Daf Ditty Yoma 65: Fallen Angels

(1) R. Joseph was (once) asked what was the story of Shemhazai and Azazel, and he
replied: When the generation of Enosh arose and practiced idolatry and when the
generation of the Flood arose and corrupted their actions, the Holy One, Blessed be
He, was grieved that He had created man, as it is said, “And God repented that he
created man, and He was grieved at his heart.

(2) Sometime later, two angels arose, whose names were Shemhazai and Azazel, and said
before Him: “O Lord of the universe, did we not say to You when You created Your
world, ‘Do not create man?” As it is said, “What is man that You should remember
him?” The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: “Then what shall become of the
world?” They said before Him. ‘‘We will suffice’ (You) instead of it.’

(3) He said, ‘‘It is revealed and (well known to me that if perhaps you had lived in that
(earthly) world, the evil inclination would have ruled you just as much as it rules over
the sons of man, but you would be more stubborn than they.” They said before Him,
“Give us Your sanction and let us descend (and dwell) among the creatures and then

1
 You will see how we shall sanctify Your name” He said to them, “Descend and dwell
among them.”

(4) Immediately, the Holy One allowed the evil inclination to rule over them, as soon
as they descended. When they saw the daughters of man that they were beautiful they
began to corrupt themselves with them, as it is said, “Then the sons of God saw the
daughters of man,” they could not restrain their inclination.

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: It should be left to die. Granted, according
to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that the second goat of the first pair should be left
to graze, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said it should be left to die, he nonetheless gains
atonement with the second goat of the second pair.

2
However, according to Rav, who said that the second goat of the second pair should be left
to graze, and according to Rabbi Yehuda it should be left to die, then according to Rabbi
Yehuda he cannot sacrifice either of the two goats: The first goat may not be sacrificed because
Rabbi Yehuda holds that disqualified animals are permanently rejected, and the second goat must
be left to die. With which goat will he gain atonement? The Gemara answers: Do you
maintain that Rabbi Yehuda was referring to the second goat of the second pair when he said
it should be left to die? Rabbi Yehuda was referring to the second goat of the first pair. The
second goat of the second pair is sacrificed.

There are those who raised this objection from the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the
mishna. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to
God spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat is left to die. Similarly, if the scapegoat dies,
the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled, and two other goats are brought and lots
are drawn.

Granted, according to Rav, in the first clause of the mishna they disagree with regard to a
communal sin-offering. According to the Rabbis the second animal is left to graze, whereas
according to Rabbi Yehuda it is left to die. And in the latter clause they disagree with regard
to whether animals that become disqualified as offerings are permanently rejected. According to
the Rabbis they are not rejected and therefore the first goat is sacrificed, whereas Rabbi Yehuda
holds that they are rejected and therefore the first goat is left to die and the second goat is
sacrificed. However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, what does the term: And furthermore, in
the mishna indicate? Even the Rabbis agree that the remaining goat from the first pair is
permanently disqualified. The Gemara comments that indeed, this is difficult.

3
§ It was taught in the mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the blood of the goat
sacrificed to God spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat should be left to die. Similarly, if
the scapegoat dies, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled. The Gemara
asks: Granted, if the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled, the scapegoat should be left
to die, as the mitzva of the blood has not yet been performed, as it was not sprinkled in the
prescribed manner.

However, if the scapegoat dies, why should the blood of the goat sacrificed to God be spilled?
The mitzva of the scapegoat has already been performed. The only essential detail with regard
to the scapegoat is the lottery, which has already been performed by the priest. Sending it to Azazel
and pushing it off a cliff are carried out by an appointed person and while they are prescribed ab
initio, they are not indispensable. After the fact, if the goat dies in some other way, the obligation
has been fulfilled.

4
The Sages of the house of Rabbi Yannai said that the verse states:

‫ ֲאֶשׁר ָﬠָלה ָﬠָליו ַהגּוֹ ָרל‬,‫י ְוַהָשִּׂﬠיר‬ 10 But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be
‫ ְלַכֵפּר‬,‫ַחי ִלְפֵני ְיהָוה‬-‫ ָיֳﬠַמד‬,‫ַלֲﬠָזאֵזל‬ set alive before the LORD, to make atonement over
.‫ ַהִמְּדָבּ ָרה‬,‫ְלַשַׁלּח ֹאתוֹ ַלֲﬠָזאֵזל‬--‫ָﬠָליו‬ him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness.
Lev 16:10

“But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be stood alive before the Lord, to make
atonement over him, to send him away to Azazel into the wilderness” Until when must the
scapegoat be alive? Until the blood of its counterpart is sprinkled, and if it dies before, the
blood is disqualified.

Summary

Choosing one of two available goats for Hashem (cont.)

The Gemara concludes its citation of a Mishnah which it will use to support R’ Yochanan’s
position that the goat from the first pair is sent to graze and the goat from the second pair is offered
as the korban. The proof for R’ Yochanan from the Mishnah is refuted. The Gemara unsuccessfully
attempts another proof for R’ Yochanan’s position. A second version of an exchange from the
previous daf is cited, this time in support of Rav rather than in support of R’ Yochanan.

5
Clarifying the Mishnah

The Gemara questions why the blood of the sacrificial goat has to be spilled out the if the goat for
Azazel dies. Once the mitzvah with the goat for Azazel has been performed, its death should not
be of consequence. The Yeshiva of R’ Yannai cites a pasuk that indicates that the goat for Azael
must remain alive until the blood applications of the sacrificial goat have been performed.

The rabbis agree that when an animal designated as a sin offering is lost, it is replaced.1

If the original is found at a later time, it is left to die. However, if the original has been designated
as a sin-offering, it carries special status as 'consecrated'. What do we do with something that is
consecrated if it cannot fulfil its designated service as another animal or item stood in?

Our daf looks at the rabbis' considerations around this circumstance with particular attention given
to the pair of goats consecrated on Yom Kippur - one to Azazel and the other as sacrifice. How
might one of those goats become lost? Should one goat or both goats be replaced? Should there
be a new lottery for this new pair of goats? When should that lottery happen? What if one of the
first pair of goats has already been sent off to Azazel when the other is lost?

The rabbis consider another part of our last mishna. When is a goat left to die? What if the blood
of the sprinkled inappropriately? Once the mitzvah of the lottery and the mitzvah of the scapegoat
have been performed, if there was a problem with the timing of pouring the blood out at the Altar,
why should another goat be left to die?

