Walk Off A Cliff

The sair le’azazel is unique for it offers kapporah but it’s not a sacrifice in the classical sense.  So, the question is how should we view it; as a korban with a special form of avodah, or something else? 

The Ramban and Even Ezra when discussing the philosophical understanding of the sair lazazel say that it’s not a korban.  I am not sure that when can derive from their philosophical writings a halachik position, but I am inclined to think that we can.

Tosfos in Shavous (13a at bottom) says that even though normally a korban can’t effect kapparah for what happens after it’s already offered, the sair lazazel can effect atonement for the entire day.  One of the explanations for this phenomenon, explains the Tosfos HaRosh, is because the sair la’azazal isn’t a korban and therefore is not limited to the time of the sacrifice.  The Rashba (Shevous 13b) in discussing a peshat in a Tosefta also raises the possibility of it not being considered a korban. 

The Rambam Avodas Yom Hakippurim (chapter 5 laws 17-18) rules that if the sair la’azazal has a blemish or is a trefah its disqualified.  The Rambam bases these rules on pessukim.  The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah #286) points out that the Rambam doesn’t mention the lack of an internal organ disqualifies the sair, even though it would disqualify a korban.  The Netziv in his elucidation on Chumash makes a similar point.  Why does the Rambam need verses to disqualify the sair that has a blemish or is a trefah; it should be no different than any other korban which is disqualified?  They deduce from here Rambam doesn’t view the sair as a korban. However, the Rambam in Maaseh Karbonas (18:1) rules that if one slaughters the sair outside the Mikdash it’s a violation of shchutay chutz because it will be brought in the Mikdash to have the vidduy said on it.  From here it seems that it is a korban for otherwise there wouldn’t be a violation of shchutay chutz.  [This law of Rambam seems to contradict the Gemorah in Zevachim 113b and Yoma 62b that one can only violate shchutay chutz on the sair before the lottery decides which one is for Hashem and which one is to azazel.  Reb Chaim answers that it depends on the debate in the Tanaim if the vidduy is necessary, see Briskor Rav in Zevachim 113.]  The two rulings of the Rambam seem to leave us with a contradiction as to his view on the sair lazazel?

Rav Jolti (Mishnas Ya’avetz siman 56) answers that there are two atonements in the sair.  There is the vidduy and then there is the kapporah of being sent to azazel.  The vidduy is considered the kapporah of a korban for it’s done in the Mikdash but the going to Azazel isn’t.  Therefore, the Rambam holds one violates shchutay chutz before the vidduy for its kodshim.  A blemish doesn’t disqualify the korban is talking about after the vidduy (עיי"ש a lengthy discussion involving other rulings of the Rambam as well.)     

The Gvuros Ari Yoma (41a) assumes after the lottery its not a korban.  See the sources listed by Rav Yaakov Elon in the footnotes to the Rashba (ibid) and in his sefer on Chumash, (Massah Yad volume 1) for more mekoros.  See also the work of his father, Toras Hakodesh volume 2 siman 52.  

From Tosfos in Zevachim (72a) it’s clear that the reason the limbs of the sair would be prohibited to benefit from (argument of Rav and Shmuel in Yoma 67b) is not because of the issur meilah, rather its based upon the possuk the Gemorah in Yoma (ibid) is dorash.  The Gemorah in Meilah (11a) assumes that the sair remaining forbidden even after it’s pushed off the cliff, is one of two examples acting as an exception to the normal heter of naasis mitzvaso.  Rav Elchonon (volume 2 of Kovetz Shiurim siman 21) proves that Tosfos, that understands the issur of the sair lazazel is not an issur of kodash, holds the heter of naases mitzvoso is not just a rule in kodshim, it’s a general principle.  However, I don’t understand, what issur would there be that we would say naases mitzvoso on if not for the issur of kodash?  The mitzvah that’s complete is the avodah of the sair, if the issur doesn’t stem from there how does naases mitzvoso help you? 

Tosfos Yoma (60a at the top) notices a discrepancy between the Gemorah in Meilah which considers the limbs of the sair to be an exception to the rule of naases mitzvoso as opposes to the Gemorah in Yoma which doesn’t list it.  The Minchas Chizkeyu (volume 2 siman 17) wants to say that this debate over whether the sair lazazel is a kapparah is the very debate between the two tractates.  In Yoma, the Gemorah is assuming its not considered a korban, therefore the Gemorah (67b) holds the issur must be learnt from a possuk, because there is no issur of kodesh.  In Meilah, the Gemorah understands it is a korban, therefore the issur is that of kodesh.  Of course, Tosfos in Zevachim doesn’t jive with the Gemorah in Meilah, he’s explaining according to the Gemorah in Yoma!  According to this approach, Rav Elchonan has no proof from Tosfos in Zevachim that naases mitzvoso isn’t limited to kodshim for Tosfos is going according to the Gemorah in Yoma, not the Gemorah in Meilah.