Sanhedrin 128

א"ר ינאי אינו חייב עד שימסרנו למשרתי ע"ז שנאמר (ויקרא יח, כא) ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למולך

R. Aha the son of Raba said: <font>If one caused all his seed to pass through [the fire] to Molech, he is exempt from punishment</font>, because it is written, <i>of thy seed</i> implying, but not all thy seed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Probably because this would not be accounted a normal mode of Molech worship: cp. pp. 438, 440. ');">⁴</span>

תניא נמי הכי יכול העביר ולא מסר יהא חייב ת"ל לא תתן מסר למולך ולא העביר יכול יהא חייב ת"ל להעביר מסר והעביר שלא למולך יכול יהא חייב ת"ל למולך

R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is 'thou shalt not cause to pass' applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to all? ');">⁵</span>

מסר והעביר למולך ולא באש יכול יהא חייב נאמר כאן להעביר ונאמר להלן (דברים יח, י) לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש מה להלן באש אף כאן באש ומה כאן מולך אף להלן מולך

or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [<i>Any men&nbsp;… that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death&nbsp;… And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;</i>] <i>because he hath given of his seed unto Molech</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 2f. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב אחא בריה דרבא העביר כל זרעו פטור שנאמר מזרעך ולא כל זרעך

Why is this stated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the passage commences by explicitly referring to this offence, why is it repeated? ');">⁷</span>

בעי רב אשי העבירו סומא מהו ישן מהו בן בנו ובן בתו מהו

— Because it is said, <i>there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 10. ');">⁸</span>

תפשוט מיהא חדא דתניא (ויקרא כ, ג) כי מזרעו נתן למולך מה ת"ל לפי שנאמר לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש אין לי אלא בנו ובתו בן בנו ובן בתו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כ, ד) בתתו מזרעו

From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son's son or daughter's son too? From the verse, [<i>And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man</i>] <i>when he giveth of his seed unto Molech</i> [<i>and kill him not: Then I will&nbsp;… cut him off</i>.]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 4. Hence the law applies also to grandsons. ');">⁹</span>

תנא פתח בכי מזרעו וסליק בתתו מזרעו

Now the Tanna commences with the verse, <i>'because he hath given of his seed'</i>, but concludes with <i>'when he giveth of his seed'</i>? — This is to intimate another deduction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the first verse, because etc. we learn that the law applies to one's grandsons too; when he giveth is stated in order that another law may be deduced. ');">¹⁰</span>

דרשה אחרינא הוא זרעו אין לי אלא זרע כשר זרע פסול מנין ת"ל בתתו מזרעו

Thus: [<i>because he hath given</i>] <i>of his seed</i>: From this I know only that the law applies to legitimate seed [that being the normal meaning of the word]; whence do I know that it also applies to illegitimate seed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not in the modern sense, but seed from a woman forbidden to him. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב יהודה אינו חייב עד שיעבירנו דרך העברה היכי דמי אמר אביי שרגא דליבני במיצעי נורא מהאי גיסא ונורא מהאי גיסא

— From the verse, <i>when he giveth of his seed</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is superfluous, since it has already been stated twice in that passage that the reference is to this effect. Hence it indicates the application of the law to illegitimate seed. ');">¹²</span>

רבא אמר כמשוורתא דפוריא

Rab Judah said: <font>He is only liable to punishment if he causes his seed to pass through in the normal way.</font> How is that? — Abaye said: There was a loose pile of bricks in the middle, and fire on either side of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The victim walked along that pile to Molech, but was not burnt. The statement that Hezekiah was smeared with the blood of the salamander to render him fireproof (63b), shewing that the victim was actually burnt, does not refer to Molech, but to the divinities of Sepharvaim (Rashi). ');">¹³</span>

תניא כוותיה דרבא אינו חייב עד שיעבירנו דרך עברה העבירה ברגל פטור

Raba said: It was like the children's leaping about on Purim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Probably referring to a game played on Purim when children jump over a fire lit in a pit. According to this, a pit was dug and a fire lit therein, and the victim leaped over it (So Rashi). Jast. translates: 'like the stirrup (a ring suspended from a frame) thrust over a bonfire on Purim;' cp. Aruch. ');">¹⁴</span>

ואינו חייב אלא על יוצאי יריכו הא כיצד בנו ובתו חייב אביו ואמו אחיו ואחותו פטור העביר עצמו פטור ורבי אלעזר בר' שמעון מחייב

It has been taught in support of Raba. Punishment is incurred only for causing one's seed to pass in the normal fashion; if he caused him to pass through on foot, he is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that the victim did not walk, but leaped to it. ');">¹⁵</span>

אחד למולך ואחד לשאר ע"ז חייב רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר למולך חייב שלא למולך פטור

He is liable only for his own issue; e.g., for his son and daughter, he is punished; but for his father or mother, brother or sister, he is not. If he passed through himself, he is free from punishment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This too proves that the victim was not burnt in passing through the fire to Molech. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר עולא מאי טעמא דרבי אלעזר בר' שמעון אמר קרא (דברים יח, י) לא ימצא בך בך בעצמך

R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon ruled that he is liable. Further, whether to Molech or to any other idol, he is liable. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not.

