Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 18, 2017 | ื›ืดื– ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sanhedrin 64

Did the Jews worship idols because they believed in them or for other reasons? ย How is it that the evil inclination for idol worship doesn’t exist anymore? ย A story, based on the elaboration on a verse if Zecharia is brought to illustrateย how this transpired. ย How does one violate the prohibition to pass one’s son or daughter to Molech?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืณื”ืก ืฉืœื ืœื”ื–ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ืฉื ื” ืฉืœื ืœื™ืžื“ื• ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื•

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.

ืžื™ื“ ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื™ืจืืชื• ืžื—ื™ืงื• ื•ืžื—ื‘ืงื” ื•ืžื ืฉืงื” ืขื“ ืฉื ื‘ืงืขื” ื›ืจื™ืกื• ื•ื ืคืœื” ื™ืจืืชื• ืœืืจืฅ ื•ื ืคืœ ื”ื•ื ืขืœื™ื” ืœืงื™ื™ื ืžื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืชื™ ืืช ืคื’ืจื™ื›ื ืขืœ ืคื’ืจื™ ื’ืœื•ืœื™ื›ืืณ ื‘ืชืจ ื“ืื‘ื™ืงื• ื‘ื™ื”

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: โ€œAnd I shall cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idolsโ€ (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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ื™ื–ืขืงื• ื‘ืงื•ืœ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืืœ ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื”ื ืžืื™ ืืžื•ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ื‘ื™ื™ื ื‘ื™ื™ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืื—ืจื‘ื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ืชื ื•ืงืœื™ื ืœื”ื™ื›ืœื ื•ืงื˜ืœื™ื ื”ื• ืœืฆื“ื™ืงื™ ื•ืื’ืœื™ื ื”ื• ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืืจืขื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžืจืงื“ ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ื›ืœื•ื ื™ื”ื‘ืชื™ื” ืœืŸ ืืœื ืœืงื‘ื•ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืื’ืจื ืœื ืื™ื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ืœื ืื’ืจื™ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจ ื“ืื‘ื™ืงื• ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof, from the verse: โ€œAnd they cried in a loud voice to the Lord their Godโ€ (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. Didnโ€™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.

ื™ืชื‘ื• ืชืœืชื ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืชืขื ื™ืชื ื‘ืขื• ืจื—ืžื™ ื ืคืœ ืœื”ื• ืคื™ืชืงื ืžืจืงื™ืขื ื“ื”ื•ื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ืืžืช

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื—ื•ืชืžื• ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืืžืช

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

ื ืคืง ื›ื’ื•ืจื™ื ื“ื ื•ืจื ืžื‘ื™ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื ื‘ื™ื ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื™ืฆืจื ื“ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื“ืงืชืคืกื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืฉืชืžื™ื˜ ื‘ื™ื ื™ืชื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืื–ืœ ืงืœื™ื” ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื” ืคืจืกื™ ืืžืจื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื ื™ืขื‘ื“ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืžืฉืžื™ื ืžืจื—ืžื™ ืขืœื™ื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื ื‘ื™ื ืฉื“ื™ื•ื”ื• ื‘ื“ื•ื“ื ื“ืื‘ืจื ื•ื›ืกื™ื•ื” ื‘ืื‘ืจื ื“ืฉื™ื™ืฃ ืงืœื™ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื–ืืช ื”ืจืฉืขื” ื•ื™ืฉืœืš ืื•ืชื” ืืœ ืชื•ืš ื”ืื™ืคื” ื•ื™ืฉืœืš ืืช ื”ืื‘ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืคืจืช ืืœ ืคื™ื”ืณ

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: โ€œAnd 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 openingโ€ (Zechariah 5:8). They followed this advice and were freed of the evil inclination for idol worship.

ืืžืจื™ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืขืช ืจืฆื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ืจื—ืžื™ ืื™ืฆืจื ื“ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื‘ืขื• ืจื—ืžื™ ืื™ืžืกืจ ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื™ื”ื•

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.

ื—ื‘ืฉื•ื”ื• ืชืœืชื ื™ื•ืžื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื• ื‘ื™ืขืชื ื‘ืช ื™ื•ืžื ืœื—ื•ืœื” ื•ืœื ืืฉื›ื—ื• ืืžืจื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ืคืœื’ื ืคืœื’ื ืžืจืงื™ืขื ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ ื›ื—ืœื™ื ื”ื• ืœืขื™ื ื™ื” ืื”ื ื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืœื ืื™ื’ืจื™ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจื•ื‘ืชื™ื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ื ื›ืจื™ืช ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ื—ื•ืœื” ื‘ื™ื•ืชืจ ืืžืจื” ืื ืชืขืžื•ื“ ื”ื”ื™ื ืืฉื” ืžื—ื•ืœื™ื” ืชืœืš ื•ืชืขื‘ื•ื“ ืœื›ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉื‘ืขื•ืœื ืขืžื“ื” ื•ืขื‘ื“ื” ืœื›ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉื‘ืขื•ืœื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื’ื™ืข ืœืคืขื•ืจ ืฉืืœื” ืœื›ื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืžื” ืขื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื–ื• ืืžืจื• ืœื” ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืชืจื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื•ืชื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืจ ื•ืžืชืจื™ื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื” ืืžืจื” ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ืฉืชื—ื–ื•ืจ ื”ื”ื•ื ืืฉื” ืœื—ื•ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ืชืขื‘ื•ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ื›ืš

ยง 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.

ืืชื ื‘ื™ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื™ื ืŸ ื›ืŸ ื”ื ืฆืžื“ื™ื ืœื‘ืขืœ ืคืขื•ืจ ื›ืฆืžื™ื“ ืคืชื™ืœ ื•ืืชื ื”ื“ื‘ืงื™ื ื‘ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื›ื ื›ืฉืชื™ ืชืžืจื•ืช ื”ื“ื‘ื•ืงื•ืช ื–ื• ื‘ื–ื•

Rav Yehuda adds: You, the house of Israel, are not like that woman who could not bear the repulsiveness of Baโ€™al-Peor. It is stated with regard to the attitude of the Jewish people toward idol worship: โ€œThat have attached themselves [hanitzmadim] to Baโ€™al-Peorโ€ (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: โ€œBut you who did cleave [hadevekim] to the Lord your Godโ€ (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.

ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืชื ื ืณื”ื ืฆืžื“ื™ื ืœื‘ืขืœ ืคืขื•ืจืณ ื›ืฆืžื™ื“ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืืฉื” ืณื•ืืชื ื”ื“ื‘ืงื™ื ื‘ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื›ืืณ ื“ื‘ื•ืงื™ื ืžืžืฉ

This comparison was taught in a baraita but with the opposite conclusion: โ€œThat have attached themselves [hanitzmadim] to Baโ€™al-Peorโ€ indicates a connection that is like a bracelet [ketzamid] on a womanโ€™s arm, which is worn loosely. โ€œBut you who did cleave to the Lord your Godโ€ means they actually adhered to one another, i.e., there was a tight connection.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืกื‘ื˜ื ื‘ืŸ ืืœืก ืฉื”ืฉื›ื™ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจื• ืœื ื›ืจื™ืช ืื—ืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื’ื™ืขื” ืœืคืขื•ืจ ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืณื”ืžืชืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืื›ื ืก ื•ืืฆืืณ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื™ืฆืื” ืืžืจ ืœื” ืณืืฃ ืืช ื”ืžืชื™ื ื™ ืขื“ ืฉืื›ื ืก ื•ืืฆืืณ ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืณื•ืœื ื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ ืืชื”ืณ ืืžืจ ืœื” ืณื•ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ืคืช ืœื™ืšืณ ื ื›ื ืก ืคืขืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ื•ืงื™ื ื— ื‘ื—ื•ื˜ืžื• ื•ื”ื™ื• ื›ื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืžืงืœืกื™ืŸ ืœื• ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืณืžืขื•ืœื ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืื“ื ืฉืขื‘ื“ื• ืœื–ื• ื‘ื›ืšืณ

The Gemara relates another incident with regard to Baโ€™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: Arenโ€™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 Baโ€™al-Peor, he actually worshipped it.

ื”ืคื•ืขืจ ืขืฆืžื• ืœื‘ืขืœ ืคืขื•ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื™ื–ื•ื™ ื”ื–ื•ืจืง ืื‘ืŸ ืœืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœืžื™ืจื’ืžื™ื”

The halakha is that one who defecates before Baโ€™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. Like-wise, one who throws a stone at Mercury is obligated to bring an a sin-offering to atone for idol worship, as this is its typical form of worship, even if he intends to stone it.

ืจื‘ ืžื ืฉื” ื”ื•ื” ืงืื–ื™ืœ ืœื‘ื™ ืชื•ืจืชื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืงืื™ ื”ื›ื ืฉืงืœ ืคื™ืกื ืฉื“ื ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก ื”ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืณื”ื–ื•ืจืง ืื‘ืŸ ืœืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืกืณ ืชื ืŸ

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.

ืืชื ืฉืืœ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืณื”ื–ื•ืจืง ืื‘ืŸ ื‘ืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืกืณ ืชื ืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœืžื™ืจื’ืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ื–ื™ืœ ืื™ืฉืงืœื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื—ื“ ื”ื ื•ื˜ืœื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ื ื•ืชื ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ื—ื“ื ื•ื—ื“ื ืจื•ื•ื—ื ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจืชื” ืฉื‘ื™ืง

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื•ืชืŸ ืžื–ืจืขื• ืœืžื•ืœืš ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืžืกื•ืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ื™ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ืืฉ ืžืกืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ืœื ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ืืฉ ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ืืฉ ื•ืœื ืžืกืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืžืกื•ืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ื™ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ืืฉ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืงืชื ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืžื•ืœืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื•ืœืš ืœืื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ืื—ื“ ืœืฉืืจ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉืœื ืœืžื•ืœืš ืคื˜ื•ืจ

GEMARA: The halakhot of oneโ€™s liability for idol worship are taught in the mishna above (60b), and the halakhot of oneโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืชืคืกื” ืชื•ืจื” ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืณืžื•ืœืšืณ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ืžืœื™ื›ื•ื”ื• ืขืœื™ื”ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืฆืจื•ืจ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื™ืกื

Abaye says: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi แธคanina 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 แธคanina ben Antigonus shares the same opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi แธคanina 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.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžื•ืœืš ืขืจืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

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 แธคanina ben Antigonus, one is liable for worshipping even a temporary Molekh.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืžืกืจื ื• ืœื›ื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืžื–ืจืขืš ืœื ืชืชืŸ ืœื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ืœืžืœืš

ยง 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: โ€œAnd you shall not give any of your offspring to pass them over to Molekhโ€ (Leviticus 18:21), which indicates that the prohibition is to give, i.e., to hand the child over to the priests.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื•ืœื ืžืกืจ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืœื ืชืชืŸืณ ืžืกืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ืœื ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืœื”ืขื‘ื™ืจืณ ืžืกืจ ื•ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ืฉืœื ืœืžื•ืœืš ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืœืžืœืšืณ

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: โ€œYou shall not give.โ€ 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: โ€œTo pass,โ€ 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: โ€œTo Molekh.โ€

ืžืกืจ ื•ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ืœื ื‘ืืฉ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืณืœื”ืขื‘ื™ืจืณ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืณืœื ื™ืžืฆื ื‘ืš ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ื ื• ื•ื‘ืชื• ื‘ืืฉืณ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ื•ืžื” ื›ืืŸ ืžื•ืœืš ืืฃ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืžื•ืœืš

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: โ€œTo pass,โ€ and it is stated there, in another verse: โ€œThere shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fireโ€ (Deuteronomy 18:10). Just as there, the verse is referring to passing oneโ€™s child through the fire, so too here, the reference is to passing oneโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื›ืœ ื–ืจืขื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืžื–ืจืขืš ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื–ืจืขืš

Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rava, says: One who passed all his offspring through fire to the priests of Molekh is exempt, as it is stated: โ€œOf your offspring,โ€ indicating: But not all your offspring.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจื• ืกื•ืžื ืžื”ื• ื™ืฉืŸ ืžื”ื• ื‘ืŸ ื‘ื ื• ื•ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื• ืžื”ื•

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 sonโ€™s son or his daughterโ€™s son through the fire, what is the halakha?

ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ืžื™ื”ื ื—ื“ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืณื›ื™ ืžื–ืจืขื• ื ืชืŸ ืœืžืœืšืณ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื ื™ืžืฆื ื‘ืš ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ื ื• ื•ื‘ืชื• ื‘ืืฉืณ ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื‘ื ื• ื•ื‘ืชื• ื‘ืŸ ื‘ื ื• ื•ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื• ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื‘ืชืชื• ืžื–ืจืขื•ืณ

The Gemara answers: Resolve at least one of these dilemmas, as it is taught in a baraita: Why must the verse state: โ€œBecause he has given of his offspring to Molekhโ€ (Leviticus 20:3)? What is added by this statement? Because it is stated: โ€œThere shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fire,โ€ 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 sonโ€™s son or his daughterโ€™s son is also liable? The verse states: โ€œWhen he gives of his offspringโ€ (Leviticus 20:4). The term โ€œoffspringโ€ indicates that grandchildren are included. This resolves one of Rav Ashiโ€™s dilemmas.

