|
Blood Ritual: — Blood ritual is
fundamental to Judaism. Some blood sanctifies, some blood defiles. Let's see
what the Talmud doctrines are.
Moloch as pictured by an
unknown artist (6)
Moloch was an idol worshipped by the Hebrews and some other people of the area.
The priests burned a large fire within the idol, and according to a number
of Biblical and Talmudic references, the Hebrews sacrificed their children
to the god by throwing them — live — into the fire (the children were
termed "thy seed," and the act, "pass[ing them] through the
fire" in KJV). Accounts vary in details, e.g., the god was Canaanite
in origin and only intermittently adopted by the Hebrews; the children were
killed before they were burned (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. Moloch); the god was Carthaginian and the children were cast into the
fire by priests, not parents (Gustave Flaubert [5]); etc.
Molk defined as "the practice
of human sacrifice"
"The rite of the human sacrifice 'Molk' as a [sacrificial] offering is
peculiar of a mentality which didn't exist in the Greek or Roman society.
"If Phoenicians thought that a God wanted the destruction of a town or
a country, they didn't [hesitate] to offer him human lives, avoiding in this
way the anger and the curse of the god and blaming on few people.
"As they believed no other sacrifices better than this could appease the
anger of that god, Carthaginians vowed themselves to the human sacrifices and
in order to increase the value of the sacrifice, they offered even their
children's life." — City of Castelvetrano-Selinunte (1)
Thus we see that according to the above scholar, Molk (= Moloch?) was a word
describing the practice of human sacrifice, rather than a specific deity.
This conforms with the Catholic Encyclopedia's statement that
the ancient Hebrews may have thought they were sacrificing their children to
LORD God. (4)
The writer for the City of Castelvetrano-Selinunte, (1) in saying that human sacrifice "didn't exist in the
Greek or Roman society," was limiting his statement to the Classical
Greeks, of course. Mask
of Agamemnon, 16th Century BC
Homer records the dilemma of Mycenaean king Agamemnon, who must either sacrifice
his daughter Iphigeneia, or give up his ambition to fight the Trojan War.
Agamemnon chooses the sacrifice, but the daughter is saved by the goddess
Artemis. (8) In retelling the story, Classical Greek playwright Aeschylus
(Agamemnon) allows the girl to die. However, Aeschylus surrounds the
incident with the strongest expressions of disapproval:
"The chorus disapprove of his decision, and describe the sacrifice in sickening
detail, as a murder repugnant to any normal human being. Agamemnon's
feelings are perverted from the norm, as are those of all the characters in
the trilogy (esp. Atreus, Thyestes, Clytemnestra, Orestes). The sacrifice
is not only morally wrong, but futile: the sacrificer becomes the victim.
Agamemnon is killed by Clytemnestra who is killed by Orestes." — James
Hunter(9)
The Book of Jeremiah, King James Bible
30 For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil
before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me
to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD.
31 For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury
from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it
from before my face,
32 Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of
Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their
princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the
inhabitants of Jerusalem.
33 And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught
them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive
instruction.
34 But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name,
to defile it.
35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son
of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire
unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that
they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. — Jeremiah
32:30-35
You can help in the battle for Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Fight the forces of censorship and suppression of the Talmud,
and bring about understanding between peoples of different
faiths.
Download this site to your desktop computer. Make CDsand distribute them to friends, neighbors, ministers, and community
leaders. Emailyour favorite essay to your
email list. Post your favorite essay to discussion forums.Print your favorite essays
and give them to those not on the Internet. Flyers advertising Come-and-Hear.com can be distributed throughout
your community.
 Genuine Come and Hear™ CDs do not contain
executable programs. When making CDs, do not include any files that end in
.exe, .com, .bat, .vbs, .doc, .pif, .sit, or .scr.
The person receiving the CD should use his own browser to view the files.
This helps to protect him from harmful programs and viruses.
|
No one today seriously suggests present-day Jews
sacrifice children to Moloch. Moloch (sometimes spelled "Molech")
was an Old Testament god whom the Hebrews worshipped from time to time, and
to whom they sacrificed their children. The Babylonian Talmud, however,
still permits Jews to sacrifice children to Moloch — under certain
conditions.
