Sanhedrin 64a — the Talmud in English

Immediately they silenced the child for Elijah, and

said to him: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

Hush!

so that

he would not mention the Name of God.

And he did so because

his father and mother had not taught him

the recitation of Shema.

Immediately he brought out

the child his

fear from his bosom, and

he was

embracing it and kissing it, until his belly burst open, and it fell

his fear to the ground, and he fell upon it.

To fulfill what is stated [ [A0018]]Leviticus 26]

Leviticus 26]

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

And it is proved that their evil inclination was overpowering them toward idolatry.

And the Gemara answers:

After they had become attached to it.

After they had attached themselves to it of their own accord, they began to cherish it, and from then onward their evil inclination was overpowering them toward its worship.

Come and hear: [ [A0025]]Nehemiah 9]

Nehemiah 9]

“And they cried out

the men 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:

They said in the Aramaic language:

“Woe, woe!”

Woe! Woe!

The evil inclination within us,

that is to say,

it is that which caused

that it destroyed it,

for on account of our sins the Holy One, blessed be He, destroyed

the House,

the Temple,

and burned the Sanctuary,

and burned His Sanctuary,

and killed the righteous, and exiled Israel from their land, and it is still,

the evil inclination,

dancing among us,

dancing and inciting among us.

Was it given to us at all except so that we might receive reward through it,

for the evil inclination that You placed within us is in order that we should withstand its trials, subdue our inclination, and receive reward for withstanding the trial? —

We want neither it nor its reward!

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

And it is proved from here that the evil inclination of idolatry was overpowering them, for because of idolatry the Temple was destroyed!?

And here too the Gemara answers:

After they had become attached to it.

After they had attached themselves to it of their own accord, they began to cherish it, and from then onward their evil inclination was overpowering them toward its worship.

And the Gemara continues to bring the words of Rav Yehuda:

They sat for three days,

the men of the Great Assembly

in fasting, they requested mercy

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

A note fell to them from Heaven,

a note fell to them from the sky,

on which it was written, “Truth,”

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

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

That is to say, just as a king who agrees with his servants signs his seal upon their enactment, so the Holy One, blessed be He, signed with His seal, which is “Truth,” His agreement to the enactment of the men of the Great Assembly to remove the evil inclination of 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: That is to say,

this fire that appears in the form of a lion cub is

the inclination of idolatry.

As they seized it —

one hair was torn from it,

one hair was torn from it, and it emitted a cry of pain over this,

and its voice went,

and the sound of its pain went

four hundred parasangs.

They said: What shall we do,

what shall we do?

Perhaps from Heaven they will have mercy upon it

when they hear the sound of its pain!

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

throw it into a cauldron of lead,

and cover it with lead,

and its cover too should be lead,

for its voice is subdued,

because lead draws the voice inward and muffles the voice more than anything else.

As it is written [ [A0089]]Zechariah 5]

Zechariah 5]

“And he said: This is the wickedness!

the evil inclination of idolatry

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

The men of the Great Assembly said:

The men of the Great Assembly said:

Since it is a time of favor,

now, let us

request mercy

also for

the inclination toward transgression

of forbidden sexual relations, to remove it from us.

They requested mercy,

and

it was delivered into their hands

the inclination toward the transgression of 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 and of the females to give birth was entirely nullified.

They sought a day-old egg,

they searched for an egg laid that day in order to feed it

to a sick person —

but they did not find one.

They did not find a fresh egg, since the hens too ceased to lay eggs once their heat had stopped.

They said,

the men of the Great Assembly:

What shall we do?

If

we request half,

if we ask that the desire should be nullified only where there is transgression —

Half from Heaven

they do not give.

Rather,

they blinded its eyes,

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

it was effective with regard to it that a person would not be provoked toward his close relatives.

Since its blinding was effective in that a person is not provoked toward his relatives, but he is still provoked toward a married woman and toward a menstruating woman.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: There was an incident involving a certain gentile woman who was extremely ill. She said: If that woman rises from her illness [ [A0126]]thus she said about herself,

she

will go and worship every idolatry in the world.

She rose

from her illness,

and went to every idolatry in the world.

When she reached Peor, she asked the priests: How does one worship this?

