Commento su Levitico 18:21

למלך [AND THOU SHALT NOT LET ANY OF THY SEED PASS THROUGH THE FIRE] TO MOLECH — This was an idol the name of which was "Molech", and this was the manner in which it was worshipped: that he (the father) handed his child (lit., his son, but it applies to his daughter also; cf. Deuteronomy 18:10) over to the priests of the idol. These lit two large pyres one opposite the other and made the child to pass on foot between the two pyres (Sanhedrin 64b).

AND THOU SHALT NOT GIVE ANY OF THY SEED ‘L’HA’AVIR’ (TO PASS THROUGH)³²⁰I.e., to let any of them pass through [the fire] to Molech. The implications will be fully discussed in the text. ‘LAMOLECH’ (TO MOLECH). This was an idol the name of which was “Molech.” Scripture mentions it with the definite article,³²¹Since the prefix lamed [in the word lamolech] is vowelled with a pathach [instead of with a shva which would have made it l’molech], it is quite clear that it is speaking of an idol that is known. See Ramban on Exodus 22:19. (Vol. II, p. 390) quoting Rashi. since it was well-known to them from Egypt. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that it is possible that Molech is identical with Milcom the detestation of the Ammonites.³²²I Kings 11:5. And so indeed it would appear, for it is written, Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the detestation of Moab … and for Molech the detestation of the children of Ammon.³²³Ibid., Verse 7. Milcom of Verse 5, is thus identical with Molech of Verse 7. Hence the idol by the name of Molech mentioned here in the Torah appears to be, as Ibn Ezra wrote, Milcom the detestation of the Ammonites. And this [name Milcom] was also well-known to them.³²⁴Ramban’s intention is to forestall the following question: If, as we have said, Molech is the same as Milcom, why does Scripture call Milcom the detestation of the children of Ammon, when from the text here before us in the Torah it is plain that they knew the idol already from Egypt [as is explained in the text above]? To this question Ramban answers that it was also known to them by the name “Milcom” [in the time of Solomon]. Hence Scripture used that name.
Now Rashi commented: “And this was the manner in which the Molech was worshipped: he [the father] would hand over his son to the priests, and the priests lit two large pyres [one opposite the other], and they made the child pass on foot between the two fires. Thou shalt not give, this refers to [the father] handing over [the child] to the priests. ‘L’ha’avir lamolech’ is the passing through the open fire.” But this is not correct. For the Rabbis have already said in the Gemara of Tractate Sanhedrin:³²⁵Sanhedrin 64 b. “If he made him pass on foot [between the fires] the father is free from punishment [because that was not the customary way of worshipping the idol]; rather, [he is liable only if it was] ‘like a leaping place of Purim,’”³²⁶“Like children leaping over a bonfire” (Rashi ibid.). The Talmudic text k’mishvarto d’puria is thus explained by Rashi “as a leaping place of Purim,” i.e., like a bonfire made on Purim for merriment, over which children leap. Ramban will later on explain that at the Molech the child was passed through the flames so many times that the flames actually burnt him. meaning that he made him pass through the actual fire [by leaping through it]. Scripture mentions [both conditions to make the father liable to punishment]: a “giving” as it is said, and thou shalt not ‘give’ any of thy seed …], and the act of making him “pass through the fire” [as it is said in Deuteronomy 18:10: There shall not be found among you anyone that ‘maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire’], so that the father does not incur punishment unless he delivers his child to the priests [of Molech] and he [i.e., the father] made him pass through the fire, as is explained in Tractate Sanhedrin.³²⁵Sanhedrin 64 b. Similarly, that which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote that the father hands him over to the priests and they make him pass through the fire — and so he wrote also in his commentaries to Tractate Sanhedrin³²⁷Ibid., 64 a. — that does not appear to be so from the language of the Rabbis here in the Gemara.³²⁸The Gemara speaks there of a case where “he made all his offspring pass through the fire” — an expression which indicates that it is the father himself who makes them pass through the fire. Moreover, how could the father be liable to death for the worship of Molech done by others [i.e., the priests]?³²⁹In other words, if, as Rashi said, it is the priests who perform the rite of passing the child through the fire, it is they who do the forbidden act of worship and not the father. So how could he be made liable to punishment for the act of other people? The mere handing over of the child to the priests is not in itself an act of worship. The very language of Scripture, that maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire,³³⁰Deuteronomy 18:10. indicates that it is the father himself who passes him through the fire. Rather, the matter is as follows: the father himself delivers the child to the priests in the name of their detestation. It is with reference to this that it is written, he hath ‘given’ his seed unto Molech,³³¹Further, 20:3. similar to what is done within the Sanctuary precincts, as it is written, and he shall give them unto the priest.³³²Above, 15:14. Perhaps the priests waved the child before the Molech, or brought it near the idol, and then they returned it to the hands of the father, and he took him and passed him through the open flame, this being the sense of the expression, he that maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire.³³⁰Deuteronomy 18:10. And so the Rabbis have said in the Yerushalmi:³³³Yerushalmi Sanhedrin VII, 10. On “Yerushalmi,” see Note 44 in Seder Metzora. “[The penalty of death] is never incurred [by the father] unless he delivers the child to the priests, and then he [the father] takes him and passes him through the fire,” that is to say, he takes the child from the priests, and he himself passes him through the fire. However, there was no actual burning of the child. For the Rabbis have said,³²⁵Sanhedrin 64 b. “If one passed himself through the fire, he is not liable” [to death], which shows that the offender is alive even after he has passed through the fire. And so did Rashi explain [that there was no actual burning of the child].³²⁵Sanhedrin 64 b.
