David Volgger, «The Day of Atonement according to the Temple Scroll», Vol. 87 (2006) 251-260
The Temple Scroll (11Q19) dedicates about two and a half columns to the Day of
Atonement (25,10-27,10). The present study concentrates on the content of the
transmitted text (25,10-16; 26-3-13, and 27,01-02.1-10), analyses its structure,
and explains its development of thought. The focus of the text seems to be on the
concept of the sin-offering. First, the sin-offering of a he-goat makes part of the
common festival sacrifice. Second, the two rams belong as burnt-offering to the
special sin-offering of the Feast. And third, a he-goat for YHWH is offered as a
special sin-offering on the altar of burnt-offering, whereas, a second he-goat for
Azazel bears all the sins of Israel and is sent out into the desert. Since the he-goat
for Azazel does not get in touch with the altar of burnt-offering, it cannot be
classified as a burnt-offering. Moreover, it shares only one major feature with the
other sin-offerings, namely, to remove sins.
258 David Volgger
animal. The thinking in these two lines concentrates on the portions of the he-
goat that are burnt on the burnt-offering altar (cf. the verb rfq). However, the
following statement focuses on the portions that are burnt (cf. πrç) “beside
his bullock†(cf. wrp lxa) or, according to 16,10-14, outside the sanctuary.
The section about the first he-goat finishes in 26,9. It concludes with the
remark: “it is the sin-offering of the assembly†awh lhqh tafj. This is parallel
to the end of the section that concerns the sin-offering on the occasion of the
authorization of the high priest in 16,18: awh lhq tafj (13).
The he-goat for YHWH is not the only sin-offering on the tenth day of
the seventh month. The agenda additionally demands a bullock in 26,6-7.9.
Finally, another he-goat for Azazel in 26,10-13 (14). What is the relation
between these different sin-offerings? In order to answer this question, the
analysis must focus on the second he-goat in 26,10-13.
b) The second he-goat for Azazel
Following section IV.1 about the he-goat for YHWH, section IV.2
(26,10-13) concentrates on the he-goat for Azazel. It takes away all the sins
from Israel (26,13). Before the high priest approaches it, “he shall wash his
hands and his feet from the blood of the sin-offering†(cf. 26,10):
tafjh µdm wylgr taw wydy ta ≈jrw. Thereby he excludes any physical contact
between both he-goats.
Thus the priest imposes “all the failures of the sons of Israel with all their
guilt together with all their sins†hmtafj lwkl hmtmça lwk µ[ larçy ynb twnww[ lwk
(26,11-12) on the head of the second he-goat. The emphasis of this statement
is on the totality of the offenses. The repetition of the term lwk “totalityâ€
makes this clear.
At the end the high priest shall “send the he-goat to Azazel in the desertâ€
(cf. 26,12-13): rbdmh lazz[l wjlçw. Another person in charge will concretely
execute this order (cf. 26,13): yt[ çya dyb.
The agenda of the he-goat for Azazel differs from all previous agendas in
the Sacrificial Calendar in columns 13-26 in one essential point. In contrast to
the other sacrificial animals, the he-goat for Azazel does not come in contact
with the altar of burnt-offering. This is true for its fat portions as well as for
its blood. According to the agenda the high priest must charge the he-goat
with all sins of the Israelites. Then the animal shall be sent off to the desert.
It is, therefore, impossible to define the concept “sin-offering†exclusively
and primarily by means of its rites in connection with the burnt-offering altar
or the place outside the sanctuary (city). The sin-offering must be understood
above all in relation to its function: namely, to delete sins somehow or other.
The different sin-offerings, however, share something in common. They
are both removed from the sanctuary in the process of the offering. While the
living he-goat for Azazel is driven out of the sanctuary into the desert, some
(13) In 16,18 the article is missing in lhq.
(14) According to J. MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16. A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary (AB; New York – London 1991) 1018, the he-goat for Azazel in Lev 16
is not really a sin-offering: “The he-goat for Azazel was not a sacrifice. Here [in Lev 16,5],
then, the term h)at)t)a’t may have been chosen for its philological sense ‘that which
removes sin’, which precisely defines the function of the scapegoat …â€.