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

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

And Rav Yehuda continues in the name of Rav and says: But

you, House of Israel, are not so!

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

“Those who cleave to Baal Peor” —

that you cleave to it with complete attachment,

like a tightly closed bracelet

that is placed upon a vessel, which is attached to it in such a manner that it cannot easily be detached. And, conversely, when you cling to the Holy One, blessed be He, this is a clinging that can easily be separated, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 4]:

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

that you are attached to Him

like two date-palm branches attached to one another

with a light attachment, which can easily be separated.

But

in the metanita it was taught

to the contrary, as praise:

“Those who cleave to Baal 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” —

then you are

attached

to Him

literally.

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

a Jew who was called by this 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: And what does it matter to you!?

He entered, exposed himself before it, and wiped

the excrement that was behind him

with his nose

of Peor

. And the priests were praising him

for the particular manner of degradation that he performed,

and saying: Never has there been a person who worshipped this in such a manner!

And the Gemara says:

One who exposes himself before Baal Peor —

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

And he is liable for a sacrifice for his unwitting act, and death for his deliberate act when warned.

One who throws a stone at Mercury —

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

Rav Menashe was going to

a place called

Bei Torta.

They said to him: There is 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 Mercury!

And this is how it is worshipped.

He said to them: “One who throws a stone at Mercury,” we learned,

that it is forbidden to throw a stone before it, because this is its honor, whereas I threw the stone at Mercury 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: “One who throws a stone at Mercury,” we learned,

and

even though he intends to stone it,

this is its worship!

He said to them:

If so,

I shall go and take it.

I shall go and take the stone from there, so that at least the stone will not be there for the honor of Mercury.

They said to him: Whether one who takes it or one who puts it there is liable,

since taking the stone from there also constitutes honor for Mercury, because

each one leaves space for its fellow,

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

Mishna:

One who gives of his offspring to Molekh —

is not liable

for death for this,

until he hands over

his offspring

to

the servants of

Molekh, and passes

his offspring

through fire.

He handed over to Molekh but did not pass through fire.

Or

he passed through fire but did not hand over to Molekh —

he is not liable

for death,

until he hands over to Molekh, and

also

passes through fire.

Gemara:

And the Gemara infers:

It teaches

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

idolatry. And it teaches

we learned here separately, in our Mishna, the 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 idolatry!

From the fact that the Mishna separated 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 idolatry. Therefore, one is liable only for handing over his offspring to Molekh, but one is not liable for worshipping Molekh through other acts, such as bowing down.

And likewise, one who passes his offspring to an idolatry, and not to Molekh, where this is not its manner, does not transgress. Since the prohibition of handing over to Molekh is not because of worshipping idolatry, but is another prohibition, that of handing over to Molekh.

As it was taught: Both

one who hands over his offspring

to Molekh, and both

one who hands over his offspring

to other idolatry —

is liable.

For the first tanna holds that Molekh too is idolatry, and this is its manner, to hand over one’s offspring to it. If so, the Torah did not need to prohibit this worship, since it is included in the statement of the verse concerning idolatry in general [Deuteronomy 12], “How these nations worship their gods.” And the verse in the passage of Molekh came only to introduce that one is liable for this even if the handing over was to other idolatries [besides Molekh], for one is liable for it even though this is not its 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 to say, the prohibition applies only because of the statute and custom of the nations, for this was their practice: to hand over their offspring to Molekh; but Molekh was not idolatry. And the Torah prohibited following this statute of the nations, which applied specifically to Molekh, and made one who followed it liable to death.

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: Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: Why did the Torah seize upon the expression “Molekh”? —

to say that the liability to death for handing over applies to

anything that they made king over themselves [ [A0266]]and this is the expression “Molekh”]

this is the meaning of the term “Molekh”]

, even a bundle, and even a splinter,

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

And from here it is proved that he holds that the prohibition of handing over was stated only with regard to Molekh, and not with regard to idolatry, because a splinter and a bundle are not idolatry.

Rava said:

They did not say the same thing, because

“temporary Molekh,”

such as a bundle or a splinter, which are not fit to be called “king,” except that they made it king over themselves temporarily,

is the point of difference between them.

For according to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus, one is liable for handing over to it, whereas according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, one is exempt from liability for it, and one is liable only for a permanent Molekh.