LORD God Accepts Human Sacrifice
First, let's
get perspective. Some mistakenly believe human sacrifice is forbidden in
the Old Testament. Certainly, some of the prophets railed against it. But
in at least one book, LORD God accepts human sacrifice. And in another
book, LORD God is appeased by human sacrifice.
In the
following account from the Book of Judges, the Israelite warrior Jephthah
is about to set off to make war on the Ammonites. In payment for victory,
Jephthah promises LORD God he will sacrifice the first
"whatsoever" that comes from his house to greet him upon his
return. Unless Jephthah keeps oxen, sheep, goats, or chickens in his living
room, he must expect the promised victim will be a human being. Notice that
Jephthah does not promise to sacrifice "an ox" or "a goat,"
etc. (7)
30.
And Jephthah vowed a vow
unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without
fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
31.
Then it shall be, that whatsoever
cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace
from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it
up for a burnt offering.
— Judges 11:30-31 (KJV)
The first to
pass through the doors of Jephthah's house upon his return is his only
child, his beloved daughter.
34.
And Jephthah came to
Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with
timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had
neither son nor daughter.
35.
And it came to pass, when
he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou
hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I
have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
— Judges 11:34-35 (KJV)
Let us reflect
for a moment. We know Jephthah vowed to LORD God to sacrifice
"whatsoever" first came out of the door of his house. We suspect
Jephthah plans to sacrifice one of his servants. But when the
"whatsoever" turned out to be Jephthah's daughter, Jephthah is
surprised. Notice his daughter's reaction:
36.
And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD,
do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch
as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the
children of Ammon.
— Judges 11:36 (KJV)
She expresses no
surprise that LORD God would accept a human sacrifice, nor does she
protest; she does not say, "Father, let's use some common sense. You
know LORD God is dead set against human sacrifice. He must have thought an
ox would meet you on your return, or perhaps a goat, or one of the
chickens. There must be a misunderstanding." Instead, she urges her
father to keep his promise. She says:
37.
And she said unto her
father, Let this thing be done for me: let me
alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail
my virginity, I and my fellows.
—
Jephthah
agrees:
38.
And he said, Go. And he
sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions,
and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
39.
And it came to pass at the
end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her
according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a
custom in Israel,
40.
That the daughters of
Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four
days in a year.
— Judges 11:38-40 (KJV)
None but
perfect animals are permitted to be ritually sacrificed in Judaism. Notice
that Jephthah's daughter, too, is a perfect sacrifice — she is a virgin.
Notice that LORD God does not stop this human sacrifice, as he stopped the
sacrifice of Abraham's son.
The Old
Testament does not specify how Jephthah sacrifices his daughter, but
following the correct methods for animal sacrifice, he would slit her
throat first and drain her blood into a Temple service vessel; cut off her
arms, legs, and head; cut the torso in sections, remove her entrails and
wash them; pour, sprinkle, and smear her blood at prescribed points around
the altar; and burn the flesh. Or of course, a priest might do this for
him. Read Animal Sacrifice and the Third Temple for
details. (11)
LORD God is Appeased by Human Sacrifice
In 2 Samuel 21,
David is king over Judah. A famine oppresses the land; King David learns
that LORD God is punishing Israel for King Saul's sin (Saul attacked the
Gibeonites in violation of Joshua's treaty Joshua 9:15). Therefore, in order to relieve the famine, David must
appease the Gibeonites. On negotiation, the Gibeonites demand to be given
seven descendants of Saul to be hanged "unto the LORD." David
picks two of Saul's sons and five of Saul's grandsons. Coincidentally, the
five grandsons are the children of Michal, the woman David had wanted to
marry (see 1 Samuel 18:25). David gives these Israelites to the Gibeonites so the
Gibeonites can hang them.
1.
Then there was a famine in
the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the
LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and
for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
2.
And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were
not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the
children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his
zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)
3.
Wherefore David said unto
the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and
wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of
the LORD?
4.