ืชื ื ืคืชื— ื‘ื›ื™ ืžื–ืจืขื• ื•ืกืœื™ืง ื‘ืชืชื• ืžื–ืจืขื•

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

ื“ืจืฉื” ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื”ื•ื ืณื–ืจืขื•ืณ ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื–ืจืข ื›ืฉืจ ื–ืจืข ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื‘ืชืชื• ืžื–ืจืขื•ืณ

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 โ€œhis offspringโ€ 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: โ€œWhen he gives of his offspring,โ€ indicating that one is liable for passing any of his offspring.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื‘ื™ืจื ื• ื“ืจืš ื”ืขื‘ืจื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืจื’ื ื“ืœื™ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ืžืฆืขื™ ื ื•ืจื ืžื”ืื™ ื’ื™ืกื ื•ื ื•ืจื ืžื”ืื™ ื’ื™ืกื

ยง 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.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื›ืžืฉื•ื•ืจืชื ื“ืคื•ืจื™ื

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 oneโ€™s child over a fire in such a fashion is the typical manner of passing a child over to Molekh.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื‘ื™ืจื ื• ื“ืจืš ืขื‘ืจื” ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื‘ืจื’ืœ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

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 her by foot, he is exempt. Evidently, the passing ritual is performed by leaping and not by walking.

ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืขืœ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ ื™ืจื™ื›ื• ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื‘ื ื• ื•ื‘ืชื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ืื—ื™ื• ื•ืื—ื•ืชื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ืขืฆืžื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘

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.

ืื—ื“ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ืื—ื“ ืœืฉืืจ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉืœื ืœืžื•ืœืš ืคื˜ื•ืจ

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.

ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœื ื™ืžืฆื ื‘ืš ื‘ืš ื‘ืขืฆืžืš

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: โ€œThere shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fireโ€ (Deuteronomy 18:10), and the term โ€œamong youโ€ is interpreted homiletically to mean: Among yourself.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ื“ืจืฉื™ ื‘ืš ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืื‘ื™ื“ืชื• ื•ืื‘ื™ื“ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉืœื• ืงื•ื“ืžืช ื•ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืคืก ื›ื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืš ืื‘ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืœื• ืงื•ื“ืžืช ืœืฉืœ ื›ืœ ืื“ื

The Gemara asks: And do the Rabbis not interpret the term โ€œamong youโ€ as referring to oneself? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Bava Metzia 33a): If one finds his lost item and his fatherโ€™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: โ€œOnly so that there shall be no needy among youโ€ (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 โ€œamong youโ€ is referring to oneself, i.e., one must take care of himself so that he will not become needy.

ื•ื”ืชื ืžืืคืก

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

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉืœืฉ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืœืžื”

ยง Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, 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: โ€œI will also set My face against that man, and I will excise him from among his peopleโ€ (Leviticus 20:3), and in the verse: โ€œThen I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and I will excise himโ€ (Leviticus 20:5). The third mention of karet is with regard to one who blasphemes: โ€œThat person blasphemes the Lord, and that soul shall be excised from among his peopleโ€ (Numbers 15:30).

ืื—ืช ืœื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ืื—ืช ืœืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ืื—ืช ืœืžื•ืœืš

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.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื•ืœืš ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ื›ืจืช ื‘ืžื•ืœืš ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื”

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.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื’ื“ืฃ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ื›ืจืช ื‘ืžื’ื“ืฃ ืœืžื” ืœื™

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?

ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืณื”ื›ืจืช ืชื›ืจืชืณ ืณื”ื›ืจืชืณ ื‘ืขื•ืœื ื”ื–ื” ืณืชื›ืจืชืณ ืœืขื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to one who blasphemes: โ€œBecause 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 himโ€ (Numbers 15:31). The phrase โ€œhikkaret tikkaretโ€ is interpreted as follows: โ€œHikkaretโ€; the sinner is excised in this world, meaning that he will die prematurely. โ€œTikkaretโ€; the sinner is excised in the World-to-Come, and he will not merit everlasting life. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ื”ืœื ื›ื‘ืจ ื ืืžืจ ืณื•ื ื›ืจืชื”ืณ ื•ื›ื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ืขื•ืœืžื™ื ื™ืฉ ืืœื ืณื•ื ื›ืจืชื”ืณ ื‘ืขื•ืœื ื”ื–ื” ืณื”ื›ืจืชืณ ืœืขื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื ืณืชื›ืจืชืณ ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: But isnโ€™t it already stated in the previous verse: โ€œHe blasphemes the Lord; that soul shall be excised [venikhreta]โ€ (Numbers 15:30)? Are there three worlds in which the sinner is excised? Rather, from the term in the verse โ€œvenikhretaโ€ it is derived that the sinner is excised in this world, from the term โ€œhikkaretโ€ it is derived that the sinner is excised in the World-to-Come, and nothing is derived from the doubled verb โ€œhikkaret tikkaret,โ€ as the Torah spoke in the language of people.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 64

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 64

ืณื”ืก ืฉืœื ืœื”ื–ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ืฉื ื” ืฉืœื ืœื™ืžื“ื• ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื•

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.

