Sanhedrin 64

Sanhedrin 64

הַס, שֶׁלֹּא לְהַזְכִּיר בְּשֵׁם ה׳, שֶׁלֹּא לִימְּדוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ.

Hush, so as not to mention the name of the Lord (see Amos 6:10). The child did not want to even hear the mention of the name of the Lord, which his father and his mother did not teach him.

מִיָּד הוֹצִיא יִרְאָתוֹ מֵחֵיקוֹ, וּמְחַבְּקָהּ וּמְנַשְּׁקָהּ, עַד שֶׁנִּבְקְעָה כְּרֵיסוֹ וְנָפְלָה יִרְאָתוֹ לָאָרֶץ, וְנָפַל הוּא עָלֶיהָ, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַתִּי אֶת פִּגְרֵיכֶם עַל פִּגְרֵי גִּלּוּלֵיכֶם״. בָּתַר דַּאֲבִיקוּ בֵּיהּ.

Immediately, the child removed his god from his bosom and began hugging it and kissing it, until his stomach burst from hunger, and his god fell to the earth and he fell upon it, in fulfillment of that which is stated: “And I shall cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols” (Leviticus 26:30). This incident demonstrates that the Jewish people engaged in idol worship for its own sake. The Gemara answers: This also occurred after the Jewish people became attached to idol worship.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וַיִּזְעֲקוּ בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל אֶל ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיהֶם״. מַאי אֲמוּר? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יוֹנָתָן: בִּיָּיא, בִּיָּיא! הַיְינוּ דְּאַחְרְבֵיהּ לְבֵיתָא, וְקַלְיֵאּ לְהֵיכְלָא, וְקַטְלִינְהוּ לְצַדִּיקֵי, וְאַגְלִינְהוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַרְעַיְיהוּ, וַעֲדַיִין הוּא מְרַקֵּד בֵּינַן. כְּלוּם יְהַבְתֵּיהּ לַן אֶלָּא לְקַבּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ אַגְרָא? לָא אִיהוּ בָּעֵינַן וְלָא אַגְרֵיהּ בָּעֵינַן! בָּתַר דַּאֲבִיקוּ בֵּיהּ.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof, from the verse: “And they cried in a loud voice to the Lord their God” (Nehemiah 9:4). What did they say in that prayer? Rav Yehuda says, and some say it is Rav Yonatan who says: Woe, woe [baya, baya], this evil inclination for idol worship is what destroyed the Temple, and burned the Sanctuary, and murdered the righteous ones, and caused the Jewish people to be exiled from their land. And it still dances among us, i.e., it still affects us. Didn’t You give it to us solely for the purpose of our receiving reward for overcoming it? We do not want it, nor do we not want its reward. Evidently, the Jewish people were drawn to idol worship itself, and they did not worship idols only in order to engage in forbidden sexual relations. The Gemara answers: This also occurred after the Jewish people became attached to idol worship.

יְתַבוּ תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי בְּתַעֲנִיתָא, בָּעוּ רַחֲמֵי. נְפַל לְהוּ פִּיתְקָא מֵרְקִיעָא דַּהֲוָה כְּתִיב בַּהּ: ״אֱמֶת״.

The Gemara continues to relate the story of the prayer in the days of Nehemiah: The people fasted for three days and prayed for mercy. In response to their prayer a note fell for them from the heavens in which was written: Truth, indicating that God accepted their request.

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, חוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא ׳אֱמֶת׳.

The Gemara makes a parenthetical observation. Rabbi Ḥanina says: Conclude from it that the seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is truth.

נְפַק כְּגוּרְיָא דְנוּרָא מִבֵּית קָדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים. אֲמַר לְהוּ נָבִיא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: הַיְינוּ יִצְרָא דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. בַּהֲדֵי דְּקָתָפְסִי לֵיהּ, אִישְׁתְּמִיט בִּינִיתָא מִינֵּיהּ, וַאֲזַל קָלֵיהּ בְּאַרְבַּע מְאָה פַּרְסֵי. אָמְרוּ: הֵיכִי נֶיעְבֵּד? דִּילְמָא מִשְּׁמַיָּא מְרַחֲמִי עֲלֵיהּ.

