat of cessation,” one of release
and expiation.

“…in the desert they still brought offerings to the goat-

demons…” page 754--the medieval Rabbi Levi, contemporary of
Maimonides, speaking of the Hebrews who left Egypt.

The fear of the “goat-demon” Azazel was no small matter

among the ancient Bedouin tribes of the wilderness. Their
fears were serious matters in a world of dangerous predators
and poisonous vipers. In an instant a man, woman, child or
even livestock could be torn apart in the day or night, most
horribly at night, or a single asp could deliver its unreleasing
blow. The fears of the people were not unjustified.
The danger lies in how you carry these fears and
understandings into the future, and how they might impact
or affect future societies that inherit such ancient but often
misunderstood concepts.

In turn, in symbol, Jesus, Yaishwu'a, became the sacrificial goat or

lamb that was to carry the alleged sins or transgressions of the world in
the prevalent Yahwist cult. This is blood and human sacrifice plain and
simple, ritual cannibalism at its worst. The Holocaust and all human
atrocities before and after were human sacrifices of similar kind.

The horror of this from an 'ELOIST point of view should be obvious.

What humans believe can be dangerous. What they do with those

beliefs, worse...

http://www.jhom.com/topics/goats/azazel.htm

The ancient biblical rite performed by the priests on the Day of Atonement including
the dispatching of a goat to Azazel, to carry off the collective sins of the people,
described in Leviticus 16.[1] The goat sent to Azazel served not only as a public
ridding of the people's sins, but as a public acknowledgment by the community of its
transgressions. In modern usage, "scapegoat" came to refer to an individual whom
people blame for their own misfortunes or failings.

The English term "scapegoat" was coined by William Tyndale, the first to translate the
Hebrew Bible into English. The concept of a person, animal or object to whom the
impurity or guilt of a community was formally transferred and then removed, is found
among many ancient peoples; often that figure was a goat. In Babylonia, it was
customary to give a goat as a substitute for a human being to Ereshkigal, the goddess of
the abyss. In an Akkadian magical inscription from the city of Assur which deals with
the cure for a man who is unable to eat and drink, it is prescribed that a goat should be
tied to his bed and that thus the sickness will pass to the goat; on the following
morning, the goat is to be taken to the desert and decapitated.
During periods of plagues, the ancient Hittites used to send
a goat into enemy territory in order that it should carry the
plague there; on the head of the goat they would bind a
crown made of colored wool. This custom recalls the
Israelite ritual as performed during Second Temple times:
the High Priest drew lots and tied a thread of crimson wool
onto the head of the goat chosen for Azazel.[2] In the
Hellenistic world there were also "scapegoat" rituals, but
humans and not animals were sent out of the city and
sometimes even killed.

There is a great deal of confusion regarding the exact

meaning of the word "Azazel." Most scholars agree that in ancient times, it referred to
a demonic power residing in the desert (whose abode was regarded as a focus of
impurity) or alternatively, to the abode itself. As the wilderness was widely held to be
the habitat of demons[3], we can understand how the original purpose of the ritual
might have been to get rid of evil by banishing it to its original source. Twelfth century
grammarian David Kimhi[4] associates the word Azazel with the mountain to which
the goat was taken.

The goat which was dispatched to Azazel was not intended to be a sacrifice, as it was
not slaughtered. "And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord,
and the other for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot feel 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."[5]. The two goats recall the birds mentioned also in
Leviticus, in which one of the two birds is set free to fly over the field.[6]

And yet, according to the description in the Mishnah, during the Second Temple
period, a priest specially qualified to do so was responsible for pushing the goat
backward over a cliff.[7] While the death of the goat was not indispensable, as the
High Priest could continue the divine service once the goat was dispatched without
having to wait for the goat to be killed, it is possible that this custom evolved so as to
avoid the possibility that the goat return to inhabited places, laden with sin.

[1] Lev. 16:10, 21-22.