Amud (a) helps us to understand the rabbis' questions by comparing these questions to another
situation. If shekels were collected for the Temple and given to a messenger to deliver - and then
they were stolen, those 'lost' shekels would remain consecrated. However, if these shekels were
found after the larger collection was closed, would they be dedicated to the Temple toward this
year's or next year's collections?

The rabbis argue over this analogy. If a bull or goat for Yom Kippur sacrifice is lost, replaced,
and then found, should the original animal be left to die or should it graze until it develops a
blemish and then be sold as a gift-offering (a sin-offering would not be left to die and thus the
animal must be a gift- or a guilt-offering)? Why not keep this found, consecrated animal until the
next year and sacrifice it then, like the shekel example? Some rabbis argue that communal
offerings, like this animal would be, are only brought by donations of this current year. That works
for the goat, but the bull is an individual offering. What about a found bull?

The rabbis wonder about repeating the lotteries, designating the found bull as a sin-offering whose

1
https://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/search?q=yoma+65

6
owners had died, whose year has passed. They look at whether that year was measured as 365
days or 12 months, which would suggest different statuses on the animal.

A note by Steinsaltz helps us to understand this text. First, the rabbis do not want to kill a
consecrated animal, which would be [akin to] destroying consecrated property. Second, they do
not wish to cause needless suffering to an animal, as Rava saw this as a Torah prohibition. Each
of the rabbis argue that the penalty is severe. It is not clear to me whether they believe that the
animal should die because that would somehow be the more 'humane' solution to this problem.

The notion of leaving an animal to graze, leaving it to die, and sacrificing it are fascinating and
disturbing ways of thinking about animals as intermediaries between ourselves and G-d. If animals
are standing in for guilt, sin, gifts, etc., our relationship with G-d as a Jewish people is dependent
upon those animals. In addition, the notion of perfection versus 'blemished' and the idea of sending
an animal to Azazel are also waiting to be unpacked. I believe that tomorrow's daf continues with
this stream of thought and I hope to write more about these ideas soon.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

The Gemora cites a Mishna (in support of R’ Yochanan’s opinion): Rabbi Yehudah says: It shall
be left to die. The Gemora explains: It is understandable according to the view of Rabbi Yochanan,
who said that the second of the first pair must be left to graze (that is, according to the Rabbis),
and (it is this one which) according to Rabbi Yehudah be left to die, so that he obtains atonement
through the second one of the second pair.

However, according to the view of Rav, who said that the second of the second pair must be left
to graze, and (it is this one which) according to Rabbi Yehudah must be left to die, then according
to Rabbi Yehudah, through which can he obtain atonement?

The Gemora deflects the proof: Do you understand that Rabbi Yehudah refers to the second of the
second pair? Rabbi Yehudah refers to the second of the first pair (that is the one which is left to
die; the goat of the second pair, however, is available to be used for the service).

Others posed the (above) question in the following manner: Even more so did Rabbi Yehudah say:
If the blood of the (chatas) goat spilled, the goat which was to be sent away is left to die (for it is
permanently rejected; two new goats must be chosen); if the goat which was to be sent away died,
the blood of the other one must be spilled out.

Now, it is understandable according to Rav, for in the first part (of the Mishna) they are disputing
about a communal chatas (if it is left to die or not), and in the latter part, they are arguing about
(the rejection of) living animals, but according to Rabbi Yochanan, what does ‘even more so’
signify (there is only one dispute between them)? The Gemora notes that this remains as a
difficulty.

2
https://dafnotes.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/Yoma_65.pdf?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=
daf_for_monday_yoma_64&utm_term=2021-06-13

7
The Mishna had stated: Even more so did Rabbi Yehudah say: If the blood of the (chatas) goat
spilled, the goat which was to be sent away is left to die (for it is permanently rejected; two new
goats must be chosen). The Gemora asks: It is understandable that when the blood spilled out, the
Azazel goat must die, because the command with it (the throwing of the blood of the sacrificial
goat) had not been fulfilled, but when the Azazel goat died, why should the blood be spilled out;
surely the commandment associated with it (the lottery) had been fulfilled?

The Gemora answers: The School of Rabbi Yannai said: It is written: The goat shall be stood alive
before Hashem to make atonement, i.e., how long must he stay alive? Until the time that his
fellow's blood is applied.

The Gemora cites a Mishna taught elsewhere: People of a city sent their shekalim (for the sacrifices
of the year) with a messenger and they were stolen or lost from the messengers. If the new funds
were already divided and started to be taken when they came to Beis Din, they (the messengers)
swear to the treasurers of the Temple (that they were not negligent). If the new funds were not yet
divided and taken, the messengers swear to the people of the city, who must give new shekalim.
If the shekalim were found or returned, they are kodesh and cannot be used for next year.

Rabbi Yehudah says: They count for the next year. What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehudah? Rava
says: Rabbi Yehudah holds that obligatory offerings of one year may be offered in the following
year.

Abaye challenged Rava from the following braisa: If a bull or goat of Yom Kippur or a goat of
mistaken communal idolatry were lost and replaced, and then found, they must be put to death;
these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Elozar and Rabbi Shimon say that they left to graze
until they develop a blemish, and then redeemed, with the proceeds buying a voluntary communal
sacrifices, since a communal chatas is not put to death.

Rava said to him: You speak about communal sacrifices? It is different with communal sacrifices,
as Rabbi Tavi said in the name of Rabbi Yoshiyah. For Rabbi Tavi said in the name of Rabbi
Yoshiyah: It is written: This is the olah of every new moon at its renewal throughout the months
of the year. The Torah is indicating as follows: Renew (the sacrifice on the new month of Nissan)
and bring Me an offering of the new separation (i.e., from the shekalim that were just collected).
[Accordingly, the extra animals may not be used for the Yom Kippur service of the following
year.]

Atonement without the Azazel Goat

There is an argument in the Gemora in the following case: The kohen gadol concluded the
applications of blood from the goat for Hashem and subsequently, the Azazel goat died. Rebbe
Yehudah holds that it is not necessary to bring another one to send it off and Rebbe Shimon
disagrees and holds that if the confession was not yet made on it, he must bring another one.

8
Rashi states that according to both of them, the sending of the goat does not withhold the
atonement. The Gachalei Aish is bewildered as to how this can be. Klal Yisroel's atonement seems
to be dependent on the sending of the goat off the cliff?

How can it be that we are not obligated to bring another one? He does give an answer, but I am
not certain as to the explanation. However, he does say that even in the above case, the kohen
gadol would confess the sins of Klal Yisroel without the goat being there (seems like a big chidush
to me).