ืžื™ื“ ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื™ืจืืชื• ืžื—ื™ืงื• ื•ืžื—ื‘ืงื” ื•ืžื ืฉืงื” ืขื“ ืฉื ื‘ืงืขื” ื›ืจื™ืกื• ื•ื ืคืœื” ื™ืจืืชื• ืœืืจืฅ ื•ื ืคืœ ื”ื•ื ืขืœื™ื” ืœืงื™ื™ื ืžื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืชื™ ืืช ืคื’ืจื™ื›ื ืขืœ ืคื’ืจื™ ื’ืœื•ืœื™ื›ืืณ ื‘ืชืจ ื“ืื‘ื™ืงื• ื‘ื™ื”

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: โ€œAnd I shall cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idolsโ€ (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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ื™ื–ืขืงื• ื‘ืงื•ืœ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืืœ ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื”ื ืžืื™ ืืžื•ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ื‘ื™ื™ื ื‘ื™ื™ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืื—ืจื‘ื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ืชื ื•ืงืœื™ื ืœื”ื™ื›ืœื ื•ืงื˜ืœื™ื ื”ื• ืœืฆื“ื™ืงื™ ื•ืื’ืœื™ื ื”ื• ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืืจืขื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžืจืงื“ ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ื›ืœื•ื ื™ื”ื‘ืชื™ื” ืœืŸ ืืœื ืœืงื‘ื•ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืื’ืจื ืœื ืื™ื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ืœื ืื’ืจื™ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจ ื“ืื‘ื™ืงื• ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof, from the verse: โ€œAnd they cried in a loud voice to the Lord their Godโ€ (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. Didnโ€™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.

ื™ืชื‘ื• ืชืœืชื ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืชืขื ื™ืชื ื‘ืขื• ืจื—ืžื™ ื ืคืœ ืœื”ื• ืคื™ืชืงื ืžืจืงื™ืขื ื“ื”ื•ื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ืืžืช

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื—ื•ืชืžื• ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืืžืช

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

ื ืคืง ื›ื’ื•ืจื™ื ื“ื ื•ืจื ืžื‘ื™ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื ื‘ื™ื ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื™ืฆืจื ื“ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื“ืงืชืคืกื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืฉืชืžื™ื˜ ื‘ื™ื ื™ืชื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืื–ืœ ืงืœื™ื” ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื” ืคืจืกื™ ืืžืจื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื ื™ืขื‘ื“ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืžืฉืžื™ื ืžืจื—ืžื™ ืขืœื™ื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื ื‘ื™ื ืฉื“ื™ื•ื”ื• ื‘ื“ื•ื“ื ื“ืื‘ืจื ื•ื›ืกื™ื•ื” ื‘ืื‘ืจื ื“ืฉื™ื™ืฃ ืงืœื™ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื–ืืช ื”ืจืฉืขื” ื•ื™ืฉืœืš ืื•ืชื” ืืœ ืชื•ืš ื”ืื™ืคื” ื•ื™ืฉืœืš ืืช ื”ืื‘ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืคืจืช ืืœ ืคื™ื”ืณ

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: โ€œAnd 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 openingโ€ (Zechariah 5:8). They followed this advice and were freed of the evil inclination for idol worship.

ืืžืจื™ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืขืช ืจืฆื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ืจื—ืžื™ ืื™ืฆืจื ื“ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื‘ืขื• ืจื—ืžื™ ืื™ืžืกืจ ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื™ื”ื•

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.

ื—ื‘ืฉื•ื”ื• ืชืœืชื ื™ื•ืžื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื• ื‘ื™ืขืชื ื‘ืช ื™ื•ืžื ืœื—ื•ืœื” ื•ืœื ืืฉื›ื—ื• ืืžืจื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื ื™ื‘ืขื™ ืคืœื’ื ืคืœื’ื ืžืจืงื™ืขื ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ ื›ื—ืœื™ื ื”ื• ืœืขื™ื ื™ื” ืื”ื ื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืœื ืื™ื’ืจื™ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจื•ื‘ืชื™ื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ื ื›ืจื™ืช ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ื—ื•ืœื” ื‘ื™ื•ืชืจ ืืžืจื” ืื ืชืขืžื•ื“ ื”ื”ื™ื ืืฉื” ืžื—ื•ืœื™ื” ืชืœืš ื•ืชืขื‘ื•ื“ ืœื›ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉื‘ืขื•ืœื ืขืžื“ื” ื•ืขื‘ื“ื” ืœื›ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉื‘ืขื•ืœื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื’ื™ืข ืœืคืขื•ืจ ืฉืืœื” ืœื›ื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืžื” ืขื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื–ื• ืืžืจื• ืœื” ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืชืจื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื•ืชื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืจ ื•ืžืชืจื™ื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ื” ืืžืจื” ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ืฉืชื—ื–ื•ืจ ื”ื”ื•ื ืืฉื” ืœื—ื•ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ืชืขื‘ื•ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ื›ืš

ยง 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.