And the Gibeonites said
unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul,
nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he
said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you.
5.
And they answered the
king, The man that consumed us, and that devised
against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts
of Israel,
6.
Let seven men of his sons
be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of
Saul, whom the LORD did choose. And the king said, I will give them.
7.
But the king spared
Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the LORD's
oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul.
8.
But the king took the two
sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare
unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the
daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the
Meholathite:
9.
And he delivered them into
the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the
LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were
put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of
barley harvest.
— 2 Samuel 21:1-11 (KJV)
LORD God did
not explicitly request the hangings. But LORD God imposed an insufferable
famine on the Israelites, LORD God named the Gibeonites as the people to be
appeased, and the Gibeonites named the penalty. When it was done, LORD God
apparently found the human sacrifice to be satisfactory: the chapter
continues with accounts of battles, and the famine is not mentioned
further. This sequence — an angry god causes a natural disaster, innocent
life is slain to appease the god's anger, and the hardship ceases — this is
the same sequence of events found in the human sacrifice rites of other
primitive religions.
The Moloch Prohibition
With these precedents
in mind, let us now look at two passages from the Old Testament concerning
child sacrifice to the idol Moloch(or
"Molech"). In the following passages, the words "seed"
and "children" are synonymous. First, from Leviticus 18:
King James
Version
21.
And thou shalt not let any
of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the
name of thy God: I am the LORD.
— Leviticus 18:21 (KJV)
English
Standard Version
21.
You shall not give any of
your children to offer them (1) to Molech, and so profane the name of your
God: I am the LORD.
— Leviticus 18:21 (ESV)
An ESV footnote
gives a literal translation of the original Hebrew phrase: "1.
Hebrew to make them pass through [the fire]." Now let's
look at Second Kings 23:
King James
Version
10.
And he defiled Topheth,
which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make
his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.
— 2 Kings 23:10 (KJV)
English
Standard Version
10.
And he defiled Topheth,
which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son
or his daughter as an offering to Molech. (1)
— 2 Kings 23:10 (ESV)
An ESV footnote
gives a literal translation of the original Hebrew phrase:
"Hebrew might cause his son or daughter to pass through the
fire for Molech."
Now let's look
at the relevant cite from the Babylonian Talmud.
(When
excerpting the Talmud, we sometimes omit footnotes and non-germane text.
The omission of text is indicated by an ellipsis […]. The full text and
footnotes may be found by following the hot link at the end of the excerpt.
It is our pleasure to make available the text of the complete tractates
cited in this article, so you may read the Talmud in full context.)
MISHNAH. HE
WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT
TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH
BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO
PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 437
Following the
Mishnah is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages, Rabbi
Ashi, comments as follows:
GEMARA. R.
Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass
through, (3) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass
through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any
men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to
death … And I will set my face against that man, and
will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given
of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is
said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his
son or his daughter to pass through the fire. From this I know it only
of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son's son
or daughter's son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do
any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his
seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him
off.]
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 439
Rabbi Dr. Freedman,
one of the translators of the Soncino Tractate Sanhedrin, clarifies the
passage. In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman confirms that the Talmud Sages
use "seed" to denote living children, in the same sense as the
Biblical translators understand the term in the above Biblical quotes. In
this footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman paraphrases the question from Rabbi Ashi:
3.
Is 'thou shalt not cause to pass'
applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to
a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to
all?
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman
Other footnotes
within the same context clarify the fine point of distinction being drawn
in the Mishnah and subsequent debates among the sages:
5.
Lev. XVIII, 21. This proves that the
offence consists of two parts; (i) formal delivery to the priests, and (ii)
causing the seed to pass through the fire.
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman (2)
5.
As two separate offences, proving
that giving one's seed to Molech is not idolatry. The differences [sic] is,
that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to pass through the
fire to some other deity, he is not punished.
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman (3)
Following the
Mishnah, Sanhedrin 64a and 64b contain a rousing debate between the Sages
concerning:
·
the circumstances under which
worshipping an idol is idolatry,
·
which idols may be worshipped
without indulging in idolatry,
·
which parts of child sacrifice in
what combination are punishable, and
·
how children may be sacrificed
without violating Leviticus.
