Sanhedrin 64a (סד.) — the Talmud in English

Immediately, they silenced the infant before Elijah, and

he said to him:

Hush!

so that

the name of the Lord would not be mentioned.

And he did so because

his father and mother had not taught him

the recitation of the Shema.

Immediately, the infant took

his

fear

from his bosom, and

hugged and kissed it until his abdomen burst and it fell

to the ground, and he fell upon it.

To fulfill that which is stated [

Leviticus 26]

“And I shall place your corpses upon the corpses of your idols!” —

And it is thereby proven that the evil inclination toward idolatry had overpowered them.

And the Gemara answers:

After they had become attached to it.

Once they had attached themselves to it of their own accord, they began to cherish it, and from that point the evil inclination overpowered them to worship it.

Ta shma: [

Nehemiah 9]

“And they cried out

the members of the Great Assembly

in a loud voice to the Lord their God.”

What did they say?

Rav Yehuda said, and some say Rav Yonatan said:

They spoke in Aramaic:

“Woe, woe!”

Woe! Woe!

The evil inclination within us,

that is,

it was the one that caused

that it destroyed it,

for because of our sins the Holy One, Blessed be He, destroyed

the House,

the Temple,

and burned the Sanctuary,

and burned His Sanctuary,

and slew the righteous, and exiled Israel from their land—and it still,

the evil inclination,

dances among us,

dancing and inciting us.

Did He give it to us for any reason other than that we should receive reward through it,

for the evil inclination that You placed within us is so that we should withstand its tests, subdue our inclination, and receive reward for standing firm in the trial? —

We want neither it nor its reward!

We want neither the evil inclination nor the reward for standing up against it.

And it is proven from here that the evil inclination toward idolatry had overpowered them, for the Temple was destroyed on account of idolatry!?

And here too the Gemara answers:

After they had become attached to it.

Once they had attached themselves to it of their own accord, they began to cherish it, and from that point the evil inclination overpowered them to worship it.

The Gemara continues to cite the statement of Rav Yehuda:

They sat for three days,

the members of the Great Assembly,

in fasting, and they prayed for mercy

that the evil inclination toward idolatry should be removed from them.

A note fell to them from Heaven,

a note fell to them from the heavens,

on which “Truth” was written,

as a sign that the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with them that the evil inclination toward idolatry should be removed.

Rabbi Hanina said: Learn from this that the seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is “Truth.”

That is, just as a king who agrees with his servants affixes his seal to the enactment they have made, so the Holy One, Blessed be He, affixed His seal, which is “Truth,” to His agreement with the enactment of the members of the Great Assembly to remove the evil inclination toward idolatry.

A fiery lion cub emerged

fire in the form of a lion cub emerged

from the Holy of Holies.

A prophet said to Israel: This is,

this fire appearing as a lion cub is

the evil inclination toward idolatry.

As they seized it —

one hair was pulled from it,

one hair was torn from it, and it cried out in pain,

and its voice went

and the sound of its cry went

four hundred parasangs.

They said: What shall we do,

what shall we do?

Perhaps Heaven will have mercy on it

when they hear its cry of pain!

The prophet said to them: Cast it into a lead cauldron,

cast it into a cauldron of lead,

and cover it with lead,

and its cover should also be of lead,

for it muffles its voice,

because lead draws the sound inward and muffles it more than any other substance.

As it is written [

Zechariah 5]

“And he said: This is the wickedness!

the evil inclination toward idolatry

And he cast it into the ephah, and he cast the lead stone into its mouth.”

The members of the Great Assembly said:

The members of the Great Assembly said:

Since this is a time of divine favor,

now let us

pray for mercy

also concerning

the evil inclination toward transgression

of forbidden sexual relations, to remove it from us.

They prayed for mercy,

and

it was delivered into their hands,

the evil inclination toward forbidden sexual relations.

They imprisoned it for three days.

And once the desire for transgression had been nullified, the desire of the males to beget children and of the females to give birth was entirely nullified.

They searched for a day-old egg,

they sought an egg laid that day in order to feed it

to a sick person —

but they did not find one.

They found no fresh egg, because the chickens too had ceased laying eggs once their sexual heat had stopped.

They said,

the members of the Great Assembly said:

What shall we do?

If

we pray for half,

if we ask that the desire be nullified only where it involves transgression —

Half is not granted from Heaven

They do not grant it.

Rather,

they blinded its eyes,

they blinded the eyes of the evil inclination toward forbidden sexual relations, and

this was effective in that a person would not be provoked by his close relatives.

The blinding was effective in preventing a person from being aroused by his relatives, but he could still be aroused by another man’s wife and by a menstruating woman.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: There was an incident involving a certain gentile woman who was exceedingly ill. She said: If that woman recovers from her illness, [

this is what she said about herself,] she

will go and worship every idolatry in the world.

She recovered

from her illness,

and went to every idolatry in the world.

When she reached Peor, she asked the priests: How is this one worshipped?

They said to her: One eats greens, drinks beer, and defecates before it.

She said: It would be better for that woman to return to her illness than to worship an idol in this manner.

And Rav Yehuda continues in the name of Rav, saying: But

you, House of Israel, are not so!

Rather, when you attach yourselves to idolatry, you attach yourselves to it more than you attach yourselves to the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated [Numbers 25]

“Those who cleave to Baal of Peor” —

that you cleave to it with absolute attachment,

like a tightly closed cover

placed over a vessel, attached to it in a manner that cannot easily be separated. Conversely, when you cleave to the Holy One, Blessed be He, that attachment can easily be severed, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 4]:

“But you who cleave to the Lord your God” —

that you are attached to Him

like two dates attached to one another

with a light attachment that can easily be separated.