ืืชื ื‘ื™ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื™ื ืŸ ื›ืŸ ื”ื ืฆืžื“ื™ื ืœื‘ืขืœ ืคืขื•ืจ ื›ืฆืžื™ื“ ืคืชื™ืœ ื•ืืชื ื”ื“ื‘ืงื™ื ื‘ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื›ื ื›ืฉืชื™ ืชืžืจื•ืช ื”ื“ื‘ื•ืงื•ืช ื–ื• ื‘ื–ื•

Rav Yehuda adds: You, the house of Israel, are not like that woman who could not bear the repulsiveness of Baโ€™al-Peor. It is stated with regard to the attitude of the Jewish people toward idol worship: โ€œThat have attached themselves [hanitzmadim] to Baโ€™al-Peorโ€ (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: โ€œBut you who did cleave [hadevekim] to the Lord your Godโ€ (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.

ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืชื ื ืณื”ื ืฆืžื“ื™ื ืœื‘ืขืœ ืคืขื•ืจืณ ื›ืฆืžื™ื“ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืืฉื” ืณื•ืืชื ื”ื“ื‘ืงื™ื ื‘ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื›ืืณ ื“ื‘ื•ืงื™ื ืžืžืฉ

This comparison was taught in a baraita but with the opposite conclusion: โ€œThat have attached themselves [hanitzmadim] to Baโ€™al-Peorโ€ indicates a connection that is like a bracelet [ketzamid] on a womanโ€™s arm, which is worn loosely. โ€œBut you who did cleave to the Lord your Godโ€ means they actually adhered to one another, i.e., there was a tight connection.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืกื‘ื˜ื ื‘ืŸ ืืœืก ืฉื”ืฉื›ื™ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจื• ืœื ื›ืจื™ืช ืื—ืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื’ื™ืขื” ืœืคืขื•ืจ ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืณื”ืžืชืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืื›ื ืก ื•ืืฆืืณ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื™ืฆืื” ืืžืจ ืœื” ืณืืฃ ืืช ื”ืžืชื™ื ื™ ืขื“ ืฉืื›ื ืก ื•ืืฆืืณ ืืžืจื” ืœื• ืณื•ืœื ื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ ืืชื”ืณ ืืžืจ ืœื” ืณื•ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ืคืช ืœื™ืšืณ ื ื›ื ืก ืคืขืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ื•ืงื™ื ื— ื‘ื—ื•ื˜ืžื• ื•ื”ื™ื• ื›ื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืžืงืœืกื™ืŸ ืœื• ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืณืžืขื•ืœื ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืื“ื ืฉืขื‘ื“ื• ืœื–ื• ื‘ื›ืšืณ

The Gemara relates another incident with regard to Baโ€™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: Arenโ€™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 Baโ€™al-Peor, he actually worshipped it.

ื”ืคื•ืขืจ ืขืฆืžื• ืœื‘ืขืœ ืคืขื•ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื™ื–ื•ื™ ื”ื–ื•ืจืง ืื‘ืŸ ืœืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœืžื™ืจื’ืžื™ื”

The halakha is that one who defecates before Baโ€™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. Like-wise, one who throws a stone at Mercury is obligated to bring an a sin-offering to atone for idol worship, as this is its typical form of worship, even if he intends to stone it.

ืจื‘ ืžื ืฉื” ื”ื•ื” ืงืื–ื™ืœ ืœื‘ื™ ืชื•ืจืชื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืงืื™ ื”ื›ื ืฉืงืœ ืคื™ืกื ืฉื“ื ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก ื”ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืณื”ื–ื•ืจืง ืื‘ืŸ ืœืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืกืณ ืชื ืŸ

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.