USING THIS YEAR'S "SA'IR" FOR NEXT YEAR'S YOM

KIPPUR

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Gemara questions Rebbi Yehudah's opinion that this year's Korbanos may be used for the
following year (65a) from a case in which the Sa'ir la'Shem was lost and another Chatas was offered
in its place, and then the original Sa'ir was found. In that case, the Halachah requires that the original
Sa'ir be put to death. According to Rebbi Yehudah, though, why is the Sa'ir not kept until the following
Yom Kippur and offered then? The Gemara answers that the Goral of the previous year is not valid for
the following year, and therefore the Sa'ir cannot be offered as the Chatas la'Shem next year because a
new Goral must be made. The Gemara asks that even if a new Goral must be made, they should keep
the Sa'ir until next year and use it for the new Goral.

The Gemara's question is difficult to understand. If the Sa'ir was already chosen by the previous year's
Goral as the Sa'ir la'Shem, a new Goral cannot be made on this Sa'ir because its status cannot be
changed. If the new Goral chooses this Sa'ir as the Sa'ir la'Azazel and not as the Sa'ir la'Shem, the
Goral does not take effect because the Sa'ir was already sanctified as the Sa'ir la'Shem.

TOSFOS HA'ROSH and TOSFOS YESHANIM apparently understand that when the Gemara says
that the previous year's Goral does not work for the following year, it means that the effects of last
year's Goral are annulled. Consequently, the original Sa'ir loses its status as the Sa'ir la'Shem. However,
its designation as one of the two Se'irim of Yom Kippur remains, and therefore it should be used as
one of the two Se'irim for the Goral of the following Yom Kippur.

MENACHEM MESHIV NEFESH explains that the Gemara means that the Sa'ir should be kept and
used for the Goral of the following year. If the Goral chooses this Sa'ir again as the Sa'ir la'Shem, then
the Sa'ir may be used for that purpose. If the Goral does not choose this Sa'ir as the Sa'ir la'Shem, then
it indeed will not be used but instead will be put to death.
(c) The DIKDUKEI SOFRIM points out that early manuscripts (such as the Munich manuscript)
omit this question from the text of the Gemara.

3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-065.htm

9
 KILLING AN ANIMAL BECAUSE OF A RABBINICAL ENACTMENT

The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Shekalim (2:1) in which Rebbi Yehudah says that the Korbanos of
one year may be offered the following year. The Gemara asks that in the Beraisa (65a), Rebbi Yehudah
states that one may not use the previous year's Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kippur for the following year's
Yom Kippur. The Gemara suggests several answers for why the Par and Sa'ir are different from other
Korbanos.
The Gemara suggests that the Sa'ir may not be used the following year because the Goral of one year
is not valid for the following year. Since the Sa'ir was already sanctified as the Sa'ir la'Shem, it cannot
be included in the Goral of the following year.

The Gemara rejects this answer because it does not apply to the Par (which is not selected by a Goral).
The Gemara suggests that perhaps the Par should be put to death because of a Gezeirah of the Sa'ir (in
order to prevent people from mistakenly keeping the Sa'ir for the following year). The Gemara asserts
that it is not logical to put an animal to death because of a Gezeirah d'Rabanan.

The Gemara then suggests that the reason for why the Par may be used the following year is because
of a Gezeirah of a "Chatas she'Mesu Ba'aleha" (in order to prevent people from mistakenly thinking
that a Chatas whose owner died does not have to be put to death), or because of a Gezeirah of a "Chatas
she'Avrah Shenasah" (in order to prevent people from mistakenly thinking that a Chatas whose first
year has passed may be offered as a Korban). The Gemara rejects these answers because they do not
apply to the Sa'ir. The Gemara mentions again that it is also not logical to put an animal to death
because of a Gezeirah d'Rabanan.

Why does the Gemara not simply combine the valid explanation for why the Sa'ir is not kept for the
following year with the valid explanation for why the Par is not kept for the following year? The reason
why the Sa'ir is not kept for the following year is because the Goral from the previous year is not valid
for the next year, and the reason why the Par is not kept is because of a Gezeirah of a "Chatas she'Mesu
Ba'aleha" or "Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah." These two reasons together explain why the Par and Sa'ir
differ from other Korbanos. (GEVURAS ARI)

The GEVURAS ARI suggests that when the Gemara says that it is not logical that an animal should
die because of a Gezeirah d'Rabanan (since the Par must die for a valid reason, the Rabanan decreed
that the Sa'ir must also die), it also means that it is not logical that the Par should die because of a
Gezeirah of a "Chatas she'Mesu Ba'aleha" or "Chatas she'Avrah Shenasah." Consequently, the Gemara
has no explanation for why the Par must die and is not kept for the following year.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

In the Mishnah at the beginning of the perek (62a) we are introduced to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion
from which the Gemara on our daf concludes that the two se’irim – the goat chosen by lottery to
be sacrificed and the one whose lot is to be sent to its death in the desert – are interconnected. As
such, if the blood of the sacrifice is spilled before it has been sprinkled on the altar, obligating the
sacrificial goat to be replaced, the scapegoat needs to be replaced, as well. Similarly, if the

4
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_6571/

10
scapegoat dies before the blood of the sacrifice has been sprinkled, we will need to replace
both se’irim.

The question of a sacrifice that can no longer be brought because of an outside issue, leads the
Gemara to introduce another case where Rabbi Yehuda offers an opinion, which seems to
contradict his position in our Mishnah.

The Mishnah in Masechet Shekalim (2:1) teaches that there was no obligation for every individual
to bring half-shekel coins to the Beit ha-Mikdash, rather they could be collected in every
community, exchanged for larger coins and sent with a messenger to Jerusalem.

What if the money was lost or stolen en route to the Temple? The Mishnah teaches that
responsibility for lost or stolen money depends on when the money disappeared.

In order for the communal sacrifices that were brought in the Temple to be considered to have
come from the entire nation, even before the half-shekel donations arrived in the Mikdash, money
was set aside on Rosh Chodesh Nissan for the purchase of sacrifices. This money – called Terumat
ha-lishka – was, in essence, a loan that was to be repaid when the half-shekalim arrived. Our
Mishnah teaches that if Terumat ha-lishka had already been set aside, the money in the hands of
the messenger was considered to have already reached the treasurer of the Temple. In such a case,
the messenger swears to the Temple treasurer that he did not handle the money in an irresponsible
fashion. If, however, Terumat ha-lishka had not yet been set aside, then the money still belonged
to the townspeople when it was stolen. In such a case, the messenger must swear to them that he
did not handle the money in an irresponsible fashion, and each of them will have to send another
half-shekel to the Mikdash.