ורבנן לא דרשי בך והתנן אבידתו ואבידת אביו שלו קודמת ואמרינן מאי טעמא ואמר רב יהודה אמר קרא (דברים טו, ד) אפס כי לא יהיה בך אביון שלו קודמת לשל כל אדם

Ulla said: What is R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's reason? — Scripture saith, <i>There shall not be found among thee&nbsp;…</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 10. ');">¹⁷</span>

והתם מאפס

'<i>among thee</i>' means in thyself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his view that one is liable if he passes through himself. ');">¹⁸</span>

אמר רבי יוסי בר' חנינא שלש כריתות בע"ז למה

And the Rabbis? Do they not interpret '<i>among thee</i>' thus? Surely we have learnt: If one must search for a lost article of his own and of his father's, priority is given to his own. And we observed thereon: Why so? — To which Rab Judah replied: Scripture saith, <i>Save that there shall be no poor among thee</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 4. ');">¹⁹</span>

אחת לכדרכה ואחת לשלא כדרכה ואחת למולך

teaching&nbsp;&nbsp;that one's own loss has priority over that of any other man?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The questioner understood this to be deduced from 'among thee' — in thyself. Since this is not taught in the name of any particular Tanna, it should agree with the Rabbis too. ');">²⁰</span>

ולמאן דאמר מולך ע"ז היא כרת במולך למה לי למעביר בנו שלא כדרכה

There the deduction follows from '<i>save that</i>'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. [H], implying an admonition to avoid any action which may lead to poverty. Naturally, this is not to be interpreted as permitting dishonesty, but merely insists that poverty must not be courted. ');">²¹</span>

ולמאן דאמר מגדף ע"ז היא כרת במגדף למה לי

R. Jose, son of R. Hanina said: Why is extinction thrice threatened for idolatry?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Twice in Lev. XX, 2-5: Whosoever be he&nbsp;… that giveth of his seeds to Molech&nbsp;… I will cut him off from among his people&nbsp;… And if the people of the land&nbsp;… kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man&nbsp;… and will cut him off. Once in Num. XV, 30f. But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously&nbsp;… the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord. This refers to idolatry. ');">²²</span>

לכדתניא (במדבר טו, לא) הכרת תכרת הכרת בעולם הזה תכרת לעולם הבא דברי רבי עקיבא

— One teaches extinction for the normal worship of idols; one for abnormal; and one <font>for the service of Molech</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not included in general idolatry, as stated above. ');">²³</span>

אמר לו רבי ישמעאל והלא כבר נאמר ונכרתה וכי שלשה עולמים יש אלא ונכרתה בעולם הזה הכרת לעולם הבא תכרת דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם:

But on the view that Molech worship is included in general idolatry, why is extinction mentioned in its case? — To apply to one who causes his son to pass through to an idol [not Molech], where such is not the normal mode of worship. Now, on the view that a <i>megaddef</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Num. XV, 30, the Heb. for 'he reproacheth' is megaddef. ');">²⁴</span> is a worshipper of idols,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Twice in Lev. XX, 2-5: Whosoever be he&nbsp;… that giveth of his seeds to Molech&nbsp;… I will cut him off from among his people&nbsp;… And if the people of the land&nbsp;… kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man&nbsp;… and will cut him off. Once in Num. XV, 30f. But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously&nbsp;… the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord. This refers to idolatry. ');">²²</span> why is extinction stated for it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meaning of megaddef is disputed in Ker. 7b. By a 'worshipper of idols' is meant, e.g., one who sings hymns in a heathen Temple. ');">²⁵</span> — Even as it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, being a normal part of idolatry, it is understood. ');">²⁶</span> <i>That soul shall surely be cut off from among his people</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 31. Continuing the verses quoted in note 3. In the Heb, as usual, this emphasis is denoted by the repetition of the verb, [H] ');">²⁷</span> he shall be cut off in this world and in the next: this is R. Akiba's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He interprets the doubling of the verb as referring to two worlds. ');">²⁸</span> R. Ishmael said: But the verse has previously stated '<i>that soul shall be cut off</i>':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 30. ');">²⁹</span> are there then three worlds?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi explains that this question is not put to R. Akiba, because he interprets megaddef in that previous verse as referring to blasphemy, not idolatry. But this question is rhetorically stated by R. Ishmael on his own assumption that megaddef means an idol worshipper. ');">³⁰</span> But [interpret this:] '<i>and</i> [<i>that soul</i>] <i>shall be cut off</i>' — in this world: '<i>he is to he cut off</i>' — [of the following verse, and denoted by the infinitive]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');">³¹</span> in the next; whilst as for the repetition [the finite form of the verb],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');">³²</span> that is because the Torah employs human phraseology.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In ordinary human speech, such repetition is quite common. ');">³³</span>