Yet notwithstanding all this, it appears to me on the basis of decisive verses that the child was actually consumed by the flames, for Scripture states, and their sons, whom they bore unto Me, they have also made them pass through unto them ‘to be devoured,’³³⁴Ezekiel 23:37. and further on there it says, and when they had slain their children to their idols,³³⁵Ibid., Verse 39. meaning that they passed him through the fire until he was burnt or died in the fire, this being “the slaying” [mentioned in the verse], for the expression they have made them pass through unto them is a reference to the worship of Molech, and Scripture states to be devoured and also mentions the term slaying! If so, when the Rabbis said [with reference to the Molech that it was] “like a leaping place of Purim,”³²⁶“Like children leaping over a bonfire” (Rashi ibid.). The Talmudic text k’mishvarto d’puria is thus explained by Rashi “as a leaping place of Purim,” i.e., like a bonfire made on Purim for merriment, over which children leap. Ramban will later on explain that at the Molech the child was passed through the flames so many times that the flames actually burnt him. they meant to say that they made the child pass through the flame many times, until he died in the burning fire. Thus by law of the Torah the father is liable to punishment from the moment of the child’s first passing through, as soon as the fire takes hold of him, such as where one of his limbs took fire. It is for this reason that the Rabbis had to say that he who passes himself through the fire is not liable, [since the liability to punishment begins at the moment when the fire takes hold of one of his limbs, when he is still alive]. But the fire actually consumed the victim, as this was their sacrifice to Molech. And the expression of ma’avir ba’eish [which until now we have understood as “passing through the fire”] always denotes “something burnt by fire, but not [totally] consumed thereby,” for they used to put [the victim] in the fire, and then remove the body from there, and not let it turn into ashes like burnt [sacrifices], similar to utensils of gentiles [which, in order to be purified from the forbidden food they have absorbed], are made white-hot in the flame, and it is said of them, ye shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be clean.³³⁶Numbers 31:23. And it is said of the Ammonites, and he made them pass through the brick-kiln,³³⁷II Samuel 12:31. meaning that he burnt them just as they do to bricks in a baking furnace. If so, ‘ma’avir’ his son or his daughter through the fire³³⁰Deuteronomy 18:10. means placing him in the fire so that it should take hold of him, not merely passing him through it. And this is the meaning of ha’avarah which is mentioned in connection with the Molech, which was by fire according to the opinion of our Rabbis,³²⁵Sanhedrin 64 b. who derived it by means of a similarity of the term ha’avarah [“passing through,” mentioned here in the verse before us, and in Deuteronomy 18:10]: “just as there the ‘passing through’ is in fire [as it is said, There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter ‘pass through the fire’], so here too the meaning is through the fire [although it is not clearly stated], and just as here it is to the Molech, so there too it is to Molech.” Proof to the words of the Rabbis [that the meaning of this ‘passing through’ mentioned here was by fire], is that which is written of King Josiah, And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.³³⁸II Kings 23:10. Thus the term ha’avarah (‘passing through’) mentioned here in connection with Molech means by fire. So also is it written of King Manasseh: He also made his children ‘to pass through the fire’ in the valley of the son of Hinnom.³³⁹II Chronicles 33:6. And I have found it written of King Ahaz, And he also made his son ‘to pass through the fire,’ according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Eternal cast out from before the children of Israel,³⁴⁰II Kings 16:3. and in the Book of Chronicles it is stated [of the same king], and ‘he burnt’ his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen whom the Eternal cast out.³⁴¹II Chronicles 28:3. If so, ha’avarah (the ‘passing through’) in fact was a burning with real fire.³⁴²Ramban is thus suggesting that the word ha’avarah (“passing through”) was really an hav’arah (an actual burning of fire), since the verse in Kings speaking of King Ahaz uses the term ha’avarah, while the verse in Chronicles describing the same acts of the same king uses the term hav’arah. Thus it is clear that the two words are identical in meaning in this context.