Interested students should look up Sanhedrin 64a and 64b and
read the entire text, including footnotes. The complete version of Come and
Hear™ contains Sanhedrin 64a-64b at htp://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_64.html. For those to
whom Tractate Sanhedrin is not available, the relevant text is included in
the Appendix: Extract from Sanhedrin 64a and 64b.
The 1908 Catholic
Encyclopedia contains an entry on Moloch that is of interest.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the children were
burned "after the victims had been put to death" — without citing
any authority. This statement is directly contradicted by Rabbi Ashi and by
Rabbi Dr. Freedman in the passages quoted above, wherein they consider the
case of "a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried" to
the fire. (Paragraphing has been added to this Catholic
Encyclopedia excerpt to aid in readability).
The
chief feature of Moloch's worship among the Jews seems to have been the
sacrifice of children, and the usual expression for describing that
sacrifice was "to pass through the fire", a rite carried out
after the victims had been put to death.
The special centre of such atrocities was just outside of Jerusalem, at a
place called Tophet (probably "place of abomination"), in the
valley of Geennom. According to III (I) Kings, xi, 7, Solomon erected
"a temple" for Moloch "on the hill over against
Jerusalem", and on this account he is at times considered as the
monarch who introduced the impious cult into Israel. After the disruption,
traces of Moloch worship appear in both Juda and Israel.
The custom of causing one's children to pass through the fire seems to have
been general in the Northern Kingdom [IV (II) Kings, xvii, 17; Ezech.
xxiii, 37], and it gradually grew in the Southern, encouraged by the royal
example of Achaz (IV Kings, xvi, 3) and Manasses [IV (II) Kings, xvi, 6]
till it became prevalent in the time of the prophet Jeremias (Jerem. xxxii,
35), when King Josias suppressed the worship of Moloch and defiled Tophet
[IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 13 (10)]. It is not improbable that this worship was
revived under Joakim and continued until the Babylonian Captivity …
… Of late, numerous attempts have been made to prove that in sacrificing
their children to Moloch the Israelites simply thought that they were
offering them in holocaust to Yahweh. In other words, the Melech to whom
child-sacrifices were offered was Yahweh under another name. To uphold this
view appeal is made in particular to Jer., vii,
31; xix, 5, and to Ezech., xx, 25-31. But this position is to say the least
improbable. The texts appealed to may well be understood otherwise, and the
prophets expressly treat the cult of Moloch as foreign and as an apostasy
from the worship of the true God. The offerings by fire, the probable
identity of Moloch with Baal, and the fact that in Assyria and Babylonia
Malik, and at Palmyra Malach-bel, were sun-gods, have suggested to many
that Moloch was a fire- or sun-god.
— Catholic Encyclopedia (4)
Lessons Learned
It is indeed
unfortunate that the Jewish religion has not repudiated the doctrine that
children may be sacrificed to Moloch. That doctrine, along with prayers in
the Jewish liturgy calling for the return of ritual blood sacrifice
(see Animal Sacrifice and the Third Temple), surely adds
credence to charges that Jews engage in the ritual blood sacrifice of
children. (See, for example, William Thomas Walsh's Isabella of
Spain (12) concerning the ritualistic murder of a four-year-old
Spanish boy; and a historical overview of the subject, Jewish
Ritual Murder, a Historical Investigation, written in 1941 by Hellmut
Schramm, Ph.D. (10)
Many societies and
religions have practices in their histories of which they are not proud. Certainly the United States had slavery, as did many
other countries. Catholicism had the persecution of Protestants, and
Protestants had the persecution of Catholics; Europe had feudalism, Mexico
had human sacrifice, and India had widow burnings (sati, the
practice of burning a widow at her late husband's funeral). Scandinavia had
the Vikings and reavers, Italy had the excesses of the Roman Empire, and
China had foot-binding. Among all those people there came the admission,
eventually, that those practices were not appropriate, and as hard on the
pride as it was, they accepted responsibility and repudiated their former
behaviors.