[2] Mishnah, Yoma 4:2
[3] Lev. 13:21, 34:14, 17:7
[4] Commentator and grammarian David Kimhi (c.1160-1235)
wrote a grammar book/dictionary called Book of Roots
[5] Lev. 16:8-10
[6] Lev. 14:4-7
[7] Mishnah, Yoma 6:3
 Se’ir L’Azazel: The Scapegoat, Revisited
http://www.radicaltorah.org/2006/05/02/seir-lazazel-the-scapegoat-revisited/

“Aaron shall place lots upon the two he-goats: one lot ‘for YKVK’ and one lot ‘for
Azazel.’…And the he-goat designated by lot for Azazel shall be stood alive before YKVK,
to provide atonement through it, and to send it away to Azazel, into the desert.”

Most commentators translate Azazel as “a tall steep cliff.” How is it that a religion that
so prescribes the specifics of how an animal may be slaughtered, and that codified laws
regarding animal cruelty two thousand years ago, requires that we project all of our sins
onto an innocent goat, which we then shove off a cliff? What meaning can possibly be
derived from this ritual, and how can it relate to Yom Kippur?

Regarding the two identical he-goats, Rashi states:

And Aaron shall place lots upon the two he-goats. He would place one [he-goat] on
his right and one on his left. Then, he would insert both his hands into an urn [which
contained two lots, one bearing the inscription “to the Lord” and the other “to Azazel.”
These lots were mixed up, and Aaron, with both hands inside the urn] took one lot in his
right hand and the other in his left hand, and he would place them upon them [the he-
goats]: [The one] upon which [he placed the lot] with the inscription “to the Lord,”
would be for God, while the one upon which [he placed the lot] with the inscription “to
Azazel,” would be sent off to Azazel. — [Yoma 39a] 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 (‫) ֶארֶץ גְּזֵרָה‬,” meaning a cut-off land [i.e., a sheer drop]. —
[Torath Kohanim 16:28; Yoma 67b] and designate it as a sin-offering. When he
places the lot upon it, he designates it by calling it [a sin-offering], saying, “To the
Lord-a sin-offering”. — [Yoma 39a]

In other words, Rashi says that Aaron would take two identical goats, and choose lots to
randomly determine which goat would be sacrificed as a korban to YKVK, and which
would be sent over a cliff, “l’Azazel.” Before being sent off to its death, Aaron would
“lean both of his hands [forcefully] upon the live he goat’s head and confess upon it all
the willful transgressions of the children of Israel, all their rebellions, and all their
unintentional sins, and he shall place them on the he goat’s head.”

This is the traditional interpretation of the se’ir l’Azazel.

The Ibn Ezra offers up a different interpretation. We see that he says that the secret of
the Azazel is after the word Azazel, and one can understand it when “one is at thirty-
three.” This cryptic message can be understood by looking 33 verses after the word
“Azazel” in Leviticus 16:10. Thirty-three verses later we see “…they will no longer
offer sacrifices to the satyrs that lead them astray.” (17:7) According to Rashi, the word
“l’seirim” means “l’shaydim,” unto the demons. What the Ibn Ezra is saying is that the
practice of the scapegoat will lead the Israelites to stop sacrificing to the shaydim
(which was the practice of the pagans). The practice of the se’ir l’Azazel, already being
practiced, became a part of the legitimate Jewish ritual, and therefore ceased to be an act
of avodah zarah. The Ibn Ezra is referencing the ancient demon Azazel, to whom many
non-Hebrew Semitic tribes offered sacrifices. By projecting all of Bnei Yisrael’s sins
onto the goat and sending if “off to Azazel,” this traditional practice became a second
half to the more traditional Yom Kippur korban sacrifice.

In this, we see that the local pagan practice, which was already a part of Israelite life,
was sublimated into legitimate Jewish practice. This explains why this ritual became a
part of the Yom Kippur ritual, but is still a far cry from being a korban itself. It is still
sacrificed in a brutal way, seemingly inconsistent with Jewish law regarding ever min
hachai, loosely translated as animal cruelty. It is all well and good that we are
incorporating this into Jewish ritual, but we are still condoning animal cruelty. Our first
question remains unanswered.

To understand this, we must look to the source in Yoma, for why we believe that the
goat was in fact pushed off the cliff. This understanding goes back to the interpretation
of Azazel as “a strong and hard mountain, [with] a high cliff.” Thus we see that Azazel
is a reference to the type of place or cliff which the goat is being pushed from.