Now that which Scripture states, and the Sepharvites burnt their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim,³⁴³II Kings 17:31. [and it does not mention Molech], that was another idol, which was worshipped by burning the victims completely as a sacrifice [which was burnt to ashes]. They used to worship the Baal in a similar manner, as it is written of Jeremiah, Go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom,³⁴⁴Jeremiah 19:2. and there it says further, and they have filled this place with the blood of innocents; and have built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons in the fire ‘for burnt-offerings’ unto Baal; which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind.³⁴⁵Ibid., Verses 4-5. And it is further written, And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to make their sons and their daughters pass through unto Molech; which I commanded not, neither came it into My mind, that they should do this abomination.³⁴⁶Ibid., 32:35. However, due to the fact that these two [last mentioned] verses speak of the high places of Baal, both being in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and the admonition in connection with both of them is identical: which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind, and the Molech was [also] there in that impure place, as it is written in connection with King Josiah,³⁴⁷And he defiled Topheth which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech (II Kings 23:10). The verse was mentioned above by Ramban (see text at Note 338). it would appear from all this that they used to burn their children as sacrifices to Molech, which was the Baal, both names being closely associated, and meaning royalty and lordship. This is not the Baal of Peor³⁴⁸Numbers 25:3. or Baal-zebub,³⁴⁹II Kings 1:2. for this one [referred to by Jeremiah] was called Baal without any qualification, as Molech was so called, [without any qualification]. Scripture mentions in connection with the worship thereof the term ha’avarah (passing through),³⁴⁶Ibid., 32:35. because the main act of worship was by passing the children through [the two pyres] until the fire took hold of them, and it calls it “burning”³⁴⁵Ibid., Verses 4-5. because they would die there. That is why they are called “burnt-offerings” [as it is said, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt-offerings].³⁴⁵Ibid., Verses 4-5. Similarly, I am of the opinion that the gods of Sepharvaim³⁴³II Kings 17:31. are also identified with Molech, for their surnames [Adrammelech and Anammelech]³⁴³II Kings 17:31. denote kingship [as the word melech indicates]. Both of them were worshipped in the same way, although one was called Adra,³⁵⁰In Sanhedrin 63 b the Talmud explains the word to mean “the mule.” The word adar in Aramaic means “distinction,” and the mule is so called because it gives distinction to its owner when travelling, because it carries all his belongings. The name Adrammelech thus means “The mule is the king,” or “the animal which gives distinction to the king.” See II Samuel 13:29, that the mule was ridden by princes, and I Kings 1:33 that it was ridden by the king. Ramban in explaining Adrammelech to be identical with Molech, thus suggests that the Sepharvites called their idol Adar, a name meaning “distinction,” and Adrammelech is “the king of distinction.” which is an expression of respect, and the second was called Ana which is of the root oneh (answers),³⁵¹This term according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin ibid.) is a reference to the horse because it “answers” its master when engaged in battle. See my Hebrew commentary p. 107, Note 44. The name Anammelech means “The horse is the king,” or “the animal which answers the king” in battle. Ramban here suggests, then, that Molech was called Anammelech because “he is the king who answers.” and the name “melech” was attached to both, which is like Molech. The “burning” mentioned in connection with them³⁴³II Kings 17:31. was the death of the victims by fire, as I have explained [above]. But if we were to say that these detestations [Adrammelech and Anammelech] were not the Molech, then it is possible that because they were worshipped by means of sons and daughters being brought to them in fire, in a similar manner to that which it says about the Molech, therefore their names [Adra and Ana] were combined with his name, and form a melech (king) or Baal, but the modes of worship were not the same. For the Molech was worshipped with “passing through” [the fire], and the gods of Sepharvaim with burning,³⁴³II Kings 17:31. and the Baal with slaughtering first and then burning, like burnt-offerings.³⁴⁵Ibid., Verses 4-5. And it is further said [in Jeremiah] that in the place of the Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom³³⁸II Kings 23:10. there were also high places to Baal [as mentioned in connection with King Josiah, that he defiled that place so that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech], and it also mentions there the Molech [and Molech and Baal were to some extent identical, as stated above]. Thus that which Scripture states, And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to make their sons and their daughters to pass through unto Molech³⁴⁶Ibid., 32:35. [which would seem to indicate that Molech and Baal are entirely identical, contrary to what we have said above], really means: “and” to make their sons and their daughters pass through [the fire] unto Molech.
Now our Rabbis have said:³⁵²Sanhedrin 63 b. “The father of Hezekiah king of Judah too [i.e., Ahaz] wanted to do so to him [in his infancy], and to burn him in the fire, but his mother saved him from death by rubbing him with the oil of³⁵³“With the oil of” — this phrase is not mentioned in the Gemara. It is evidently Ramban’s comment as to how it was done. Rashi, however writes that the application was done with the blood of the salamander (see following note). a salamander.”³⁵⁴“A small reptile engendered in a fire that has burnt continually for seven years, and he who covers himself with its blood becomes fire-proof” (Rashi ibid.). Now Ahaz “made him pass through” to Molech, as it is written, And he also made his son ‘to pass through’ the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Eternal cast out from before the children of Israel,³⁴¹II Chronicles 28:3. this expression being identical to that used in the case of Molech; if so, [the “passing through” to Molech] meant actual burning until the fire took hold of the victim and he died. However, the righteous [Hezekiah] was saved by this salamander, which the Holy One, blessed be He, created for his sake.
