Azazel (Hebreeuws עֲזָאזֵל H5799), de naam van een van de twee geiten die de woestijn in werd gestuurd.
Bijbel
Een van de twee geiten die de woestijn in werd gestuurd (Lev. 16:8ev.). Omdat deze geit volgens de legende wel eens terug kwam lopen uit de woestijn, besloot men deze voortaan van een berg af te duwen. Deze berg werd ook Azazel genoemd en bevind zich in de Judea-woestijn.
Jodendom
In de latere joodse literatuur wordt Azazel gelijk gesteld met Sammaël, d.i. de satan, ook in de christelijke theologie wordt meestal geleerd dat Azazel satan is. עֲזָאזֵ֖ל komt van עׇזַל azal "verdwijnen", Azazel is dus de grote verdwijner. Hij die ons aanklaagt verdwijnt!
Joodse bronnen
Wordt in de Talmoed genoemd op de volgende plaatsen:
- AND THERE WAS A CASKET WHEREIN THERE WERE TWO LOTS: Our Rabbis taught: [with reference to] And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats28 — ‘lots’, i.e., made of any material. One might have assumed that he should cast two lots on the head of each,29 therefore [Scripture repeats]: One lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel,28 i.e., there is but one lot ‘for the Lord’, and there is but one lot ‘for Azazel’ — One might have assumed that he shall give upon the head of each29 a lot each ‘for the Lord’ and ‘for Azazel’, therefore Scripture says: ‘One lot for the Lord’, i.e., there is but one lot ‘for the Lord’ and but one lot ‘for Azazel’ — Why then does Scripture say: [he shall cast] ‘lots’? [That means to say] that they must be alike: he must not make one of gold and the other of silver, one large, the other small; ‘lots’ [means they may be made] of any material. But that is self-evident? — No, it is necessary [to state that], as it was taught: Since we find that the [high priest's] front-plate had the name of the Lord inscribed thereon and was made of gold, I might have assumed that this too must be made of gold, hence it says [twice] ‘lot’ . . . ‘lot’, to include [permission to make it of] olive-wood, nut-wood or box-wood.30 BEN KATIN MADE TWELVE SPIGOTS FOR THE LAVER: A Tanna taught: In order that his twelve brethren, the priests, who were occupied with the continual offering, may be able to sanctify their hands and feet simultaneously.31 (Yoma 37a)
- MISHNAH. THE TWO HE-GOATS OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT ARE REQUIRED TO BE ALIKE IN APPEARANCE, IN SIZE, IN VALUE, TO HAVE BEEN BOUGHT AT THE SAME TIME. BUT EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT ALIKE THEY ARE VALID. IF ONE WAS BOUGHT ONE DAY AND THE OTHER THE FOLLOWING DAY, THEY ARE VALID. IF ONE OF THEM DIED BEFORE THE LOT WAS CAST ANOTHER ONE IS BOUGHT FOR THE SECOND ONE. BUT [IF IT DIED] AFTER THE LOT WAS CAST ANOTHER PAIR MUST BE BOUGHT AND THE LOTS CAST FOR THEM OVER AGAIN. AND IF THE ONE THAT WAS CAST FOR THE LORD DIED, HE [THE HIGH PRIEST] SHOULD SAY: LET THIS ON WHICH THE LOT FOR THE LORD HAS FALLEN STAND IN ITS STEAD. AND IF THE ONE THAT WAS CAST FOR AZAZEL DIED HE SHOULD SAY: ‘LET THIS ON WHICH THE LOT FOR AZAZEL HAS FALLEN STAND IN ITS STEAD. THE OTHER ONE IS LEFT TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES BLEMISHED WHEN IT IS TO BE SOLD AND ITS VALUE GOES TO THE TEMPLE FUND. FOR THE SIN-OFFERING OF THE CONGREGATION MUST NOT BE LEFT TO DIE.6 R. JUDAH SAYS: IT IS LEFT TO DIE. FURTHERMORE SAID R. JUDAH: IF THE BLOOD WAS POURED AWAY, THE GOAT-TO-BE-SENT-AWAY WAS LEFT TO DIE. IF THE GOAT-TO-BE-SENT-AWAY DIED THE BLOOD IS POURED AWAY. G E M A R A. (...) Our Rabbis taught: If he [the high priest] slew two he-goats of the Day of Atonement outside [the Temple court] before the lots were cast, then he is guilty in respect of both; if, however, after the lot was cast, then he is guilty17 in respect of the one cast ‘for the Lord’, but free in respect of the one cast ‘for Azazel’.18 If before he has cast the lots, he is guilty in respect of both of them. But what [sacrifice] are they fit for?19 — Said R. Hisda: Since [each] is fit to be offered up as the he-goat [the rites of which are] performed without.20 But why is it impossible to offer it up as the he-goat [of which rites are] performed within [the Holy of Holies]? presumably because it still lacks the casting of the lot? But then it ought to be unfit to be used as the he-goat [of which rites are performed] without, for the reason that it still lacks the other ministrations of the Day?21 — R. Hisda holds: One may not call the absence of any functions due on the same day a lack of time.22 (Yoma 62a-b)