The form of a fiery lion cub came forth from the chamber of the Holy of Holies. Zechariah, the prophet, said to the Jewish people: This is the evil inclination for idol worship. When they caught hold of it one of its hairs fell out, and it let out a shriek of pain that was heard for four hundred parasangs [parsei]. They said: What should we do to kill it? Perhaps Heaven will have mercy upon it if we attempt to kill it, as it will certainly scream even more.

אֲמַר לְהוּ נָבִיא: שַׁדְיוּהּ בְּדוּדָא דַאֲבָרָא, וְכַסְּיוּהּ בַּאֲבָרָא, דְּשָׁיֵיף קָלֵיהּ. דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר זֹאת הָרִשְׁעָה וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אוֹתָהּ אֶל תּוֹךְ הָאֵיפָה וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶת הָאֶבֶן הָעוֹפֶרֶת אֶל פִּיהָ״.

The prophet said to them: Throw it into a container made of lead and cover it with lead, as lead absorbs sound. As it is written: “And he said: This is the evil one. And he cast it down into the midst of the measure, and he cast a stone of lead upon its opening” (Zechariah 5:8). They followed this advice and were freed of the evil inclination for idol worship.

אָמְרִי: הוֹאִיל וְעֵת רָצוֹן הוּא, נִיבְעֵי רַחֲמֵי אַיִּצְרָא דַעֲבֵירָה. בְּעוֹ רַחֲמֵי, אִימְּסַר בִּידַיְיהוּ.

When they saw that the evil inclination for idol worship was delivered into their hands as they requested, the Sages said: Since it is an auspicious time, let us pray for mercy concerning the evil inclination for sin concerning sexual matters. They prayed for mercy, and it was also delivered into their hands.

חַבְשׁוּהּ תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי. בְּעוֹ בֵּיעֲתָא בַּת יוֹמָא לְחוֹלֶה, וְלָא אַשְׁכַּחוּ. אֲמַרוּ: הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? נִיבְעֵי פַּלְגָא? פַּלְגָא מֵרְקִיעָא לָא יָהֲבִי. כַּחְלִינְהוּ לְעֵינֵיהּ. אַהֲנִי בֵּיהּ דְּלָא מִיגָּרֵי אִינִישׁ בְּקָרִיבְתֵּיהּ.

The Sages imprisoned it for three days. At that time, people searched for a one-day-old fresh egg for the sick but could not find one. Since the inclination to reproduce was quashed, the chickens stopped laying eggs. They said: What should we do? If we pray for half, i.e., that only half its power be annulled, nothing will be achieved, because Heaven does not grant half gifts, only whole gifts. What did they do? They gouged out its eyes, and this was effective in limiting it to the extent that a person is no longer aroused to commit incest with his close relatives.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוֹיָה אַחַת שֶׁהָיְתָה חוֹלָה בְּיוֹתֵר, אָמְרָה: אִם תַּעֲמוֹד הָהִיא אִשָּׁה מֵחוֹלְיָהּ, תֵּלֵךְ וְתַעֲבוֹד לְכׇל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם. עָמְדָה וְעָבְדָה לְכׇל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעָה לִפְעוֹר, שָׁאֲלָה לַכּוֹמָרִים: בַּמָּה עוֹבְדִין לָזוֹ? אָמְרוּ לָהּ: אוֹכְלִין תְּרָדִין וְשׁוֹתִין שֵׁכָר וּמַתְרִיזִין בְּפָנֶיהָ. אָמְרָה: מוּטָב שֶׁתַּחֲזוֹר הָהִיא אִשָּׁה לְחוֹלְיָהּ וְלֹא תַּעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּכָךְ.