Perhaps there is another way to interpret the word “Azazel.” In addition to

understanding it as a specific physical place, or as a demon, we see that according to
Mishnah Yoma, and to a certain extent the Ibn Ezra, “Azazel” means “a goat that
goes.” ]

Another interpretation reads “Azazel” as “Azaz-El,” meaning “the strong/powerful

god.” This does not fit the spelling of ayin, zayin, aleph, zayin, lamed, however it is
more than possible that the text originally read ayin, zayin, zayin, aleph, lamed, which is
exactly what we find in texts from Qumran and the Samaritan Pentateuch. This
interpretation, however, essentially accuses Bnei Yisrael of practicing avodah zarah, as
the shift in the spelling in the Masoretic text was most likely done to obscure the
reference to a pagan deity, which the bible would certainly prefer not refer to as El. In
fact, the Ohr HaChaim quotes the Zohar, saying “the [sacrifice to] Azazel is in the mode
of evil, and is almost, God-forbid, avodah zarah.”

This seems to leave us with more questions than answers. We now have a new
understanding of the word “Azazel,” referring to a specific foreign deity, however, with
the Zohar referencing the practice as being borderline avodah zarah. The Ibn Ezra,
quoting Rav Shmuel is able to offer some clarification:

“Although it is [only] with reference to the sin offering that it is written [explicitly] that
it was for the Eternal, the goat which was sent away [to Azazel] was also for the
Eternal.”
R’ Shmuel is saying that the se’ir l’Azazel was in fact not a sacrifice to a foreign deity,
but a second sacrifice to HaShem! If the El in Azazel is not a foreign deity, then it must
be another aspect of God! The se’ir l’Azazel is sacrificed to El, who is Elokim,
representing the midah of din, or judgement, while the se’ir l’HaShem is sacrificed to
YKVK, representing the midah of rachamim, or mercy.

Why would we confess and dump all of our sins onto the goat that will go before the
harsh midah of din? It would certainly make more sense to place the sins before the
midah of rachamim, hoping for forgiveness! After dumping all of our sins onto this goat,
according to Or HaChaim, it is actually spiritually dead. This is the reason that the goat
is referred to specifically as alive in verses 16:10 and 16:21, but after Aaron projects the
sins upon it, “it is no longer called alive.” This makes no sense! We should be putting
our sins on the goat that will appear before rachamim, not din!

What we see here is the quintessential point of what happens on Yom Kippur. We are
presenting ourselves to God on this day of judgement, contaminated nearly to the point
of spiritual death, and expecting no redemption. We have placed our sins on the goat for
the midah of din, and we wait for all mercy to be tossed to the side, but as we see from
the posuk, in the end the midah of din itself stands before the midah of rachamim, and it
is the midah of din that is sent away: “And the he-goat designated by lot for Azazel (the
midah of din) shall be stood alive before YKVK (the midah of rachamim), to provide
atonement throught it, to send it to Azazel to the Wilderness.” If Azazel is a reference to
the midah of din, then it is not a reference to being pushed off of a cliff. We see that it
actually represents the sending away of those aspects of ourselves that are governed by
ego and our yetzer harah, with no reason to believe that the goat is pushed off of a cliff.

In order for Bnei Yisrael to properly offer one of the twin he-goats as a korban, it must
engage in a simultaneous purging of negativity, of all the things for which they must do
teshuva. The se’ir l’Azazel, however, is never actually killed.

As we saw above, the midah of din itself stands before the midah of rachamim, and is
sent away. Klal Yisrael can sublimate its judgment, it’s facing up to din, because of the
essential nature of rachamim in deciding its fate. This entire narrative comes to illustrate
the tension between YKVK and Azazel, between rachamim and din. Both are goats are
ultimately “l’HaShem,” according to R’ Shmuel, representing different aspects of God,
but in the end din stands before rachamim, and din is sent away.

God’s midah of rachamim is what allows Yom Kippur and Klal Yisrael to exist. Here it
is played out in a physical, direct way that is inescapable, where Bnei Yisrael truly
appreciate that sending this goat out to din could literally mean throwing it off a cliff.
“If I (Bnei Yisrael) were going out today, I would be thrown off the cliff,” but this
entire midah is surrendered to the ultimate midah of rachamim, where the goat (along
with the sins) is merely sent away instead.