But

in a metanita it was taught

to Israel’s praise, the opposite:

“Those who cleave to Baal of Peor” —

that they cleave to it with a loose bond,

like a bracelet on a woman’s arm,

which is not attached to her hand. But when it is said of you,

“But you who cleave to the Lord your God” —

you are

truly attached

to Him

in reality.

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Sabta ben Elas,

a Jew who was called by that name,

who rented out his donkey to a certain gentile woman,

to carry her upon it, and he himself was also hired to lead the donkey.

When she reached

the gentile woman

Peor, she said to him: Wait until I enter and come out.

After she came out, he said to her: You too, wait until I enter and come out.

She said to him: Are you not a Jew? —

He said to her: What concern is that of yours!?

He entered, exposed himself before it, and wiped

the excrement from his rear

with his nose

of Peor

. And the priests praised him

for the unique manner of degradation that he had performed,

saying: Never has anyone worshipped this one in such a manner!

And the Gemara says:

One who exposes himself before Baal of Peor —

that is its worship, even though he intends to degrade it.

He is liable to bring an offering for doing so unwittingly, and liable to death for doing so intentionally after receiving a warning.

One who throws a stone at Merculis —

that is its worship, even though he intends to stone it.

Rav Menashe was going

to a place called

Bei Tartara.

They said to him: There is an idolatry standing here.

He took a pebble,

a stone,

and threw it at it!

He threw it at it in order to degrade it.

They said to him: It is Merculis!

And this is how it is worshipped.

He said to them: We learned: One who throws a stone at Merculis,

that it is forbidden to throw a stone before it, because that is its honor; but I threw the stone at Merculis itself, to strike its body in order to degrade it!

Rav Menashe came

Rav Menashe

and asked in the house of study.

They said to him: We learned: One who throws a stone at Merculis,

and

even though he intends to stone it,

that is its worship!

He said to them:

If so,

I shall go and remove it.

I shall go and take the stone from there, so that at least the stone will no longer be there in honor of Merculis.

They said to him: Whether one who removes it or one who places it, he is liable,

since removing the stone from there also honors Merculis, because

each one leaves space for its fellow,

each stone that is removed creates a place for another stone to be thrown.

Mishna:

One who gives some of his offspring to Molekh —

is not liable

to death for this

until he hands over

his offspring

to

the attendants of

Molekh, and passes

his offspring

through the fire.

If he handed over his offspring to Molekh but did not pass them through the fire,

or

passed them through the fire but did not hand them over to Molekh —

he is not liable

to death,

until he hands them over to Molekh and

also

passes them through the fire.

Gemara:

The Gemara infers:

It teaches

in the earlier Mishna [53a], among those liable to stoning: one who worships

idolatry. And it teaches

here separately, in our Mishna, liability for handing over one’s offspring to

“Molekh.”

Rabbi Avin said: We learned,

our Mishna was taught

according to the one who says, “Molekh” —

is not an idolatry!

Since the Mishna separates the law of one who worships idolatry from the law of one who hands over his offspring to Molekh, it follows that it holds according to the one who says that Molekh is not an idolatry. Therefore, one is liable only for handing over his offspring to Molekh, but is not liable for worshipping Molekh through other forms of worship, such as bowing.

Likewise, one who passes his offspring to an idolatry, but not to Molekh, and this is not its usual manner, does not transgress. Since the prohibition of handing over to Molekh is not due to worshipping an idolatry, but is a separate prohibition against handing over to Molekh.

As it was taught in a beraita: Whether one

who hands over his offspring

to Molekh, or whether one

who hands over his offspring

to another idolatry —

he is liable.

For the first tanna holds that Molekh too is an idolatry, and that its manner of worship is to hand over one’s offspring to it. If so, the Torah did not need to prohibit this worship separately, since it is included in the verse concerning idolatry in general [Deuteronomy 12]: “How do these nations worship their gods?” Rather, the verse in the passage concerning Molekh comes to teach that one is liable for this even when the handing over was to other idolatries [apart from Molekh], for one is liable despite the fact that this is not their manner of worship.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says:

Only one who hands over his offspring

to Molekh —

is liable,

because this is its manner; but one who hands over his offspring

not to Molekh —

is exempt.

That is, the prohibition is solely because of the law and practice of the nations, for they used to hand over their offspring to Molekh; Molekh, however, was not an idolatry. The Torah prohibited following this practice of the nations, which applied specifically to Molekh, and imposed the death penalty upon one who followed it.

Abaye said: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus said the same thing.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon —

this is what we said,

in the beraita.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus —

as it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: Why did the Torah use the term “Molekh”?

To teach that the liability for handing over one’s offspring applies to

anything that they made king over them [

this is the meaning of the term “Molekh”]

, even a bundle of straw and even a splinter of wood,

which they made “king” over themselves temporarily in order to hand over their children to it and pass them through the fire.

And from here it is proven that he holds that the prohibition of handing over one’s offspring was stated only with regard to Molekh, and not with regard to idolatry, because a splinter of wood and a bundle of straw are not idolatry.

Rava said:

They did not say the same thing, because

an incidental Molekh,

such as a bundle of straw or a splinter of wood, which is not fit to be called a “king,” but which they made king over themselves temporarily,

is the point of difference between them.

According to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus, one is liable for handing over his offspring to it, whereas according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, one is exempt, and one is liable only for an established Molekh.