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: An incident occurred involving a certain gentile woman who was very ill. She said: If that woman, referring to herself, recovers from her illness, she will go and worship every object of idol worship in the world. She recovered from her illness and subsequently worshipped every object of idol worship in the world. When she arrived at Peor she asked the priests: How does one worship this idol? They said to her: One eats spinach, which causes diarrhea, and drinks beer, which also causes diarrhea, and defecates before it. The woman said: Better for that woman, referring to herself, to return to her illness, and not worship an idol in such a manner.

אַתֶּם בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָן כֵּן, ״הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר״ – כְּצָמִיד פָּתִיל, ״וְאַתֶּם הַדְּבֵקִים בַּה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״ – כִּשְׁתֵּי תְּמָרוֹת הַדְּבוּקוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ.

Rav Yehuda adds: You, the house of Israel, are not like that woman who could not bear the repulsiveness of Ba’al-Peor. It is stated with regard to the attitude of the Jewish people toward idol worship: “That have attached themselves [hanitzmadim] to Ba’al-Peor” (Numbers 25:5), indicating a tight attachment, like a tightly bound cover [ketzamid patil] tied firmly onto a vessel. Yet with regard to the attitude of the Jewish people toward God it is stated: “But you who did cleave [hadevekim] to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 4:4), i.e., the connection between the Jewish people and God is like two dates that are lightly attached [hadevukot] to one another but are not tightly pressed together.

בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: ״הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר״ – כְּצָמִיד עַל יְדֵי אִשָּׁה, ״וְאַתֶּם הַדְּבֵקִים בַּה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״ – דְּבוּקִים מַמָּשׁ.

This comparison was taught in a baraita but with the opposite conclusion: “That have attached themselves [hanitzmadim] to Ba’al-Peor” indicates a connection that is like a bracelet [ketzamid] on a woman’s arm, which is worn loosely. “But you who did cleave to the Lord your God” means they actually adhered to one another, i.e., there was a tight connection.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּסַבְטָא בֶּן אַלָּס, שֶׁהִשְׂכִּיר חֲמוֹרוֹ לְגוֹיָה אַחַת. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעָה לִפְעוֹר, אָמְרָה לוֹ: הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁאֶכָּנֵס וְאֵצֵא. לְאַחַר שֶׁיָּצְאָה, אָמַר לָהּ: אַף אַתְּ הַמְתִּינִי עַד שֶׁאֶכָּנֵס וְאֵצֵא. אָמְרָה לוֹ: וְלֹא יְהוּדִי אַתָּה? אָמַר לָהּ: וּמַאי אִיכְפַּת לִיךְ? נִכְנַס, פָּעַר בְּפָנָיו וְקִינַּח בְּחוֹטְמוֹ. וְהָיוּ כּוֹמָרִין מְקַלְּסִין לוֹ וְאוֹמְרִים: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא הָיָה אָדָם שֶׁעֲבָדוֹ לָזֶה בְּכָךְ.

The Gemara relates another incident with regard to Ba’al-Peor. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a Jew named Sabbeta ben Alas, who rented out his donkey and his services to a certain gentile woman. He was driving his donkey behind her, and when she arrived at Peor, she said to him: Wait here until I go in and come out. After she came out, he said to her: You too wait for me until I go in and come out. She said to him: Aren’t you Jewish? Why, then, are you worshipping idols? He said to her: And what do you care? He entered and defecated before the idol, and wiped himself with its nostril, as he wanted to demean the idol as much as possible. But he was unsuccessful, as the priests of Peor were praising him and saying: No person has ever worshipped it before with this excellent form of worship. Although he intended to demean Ba’al-Peor, he actually worshipped it.

הַפּוֹעֵר עַצְמוֹ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר – הֲרֵי זֶה עֲבוֹדָתוֹ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִיכַּוֵּין לְבִיזּוּי. הַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לְמַרְקוּלִיס – זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִיכַּוֵּין לְמִירְגְּמֵיהּ.

The halakha is that one who defecates before Ba’al-Peor is obligated to bring a sin-offering to atone for idol worship, as this is its typical form of worship, even if he intends to demean the idol. Likewise, one who throws a stone at Mercury is obligated to bring a sin-offering to atone for idol worship, as this is its typical form of worship, even if he intends to stone it.