Repudiating the
Talmud doctrines that approve of ritually sacrificing children (under
certain conditions) would go a long way to creating good will between
Judaism and people of other religious faiths. Christians and Muslims, too,
should reexamine the Old Testament Scriptures. Is this really the church/mosque
they want their children attending?
Thank you for your consideration of the above,
Carol A. Valentine,
Ear at come-and-hear dot com
July 14, 2003 ( This article is on line at
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/br_3.html )
NEXT: Blood
Ritual 4: Circumcision
Endnotes:
This
and other Come
and Hear™ Studies on Talmudic Judaism can be found online:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor
The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling, complete with all 300 exhibits,
can be found online:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling
Soncino
Babylonian Talmud tractates,
with Forewords, Introductions, Glossary, List of Abbreviations, and
footnotes. Now you can study the Babylonian Talmud in full context and with
the running commentary of the finest scholars of Judaism:
Tractate
Berakoth: http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth
Tractate
Shabbath: http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath
Tractate
Yebamoth: http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth
Tractate
Kethuboth: http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth
Tractate
Nedarim: http://www.come-and-hear.com/nedarim
Tractate
Nazir: http://www.come-and-hear.com/nazir
Tractate
Sotah: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah
Tractate
Gittin: http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin
Tractate
Baba Kamma: http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma
Tractate
Baba Mezi'a: http://www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia
Tractate
Baba Bathra: http://www.come-and-hear.com/bababathra
Tractate
Sanhedrin: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin
Tractate
Abodah Zarah: http://www.come-and-hear.com/zarah
Tractate
Horayoth: http://www.come-and-hear.com/horayoth
Tractate
Niddah: http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah
Tractate
Tohoroth: http://www.come-and-hear.com/tohoroth
Search
the Talmud http://www.come-and-hear.com/tindex.html
Download all the above resources for
local study, CD, or mirror web site:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/download
Appendix: Extract
from Sanhedrin 64a and 64b
The full folio can
be found at http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_64.html
Note:
·
The 1961 Soncino footnotes have been
renumbered for this hypertext presentation.
·
The symbol [H] represents an
unprintable Hebrew character, word, or phrase.
·
Unusual terms and abbreviations are
defined in the Soncino Talmud Glossary.
·
Molech is an alternate spelling of
Moloch.
·
The sages frequently use
"it" when referring to the progeny considered for sacrifice to
Moloch. It may be this is only a grammatical device to keep the pronoun in
agreement with the word "seed," or it may be a part of the
depersonalization process in considering the children for sacrifice.
Sanhedrin 64a
[…]
MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO
PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH
THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE
FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.
GEMARA. The Mishnah (1) teaches idolatry and giving to Molech. (2) R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view
that Molech worship is not idolatry. For it has been taught, [if one causes
his seed to pass through the fire,] whether to Molech or to any other idol
he is liable [to death]. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he
is liable; if to another idol, he is not.
Abaye said: R.
Eleazar son of R. Simeon and R. Hanina b. Antigonus said the one and same
thing. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, that which has just been stated. R.
Hanina b. Antigonus — as it has been taught: R. Hanina b. Antigonus said:
Why did the Torah employ the word Molech? To teach that the same law
applies to whatever they proclaimed as their king, even a pebble or a
splinter. (3) Rabina (4) said: The difference between them is in respect of a
temporary Molech. (5)
1.
On 53a.
2.
As two separate offences, proving
that giving one's seed to Molech is not idolatry. The differences [sic] is,
that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to pass through the
fire to some other deity, he is not punished.
3.
Molech is
connected with the idea of kingship. This shews that he too regards
any fetish as a Molech.
4.
In his view they did not say the one
and the same thing.
5.
I.e., anything which was only
temporarily worshipped as Molech, such as a pebble which would obviously
not be a permanent idol.] According to R. Hanina b. Antigonus, he is
executed even then. But R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds that the law
applies only to a permanent idol worshipped as Molech.