- Raba said: The view of him who says they are permitted is more reasonable, for the Torah did not say ‘Send away’! to create [possibility of] offence.8 Our Rabbis taught: Azazel — it should be hard and rough.9 One might have assumed that it is to be in inhabited land, therefore the text reads: ‘In the wilderness’. But whence do we know that it [is to be in] a Zok?10 — Therefore the text reads: ‘Cut off’.11 Another [Baraitha] taught: Azazel, i.e., the hardest of mountains, thus also does it say: And the mighty [ele] of the land he took away.12 (Yoma 67b)
- The School of R. Ishmael taught: Azazel — [it was so called] because it obtains atonement for the affair of Uza and13 Aza'el.- (…) (Yoma 67b)
- FROM WHEN ON DOES IT RENDER HIS GARMENTS UNCLEAN? Our Rabbis taught: Only he who is to take the goat away renders his garments unclean, but he who sends the appointed man away17 does not render his garments unclean. One might have assumed that [he does so] as soon as he goes forth outside from the wall of the Temple court, therefore the text reads: He that letteth go.18 If [you derive from] ‘he that letteth go’ [one might infer that] only when he reaches Zok, therefore the text reads: ‘And he that letteth go’.19 How then is it? R. Judah says: As soon as he goes out of the walls of Jerusalem. R. Jose says: Azazel and wash [are written in close proximity] i.e., only when he reaches the Zok. R. Simeon says: And he that letteth go the goat for Azazel shall wash his clothes, i.e., he flings it down headlong and his garments become then unclean. (Yoma 67b)
- Is it not because we follow the majority! And should you say, What does it matter [even it if is trefah]? Surely it has been taught: The lot cannot determine [the goat] for Azazel unless it is fit to be for the Lord!2 And should you say: It can be examined?3 Surely we have learnt: Before it reached half way down the mountain it was already broken into pieces!4 (Hullin 11b)
Hyrcania fort
Hyrcania (Grieks: Ὑρκανία; Arabisch: Khirbet el-Mird) was een oud fort in de woestijn van Judea.
De plaats is nog niet grondig opgegraven. Huidige kennis over de ruïnes van de plaats is gebaseerd op een beperkt aantal testopgravingen.
Hyrcania was blijkbaar gebouwd door Alexander Jannaeus of zijn vader Johannes Hyrcanus in de eerste of tweede eeuw voor Christus. De eerste vermelding van het fort is tijdens het bewind van Salome Alexandra, de vrouw van Jannaeus, circa 75 n.C.: Flavius Josephus vertelt dat, samen met Machaerus en Alexandrion , Hyrcania een van de drie forten was die de koningin niet wou opgeven aan van de farizeeër partij (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XIII, §416 (tr. William Whiston, 1895). "So Alexandra, not knowing what to do with any decency, committed the fortresses to them, all but Hyrcania, and Alexandrium, and Macherus, where her principal treasures were.").
Het fort wordt opnieuw genoemd in 57 v.C. toen Alexander van Judea, zoon van Aristobulus II , daaruit vluchtte voor de Romeinse gouverneur van Syrië, Aulus Gabinius, die gekomen was om de opstand te onderdrukken die Alexander had opgehitst tegen Hyrcanus II. Alexander versterke later opnieuw Hyrcania, maar moest deze uiteindelijk overgegeven aan Gabinius. Het fort werd vervolgens afgebroken (Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War 1.8.5; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XIV, §89). De Griekse geograaf Strabo merkt tevens op dat na de vernietiging, samen met die van Alexandrium en Machaerus, het er "rondwaart van de rovers en gespuis", welke in de richting van Gabinius' superieur, de Romeinse generaal Pompeius trekken (Strabo, Geography, 16.2.40).
Hyrcania wordt vervolgens vermeld in 33-32 v.C. als het wordt gebruikt in een opstand tegen Herodes de Grote, geleid door de zus van de geëxecuteerde voormalige rivaal Herodes Antigonus (Josephus, The Jewish War, 1.19.1). Het fort werd heroverd, en uitgebreid (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVI 12); werd berucht als een plek waar Herodes zijn vijanden gevangen houdt en dood (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XV 365), waaronder zijn eigen zoon en erfgenaam Antipater (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XVII 182).
In latere tijden stichtte St. Sabbas de heilige een klooster (cenobium) voor kluizenaars op de plaats, in 492 n.C., welke de Castellion werd genoemd, en onderdeel was van de gemeenschap of Lavra van het klooster te Mar Saba (4 km naar het zuid-oosten). Kluizenaars bleven er tot de veertiende eeuw, tussen 1923 en 1939 werd een korte poging gedaan om opnieuw een gemeenschap te stichten (Dave Winter (1999), Israel handbook. Footprint travel guides, p. 254).
Sommigen hebben de Hyrcania vallei onder het fort geïdentificeerd met het Bijbelse dal van Achor, welke wordt genoemd in de Koperen rol (3Q15) van de Dode Zee Rollen als plaats waar een grote schat is.
Zie de huisregels welk commentaar wordt opgenomen!