רַב מְנַשֶּׁה הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל לְבֵי תוֹרְתָּא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הִיא דְּקָאֵי הָכָא. שְׁקַל פִּיסָּא, שְׁדָא בַּיהּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מַרְקוּלִיס הִיא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״הַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לְמַרְקוּלִיס״ תְּנַן.

The Gemara relates: Rav Menashe was going to a place called Bei Torta. The people there said to him: There is an object of idol worship situated here in this pile of stones. Rav Menashe picked up a stone and threw it at the idol to demean it. They said to him: It is Mercury, and it is worshipped by throwing stones at it. Rav Menashe said to them: We learned in the mishna that one who throws a stone at Mercury as a manner of worship is liable, whereas I intended to demean it.

אֲתָא שְׁאַל בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״הַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן בְּמַרְקוּלִיס״ תְּנַן, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִיכַּוֵּין לְמִירְגְּמֵיהּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֵיזִיל אֶישְׁקְלַהּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֶחָד הַנּוֹטְלָהּ וְאֶחָד הַנּוֹתְנָהּ חַיָּיב, כֹּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא רַוְוחָא לַחֲבֶירְתַּהּ שָׁבֵיק.

Rav Menashe went and asked the Sages in the study hall whether his interpretation of the mishna was correct. They said to him: We learned in the mishna that one who throws a stone at Mercury is liable, which implies that he is liable even if he intends to stone it in order to demean it. Rav Menashe said to the Sages: If so, I will go and take back the stone I threw. They said to him: Both one who removes it and one who places it is liable, as each and every one of the stones taken away from Mercury leaves space for another stone. Taking a stone away from Mercury provides a place for other stones to be thrown at it.

מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמּוֹלֶךְ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּמְסוֹר לַמּוֹלֶךְ וְיַעֲבִיר בָּאֵשׁ. מָסַר לַמּוֹלֶךְ וְלֹא הֶעֱבִיר בָּאֵשׁ, הֶעֱבִיר בָּאֵשׁ וְלֹא מָסַר לַמּוֹלֶךְ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּמְסוֹר לַמּוֹלֶךְ וְיַעֲבִיר בָּאֵשׁ.

MISHNA: One who gives of his offspring to Molekh, for which one is executed by stoning, is not liable unless he hands over his child to the priests of Molekh and passes the child through the fire. If he handed over the child to the priests of Molekh but did not pass him through the fire, or if he passed him through the fire but did not hand him over to the priests of Molekh, he is not liable, unless he hands the child over to the priests of Molekh and passes him through the fire.

גְּמָ׳ קָתָנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְקָתָנֵי מוֹלֶךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: תְּנַן כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹלֶךְ לָאו עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד לַמּוֹלֶךְ וְאֶחָד לִשְׁאָר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לַמּוֹלֶךְ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁלֹּא לַמּוֹלֶךְ – פָּטוּר.

GEMARA: The halakhot of one’s liability for idol worship are taught in the mishna above (60b), and the halakhot of one’s liability for the worship of Molekh are taught separately, in this mishna. Therefore, Rabbi Avin says: We learn this mishna according to the opinion of the one who says that the ritual of Molekh is not idol worship but is a form of witchcraft or superstition, as a dispute over this matter is taught in a baraita: Both one who transfers his child to the priests of Molekh and one who transfers his child for the purpose of worshipping other idols are liable. Molekh is cited merely as an example. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One who transfers his child to the priests of Molekh is liable, but if he transfers him to another object of idol worship, not to Molekh, he is exempt.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס – דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר, מִפְּנֵי מָה תָּפְסָה תּוֹרָה לְשׁוֹן ״מוֹלֶךְ״? כֹּל שֶׁהִמְלִיכוּהוּ עֲלֵיהֶם, אֲפִילּוּ צְרוֹר וַאֲפִילּוּ קֵיסָם.

