Sanhedrin 64b — the Talmud in English

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

Rabbi Yannai said:

The Mishna does not intend to say that he is not liable until he hands him over to Molekh himself; rather, it intends to say that

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

the attendants of Molekh.

As it is stated

Leviticus 18]:

“And from your offspring you shall not give

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

to pass over to the king.”

It was also taught so:

a.

One might have thought: If he passed over

his son through the fire himself

and did not hand him over

to the priests,

he should be liable,

because Scripture says, “There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fire,” and this apparently implies that he would be liable even without handing him over? —

The verse states: “You shall not give,”

to teach that he is liable only if he gives him to others, the attendants of Molekh, so that they pass him over.

b.

He handed him over to Molekh,

to the attendants of Molekh,

but did not pass him over; might he be liable

for the handing over itself, merely with the intention of passing him over?

The verse states: “To pass over.”

It is to say that he is not liable for giving him to the attendants of Molekh if the attendant did not pass him through the fire.

He handed him over and passed him over

to another idolatry,

not to Molekh; might he be liable? —

The verse states: “To Molekh.”

He handed him over and passed him over to Molekh, but did not

pass him

through the fire; might he be liable? —

Here “to pass over” is stated, and elsewhere

Deuteronomy 18:

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

so here, it is through fire. And just as here it is Molekh—

so there it is Molekh.

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

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

which implies part of your offspring,

but not all your offspring.

Rav Ashi raised a question: If he passed him over

when he was

blind,

as he cannot pass over by himself in his own manner of walking since he cannot see,

what is the law?

Is this the manner of passing over or not?

If he passed him over when he was

asleep,

when he is then incapable of walking by himself,

what is the law?

If he passed over

his son’s son or his daughter’s son, what is the law?

Are their laws like those of one who passes over his son or his daughter?

And the Gemara says:

Resolve at least one

of the questions: The grandson is indeed like the son.

As it was taught:

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

because he gave of his offspring to Molekh.”

What does the verse come to teach?

For is it not obvious that the cutting off mentioned here is because he gave his offspring to Molekh, since that is what the passage deals with? And why did Scripture need to say, “because he gave of his offspring to Molekh”?

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

I have only [that it applies to] his son and his daughter. From where

[do I know that it applies to his son’s son and his daughter’s son

?

The verse

states [Leviticus 20]:

“When he gives of his offspring,”

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

The Gemara discusses the words of the beraita:

The tanna began with

the question of why the verse was written

“because of his offspring,” and concluded

by expounding the verse, “when he gives of his offspring”!?

And the Gemara explains:

It is another exposition:

And thus the tanna expounded:

“His offspring”—

I have only [that it applies to] valid offspring; from where [do I know that it applies to] invalid offspring?—

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

Rabbi Yehuda said: He is not liable until he passes him over in the manner of passing over

in which they pass over to Molekh, so that he does not alter the manner of their practice.

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances?

Abaye said: A row of bricks in the middle,

a row of bricks placed one upon another in the middle, and

fire

is present

on this side, and fire on that side,

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

Rava said: Like the jumping game of Purim,

like the children’s jumping game in which they used to play on Purim: They would make a pit in the ground, kindle a fire in it, and jump over the pit with the fire, from side to side.

It was taught in accordance with Rava: He is not liable until he passes him over in the manner of passing over

of Molekh.

If he passed her over on foot—

he is exempt.

And it is proven that the manner of worship of the king is by jumping.

And he is liable only for those who issue from his loins.

How so? For his son and his daughter—

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

he is exempt.

If he passed himself over—

he is exempt,

but Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon deems him liable.

Whether

one who passes his son

to Molekh, or whether to another idolatry, he is liable.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says:

Only one who passes his son

to Molekh—

he is liable,

but if he passed him

not to Molekh, he is exempt.

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

in the first ruling that he stated, that even one who passes himself over is liable!?

The verse says

Deuteronomy 18:

“There shall not be found among you”—

among you

means in yourself.

And the Gemara expresses astonishment:

But

if so,

do the Rabbis not expound “among you,”

to say that one is liable for passing himself over!?

But we learned: His lost property and his father’s lost property—

his own takes precedence.

And we say: What is the reason?

And Rav Yehuda said: The verse says

Deuteronomy 15:

“However, there shall be no needy person among you”—

Scripture teaches, by the word “among you,” that the returning of his lost property

takes precedence over that of every other person,

for here Scripture warned a person to take care that he not come to poverty.

And should we say that this anonymous Mishna is not in accordance with the Rabbis!?

The Gemara answers:

There,

where we said that his lost property takes precedence over that of every person, we did not learn this from “among you,” for the Rabbis dispute the exposition from “among you”; rather, there Scripture warned

through “however,”

“there shall be no needy person among you”—the meaning of the word “however” is: poverty shall cease or come to an end from you.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina said: Why are there three instances of cutting off

that were stated

with regard to idolatry?

One for its regular manner, and one for an irregular manner,

and one for Molekh.

And the Gemara asks:

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

and handing over sons to it is its manner of worship,

the cutting off

that Scripture stated

concerning Molekh, what do I need it for?

And it answers:

For one who passes his son in an irregular manner.

The Gemara asks further:

And according to the one who says that one who curses the Divine Name is an idolatry, what do I need the cutting off concerning one who curses the Divine Name for?

For is that not its manner of worship?

For that which was taught:

Scripture says concerning one who curses the Divine Name [Numbers 15]:

“He shall surely be cut off

that soul,” to teach you:

“He shall surely be cut off”—

in this world; “that soul shall be cut off”—

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

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: But is it not already 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 surely be cut off”—

in the World to Come; “that soul shall be cut off”—

the Torah spoke in the language of human beings.