Yom Ha-kippurim: The Biblical Significance

[1] This essay represents some of what I have gleaned from the teaching and writings of the late Jacob Milgrom, whose groundbreaking work on the Biblical concept of atonement and rituals of purgation will remain authoritative for years to come. See, inter alia, his magisterial commentary on Leviticus 16 (including the several lengthy Comments following the commentary on the text): Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, Anchor Bible III, New York: Doubleday, 1991, 1009–1084. Some of my own views are presented in Baruch J. Schwartz “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in: D. P. Wright, et al. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995, 3–21; on the verb kipper, see also Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Prohibitions Concerning the ‘Eating’ of Blood in Leviticus 17,” in: Gary Anderson and Saul M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel,Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 125 (1991), 51–56.[2] In early editions of the King James Bible (1611) the word is even hyphenated: “Also on the tenth day of this seventh month, there shall be a day of at-one-ment” (Leviticus 23:27).

See Gary A. Anderson, Sin: A History, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009.

The Hebrew phrase וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם (Leviticus 16:31), usually translated “afflict your souls” or the like, actually means “shall deprive your throats,” i.e. abstain from food and drink; see my commentary on Leviticus 16 in The Jewish Study Bible, second edition (Oxford University Press, 2014), 234.

See his commentary to Genesis 32:21.

For a different understanding of the meaning of this term, see Yitzhaq Feder, “Expiating with Blood,” TheTorah (2015).

[7] There are of course many instances in which kipper is followed by על (“for, upon”) and occasionally בעד (“on behalf of”).

For more on how the Priestly text envisions God dwelling in the Tabernacle, see Michael Carasik, “In the Presence of God,” TheTorah (2015).

[9] The Rabbis cleverly divided this name into two words ‘ēz ʾāzēl, “the goat that goes away,” from which the traditional “scapegoat” is derived. It literally means “fierce god” and as intimated by Abraham Ibn Ezra is evidently the name of a demon or deity believed to inhabit the wilderness. Thus the sins of the people are cast away, to become the property of a being who is the antithesis of the God of Israel. Though Azazel accepts the goat bearing ­Israel’s sins as a sacrifice to him, this is no disloyalty to God since He Himself commands it, as Nachmanides (Ramban) says: It is as though a king ordered “Give a portion [of this feast] to my servant so-and-­so.” Some scholars question whether the Priestly author actually believed such a being to exist or whether he has used the name Azazel as a literary expression for the realm beyond civilization where the odious materials removed from Israel’s midst could no longer threaten to defile God’s abode.

[10] See David A. Lambert, How Repentance Became Biblical: Judaism, Christianity, and the Interpretation of Scripture, Oxford University Press, 2015, 13­–31.

Several scholars believe that the required, annual observance of the kippurim ceremony, together with the fast and cessation of labor, i.e. the vicarious participation of the Israelite people, constitute a secondary development in the ritual. They thus view the verses in Leviticus 16 that pertain to these aspects of the ceremony (29­–34a) as an added stratum of text, and suggest that originally, the cleansing of the Tabernacle and its precincts was an “emergency measure,” to be performed as deemed necessary. A regularly occurring Day of purification (i.e. Yom Ha-Kippurim) as one of the many sacred occasions on the year’s calendar would thus not have been an original, intrinsic component of the larger Priestly purification system. For a recent presentation of this view, see David Frankel, “Recasting the Temple Purification Ritual as the Yom Kippur Service,” TheTorah (2014). TheTorah.com is not the place to discuss the merits of this theory; some of my objections to it can be gathered from my commentary on Leviticus (see note 4, above). One point, however, may be in order: the fact that the verses commanding the regular, annual performance of the prescribed ritual occur after the details have all been spelled out is by no means an unusual or unexpected feature of the text. In fact, detailed instructions followed by a statement of their purpose or the conditions necessitating their performance are a recurring structural aspect of Priestly writing. For two parade examples (and there are several more), see Exodus 12 and Numbers 19.