Abaye says: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus said the same thing, i.e., they share the same halakhic opinion. The statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, is that which we said. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus shares the same opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: For what reason does the Torah use the term Molekh? It is to indicate that if one passes his child through fire in the worship of any object that people enthroned [shehimlikhuhu] over them as their king, referring to it as Molekh, he is liable, even if it is merely a pebble, or even a toothpick. The baraita indicates that one who passes his child through fire in worship of an item that is not referred to as Molekh is not liable, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

רָבָא אָמַר: מוֹלֶךְ עֲרַאי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

Rava says: They do not share the same opinion, as there is a practical difference between their opinions in a case of a temporary Molekh. According to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, one is liable for passing his child through fire only if it is in worship of a permanent Molekh, whereas according to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, one is liable for worshipping even a temporary Molekh.

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּמְסְרֶנּוּ לְכוֹמָרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לְהַעֲבִיר לַמֹּלֶךְ״.

§ Rabbi Yannai says: One is not liable for passing his child through fire to Molekh unless he hands him over to the priests of Molekh, as it is stated: “And you shall not give any of your offspring to pass them over to Molekh” (Leviticus 18:21), which indicates that the prohibition is to give, i.e., to hand the child over to the priests.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: יָכוֹל הֶעֱבִיר וְלֹא מָסַר יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא תִתֵּן״. מָסַר לַמּוֹלֶךְ וְלֹא הֶעֱבִיר, יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְהַעֲבִיר״. מָסַר וְהֶעֱבִיר שֶׁלֹּא לַמּוֹלֶךְ, יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַמֹּלֶךְ״.

This is also taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one who passed his child through fire but did not hand him over to the priests of Molekh should be liable. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall not give.” If one handed over his son to the priests of Molekh but did not pass him through fire, one might have thought that he should be liable. Therefore, the verse states: “To pass,” indicating that passing is also necessary. If one handed over the child and passed him through fire, not to priests of Molekh but rather to priests of another object of idol worship, one might have thought that he should be liable. Therefore, the verse states: “To Molekh.”

מָסַר וְהֶעֱבִיר לַמּוֹלֶךְ, וְלֹא בָּאֵשׁ – יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּיב? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לְהַעֲבִיר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ״. מָה לְהַלָּן בָּאֵשׁ, אַף כָּאן בָּאֵשׁ. וּמָה כָּאן מוֹלֶךְ, אַף לְהַלָּן מוֹלֶךְ.

If one handed over his child and passed him over to the priests of Molekh, but he did not pass him through the fire, one might have thought that he should be liable. It is stated here, in the verse: “To pass,” and it is stated there, in another verse: “There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fire” (Deuteronomy 18:10). Just as there, the verse is referring to passing one’s child through the fire, so too here, the reference is to passing one’s child through the fire. And just as here, the verse is referring to one who passes his child over to the priests of Molekh, so too there, the reference is to Molekh alone, excluding any other object of idol worship.

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הֶעֱבִיר כׇּל זַרְעוֹ – פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מִזַּרְעֲךָ״ – וְלֹא כׇּל זַרְעֲךָ.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, says: One who passed all his offspring through fire to the priests of Molekh is exempt, as it is stated: “Of your offspring,” indicating: But not all your offspring.

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: הֶעֱבִירוֹ סוֹמֵא, מַהוּ? יָשֵׁן, מַהוּ? בֶּן בְּנוֹ וּבֶן בִּתּוֹ, מַהוּ?

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If one passed through the fire a child of his who is blind, what is the halakha? Furthermore, if one passed his child through the fire while the child was asleep, what is the halakha? Does the child need to be capable of passing through on his own, or is that not necessary? Likewise, if one passed his son’s son or his daughter’s son through the fire, what is the halakha?

תִּפְשׁוֹט מִיהָא חֲדָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״כִּי מִזַּרְעוֹ נָתַן לַמֹּלֶךְ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ. בֶּן בְּנוֹ וּבֶן בִּתּוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּתִתּוֹ מִזַּרְעוֹ״.