Rachamim pervades.
David Biale, Blood and Belief: The Circulation of a Symbol between
Jews and Christians, University of California Press (2007):

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you to ransom your
lives on the altar; it is the blood, in exchange for life, that ransoms. Therefore I say to
the Israelites: No person among you shall eat blood, nor shall the alien who resides
among you eat blood" So states Leviticus 17:11-12 in one of the central texts in the
priestly literature of ancient Israel. Blood is not to be eaten, because it is reserved for a
cultic ritual of expiation. The ancient Israelites were the only Near Esterners to make
blood a central element in their religious rituals.1 There were, to be sure, magical and
medical rituals mentioned in Akkadian, Sumerian and Hittite texts that used blood to
feed bloodthirsty demons,2 Various ancient Near Eastern religions - from Mesopotamia
to Egypt - held that certain gods, usually of the underworld, were bloodthirsty and
required nourishment in the form of blood from animal sacrifices.3

Grintz claims that the prohibition against "eating of the blood" is from the desert period.
His main proof is that the seirim mentioned in Leviticus 17 are demons of the desert and
play no role in the "later" prophetic denunciations of Baal worship on the bamot. But
while several texts refer to wild goats or goat demons invading the ruins of Judah (Isa.
14:21-22 and 34:14), 14 seirim appear twice in connection with prohibited worship in
the land itself. King Josiah, in 2 kings 23:8, "demolished the bamot of the "gates" at the
gate of Joshua." While this reading is not impossible, it seems more plausible to emend
the word gates (shaarim) to seirim.4 . Thus, Josiah abolished "the altars of the goats"
which stood at the city's gate. In 2 Chronicles 11:15, we learn that Jeroboam had
"appointed priests for the altars [bamot] and for the goats and calves which he had
made" (referring evidently to statues of goats and calves that were parts of the northern
Israelite rite). These last two texts suggest, against Grintz, that goat worship of some
kind was associated with the bamot in the land and not only with a desert cult.
Moreover the Chronicler added the goats to the parallel story in Kings, which has only
calves, there is reason to suppose that goat worship - if it actually existed - was a
relatively late cult in First Temple history. Psalm 50:12-13 reinforces the supposition
that the blood of goats might have been a part of unorthodox Israelite or non-Israelite
sacrifices:

Were I hungry, I would not tell you

for mine is the world and all it holds
Do I eat the flesh of bulls,
or drink the blood of he-goats [atudim]?

There is no specific Semitic cult in which the flesh of bulls and the blood of goats were
offered to a god, but the passage of in Psalms does give us evidence that at least some in
ancient Israel believed that there was. Yet there is no connection here or elsewhere

1
Dennis J. McCarthy, “The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice, “ Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969):
166-76, and “Further Notes on on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” Journal of Biblical Literature
92 (1973): 205-11. See also M. Vervenne, “The Blood is Life and the Life is the Blood,” in Ritual and
Sacrifice in Ancient Near East, ed. J Quaegebeur (Louvain, Belgium, 1993), 451-70.
2
Dictionnaire de la Bible supplément (Paris, 1991), s.v. «Sang,» by H. Cazelles.
3
Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, 1490-93.
4
Following the sugestión in Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Textament (Oxford 1966), 972.
between the blood of goats and chtonic worship, however it may have existed in biblical
culture.

Who were these goats, and why are they connected to the prohibition on consumption of
blood in Leviticus 17? On the one hand, Stephen Geller suggests the association of the
goat divinities mentioned in chapter 17 with the Yom Kippur ritual of the two goats in
Leviticus 16. He believes that the scapegoat is sent out to Azazel to be reunited with the
goat-demon of the desert ("send the goat to the Goat"). This is an inventive possibility,
but it remains speculative since we have so little evidence of a goat cult associated
specifically with the desert. Molgrom, on the other hand, holds that the prohibition on
sacrificing to goats in Leviticus 17 is actually an argument by H against P: where P
makes goats central to its ritual of atonement (Lev- 16), H outlaws them.5 But this is a
problematic reading, since Leviticus 16 is about the use of goats to perform an
atonement ritual, while Leviticus 17 prohibits sacrificing to goats. Even if sending the
goat to Azazel involves belief in some goat deity, as Geller would have it, Leviticus 17
would seem to be a very oblique attack on it, so oblique, in fact, that no later Jewish
memory ever questioned the Yom Kippur ritual as somehow idolatrous.