ืืชื ืฉืืœ ื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืณื”ื–ื•ืจืง ืื‘ืŸ ื‘ืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืกืณ ืชื ืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœืžื™ืจื’ืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ื–ื™ืœ ืื™ืฉืงืœื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื—ื“ ื”ื ื•ื˜ืœื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ื ื•ืชื ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ื—ื“ื ื•ื—ื“ื ืจื•ื•ื—ื ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจืชื” ืฉื‘ื™ืง

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื•ืชืŸ ืžื–ืจืขื• ืœืžื•ืœืš ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืžืกื•ืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ื™ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ืืฉ ืžืกืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ืœื ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ืืฉ ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ืืฉ ื•ืœื ืžืกืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืžืกื•ืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ื™ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ืืฉ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืงืชื ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืžื•ืœืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื•ืœืš ืœืื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ืื—ื“ ืœืฉืืจ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉืœื ืœืžื•ืœืš ืคื˜ื•ืจ

GEMARA: The halakhot of oneโ€™s liability for idol worship are taught in the mishna above (60b), and the halakhot of oneโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืชืคืกื” ืชื•ืจื” ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืณืžื•ืœืšืณ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ืžืœื™ื›ื•ื”ื• ืขืœื™ื”ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืฆืจื•ืจ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื™ืกื

Abaye says: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi แธคanina 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 แธคanina ben Antigonus shares the same opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi แธคanina 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.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžื•ืœืš ืขืจืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

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 แธคanina ben Antigonus, one is liable for worshipping even a temporary Molekh.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืžืกืจื ื• ืœื›ื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืžื–ืจืขืš ืœื ืชืชืŸ ืœื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ืœืžืœืš

ยง 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: โ€œAnd you shall not give any of your offspring to pass them over to Molekhโ€ (Leviticus 18:21), which indicates that the prohibition is to give, i.e., to hand the child over to the priests.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื•ืœื ืžืกืจ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืœื ืชืชืŸืณ ืžืกืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ืœื ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืœื”ืขื‘ื™ืจืณ ืžืกืจ ื•ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ืฉืœื ืœืžื•ืœืš ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืœืžืœืšืณ

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: โ€œYou shall not give.โ€ 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: โ€œTo pass,โ€ 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: โ€œTo Molekh.โ€

ืžืกืจ ื•ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ืœื ื‘ืืฉ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืณืœื”ืขื‘ื™ืจืณ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืณืœื ื™ืžืฆื ื‘ืš ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ื ื• ื•ื‘ืชื• ื‘ืืฉืณ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ื•ืžื” ื›ืืŸ ืžื•ืœืš ืืฃ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืžื•ืœืš

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: โ€œTo pass,โ€ and it is stated there, in another verse: โ€œThere shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fireโ€ (Deuteronomy 18:10). Just as there, the verse is referring to passing oneโ€™s child through the fire, so too here, the reference is to passing oneโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ื›ืœ ื–ืจืขื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืžื–ืจืขืš ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื–ืจืขืš

Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rava, says: One who passed all his offspring through fire to the priests of Molekh is exempt, as it is stated: โ€œOf your offspring,โ€ indicating: But not all your offspring.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจื• ืกื•ืžื ืžื”ื• ื™ืฉืŸ ืžื”ื• ื‘ืŸ ื‘ื ื• ื•ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื• ืžื”ื•

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 sonโ€™s son or his daughterโ€™s son through the fire, what is the halakha?

ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ืžื™ื”ื ื—ื“ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืณื›ื™ ืžื–ืจืขื• ื ืชืŸ ืœืžืœืšืณ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื ื™ืžืฆื ื‘ืš ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ื ื• ื•ื‘ืชื• ื‘ืืฉืณ ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื‘ื ื• ื•ื‘ืชื• ื‘ืŸ ื‘ื ื• ื•ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื• ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื‘ืชืชื• ืžื–ืจืขื•ืณ

The Gemara answers: Resolve at least one of these dilemmas, as it is taught in a baraita: Why must the verse state: โ€œBecause he has given of his offspring to Molekhโ€ (Leviticus 20:3)? What is added by this statement? Because it is stated: โ€œThere shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fire,โ€ 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 sonโ€™s son or his daughterโ€™s son is also liable? The verse states: โ€œWhen he gives of his offspringโ€ (Leviticus 20:4). The term โ€œoffspringโ€ indicates that grandchildren are included. This resolves one of Rav Ashiโ€™s dilemmas.