The Gemara answers: Resolve at least one of these dilemmas, as it is taught in a baraita: Why must the verse state: “Because he has given of his offspring to Molekh” (Leviticus 20:3)? What is added by this statement? Because it is stated: “There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fire,” I have derived only that it is prohibited for one to pass his son or daughter. From where do I derive that one who passes his son’s son or his daughter’s son is also liable? The verse states: “When he gives of his offspring” (Leviticus 20:4). The term “offspring” indicates that grandchildren are included. This resolves one of Rav Ashi’s dilemmas.

תַּנָּא פָּתַח בְּ״כִּי מִזַּרְעוֹ״, וְסָלֵיק בְּ״תִתּוֹ מִזַּרְעוֹ״.

The Gemara asks: The tanna began his exposition with the phrase in the verse “because he has given of his offspring,” and ended with an interpretation of the phrase in the verse “when he gives of his offspring.” Why did he cite two different verses as proof for his halakhic statement?

דְּרָשָׁה אַחֲרִינָא הוּא: ״זַרְעוֹ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זֶרַע כָּשֵׁר, זֶרַע פָּסוּל מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּתִתּוֹ מִזַּרְעוֹ״.

The Gemara answers: The second verse is stated in the baraita for a different exposition, which was omitted from the baraita and reads as follows: From the term in the verse “his offspring” I have derived only that one is liable for passing through the fire his offspring of unflawed lineage, i.e., his descendants from a woman whom he was permitted to marry. From where do I derive that one is liable for passing through the fire his offspring of flawed lineage, e.g., a mamzer, as well? The verse states: “When he gives of his offspring,” indicating that one is liable for passing any of his offspring.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲבִירֶנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ הַעֲבָרָה. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁרָגָא דְּלִיבְנֵי בְּמִצְעֵי, נוּרָא מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וְנוּרָא מֵהַאי גִּיסָא.

§ Rav Yehuda says: One is not liable for passing his child through fire to Molekh unless he passes him in the typical manner of passing. The Gemara asks: What is considered the typical manner of passing? Abaye says: The child is taken by foot along a latticework [sirega] of bricks in the middle, between the fire on this side and the fire on that side.

רָבָא אָמַר: כְּמַשְׁוַורְתָּא דְּפוּרַיָּא.

Rava says: The typical manner of passing is like the leaps of children on Purim. It was customary to light a bonfire on Purim inside a pit, and children would amuse themselves by leaping over the bonfires. Passing one’s child over a fire in such a fashion is the typical manner of passing a child over to Molekh.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲבִירֶנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ עֲבָרָהּ. הֶעֱבִירוֹ בָּרֶגֶל – פָּטוּר.

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: One is not liable unless he passes his child through the fire in the typical manner of passing. If he passed him by foot, he is exempt. Evidently, the passing ritual is performed by leaping and not by walking.

וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵיכוֹ. הָא כֵּיצַד? בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ – חַיָּיב, אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אָחִיו וַאֲחוֹתוֹ – פָּטוּר. הֶעֱבִיר עַצְמוֹ – פָּטוּר, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְחַיֵּיב.

The baraita continues: And one is liable only for passing his descendants. How so? If one passed his son or his daughter through the fire, he is liable. If he passed his father, or his mother, his brother, or his sister, he is exempt. If one passed himself over to Molekh, he is exempt. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, deems him liable.

אֶחָד לַמּוֹלֶךְ, וְאֶחָד לִשְׁאָר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לַמּוֹלֶךְ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁלֹּא לַמּוֹלֶךְ – פָּטוּר.

Both one who passes his child through fire to Molekh and one who passes his child through fire to other objects of idol worship are liable. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: If he passes him over to Molekh, he is liable, but if he transfers him to another object of idol worship, not to Molekh, he is exempt.

אָמַר עוּלָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ״ – בְּךָ בְּעַצְמְךָ.

Ulla says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who deems one who passes himself over to Molekh liable? The verse states: “There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fire” (Deuteronomy 18:10), and the term “among you” is interpreted homiletically to mean: Among yourself.

