• Ending the יצרא דעבודה זרה

The אנשי כנסת הגדולה cried out to Hashem that the יצר הרע for avodah zarah caused the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash and the subsequent galus, ועדיין הוא מרקד בינן – and it still dances among us. Since this desire was only given to reward those who overcome it, they said: לא איהו בעינן ולא אגריה בעינן – we do not want it, nor the reward for overcoming it! They fasted and davened for three days and nights, and a note fell down from Heaven with the word, "אמת", indicating Hashem’s consent. It emerged from the קדש הקדשים in the likeness of a lion cub, and they put it in a lead cauldron with a lead cover to contain its voice (so Hashem should not have mercy on it). Realizing it was an עת רצון, they attempted to similarly end the יצר הרע for עריות, and imprisoned it for three days. However, they could not find any freshly laid eggs, since the desire for procreation was subdued. Therefore, they released it, but blinded its eyes, and thereby achieved that a person does not desire to sin with relatives.

• Machlokes if מולך is a form of עבודה זרה

The Mishnah on Daf 53a listed עבודה זרה and מולך separately as sins subject to סקילה. Rebbe Avin infers that this Tanna holds מולך לאו עבודה זרה – Molech is not a form of idolatry. Therefore, if one serves מולך with a standard act of idolatry, such as sacrificing an offering, he is not liable (in contrast to any עבודה זרה), and if he offers his child (i.e., the service of מולך) to another idol, he is not liable. This is a machlokes in a Baraisa, where the Tanna Kamma says: אחד למולך ואחד לשאר עבודה זרה חייב – whether one offers his child to מולך or to any other idol, he is liable, because מולך is a type of avodah zarah. Rebbe Elazar bar Rebbe Shimon says one is only liable for doing so to מולך. Abaye says that Rebbe Chanina ben Antignos holds like Rebbe Elazar, because he taught that the Torah uses the term "מולך" – ruler to include כל שהמליכוהו עליהם – anything they make as “ruler” over themselves, even a stone or a twig, in the מולך prohibition. This indicates that מולך is distinct from עבודה זרה, which is accepting a deity. Rava says these two Tannaim disagree regarding a מולך עראי – temporary Molech, such as a stone or twig, which is unfit to be a permanent “ruler.”

• "מסירה" and "העברה" for מולך, and the description of the מולך service

The Mishnah stated that one is not liable for giving of his offspring to מולך, עד שימסור למולך ויעביר באש – unless he hands over the child to Molech, and passes him through the fire, but not if he did one without the other. Rebbe Yannai explains that “handing over” the child means to the משרתי עבודה זרה – servants of the idol, who pass him through a fire. A Baraisa derives these requirements from pesukim, and additionally derives that it be specifically to מולך, and that he be passed through a fire.

Rav Yehudah said: אינו חייב עד שיעבירנו דרך העברה – he is not liable unless he passes [his child] through in the standard way of passing through. Abaye explains that the standard manner is a column of bricks in the center, with fire on either side, and the child is passed over the bricks without burning him. Rava says: כמשוורתא דפוריא – like the leaping of Purim. The person carrying the child leaps over a firepit (similar to a practice done by children on Purim). A Baraisa supports Rava’s position.

Siman – Secret Agent. As a group of secret agents were busy trapping the yetzer hora for avodah zarah in a lead cauldron, one secret agent discovered that Molech was not considered an avodah zarah when he spotted a person still offering a child to an idol who wasn’t chayav, and learned how it was done when he saw another father leaping over a firepit with his child as if it was Purim.