What if the original money was found or returned by the robbers?

Rabbi Yehuda rules that it can be considered to be the townspeople’s payment for the next
year. Rava explains that Rabbi Yehuda believes that the money can be held over, since obligatory
sacrifices of this year can be brought next year, as well.

Abayye points out that were this true, Rabbi Yehuda should recommend holding the se’ir that
could not be sacrificed this year for use next year.

The Gemara concludes by quoting a passage (Bamidbar 28:14) that teaches that a sacrifice must
be new every year. The shekalim, which are used also for other purposes aside from sacrifices, can
be switched to another year according to Rabbi Yehuda.

11
Our Daf stated that Rabbi Yehudah holds that obligatory offerings from one year that were not yet
offered may be brought in the subsequent year.5

Abaye challenged this with another statement of Rabbi Yehudah regarding the bull or the two
goats of Yom Kippur that were temporarily lost and a replacement was selected and offered in
their place. If the new set was already used, Rabbi Yehudah rules that the former set must be left
to die. Now, if our account of the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah is correct, we should keep the unused
set for the next year and use them then.

The Gemara answers that in the case of the goats, being that they are communal offerings, we
follow the standard of Rebbe Tavi in the name of Rebbe Yoshaya who says that communal
offerings must always be brought from funds of the new year. However, in regard to the bull,
which is from the personal funds of the Kohen Gadol, why would Rabbi Yehudah state that it must
die?

Rabbi Zera answers that the problem is that the lottery determination is not effective from one year
to the next. We disqualify the goats in this case so that no one would mistakenly think that the
lottery from one year does function from one year to the next. We also disqualify the bull in this
case, as a precaution that no one get confused and think that we may offer the goats in such a case.

Tosafos Yeshanim points out that if the lottery results have no effect from one year to the next,
why should the animal have to die? Once the designation as ‫ לעזאזל שעיר‬or ‘‫ לה חטאת‬is no longer
in effect, the goats should be able to be used for a different offering, such as a musaf for one of the
festivals. ‫ א”ריב‬in Tosafos Yeshanim answers that although the specific designation which goat
will be ‘‫ לה‬and which will be ‫ לעזאזל‬is no longer fixed, the lottery does, nevertheless, preclude
these animals from being used for any other offering other than for this procedure on Yom Kippur.

The Ohr HaChayim on Lev 16: 26

The Or HaChayim introduces us to the mythic nature of the term azazel openly expressing his
dissatisfaction with the talmudic explanation as a geographic location. Now turning to the Zohar
he sets the scene of the wilderness as a place of desolation under the dominion of satanic forces of
whom Uzza and Azazel were banished angels forced to wander on this earth as punishment and
control the satanic spaces of the wilderness.

‫ ְיַכֵבּס‬--‫ ַלֲﬠָזאֵזל‬,‫ַהָשִּׂﬠיר‬-‫כו ְוַהְמַשֵׁלַּח ֶאת‬ 26 And he that letteth go the goat for Azazel shall wash
,‫ֵכן‬-‫ְבָּשׂרוֹ ַבָּמּ ִים; ְוַאֲחֵרי‬-‫ ְוָרַחץ ֶאת‬,‫ְבָּגָדיו‬ his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he
.‫ַהַמֲּחֶנה‬-‫ָיבוֹא ֶאל‬ may come into the camp.

5
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20065.pdf

12
 The Legend of Azazel: Scapegoat, or Fallen Angel?

Efraim Palvanov writes:6

The parashot of Acharei Mot and Kedoshim are typically read together. The major part
of Acharei deals with various sacrificial services, most notably those concerning Yom Kippur, the
Day of Atonement. Kedoshim begins by telling us that it is every person’s mission in life to
become holy, just as God Himself is holy. This parasha is concerned with ethics, morality, and the
path to righteousness, and includes the famous dictum to “Love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus
19:18).

6
https://www.mayimachronim.com/the-legend-of-azazel-scapegoat-or-fallen-angel/

13
Perhaps the most peculiar item in this week’s portion is the mention of Azazel. As part of the
atonement procedure on Yom Kippur, God commands Aaron to select (through a random lottery)
two goats: one to be sacrificed, and another to be sent “to Azazel, in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:10).
Aaron would place his hands on the goat to Azazel, and confess all of the people’s sins, as if
transferring them to the animal (v. 21). The goat was then sent off into the wilderness.

The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim, Part III, Ch. 46) writes that this act is completely symbolic. It
does not mean that the High Priest literally transferred the people’s sins onto the goat, but that
witnessing this act was meant to inspire a sense of repentance in the people, “as if to say, we have
freed ourselves of our previous deeds, have cast them behind our backs, and removed them from
us as far as possible.”

Temple Priests Bringing the Two Goats on Yom Kippur

But what exactly is “Azazel”? What does the word mean? And why was the goat that symbolized
sin sent towards it? The Talmud (Yoma 67b) maintains that the word Azazel can be broken down
to mean “hardest of mountains”. This may be why some believe that the goat was sent off the edge
of a mountainous cliff down to its death. The Talmud then presents the opinion of the school of
Rabbi Ishmael: Azazel is a contraction of two names: Aza (or Uza) and Aza’el, and the goat atones
for their sins. Other than this short allusion, this page of Talmud says nothing more.

Who were Aza and Aza’el?

The Fallen Angels

The origins of Aza and Aza’el are described in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Beresheet 44). When
speaking of midrashic literature, it is important to remember the old adage that goes something
like: one who believes that midrash is not true is a heretic, but one who believes that midrash
is literally true is a fool. After all, the midrash corresponds to the third level of Torah study,

14
referring to the metaphorical and allegorical level. (The other levels are peshat, the literal
meaning; remez, the sub-textual meaning; and sod, esoteric/metaphysical secrets.)

Aza’el and Aza (also known as Shemhazai) were angels who saw the terrible sins of the people in
the pre-Flood generation and scoffed at the pathetic humans. God told them that if they had been
on Earth and given free will, they would succumb to their evil inclination far worse than people
do. The angels wanted to prove God wrong, and asked Him to send them down to Earth into a
physical body. God complied, and just as He had said, the angels quickly fell into all forms of evil.

Firstly, they could not hold back from the beautiful women, and this is what Genesis 6:2 means
when it refers to divine beings mating with humans. The Midrash continues to say that it was these
angels that taught women the art of makeup and provocative dress in order to entice men into
further sin. These angels helped to bring the sword to the world, increasing bloodshed and warfare,
as well as the consumption of animal meat, which was at this point forbidden, as God had only
permitted Adam and Eve to consume fruits and vegetables.