Sanhedrin 64b
R. Jannai said:
Punishment is not incurred unless one delivers his seed to the acolytes of
Molech, (1) for it is said, And thou shalt not give of
thy seed to pass through the fire to Molech. (2) It has been taught likewise: I might think, that if
one caused his seed to pass through the fire to Molech, without first
delivering it to the priests, he is liable: therefore
the Writ teaches, Thou shalt not give. If he gave it to the
priests, but did not cause it to pass through the fire, I might think that
he is liable: therefore the Writ states, to
pass through. If one delivered it [to the priests of Molech], but
caused it to pass through to some other deity, I might think that he is
punished: therefore the Writ teaches, to
Molech. Now, if he delivered it to the priests and caused it to pass to
Molech, but not through the fire, I might think that he is liable: but, as
here is written, to pass through; and elsewhere it is
stated, There shall not he found among you any one that maketh his
son or his daughter to pass through the fire: (3) just as there, the reference is to fire, so here too;
and just as here the reference is to Molech, so there too.
R. Aha the son
of Raba said: If one caused all his seed to pass through [the fire] to
Molech, he is exempt from punishment, because it is written, of thy
seed implying, but not all thy seed. (4)
R. Ashi
propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass
through, (5) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter
to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been
taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he
shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because
he hath given of his seed unto Molech. (6 ) Why is
this stated? (7) — Because it is said, there shall not be
found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through
the fire. (8 ) From this
I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to
his son's son or daughter's son too? From the verse, [And if the people
of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he
giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I
will … cut him off.] (9)
Now the Tanna
commences with the verse, 'because he hath given of his seed',
but concludes with 'when he giveth of his seed'? — This is to
intimate another deduction. (10) Thus: [because he hath given] of his
seed: From this I know only that the law applies to legitimate seed
[that being the normal meaning of the word]; whence do I know that it also
applies to illegitimate seed? (11) — From the verse, when he giveth of his seed. (12)
Rab Judah said:
He is only liable to punishment if he causes his seed to pass through in
the normal way. How is that? — Abaye said: There was a loose pile of bricks
in the middle, and fire on either side of it. (13) Raba said: It was like the children's leaping about
on Purim. (14) It has been taught in support of Raba. Punishment is
incurred only for causing one's seed to pass in the normal fashion; if he
caused him to pass through on foot, he is exempt. (15) He is liable only for his own issue; e.g., for his
son and daughter, he is punished; but for his father or mother, brother or
sister, he is not. If he passed through himself, he is free from
punishment. (16) R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon ruled that he is liable.
Further, whether to Molech or to any other idol, he is liable. R. Eleazar
son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he
is not.
'Ulla said:
What is R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's reason? — Scripture saith, There
shall not be found among thee … (17) 'among thee' means in thyself. (18) And the Rabbis? Do they not interpret 'among thee'
thus? Surely we have learnt: If one must search
for a lost article of his own and of his father's, priority is given to his
own. And we observed thereon: Why so? — To which Rab Judah replied:
Scripture saith, Save that there shall be no poor among thee, (19) teaching that one's own loss has priority over that
of any other man? (20) There the deduction follows from 'save that'. (21)
R. Jose, son of
R. Hanina said: Why is extinction thrice threatened for idolatry? (22) — One teaches extinction for the normal worship of
idols; one for abnormal; and one for the service of Molech. (23) But on the view that Molech worship is included in
general idolatry, why is extinction mentioned in its case? — To apply to one
who causes his son to pass through to an idol [not Molech], where such is
not the normal mode of worship. Now, on the view that a megaddef (24) is a worshipper of idols, (22) why is extinction stated for it? (25) — Even as it has been taught: (26) That soul shall surely be cut off from among
his people; (27) he shall be cut off in this world and in the next:
this is R. Akiba's view. (28) R. Ishmael said: But the verse has previously stated 'that
soul shall be cut off': (29) are there then three worlds? (30) But [interpret this:] 'and [that soul] shall
be cut off' — in this world: 'he is to he cut off' — [of the
following verse, and denoted by the infinitive] (31) in the next; whilst as for the repetition [the finite
form of the verb], (32) that is because the Torah employs human
phraseology. (33)
1.