Another possibility of an external influence, following Grintz's suggestion of a Greek

parallel, might be the cult of Dionysos, which Michael Astour has argued originated in
the Near East.6 Dionysos was often accompanied by satyrs in the form of half-goat,
half-human images, and he was frequently worshipped with goat sacrifices.7 Dionysian
rites were also associated with blood, both literally and figuratively.

Stephanie Dalley, The Legacy of Mesopotamia, Oxford University

Press (1998), page 77-78:

Since the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, ended the ten days of ceremonies for
the New Year, the ritual duty of cleansing or purifying the temple took place on that day.
The task was fraught with peril and could be carried out only by the High Priest, mainly
by sprinkling ans wiping with the blood of animals. Comparable is Seleucid ritual text
about how the shrine of Nabu in Bel's temple was purified on the fifth day with blood:
an exorcist rubbed or smeared the room with the carcase of a decapitated sheep. The
Akkadian verb used, kuppuru, is cognate with Hebrew kippěr.
According to Leviticus 16:5 ff. the scapegoat ritual of atonement was to be
carried out each year on the tenth day of the seventh month. Aaron was required to
select one of two goats by lot, to lay hands on the head of one, confessing the sins of
Israel as he did so, and to drive it into the desert. The Hebrew text names Azazel,
presumably a demon, as the divinity to whom the scapegoat was dedicated, the other
goat being sacrificed to Yahweh. Azazel, a Semitic name, has recently been found in an
Akkadian text found at Alalakh in Syria, dating to around 1700 BC, and is found also in
a slightly later Hurrian text; the milieu is west Semitic and Hurrian rather than central
Mesopotamian. Cuneiform sources in the Akkadian (at Ugarit), Hittite and Hurrian
languages record rituals for removing impurity, especially plagues, in comparable way,

5
Geller, “Blood Cult,” 103-7; Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, 1462.
6
Michael C. Astour, Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on
Mycenaean Greece (Leiden, 1967), 174-85. Astour argues that the Dionysian cult migrated to Mycenaean
Greece from the Near East.
7
On the cult of Dionysos, see Guthrie, Greeks and their Gods, 145-82; and Walter Burkert, Greek
Religion, trans. John Raffan (Cambridge, MA, 1985), 161-67.
by transferring pollution ti a substitute. Rituals of averting harm by substitution are
known from Mesopotamia, chiefly in connection with the king and eclipses of the
moon; and many Akkadian terms are used in Hittite rituals in general,. From Anatolia
the scapegoat ritual eventually travelled to Marseilles where it was performed in the cult
of Apollo Apotropaios.

Comment

Kill the Scapegoat

We need to abandon Blame and embrace collective responsibility

Karen Armstrong
The Guardian Saturday July 31 2004

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/31/iraq.comment

On Yom Kippur in ancient Jerusalem, two goats were selected and brought to the front of the
Temple. One, chosen by lot, was consecrated to God and sacrificed. The other was dedicated
to a mysterious figure, Azazel. The high priest laid his hands on the head of this second goat,
confessed the sins of Israel, and drove it out into the desert, the haunt of demons. The
community was purified by symbolically projecting its misdeeds onto a substitute, which was
then expelled from the city to the "other side".

It was, perhaps, a primitive way of dealing with communal guilt, but this ritual gave us the word
"scapegoat", to describe somebody who is punished for the sins of others. We needed this term,
because when something goes wrong human beings have a deep-rooted compulsion to find
somebody - preferably somebody else - to blame. There was widespread disappointment, for
example, that the 9/11 commission apportioned responsibility for the catastrophe so widely and
did not name and shame an individual. It would have been very satisfying to offload our fear and
rage on to a single culprit, make him bear the burden of our pain, vilify him publicly and drive
him into the political wilderness.

The trouble with this type of projection is that it makes all too easy to ignore our own culpability.
The worrying growth of childhood obesity, for example, has been laid at the door of advertisers
who promote unhealthy food. Certainly advertising has a case to answer, but even more at fault,
surely, are parents who feed their children fatty, calorific food and fail to ensure that they get
enough exercise. And while cigarette manufacturers must take some responsibility for smoking-
related diseases, so must those who persist in a habit known to be lethal. We may not make a
ceremony of it these days, but there is still a lot of scapegoating about.