ืชื ื ืคืชื— ื‘ื›ื™ ืžื–ืจืขื• ื•ืกืœื™ืง ื‘ืชืชื• ืžื–ืจืขื•

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

ื“ืจืฉื” ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื”ื•ื ืณื–ืจืขื•ืณ ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื–ืจืข ื›ืฉืจ ื–ืจืข ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื‘ืชืชื• ืžื–ืจืขื•ืณ

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 โ€œhis offspringโ€ 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: โ€œWhen he gives of his offspring,โ€ indicating that one is liable for passing any of his offspring.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื‘ื™ืจื ื• ื“ืจืš ื”ืขื‘ืจื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืจื’ื ื“ืœื™ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ืžืฆืขื™ ื ื•ืจื ืžื”ืื™ ื’ื™ืกื ื•ื ื•ืจื ืžื”ืื™ ื’ื™ืกื

ยง 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.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื›ืžืฉื•ื•ืจืชื ื“ืคื•ืจื™ื

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 oneโ€™s child over a fire in such a fashion is the typical manner of passing a child over to Molekh.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื‘ื™ืจื ื• ื“ืจืš ืขื‘ืจื” ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื‘ืจื’ืœ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

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 her by foot, he is exempt. Evidently, the passing ritual is performed by leaping and not by walking.

ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืขืœ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ ื™ืจื™ื›ื• ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื‘ื ื• ื•ื‘ืชื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ืื—ื™ื• ื•ืื—ื•ืชื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื”ืขื‘ื™ืจ ืขืฆืžื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘

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.

ืื—ื“ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื•ืื—ื“ ืœืฉืืจ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืœืžื•ืœืš ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉืœื ืœืžื•ืœืš ืคื˜ื•ืจ

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.

ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœื ื™ืžืฆื ื‘ืš ื‘ืš ื‘ืขืฆืžืš

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: โ€œThere shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fireโ€ (Deuteronomy 18:10), and the term โ€œamong youโ€ is interpreted homiletically to mean: Among yourself.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ื“ืจืฉื™ ื‘ืš ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืื‘ื™ื“ืชื• ื•ืื‘ื™ื“ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉืœื• ืงื•ื“ืžืช ื•ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืคืก ื›ื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืš ืื‘ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืœื• ืงื•ื“ืžืช ืœืฉืœ ื›ืœ ืื“ื

The Gemara asks: And do the Rabbis not interpret the term โ€œamong youโ€ as referring to oneself? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Bava Metzia 33a): If one finds his lost item and his fatherโ€™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: โ€œOnly so that there shall be no needy among youโ€ (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 โ€œamong youโ€ is referring to oneself, i.e., one must take care of himself so that he will not become needy.

ื•ื”ืชื ืžืืคืก

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

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉืœืฉ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืœืžื”

ยง Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, 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: โ€œI will also set My face against that man, and I will excise him from among his peopleโ€ (Leviticus 20:3), and in the verse: โ€œThen I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and I will excise himโ€ (Leviticus 20:5). The third mention of karet is with regard to one who blasphemes: โ€œThat person blasphemes the Lord, and that soul shall be excised from among his peopleโ€ (Numbers 15:30).

ืื—ืช ืœื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ืื—ืช ืœืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ืื—ืช ืœืžื•ืœืš

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.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื•ืœืš ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ื›ืจืช ื‘ืžื•ืœืš ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื”

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.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื’ื“ืฃ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื™ื ื›ืจืช ื‘ืžื’ื“ืฃ ืœืžื” ืœื™

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?

ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืณื”ื›ืจืช ืชื›ืจืชืณ ืณื”ื›ืจืชืณ ื‘ืขื•ืœื ื”ื–ื” ืณืชื›ืจืชืณ ืœืขื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to one who blasphemes: โ€œBecause 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 himโ€ (Numbers 15:31). The phrase โ€œhikkaret tikkaretโ€ is interpreted as follows: โ€œHikkaretโ€; the sinner is excised in this world, meaning that he will die prematurely. โ€œTikkaretโ€; the sinner is excised in the World-to-Come, and he will not merit everlasting life. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ื”ืœื ื›ื‘ืจ ื ืืžืจ ืณื•ื ื›ืจืชื”ืณ ื•ื›ื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ืขื•ืœืžื™ื ื™ืฉ ืืœื ืณื•ื ื›ืจืชื”ืณ ื‘ืขื•ืœื ื”ื–ื” ืณื”ื›ืจืชืณ ืœืขื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื ืณืชื›ืจืชืณ ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: But isnโ€™t it already stated in the previous verse: โ€œHe blasphemes the Lord; that soul shall be excised [venikhreta]โ€ (Numbers 15:30)? Are there three worlds in which the sinner is excised? Rather, from the term in the verse โ€œvenikhretaโ€ it is derived that the sinner is excised in this world, from the term โ€œhikkaretโ€ it is derived that the sinner is excised in the World-to-Come, and nothing is derived from the doubled verb โ€œhikkaret tikkaret,โ€ as the Torah spoke in the language of people.

Scroll To Top