He explains this to be the meaning
of the Mishnah UNLESS HE GIVES IT TO MOLECH.
2.
Lev. XVIII, 21. This proves that the
offence consists of two parts; (i) formal delivery to the priests, and (ii)
causing the seed to pass through the fire.
3.
Deut. XVIII, 10.
4.
Probably because this would not be
accounted a normal mode of Molech worship: cp. pp. 438, 440.
5.
Is 'thou shalt not cause to pass'
applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to
a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to
all?
6.
Lev. XX, 2f.
7.
Since the passage commences by
explicitly referring to this offence, why is it repeated?
8.
Deut. XVIII, 10.
9.
Lev. XX, 4. Hence the law applies
also to grandsons.
10.
I.e., from the first verse, because
etc. we learn that the law applies to one's grandsons too; when he
giveth is stated in order that another law may be deduced.
11.
Not in the modern sense, but seed
from a woman forbidden to him.
12.
This is superfluous, since it has
already been stated twice in that passage that the reference is to this
effect. Hence it indicates the application of the law to illegitimate seed.
13.
The victim walked along that pile to
Molech, but was not burnt. The statement that
Hezekiah was smeared with the blood of the salamander to render him
fireproof (63b), shewing that the victim was actually
burnt, does not refer to Molech, but to the divinities of Sepharvaim
(Rashi).
14.
Probably referring to a game played
on Purim when children jump over a fire lit in a pit. According to this, a
pit was dug and a fire lit therein, and the victim
leaped over it (So Rashi). Jast. translates: 'like the stirrup (a ring
suspended from a frame) thrust over a bonfire on Purim;' cp. Aruch.
15.
This proves that the victim did not walk, but leaped to it.
16.
This too proves that the victim was
not burnt in passing through the fire to Molech.
17.
Deut. XVIII, 10.
18.
Hence his view that one is liable if
he passes through himself.
19.
Deut. XV, 4.
20.
The questioner understood this to be
deduced from 'among thee' — in thyself. Since this is not taught in the
name of any particular Tanna, it should agree with
the Rabbis too.
21.
Heb. [H], implying an admonition to
avoid any action which may lead to poverty. Naturally, this is not to be
interpreted as permitting dishonesty, but merely insists that poverty must
not be courted.
22.
Twice in Lev. XX, 2-5: Whosoever
be he … that giveth of his seeds to Molech … I will cut him off
from among his people … And if the people of the land … kill him
not: Then I will set my face against that man … and will cut him off. Once
in Num. XV, 30f. But the soul that doeth aught
presumptuously … the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be
cut from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord.
This refers to idolatry.
23.
Which is not included in general
idolatry, as stated above.
24.
In Num. XV, 30, the Heb. for 'he
reproacheth' is megaddef.
25.
The meaning of megaddef is disputed
in Ker. 7b. By a 'worshipper of idols' is meant, e.g., one who sings hymns
in a heathen Temple.
26.
Since, being a normal part of
idolatry, it is understood.
27.
Num. XV, 31. Continuing the verses quoted
in note 3. In the Heb, as usual, this emphasis is denoted by the repetition
of the verb, [H]
28.
He interprets the doubling of the
verb as referring to two worlds.
29.
Ibid. 30.
30.
Rashi explains that this question is
not put to R. Akiba, because he interprets megaddef in
that previous verse as referring to blasphemy, not idolatry. But this
question is rhetorically stated by R. Ishmael on his own assumption
that megaddef means an idol worshipper.
31.
[H]
32.
[H]
33.
In ordinary human speech, such
repetition is quite common.
Title: Human Sacrifice, the Talmud, and the Moloch Problem
URL: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/br_3.html
Version: July 26, 2017
|
![Jew whipping slave[6]](chapter_4_human_sacrifice_the_talmud_and_the_molech_problem_files/image131.png)
![WTC Falling Death2[3]](chapter_4_human_sacrifice_the_talmud_and_the_molech_problem_files/image199.png)
![Jew whipping slave[6]](chapter_4_human_sacrifice_the_talmud_and_the_molech_problem_files/image304.png)