The scapegoat ritual was not unique to Israel. When Greek cities of the bronze age were
threatened by plague, famine, invasion or internal dissension, they would sometimes project
their fear and loathing onto a pharmakos, a sacrificial victim, often a foreigner or a repulsive
person. He was garlanded, paraded through the streets, whipped, driven out of town, and
possibly burned alive. He had become a polluted object, who epitomised everything that the
community feared. His expulsion was a catharsis, a purification that would bring a joyous relief
from anxiety and restore public order. We find similar rites in Hittite and Sanskrit texts.

Some scholars have explained the pharmakos in terms of depth psychology. The scapegoat
represents parts of the "shadow side" of the personality, which the conscious self finds difficult
to accept and feels compelled to destroy. This could explain why George Bush and Tony Blair
seemed obsessed with Saddam Hussein after September 11, even though he had no clear links
with al-Qaida or the destruction of the World Trade Centre.

Saddam was an obvious pharmakos, because he was undoubtedly a cruel, repulsive and
polluting presence. But for many years he had been the protege of Britain and the United States,
who armed him and looked the other way when he gassed the Kurds. Saddam became an
unwelcome reminder of aspects of western foreign policy that were becoming embarrassing,
because our support of such rulers in the Middle East has contributed to our present
predicament. Saddam was our demonic alter ego, and we needed to purify ourselves from this
contamination, cast him out of the family of nations, and demonstrate that he was now our polar
opposite.

The scapegoat ritual is rooted in a profoundly dualistic worldview. It makes it clear that while the
pharmakos is doomed, all those who stand with the community are safe and pure. As Bush put
it: "He who is not with us is against us." In moments of crisis and anxiety, people often feel
compelled to draw lines in the sand. The wall between the state of Israel and the Palestinian
territories on the West Bank is just such a line. As well as being a security fence, it also
represents a psychic barrier. The danger is that people come to think that those on the "other
side" are irredeemably evil and inhuman.

The belief that Saddam's Iraq was somehow beyond the pale probably contributed to the abuse
of Iraqi prisoners by British and American troops. The invasion of Iraq did not bring the catharsis
sought by our politicians. Instead of feeling purified by the removal of Saddam, many people in
Europe and the US feel polluted by the war and its aftermath. It has not increased our security,
but made us more vulnerable to terrorist attack. But instead of learning from the mistakes of the
past, it seems that Iran is about to become the new scapegoat in the war against terror.

There were other scapegoat rituals in the ancient world that sound bizarre, but which also have
fearful resonance today. During a war in the Middle East, India and Europe, an animal would be
selected as a pharmakos, dedicated to the gods, decked with garlands and driven to the enemy
camp. There it created "anxiety" and "confusion", because it was obviously a sacred object and
had uncanny power. In time of plague, an infected animal would be sent over to the enemy as
an early weapon of mass destruction.

A bull that stampeded through enemy ranks would kill and destroy, but also be killed. It had
voluntarily sacrificed its life for the people's sake. There are legends of human scapegoats, such
as King Codrus of Athens, who went over to the "other side" and destroyed the enemy by
allowing them to kill him. Oedipus, who went into voluntary exile to purify his city, is also a
pharmakos. Polluted, wracked with guilt, an object of scorn, he was also regarded with near-
religious awe for his devotion to his people.

One cannot but think of today's suicide bombers, who consecrate themselves as martyrs,
voluntarily take on the pollution of murder, go over to the "other side", and bring death and
destruction to the enemy. This type of self-sacrifice is far older than Islam. The scapegoat ritual
tends to flourish in times of high anxiety like our own. It expresses a dangerous confusion of
incompatible but explosive emotions: fear, hatred, love, a yearning for purity, and contempt for
the other.

In the west we take pride in our secular rationalism, and yet at present we seem caught up in
patterns of thought and feeling that are as primitive as those of the terrorists who attack us. If
we are to survive the present crisis, we must abandon the scapegoat ethos, which is becoming
a habit at home and abroad, does not encourage self-criticism and allows us to project many of
our own failings on to others.

· Karen Armstrong is the author of The Battle for God; A History of Fundamentalism

[email protected]