Ultimately, the Midrash tells us that Shemhazai recognized his evil ways and began a long process
of repentance. No longer on Earth, but still not welcome back in the Heavenly realms, Shemhazai
was suspended between the two worlds. Aza’el, on the other hand, refused to repent, and continued
his evil ways. Thus, the Midrash concludes that the High Priest, in an act of repentance, would
symbolically send the people’s sins towards Azazel, the one who taught mankind a new level of
sinfulness, and refused to repent.

More details can be found in the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha refers to various ancient books which
were not officially included in the Tanakh. Their origins are unclear, as is their authenticity.
Nonetheless, they appear to have been well-known among the Jewish Sages, and are referenced in
Talmud, Midrash, and Kabbalistic writings. One of the most famous of the apocryphal books is
the Book of Enoch, which describes the journeys of Enoch (Hanoch, in Hebrew), who is briefly
mentioned in Genesis 5:22.

In the Book of Enoch, it is recorded that God sent the angel Raphael to apprehend Aza’el and stop
his evil ways. Aza’el was chained to the “hardest of mountains” in the wilderness, as the Talmud
quoted above explained. His painful imprisonment was a punishment, and the goats sent his way
were a form of atonement for his sins. It is written there that at the End of Days, his time will come
to an end, and Aza’el will finally be gone for good.

15
Archie Wright writes:7

Reflecting on Opposites

Andrei A. Orlov is a specialist in Jewish apocalypticism and mysticism, Second Temple Judaism, and Old
Testament pseudepigrapha. Within the fascinating field of Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic literature, Orlov
is considered among the leading experts in the field of Slavonic texts related to Jewish mysticism and Enochic
traditions. This volume, Dark Mirrors: Azazel and Satanael in Early Jewish Demonology, demonstrates his
expertise. The book furthers the ongoing discussion in Second Temple Period (2TP) demonology; in particular,
it is focused on two of the leading figures, the so-called demonic beings Azazel and Satanael. Orlov explores
the mediating role of these paradigmatic celestial rebels in the development of Jewish demonological traditions
from Second Temple apocalypticism to later Jewish mysticism. Throughout his discussion, he makes use of
lesser-known Jewish pseudepigraphical materials in Slavonic.

7
https://networks.h-net.org/node/28655/reviews/30953/wright-orlov-dark-mirrors-azazel-and-satanael-early-jewish-demonology

16
Following an introduction titled “Lightless Shadows: Symmetry of Good and Evil in Early Jewish
Demonology,” the body of the presentation is divided into two parts with three essays each. Part 1, labeled
“Azazel,” includes “‘The Likeness of Heaven’: Kavod of Azazel in the Apocalypse of Abraham,”
“Eschatological Yom Kippur in the Apocalypse of Abraham: The Scapegoat Ritual,” and “The Garment of
Azazel in the Apocalypse of Abraham.” Part 2, labeled “Satanael,” includes “The Watchers of Satanael: The
Fallen Angels Traditions in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch,” “Satan and the Visionary: Apocalyptic Roles of the
Adversary in the Temptation Narrative of the Gospel of Matthew,” and “The Flooded Arboretums: The Garden
Traditions in the Slavonic Version of 3 Baruch and the Book of Giants”; four of the six articles were
previously published between 2003 and 2010. The volume includes extensive (inconvenient) endnotes, a
bibliography, and a limited index.

Orlov explores the figures of Azazel and Satanael in relation to the so-called symmetrical patterns found in
early Jewish apocalyptic literature. He argues for the correspondence of inverse symmetry in which the
antagonist and protagonist of various pseudepigrapha, in essence, switch places by taking on particular
attributes and conditions of his opposite number. Among his sources, he notes especially that in the Book of the
Watchers, the fallen angels and the antediluvian Enoch mirror each other in the exchange of offices, roles,
attributes, and even wardrobes (p. 5). In 2 Enoch 22, Enoch receives angelic attire while the fallen Watchers
take on human ontological “garments” (cf. 1 En. 86:1-4). Also in the Apocalypse of Abraham 13.7-14,
Abraham assumes Azazel’s angelic garment and Azazel takes on Abraham’s garment of sins. Moreover, the
fallen angels are transported to the earthly realm, while the righteous Enoch is taken up to heaven to serve in
the heavenly temple. Orlov develops his pattern through two traditions, the Adamic, and the Enochic
mythologies of evil. He demonstrates that in later traditions, the two evil characters are able to enter into each
other’s stories. Satanael becomes the leader of the fallen angels (i.e., Enochic) and Azazel becomes the tempter
of Adam and Eve. He argues that the transformation of the adversaries, Azazel and Satanael, often carries
cultic significance within priestly and liturgical settings--especially Yom Kippur.

The first essay in part 1 focuses on the figure of Azazel in the Apocalypse of Abraham (AA). Orlov examines
Azazel’s attempt to imitate the divine manifestation situated between the two cherubim in the Holy of Holies.
Throughout the study, Orlov pays particular attention to the sacerdotal dimensions of this demonology,
showing that the peculiar transformations of the adversaries have cultic significance within the liturgical
settings of the Jewish tradition (p. 7). He raises the question of whether the author of AA 14 is presenting the
fallen angel Azazel with his own “divine” kavod (glory), perhaps as a negative counterpart of the deity. In
addition, he notes other portions of AA that contain significant dualistic currents. Michael Stone has argued

17
that chapters 20, 22, and 29 in AA contain references that indicate Azazel and God rule jointly over the world--
which may coincide “with the idea that God granted him authority over the wicked”.[1] It is possible, although
Orlov does not discuss it, that this is responsible in part for the Christian conception of the two kingdoms--
Satan’s and the Divine. However, Orlov does note that the author of AA may be intentionally hiding details of
Azazel (p. 17). He is clearly a figure of authority, but the author does not intend to “fully match” the attributes
of Azazel with those of the deity--it is only a temporary role in an eschatological opposition.

In the second essay of part 1, Orlov examines the “Eschatological Yom Kippur in the Apocalypse of Abraham:
The Scapegoat Ritual.” Drawing on Leviticus 16, he explores the sacerdotal dimension of Azazel as the
scapegoat. In AA, Azazel resembles both the sacrificial goat of Leviticus and a fallen angel from the Enochic
Watcher tradition. Here Azazel exchanges his “angelic” status for the sins of Abraham, thus allowing Abraham
to enter the heavenly Temple. Orlov argues that AA exhibits a great deal of influence from the Enochic
tradition, in particular 1 Enoch 10:4-7, in which Azazel is bound and thrown into the darkness and covered
with sharp stones. He suggests, as do others, that this scene is tied to the scapegoat imagery of Leviticus 16--
i.e., the goat is sent out to the “demon” in the wilderness. However, Orlov fails to discuss the ongoing debate
as to what exactly “Azazel” is in the Day of Atonement narrative--goat, demon, or the wilderness.

