Sanhedrin Daf 64 - Molech
Summary
- This segment presents Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav that Israel knew *avodah zarah* lacked substance and initially pursued it to permit *arayot b’farhesya*, then defends that claim against proofs of a deep attachment by explaining that intense love arose only “after attachment.” It narrates the communal fast and Heavenly approval to subdue the *yetzer hara* for *avodah zarah*, the containment of that force, and the failed attempt to eradicate the *yetzer hara* for *arayot*, which was only partially diminished. It records the nature of the degrading services of Peor and Markulis and the liability even when one intends to disgrace them. It sets out the Mishnah’s requirements for liability for Molech—both handing over to its attendants and passing through fire—and analyzes whether Molech is *avodah zarah* or a distinct prohibition with multiple halachic ramifications, concluding with detailed parameters of who and what actions are included.
- Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that Israel knew *avodah zarah* had no reality and served it only to permit *arayot b’farhesya* and a life of *hefkerut*. The attachment described like a parent yearning for a child is attributed to the bond formed only after habituation, not to the initial motivation.
- The episode of Eliyahu ha-tzaddik meeting a starving child in Yerushalayim who recoiled at “שמע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה' אחד,” dropped his idol from his bosom, and died upon it fulfills “ושמתי פגריכם על פגרי גלוליכם,” demonstrating powerful devotion, yet this too is attributed to late-stage attachment. The national outcry—“bai bai, this is what destroyed the Temple, burned the Heichal, killed the righteous, and exiled Israel, and it still dances among us”—is likewise situated “after attachment,” not as the original cause.
- The people fasted three days, prayed, and a note from Heaven stating אמת descended, after which a fiery pillar emerged from the Kodesh HaKodashim and was identified by the Navi as the *yetzer hara* for *avodah zarah*. On the Navi’s instruction, they sealed it in a lead container to stifle its outcry, and then their prayer subdued the *yetzer hara* for *arayot*, but locking it away for three days halted even egg-laying, so they “blinded its eye,” leaving people without desire for close relatives. Rav Bezalel Stern in Be’tzelel HaChochmah rules ספק דאורייתא לחומרא regarding yichud for gerim families, while Rav Moshe Feinstein (אבן העזר חלק ד' סימן ס"ד) rules that the halachic דין does not change the טבע, so where the *yetzer* is naturally absent (e.g., parent-child, siblings), the yichud permissions remain.
- A gentile woman vowed to worship every idol if she recovered, but upon learning Peor’s service—eating beets, drinking beer, and defecating before it—she preferred her illness, whereas Israel clung to Baal Peor “כצמיד פתיל,” yet their *deveikus* to Hashem is likened to two dates easily separated. A beraita, however, reads “הנצמדים לבעל פעור כצמיד על ידי אשה” as a loose attachment there, while “ואתם הדבקים בה' אלקיכם” denotes true attachment to Hashem.
- Service of Peor is the act of defecating before it, and one is liable even when intending to disgrace it. Service of Markulis is throwing a stone at it, and one is liable even when intending to stone it; when Rav Menasheh threw a clod at what turned out to be Markulis, the beit midrash ruled liability attaches to “הזורק אבן במרקוליס” even with intent to pelt. Removing a stone also incurs liability; the Chazon Ish questions equating removal with service, but the Rambam (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 3) codifies throwing and removing stones as the *derekh avodah* of Markulis, while Rashi’s reading of “כל חדא וחדא רווחא לחברתה שביק” emphasizes the structure leaving room for each subsequent stone.
- Liability for Molech requires both giving the child to its attendants and passing him through fire; either alone is insufficient. The derashah in Torat Kohanim includes women and slaves, and Rashi and the Rambam hold the child is passed between fires and does not die, whereas the Ramban marshals verses in Yechezkel and the report about Chizkiyahu’s father to argue that burning and death can occur.
- The Tanna Kamma holds one is liable whether doing this to Molech or to other *avodot*, while Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon holds liability is only to Molech and not to other *avodot*. The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim describes Molech as a form of *kishuf* promising protection of one’s surviving children, and the Ramban (Vayikra 18) describes it as a foolish segulah for dreams and prophetic experiences, not standard *avodah zarah*. Nafka minas include whether it is יהרג ואל יעבור, whether Bnei Noach are commanded, whether a מומר למולך attains the status of מומר לעבודה זרה, and whether acts like slaughtering or libations before Molech incur liability absent the Molech-specific rite.
- Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonos agree that liability is limited to that which is called Molech, though Rava differentiates a מולך עראי, for which Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonos would obligate once they “מליכו עליהם,” while Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon would exempt unless it is קבוע. Rabbi Yannai requires giving the child to the Molech’s attendants, as derived from “ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למולך,” and a beraita derives from “לא תתן,” “להעביר,” “למולך,” and “באש” that one must both give to the attendants and pass through fire for Molech.
- Rav Acha the son of Rava rules that one who passes all his offspring is exempt, from “ומזרעך” and not “כל זרעך.” The Rambam and Sefer HaChinuch explain this as not being the *derekh avodah*, since the priests promised success for the remaining children when only some were passed, whereas the Semag explains exemption because מיתת בית דין would not atone for a crime of such magnitude, and the Rashba adds that such a person is a שוטה; Tosafot notes that one with only a single child would be liable.
- A beraita derives from “בתתו מזרעו” that grandchildren—בן בנו and בן בתו—are included, and that liability extends to “זרע פסול.” Rav Yehuda requires “דרך העברה,” which Abaye describes as passing between two fires beside a central brick-stack and Rava as leaping over a fiery pit like “כמשוורתא דפוריא,” and a beraita supports Rava by exempting “העבירו ברגל.” Liability is only for “יוצאי יריכו,” so one is liable for his son or daughter, exempt for father, mother, brother, or sister, and exempt for “העביר עצמו” according to the Rabbis, while Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon obligates from “לא ימצא בך,” and the Rabbis answer that their derashah in Bava Metzia comes from “אפס” rather than “בך.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions