Sanhedrin 64b (סד:) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna that he is not liable until he hands over the child to the Molekh.

Rabbi Yannai said:

The Mishna does not mean that he is not liable until he hands the child over to the Molekh itself; rather, it means that

he is not liable until he hands the child over to the priests,

the servants of the Molekh.

As it is stated [Leviticus 18:]

[Leviticus 18]

“And you shall not give any of your offspring

to others, who presumably are the servants of the Molekh, in order

to pass them over to the king.”

The beraita also teaches likewise:

a.

One might have thought that if he passed

his son through the fire himself

and did not hand

him over to the priests,

he should be liable,

as the verse states: “There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire,” which seemingly indicates that he is liable even without handing the child over? —

The verse states: “You shall not give,”

to teach that he is liable only if he gives the child to others, the servants of the Molekh, so that they pass him through the fire.

b.

If he handed the child over to the Molekh,

to the servants of the Molekh,

but they did not pass him through, might he be liable

for the act of handing him over with the intention that he be passed through alone?

The verse states: “To pass through.”

This teaches that he is not liable for giving the child to the servants of the Molekh if the servant did not pass him through the fire.

If he handed over the child and passed him through

to another form of idolatry

rather than to the Molekh, might he be liable? —

The verse states: “To the Molekh.”

If he handed over the child and passed him through to the Molekh, but did not

pass him

through the fire, might he be liable? —

“To pass through” is stated here, and it is stated elsewhere [Deuteronomy 18]:

[Deuteronomy 18] “

There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire.” Just as there, it is through fire

so too here, it is through fire. And just as here, it is to the Molekh,

so too there, it is to the Molekh.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said: If he passed all his offspring through —

he is exempt, as it is stated: “Of your offspring,”

which indicates a portion of your offspring

and not all your offspring.

Rav Ashi raised a dilemma: If he passed him through

when he was

blind,

unable to pass through on his own by walking, since he could not see,

what is the halakha?

Is this considered the usual manner of passing through or not?

If he passed him through when he was

asleep,

when he was incapable of walking on his own,

what is the halakha?

If he passed

his grandson or granddaughter through, what is the halakha?

Are they considered like his son or daughter?

And the Gemara says:

Resolve at least one

of the dilemmas from the fact that a grandchild is indeed like a child.

As it is taught:

[Leviticus 20] At the end of the passage concerning one who passes his son over to the Molekh, after the liability for execution has already been stated, the verse says: “And I shall set My face against that man,

because he gave of his offspring to the Molekh.”

What does the verse come to teach?

Is it not obvious that the punishment mentioned here is because he gave his offspring to the Molekh, since that is the subject of the passage? Why, then, did the verse need to state: “Because he gave of his offspring to the Molekh”?

Since it is stated: “There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire” —

I have derived only his son and his daughter. From where

do I derive

his grandson and granddaughter? The verse states [Leviticus 20]

[Leviticus 20]

“When he gives of his offspring,”

and the Gemara will immediately explain why the tanna moved to expound this verse, when his question was why it says: “Because he gave of his offspring to the Molekh.”

The Gemara analyzes the words of the beraita:

The tanna begins with

the question of why the verse was written

“Because of his offspring,” and concludes

by expounding the verse

“When he gives of his offspring”!

The Gemara explains:

It is a different exposition:

This is how the tanna expounded the verse:

“His offspring” —

I have derived only legitimate offspring; from where do I derive illegitimate offspring? —

The verse states: “When he gives of his offspring.”

Rav Yehuda said: He is not liable until he passes the child through in the manner of passing through

in which they pass children to the Molekh, so that he does not deviate from the manner of their practice.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances?

Abaye said: A row of bricks in the middle,

with bricks placed one atop the other in the center, and

fire

on one side

and fire on the other side,

meaning that they pass the child over the row of bricks while fire burns on both sides of it. They do not burn the child for the Molekh; only in the worship of the gods of Sepharvaim did they burn the child.

Rava said: It is like the jumping game of Purim,

a children’s game in which they would dig a pit in the ground, light a fire in it, and jump over the fiery pit from one side to the other.

It is taught in support of Rava: He is not liable until he passes the child through in the manner of passing through

of the Molekh.

If he passed the child through on foot —

he is exempt.

This proves that the manner of worship of the Molekh was by jumping.

And he is liable only for his own descendants.

How so? For his son or daughter —

he is liable; for his father or mother, his brother or sister —

he is exempt.

If he passed himself through —

he is exempt,

but Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds him liable.

Whether

one passes his son

to the Molekh, or whether he passes him to another form of idolatry, he is liable.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says:

Only one who passes his son

to the Molekh —

is liable;

but if he passes him

not to the Molekh, he is exempt.

Ulla said: What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

with regard to the first halakha he stated, that even one who passes himself through is liable!?

The verse states [Deuteronomy 18]

[Deuteronomy 18]

“There shall not be found among you” —

“among you”

means in you yourself.

The Gemara asks:

But

if so,

do the Rabbis not expound “among you”

to teach that one is liable for passing himself through!?

But we learned in the Mishna: If his lost item and his father’s lost item —

his own takes precedence.

And we said: What is the reason?

And Rav Yehuda said: The verse states [Deuteronomy 15]

[Deuteronomy 15]

“However, there shall be no pauper among you” —

the verse teaches by the expression “among you” that the return of his lost item

takes precedence over that of anyone else,

because here the verse warns a person to take care that he not come to poverty.

But should we say that this unattributed Mishna is not in accordance with the Rabbis!?

The Gemara answers:

There,

when we said that his lost item takes precedence over everyone else’s, we did not derive this from “among you,” because the Rabbis dispute the exposition from “among you”; rather, there the verse warned

“however”

— “there shall be no pauper among you”—where the word “however” means: let poverty cease or be eradicated from you.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Why are there three occurrences of the punishment of karet

that are stated

with regard to idolatry?

One for its usual manner, one for an act not in its usual manner,

and one for the Molekh.

And the Gemara asks:

But according to the one who says that the Molekh is an idolatry,

and handing children over to it is its usual manner of worship,

why do I need the punishment of

karet

that the verse states with regard to the Molekh?

And it answers:

It is for one who passes his son through in a manner not customary for the Molekh.

The Gemara asks further:

But according to the one who says that blasphemy is an idolatry, why do I need karet for blasphemy?

Is that not its usual manner of worship?

It is needed for that which is taught:

The verse states with regard to the blasphemer [Numbers 15:]

“He shall surely be cut off

from that soul,” teaching you:

“He shall be cut off”

in this world; “he shall surely be cut off”

in the World-to-Come. These are the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: But it has already been stated

also:

“And that soul shall be cut off.” Are there three worlds?

Rather, “and that soul shall be cut off” —

in this world; “he shall be cut off” —

in the World-to-Come; “he shall surely be cut off” —

the Torah spoke in the language of human beings.