In the third essay of part 1, “The Garment of Azazel in the Apocalypse of Abraham,” Orlov describes how the
angelic garment of Azazel is placed on Abraham (as Azazel has lost his status) and he is allowed to enter the
celestial Holy of Holies (p. 48). In the story, the angel Yahoel is identified as the High Priest of the sanctuary
and Abraham is made his apprentice. Orlov argues this episode once again demonstrates the inverse symmetry
that he suggests runs through AA. Because of this symmetry “both positive and negative characters progress
into the respective realms of their eschatological opponents” (p. 49). In doing so, Orlov contends, they often
assume the roles and offices of their counterparts. If AA 13:7-14 is describing Abraham taking on the heavenly
office of Azazel, one must ask what office Azazel is taking over on the earth. Interestingly, the handing over of
the angelic garment may be considered symbolic of the return of humanity to its original state in the Garden (p.
50). Orlov offers significant support from other Jewish texts to support this theory (see. e.g.. Targum Ps.
Jon on Gen. 3:21; Gen. Rabbah 20; Armenian LAE 12:1–16:2; Philo, De Mut 43-44; De Somn 2.28 [pp. 55-
58]). He does address the transformation of the antagonist (Azazel and later Satan) in the earthly realm. He
changes into a hybrid form of an angel and a serpent during the temptation in the Garden; similarly, the Satan
figure transforms into a serpent, also in the Garden. In both cases, the changes in form are considered
“garments” by Orlov. In addition, he offers further explanation as to how the deception of Eve takes place due
to this transformation (pp. 70-76).

18
Part 2 of the volume begins with the essay titled “The Watchers of Satanael: The Fallen Angels Traditions in 2
Enoch.” In this essay, Orlov describes Satanael switching to or taking on characteristics of Azazel. His primary
source for this discussion is 2 Enoch. He points out how the author of 2 Enoch draws on the Watcher tradition
of 1 Enoch, but this should not be a surprise. However, the author does take the liberty of changing the roles of
characters. Here we find the Satanael figure taking on the role of leader of the fallen angels held by
Shemihazah and Asa’el in 1 Enoch. Orlov argues that this is an intentional effort by the author to bring the
Adamic myth into focus (p. 86), although this point seems a bit forced. In 2 Enoch, Adam is originally
presented as an angelic being who was predestined by God to be ruler of the earth. However, due to the Fall,
Enoch, as the second Adam, is to regain the original state of the first Adam and restore humanity to its proper
place as ruler of the world (not the Satan figure). As a result, Orlov argues that in 2 Enoch we find the mix of
the two prominent “mythologies of evil,” which permits them to be taken up in rabbinic and patristic writings
(p. 87). He offers further evidence from 2 Enoch 7 and 18, which suggest connections to the Enochic and
Adamic “mythologies of evil” (pp. 88-106).

The second essay in part 2 deals with Satan’s roles and actions during the trial of Jesus in the wilderness. Here
we find Satan assuming the role of a transporting (psychopomp) and interpreting angel (angelus interpres).
Perhaps the most interesting portion of this essay deals with the request by Satan that Jesus venerate him.
Orlov sees similar actions at play in Exodus 24:18 (Moses) and 1 Kings 19:8 (Elijah), in which both these
figures observe a forty-day fast that ends with an episode on a mountain, similar to what we see in the
wilderness trial pericope. The author may, therefore, be indicating that Satan is placing himself in the place of
God in the Moses and Elijah scenes, again demonstrating Orlov’s inverse symmetry. We also may see here that
Satan setting Jesus upon the pinnacle of the Temple (Pesiqta Rabbati states that when the Messiah comes he
will appear on the pinnacle of the Temple) is an attempt to get Jesus to descend from his appointed office, just
as the Watchers descended from heaven in 1 Enoch and lost their divinely appointed positions. The third essay
in part 2 is somewhat less convincing for Orlov’s inverse symmetry theme. Although some parallels certainly
can be identified between 3 Baruch and the Enochic and Noachic traditions (p. 114), it is more difficult to
recognize the exchange of positions or characteristics of the primary characters.

Orlov has presented an intriguing investigation of what he calls the symmetrical patterns of early Jewish
demonology. Dark Mirrors is certainly a text that should be read by scholars with an interest in demonology,
the “Fall in the Garden,” and the Watcher tradition in various early Jewish and Christian texts, among other
topics. Orlov has succeeded in producing a well-written and closely argued account that will serve as a fine
resource in early Jewish and Christian literature for years to come.

19
Note

[1]. Michael Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran
Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 418.

David J. Larsen writes:8

The present book under review, Dark Mirrors, is an engaging examination of the two
most infamous characters of Second Temple Jewish demonology, the fallen angels
Satan and Azazel. Although the two are frequently conflated, Orlov traces the
development of each figure and their origins back to the stories of Adam and Eve in
Eden and the rebellious angels who descend to earth at the time of Enoch (in the writings
of 1 Enoch; see also Gen. 6). One of the major and most intriguing themes that Orlov
focuses on in this writing is the paradoxical relationship, depicted by the authors of the
ancient texts, that Satan and Azazel have with both deity and mankind. Orlov points out
that in various texts, the antagonist is presented as having a “symmetrical
correspondence” with the protagonist. In other words, the leader of the fallen angels is
depicted as imitating the celestial order, positioning himself as a negative mirror image
of the divine glory.
Dark Mirrors consists of, following an extensive introduction to the background of
these topics, six distinct essays, with three analyzing the role of Azazel as the principal

8
https://byustudies.byu.edu/?post_type=author&p=864

David J. Larsen received his PhD from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, and he currently serves as a BYU Studies
research fellow. He received an MA from Marquette University, where his academic advisor was Andrei A. Orlov, and a BA in
Near Eastern studies from BYU. His scholarly interests include temple studies, apocalyptic writings, and pseudepigrapha.