וְרַבָּנַן לָא דָּרְשִׁי ״בְּךָ״? וְהָתְנַן: אֲבֵידָתוֹ וַאֲבֵידַת אָבִיו – שֶׁלּוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת. וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאי טַעְמָא? וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אָמַר קְרָא ״אֶפֶס כִּי לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּךָ אֶבְיוֹן״ – שֶׁלּוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לְשֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם.

The Gemara asks: And do the Rabbis not interpret the term “among you” as referring to oneself? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bava Metzia 33a): If one finds his lost item and his father’s lost item, taking care of his own lost item takes precedence. And we said in discussion of that mishna: What is the reason for this? And Rav Yehuda said that it is because the verse states: “Only so that there shall be no needy among you” (Deuteronomy 15:4), meaning that one must avoid becoming needy. Therefore, if one lost an item, tending to his lost item takes precedence over tending to the lost item of any other person. Apparently, this interpretation of the verse is based on the understanding that the term “among you” is referring to oneself, i.e., one must take care of himself so that he will not become needy.

הָתָם מֵ״אֶפֶס״.

The Gemara answers: And there, in that discussion, the halakha is derived from the word “only,” a limiting term, which is interpreted to mean that in preventing destitution one should begin with himself.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שָׁלֹשׁ כָּרֵיתוֹת בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָמָּה?

§ Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Why is the punishment of excision from the World-to-Come [karet] mentioned three times with regard to idol worship? It is stated twice with regard to the ritual of Molekh, in the verse: “I will also set My face against that man, and I will excise him from among his people” (Leviticus 20:3), and in the verse: “Then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and I will excise him” (Leviticus 20:5). The third mention of karet is with regard to one who blasphemes: “That person blasphemes the Lord, and that soul shall be excised from among his people” (Numbers 15:30).

אַחַת לִכְדַרְכָּהּ, וְאַחַת לְשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וְאַחַת לַמּוֹלֶךְ.

One mention is for worshipping an idol in its typical manner of worship, and one mention is for worshipping an idol not in its typical manner of worship, and one mention is for performing the ritual of Molekh.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹלֶךְ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הִיא, כָּרֵת בְּמוֹלֶךְ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ.

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that Molekh is an object of idol worship, why do I need a special mention of karet with regard to Molekh? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the case of one who passes his child through fire to an idol other than Molekh, where this is not its typical manner of worship. According to this opinion, one who passes his son through fire to any idol is liable.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מְגַדֵּף עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הִיא, כָּרֵת בִּמְגַדֵּף לְמָה לִי?

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the verse concerning one who blasphemes is referring to one who engages in idol worship and not to one who curses God, why do I need karet to be mentioned with regard to one who blasphemes?

לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת״. ״הִכָּרֵת״ – בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״תִּכָּרֵת״ – לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to one who blasphemes: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has breached His mitzva, that soul shall be excised [hikkaret tikkaret], his iniquity shall be upon him” (Numbers 15:31). The phrase “hikkaret tikkaret” is interpreted as follows: “Hikkaret”; the sinner is excised in this world, meaning that he will die prematurely. “Tikkaret”; the sinner is excised in the World-to-Come, and he will not merit everlasting life. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״וְנִכְרְתָה״! וְכִי שְׁלֹשָׁה עוֹלָמִים יֵשׁ? אֶלָּא ״וְנִכְרְתָה״ – בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״הִכָּרֵת״ – לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, ״תִּכָּרֵת״ – דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: But isn’t it already stated in the previous verse: “He blasphemes the Lord; that soul shall be excised [venikhreta]” (Numbers 15:30)? Are there three worlds in which the sinner is excised? Rather, from the term in the verse “venikhreta” it is derived that the sinner is excised in this world, from the term “hikkaret” it is derived that the sinner is excised in the World-to-Come, and nothing is derived from the doubled verb “hikkaret tikkaret,” as the Torah spoke in the language of people.