By way of the simple meaning of Scripture they³⁵⁵Evidently the reference is to certain commentators. But I have not identified these. have said that the matter of “making a son or daughter pass through the fire” was one of the forms of sorcery, for it is in connection with sorcery that it is said, There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one that useth divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer.³⁵⁶Deuteronomy 18:10. The fact that all these practices are mentioned together proves that the rite of “passing through the fire” was also some form of witchcraft, while the actual burning of the victim was an entirely different matter, since that was a form of idol worship to Molech. All this we would say according to the plain meaning of Scripture. But see further, Note 359. And in the case of King Manasseh Scripture likewise states, He also made his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom; and he practised soothsaying, and used enchantments, and practised sorcery and appointed them that divined by a ghost or a familiar spirit,³⁵⁷II Chronicles 33:6. Here too the same reasoning as in the previous note applies. and it is further written, and they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments,³⁵⁸II Kings 17:17. Here likewise it would seem that “passing through the fire” was a form of witchcraft, something different from the worship of Molech. But see the following note. [these verses indicating that the rite of “passing through the fire” was some form of witchcraft], and the Molech was an idol to which they offered little children.³⁵⁹Accordingly, in line with the plain meaning of Scripture we would say that the rite of “passing through the fire” was something different from the burning of the victim to Molech. But since we have found it written etc. (see text). But since we have found it written, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech³⁶⁰II Kings 23:10. [which shows clearly that “passing through the fire” was in connection with the worship of Molech], the words of our Rabbis that all forms of worshipping Molech were by fire, have been shown to be trustworthy. But it is [also] possible [as the verses indicate] that they used this rite for false divination and to prophesy by means of it, according to their foolishness, these being the prophets of Baal who would first offer to him sacrifices of children, and then have vain dreams and a lying divination.³⁶¹Ezekiel 13:7. Therefore the Torah associates the matter of the Molech with that of [the various kinds of] divination. For here [in the Book of Leviticus] it placed [the subject of the Molech] immediately before the soul that turneth unto the ghosts, and unto the familiar spirits,³⁶²Further, 20:6. and in the Book of Deuteronomy³⁶³Deuteronomy 18:9-14. the whole section is devoted to the subject of those who predict the future falsely.
Now Scripture [here in the verse before us] states that the act of passing children through the fire to Molech constitutes a profaning of G-d’s Name,³⁶⁴The verse here concludes, Neither shalt thou profane the Name of thy G-d. and in the other section [i.e., in Seder Kedoshim] it adds, to defile My Sanctuary, and to profane My Holy Name.³⁶⁵Further, 20:3. Perhaps the meaning thereof is as follows: [To give of one’s children to Molech is] “to defile the people that is sanctified to My Name, whom I commanded, Sanctify yourselves, and be ye holy, for I the Eternal, Who sanctify you, am holy;³⁶⁶This is a combination of two verses, Above, 11:44 and further, 21:8. — And to profane My holy Name,³⁶⁵Further, 20:3. when they commit this serious sin before Me.” For thus He speaks of the serious sins, such as, and a man and his father go unto the same maid, to profane My holy Name.³⁶⁷Amos 2:7. It is possible that He says so [to defile My Sanctuary,³⁶⁵Further, 20:3. in connection with the Molech], because a father who sacrifices of his seed to Molech and afterwards comes into G-d’s Sanctuary to bring an offering, defiles the Sanctuary, as his offerings are defiled and are an abomination to G-d, and he himself is forever defiled, having become impure by the evil he did; just as He said of [those who turn to] the ghosts and the familiar spirits, seek them not out, to be defiled by them,³⁶⁸Further, 19:31. and it is further written, and because they had defiled it with their idols.³⁶⁹Ezekiel 36:18. And He also mentions [in connection with the Molech] the profaning of G-d’s Name [as it says, and to profane My holy Name³⁶⁵Further, 20:3.], because when the nations hear that he honored the Molech with his seed, and to G-d he brought an offering of his cattle, it will be a profaning of G-d’s Name. It is concerning this that the prophet Ezekiel said, and their sons, whom they bore unto Me, they have also made them pass through unto them to be devoured. Moreover this they have done unto Me: they have defiled My Sanctuary in the same day.³⁷⁰Ibid., 23:37-38. And the prophet continues, For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into My Sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of My house.³⁷¹Ibid., Verse 39.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], Israel the holy seed³⁷²Isaiah 6:13. is born in the house of G-d, this being the meaning of the expression whom they bore unto Me.³⁷³Ezekiel 23:37. Thus he who sacrifices one of G-d’s people to the Molech, defiles G-d’s Sanctuary and profanes His Great Name, similar to the expression, And he [i.e., the High Priest] shall not profane his seed among his people.³⁷⁴Further, 21:15. It is for this reason that He said [of the person who gives of his seed to Molech], And I will set My face against that man,³⁷⁵Ibid., 20:3. [and again], Then will I set My face against that man.³⁷⁶Ibid., Verse 5. The student learned in the mystic lore of the Cabala will understand.

ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למולך ולא תחלל את שם אלוקיך, the difference between offering sacrifices to the Moloch and to G’d respectively is that to G’d only animals are sacrificed, whereas to the deity known as Moloch, human beings, specifically one’s son, is sacrificed. This would indicate that the worshipper of the Moloch considers him as more powerful than G’d, for why else would he sacrifice his dearest possession, his son, to him and not to G’d?

למולך, “to the Moloch.” Nachmanides writes that this word represents a certain type of idolatry, and the reason that the Torah dignifies this type of idolatry by using the prefix ה i.e. the vowel patach at the beginning which substitutes for the definitive article “the,” is due to the fact that this particular idolatry was extremely well known in Egypt, where the Israelites had become familiar with it. Ibn Ezra writes that it is possible that it was the chief deity of the people בני עמון, and may have been known to the Israelites as such.

ולא תחלל את שם אלוקיך “so that you do not desecrate the name of your G-d.” Who is this G-d of yours? None other than the G-d we revere as the tetragram, the One Who referred to Himself as 'אני ה.

לא תתן refers to “the handing over of the child” to the priests.

'אני ה, I have never changed since the time I have sworn to Avraham “to be your G’d and for seed after you.” (Genesis 17,7). Seeing that G’d in this chapter had spoken about incest, matters related to human seed, and His interest in keeping this seed pure so that the holy spirit would be able to descend upon such people, He spoke about the Moloch whose servants had intended to ensure that their other children would be blessed with every kind of success in recognition of their having given the oldest to their G’d. G’d is on record here that doing something like this, far from being a way to sanctifying G’d’s name would be the most potent way to desecrating His name. Such practices, far from attracting the benevolent presence of G’d, the Shechinah, would prevent this presence of G’d from taking up residence among the Jewish people..

לא תתן להעביר למולך, “do not present them to the Moloch. The reason why the Torah employs the expression תתן, “give,” as well as the term העברה, ”transfer,” means that culpability for violating this injunction begins only when both of these acts have been perpetrated. The second stage of that cult involves handing a child over to fire, Moloch being the fire-god. In other words, the father hands over his child to the priests of that cult. Nachmanides adds that the word להעביר is not to be understood as the priests of that cult making the child brave a ring of fire, risking burning his feet, as portrayed by Rashi, for how could the father be guilty of death when a priest of another religion performed this act? Moreover the wording of the verse clearly means that the father of the child himself performed whatever act the Torah describes. Rather, the father may hand over his child to these idolatrous priests, who, in turn perform some sort of ceremony like swinging the child over fire, before restoring it to the father. [There appears a certain amount of confusion as to precisely what these rites were and as a result we do not know for which violation the father would be guilty of death. In light of this I have decided not to elaborate on the subject any further. Ed.] The Torah, by using the word חלול in connection with this barbarous cult makes plain that it is a cult which desecrates the sanctity of all human life, hence the Torah’s extreme opposition to this cult.

להעביר למלך — this refers to the “passing through the fire".