20
antagonist in the Jewish pseudepigraphal text the Apocalypse of Abraham, and another
three examining the role of Satan in 2 Enoch, in the temptation narrative in the Gospel
of Matthew, and in the extrabiblical texts 3 Baruch and the Book of Giants.
Readers should not skip over the introduction, as it contains essential information
regarding the trends in Jewish and Christian literature that provide background for the
complex and paradoxical manner in which Jews and Christians came to view these
figures. Orlov explains that ancient authors often presented a highly symmetrical view
of space and time. The events marking the end of the world were seen as parallel to
those of the world’s creation; the end times would feature a restoration of the earth as
it was in its primeval state. Similarly, they viewed things on earth as imitating or
replicating things that existed in the celestial realm. Likewise, the beings of the
underworld were understood to also mirror the order of heaven.
One of the best examples of this concept comes in Orlov’s first essay, entitled “‘The
Likeness of Heaven’: Kavod of Azazel in the Apocalypse of Abraham.” In
the Apocalypse of Abraham, a Jewish text written in the early centuries of the Christian
era, the author seems to depict the fallen angel Azazel as having his
own kavod (“glory”), a distinction usually reserved only for deity. The idea that Azazel
enjoys his own glory seems to stem, in this text, from the notion that God has granted
him authority to rule over the wicked of the world. Throughout the pseudepigraphal
text, Orlov notes, the adversary is depicted in terms very similar to those used to
describe God. One of the most intriguing details of this exposition is the account of
Abraham standing by the throne of God in heaven and being shown a vision of the
inhabitants of the Garden of Eden. What he sees is Adam and Eve under the tree of
knowledge, “entwined with each other” (Ap. Ab. 23:9) with Azazel between them.
Orlov argues that this imagery should be compared to depictions in other literature in
which God’s throne in Eden is set under the tree of life. God sits upon or between the
cherubim, which are described as being “intertwined” in some rabbinic sources. These
rabbinic traditions can be interpreted to suggest that the cherubic pair placed in the Holy
of Holies were male and female and that they represented the hieros gamos, or heavenly
marriage. In the Apocalypse of Abraham, Orlov asserts, what may be depicted is the
fallen angel’s attempt to replicate the image of God on his cherubic throne by
positioning himself between the human pair as he corrupts them with the forbidden
fruit.
The second and third essays cover traditions in the Apocalypse of Abraham that
highlight, among other themes, the important role that heavenly vestments play in the
narrative. Orlov notes that in the second part of the apocalypse, Abraham meets an
angelic being called Yahoel who is wearing apparel that is distinctly high priestly in

21
nature. Orlov argues that the significance of this attire is to suggest that Yahoel is not
only to serve as Abraham’s angelic guide on his heavenly journey, but that he, as a
priestly figure, will also initiate the patriarch into the celestial priesthood. The angelic
priest teaches Abraham what to do in order to serve in the heavenly temple. When
Azazel appears, Yahoel instructs Abraham on how to cast him out. Orlov argues that
this sequence should be seen as a reenactment of the Day of Atonement rituals in which
the sins of Israel are transferred to the scapegoat, represented in the narrative by Azazel,
which is then led out into the wilderness to perish. In this text, the sins of Abraham are
transferred to the fallen angel, Azazel. This transference of guilt and expulsion of the
evil figure allows Abraham to be considered clean and worthy to enter and serve in the
heavenly realm.
Orlov’s third essay focuses on the transferal of garments that occurs when Azazel is
cast out of Abraham’s presence. Yahoel declares to the fallen angel: “For behold, the
garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him (Abraham),
and the corruption which was on him has gone over to you” (Ap. Ab. 13:7–14). Orlov
suggests that this transferal of clothing signifies not merely a new addition to
Abraham’s wardrobe, but his transition into the form of a heavenly being—a citizen of
the celestial city. Orlov also sees a parallel with the Adamic traditions that describe how
Adam and Eve received garments of light and glory when they entered the Garden of
Eden but lost them when they were expelled—and how they expected to regain them
after death. The traditions preserved in texts such as The Life of Adam and Eve in its
various versions indicate that Adam had a role in casting the adversary out of heaven
and that Adam then inherited the exalted position and glory that Satan had previously
enjoyed, including, apparently, the fallen angel’s celestial robes. To reiterate, after
Satan is cast out of heaven, his authority and priestly clothing are passed on to Adam—
and the Apocalypse of Abraham depicts the same type of transferal for Abraham.
Another point of interest for BYU Studies readers comes in the fifth essay, which
concerns the temptation narrative found in the Gospel of Matthew. In this section, Orlov
illustrates how the story of Satan’s tempting of Jesus bears a number of similarities to
the accounts of heavenly journeys in the visionary texts of biblical and extrabiblical
literature. Although there are a number of parallels with well-known biblical visions
such as that of Moses on Mount Sinai and that of Elijah, the parallels with writings such
as 2 Enoch seem to be even more prevalent. However, the way in which the temptation
narrative depicts Satan’s role can be seen as an attempt to present the adversary as the
negative mirror image of the celestial figures featured in those texts. The steps that the
visionary is taken through on his heavenly journey are maleficently imitated by Satan
as he takes Jesus on a tour of his own blasphemous design. Just as Enoch is taken up to

22
heaven by angelic guides, Satan serves a similar function as he transports Jesus to the
top of the temple and then to a very high mountain. Just as in many of the visionary
texts, the righteous seer encounters and worships God on the high mountain. Orlov
points out that Satan takes Jesus up into the high mountain in order to entice Jesus to
venerate him instead. As part of this attempt, the adversary shows Christ the kingdoms
of the world and their glory to imitate, Orlov suggests, the grand visions that are shown
to those who have the privilege of standing before the throne of God (compare Ether
3:25; Moses 1:1–8, 27–29; 7:21–24). Another intriguing idea that Orlov proposes is tied
to the tradition in the celestial ascent literature that when the visionary approaches and
bows down before the Lord, he is transformed from his mortal state into a heavenly
being and often becomes unified with or identified with the Lord. In this final
temptation of Jesus by Satan, Orlov argues, it appears that Satan desires Jesus to
worship him and thus become identified with the evil one instead of with the Father in
heaven. Orlov states, “One can encounter here an example of negative transformational
mysticism: by forcing Jesus to bow down, the tempter wants the seer to become
identified with Satan’s form, in exact opposition to the visionaries of Jewish apocalyptic
writings who through their prostration before the divine Face become identified with
the divine Kavod (glory)” (112).
Andrei Orlov’s insights on the Rebellious One in this book find parallels in LDS
scripture and thought, including the notion that Satan can transform himself into an
angel of light (2 Ne. 9:9; Alma 30:53; D&C 128:20; 129:8) and that he often imitates
the heavenly order and powers. Perhaps the greatest affinity to the story of Satan
tempting Jesus in LDS-specific scripture can be found in the Pearl of Great Price, in
Moses 1:12–22. This account depicts Satan’s attempt to entice Moses to worship him,
including an even more direct effort to imitate deity. Moses 1:12 relates that just
subsequent to Moses having experienced a powerful theophany of the God of Glory,
Satan appears to him: “Satan came tempting him, saying: Moses, son of man, worship
me.” Having just seen the magnificence of the glory of God and having had his own
divine sonship confirmed, Moses can differentiate between God’s majesty and Satan’s
inability to measure up. Moses says, “Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in
the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee?”
(1:13). Satan’s humiliation and envy of God’s glory and Moses’s divine potential
climax in an infernal tantrum as he shouts and desperately claims that he is the Son of
God, worthy of worship. He commands Moses, saying, “I am the Only Begotten,
worship me” (1:19). After a few more moments of intense ranting and wailing on the
part of the adversary, Moses is strengthened by God and is able to cast Satan out. He is
then filled with the Spirit and is once again caught up in the vision of God’s glory. He
is given his prophetic commission, is shown the grand vision of the earth and all its

23
inhabitants, and is taught the secrets of creation. This story of Moses is similar in many
ways to the various traditions that Orlov discusses in this book, including those
contained in the temptation story in Matthew, the heavenly journey of Enoch
in 2 Enoch, and also Abraham’s confrontation with Azazel and related experiences in
the celestial realm.1
Andrei Orlov’s book, Dark Mirrors, will be of interest to students of the scriptures and
especially those interested in religious history, whether or not they have prior
experience with the early Jewish and early Christian texts he utilizes. The many
parallels with LDS understandings of the nature of Satan should be apparent and
exciting for most. Orlov is one of the foremost scholars on this genre of extrabiblical
texts and much can be gleaned from his adventurous and insightful approach.

Note
1. For more on the affinities between this segment of the book of Moses and ascension texts such as the Apocalypse of Abraham, see
Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Book of Moses (West Valley City, Utah: Eborn Publishing, 2010), 23–50.

24
25
26
27
28
29
 Midrash of Shemhazai and Azazel

Revised English by Jeremy Kapp9

(1) R. Joseph was (once) asked what was the story of Shemhazai and Azazel, and he replied: When
the generation of Enosh arose and practiced idolatry and when the generation of the Flood arose
and corrupted their actions, the Holy One, Blessed be He, was grieved that He had created man,
as it is said, “And God repented that he created man, and He was grieved at his heart.

(2) Sometime later, two angels arose, whose names were Shemhazai and Azazel, and said before
Him: “O Lord of the universe, did we not say to You when You created Your world, ‘Do not create
man?” As it is said, “What is man that You should remember him?” The Holy One, Blessed be
He, said to them: “Then what shall become of the world?” They said before Him. ‘‘We will suffice’
(You) instead of it.’

(3) He said, ‘‘It is revealed and (well known to me that if perhaps you had lived in that (earthly)
world, the evil inclination would have ruled you just as much as it rules over the sons of man, but
you would be more stubborn than they.” They said before Him, “Give us Your sanction and let us
descend (and dwell) among the creatures and then You will see how we shall sanctify Your name”
He said to them, “Descend and dwell among them.”

(4) Immediately, the Holy One allowed the evil inclination to rule over them, as soon as they
descended. When they saw the daughters of man that they were beautiful they began to corrupt

9
file:///Users/jungar/Downloads/Midrash_of_Shemhazai_and_Azazel.pdf

30
themselves with them, as it is said, “Then the sons of God saw the daughters of man,” they could
not restrain their inclination.

(5) Sometime later, Shemhazai saw a girl whose name was ‘Istehar; fixing his eyes at her he said:
“Listen to my (request).” But she said to him: “I will not listen to you until you teach me the Name
by which you are enabled to ascend to heaven, as soon as You mention it.” He taught her the
unspeakable Name.

(6) What did she do? She mentioned it and by which ascended to heaven. The Holy One said;
“Since she has departed from sin, go and set her among the stars.’’ It is she who shines brightly in
the midst of the seven stars of the Pleiades; so that she may always be remembered. Immediately,
the Holy One fixed her among the Pleiades.

(7) When Shemhazai and Azazel saw this they took for them wives, and fathered children.
Shemhazai begat two children, whose names were Ohya and ‘Hahya. And Azazel was appointed
chief over all kinds of dyes and over all kinds of women’s ornaments by which they entice men to
unclean thoughts of sin.

(8) Immediately, Metatron sent a messenger to Shemhazai and said to him: “The Holy One is about
to destroy His world, and bring upon it a flood.” Shemhazai stood up and raised his voice and wept
aloud, for he was sorely troubled about his sons and (his own) iniquity. And he said: “How shall
my children live, and what shall become of them, for each one of them eats daily a Page 1 of 3
thousand camels, a thousand horses, a thousand oxen, and all kinds (of other animals)?”

(9) One night the sons of Shemhazai, Ohya and ‘Hahya, saw (visions) in (their) dreams, and both
of them saw a dream. One saw a great stone spread over the earth like a table, the whole of which
was written over with lines (of writing). And an angel (was seen by him) descending from heaven
with a knife in his hand and be was erasing and obliterating all the lines, save one line with four
words upon it.

(10) The other (son) saw a garden, planted whole with (many) kinds of trees and (many) kinds of
precious stones. And an angel (was seen by him) descending from heaven with an axe in his hand,
and he was cutting down all the trees, so that there remained only one tree containing three
branches.

(11) When they awoke from their sleep they arose in confusion, and, going to their father, they
related to him the dreams. He said to them: “The Holy One is about to bring a flood upon the
world, and to destroy it so that there will remain but one man and his three sons,” Upon that, they
cried in anguish and wept, saying, “What shall become of us and how shall our names be
perpetuated?” He said to them: “Do not trouble yourselves, for your names. Ohya and ‘Hahya, will
never cease from the mouths of creatures, because every time that men lift (heavy) stones or boats,
or anything similar, they will shout and call your names.” With this, their tempers cooled down.

(12) What did Shemhazai do? He repented and suspended himself between heaven and earth head
downwards and feet upwards, because he was not allowed to open his mouth before the Holy One,
Blessed be He, and he still hangs between heaven and earth.

31
(13) Azazel (however) did not repent. And he is appointed chief over all kinds of dyes which entice
man to commit sin and he still continues to corrupt them.

(14) Therefore, when the Israelites used to bring sacrifices on the day of atonement, they cast one
lot for the Lord that it might atone for the iniquities of the Israelites, and one lot for Azazel that he
might bear the burden of Israel’s iniquity.

This is the Azazel that is mentioned in the Scriptures.

32