Commento su Levitico 20:5

ובמשפחתו [THEN I WILL SET MY EYES AGAINST THAT MAN], AND AGAINST HIS FAMILY — R. Simeon asked, "But how did his family sin that it should be punished?" But the family is mentioned to teach you that you may take it as a rule that there is no family in which there is one tax-collector (a calling held in great reprobation by Jews) which may not be regarded as consisting entirely of tax-collectors, for they all try to protect him (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 13; Shevuot 39a).

TO GO ASTRAY AFTER THE MOLECH. “This is intended to include any other idol that was worshipped in that way [i.e., by a person passing his children through the fire], even if that particular idol is ordinarily not worshipped that way.” This is Rashi’s language. Now Rashi has already written in the section of Acharei Moth²¹⁹Ibid. that the Molech is “an idol the name of which is ‘Molech,’ and this was the way in which it was worshipped: he would hand over his child to the priests etc.” But all this does not conform and agree properly with the Gemara’s conclusion²²⁰Sanhedrin 64 a-b. as it appears after deliberation. For according to the opinion of the Sage who says that Molech is an idol [and not a name for a form of witchcraft], the worship thereof was not by passing children through the fire, for if so there was no need at all for Scripture to mention this, [i.e., the passing through fire] since it would be included in the admonition against worshipping the idols [in the manner in which they are usually worshipped], of which there are many general prohibitions in the Torah, and it is also included in the punishment stated in the section If there be found in the midst of thee … man or woman, that doeth that which is evil in the sight of the Eternal thy G-d, in transgressing His covenant, and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them.²²¹Deuteronomy 17:2-3. Rather, we must perforce interpret [if Molech is the name of a particular idol] that the essential purpose of Scripture in mentioning [this particular form of worship], was only to make one liable for passing one’s children [through fire] even if that particular idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner. And thus the Rabbis have said in the Gemara:²²⁰Sanhedrin 64 a-b. “And according to the Sage who is of the opinion that Molech is an idol, why did Scripture state [the punishment of] excision in the case of Molech [when it is already included in the general punishment for all idol-worship]? It is to apply it in the case of one who passes his son [through the fire in honor of any idol, even if that idol is] not ordinarily worshipped in that manner.” And the same reasoning applies to the punishment and the admonition which Scripture mentioned with reference to it [this particular form of worship], that they were only necessary [if we hold that Molech is an idol] for the case of one who passed his son [through fire] to an idol which is not normally worshipped in that manner.
It would appear that according to this opinion [that the Molech was idol-worship, and that the main reason why Scripture mentioned this particular form of worship was to prohibit and punish the practice thereof even as an abnormal manner of worship of all other idols], that the term “Molech” is not a name for a particular graven image or statute, but is a general name for anything that is worshipped, “anything which you accept as your king and take upon you as your god.” In accordance with this opinion, the children of Ammon called their abhorrence Molech,²²²I Kings 11:7. The word “abhorrence” is the term of the Rabbis for idols, which we are to abhor. See Deuteronomy 7:26. because he was their king, the term Molech thus being a general name for all things honored [as deities], for it is derived from the term malchuth (royalty). It is thus not like the Rabbi [Rashi] said [in the preceding section of Acharei Moth], that Molech is “an idol the name of which is ‘Molech,’ and the manner of its worship” was as mentioned. Similarly, that which Rashi wrote here that the phrase to go astray after the Molech “is necessary to include any other idol that was worshipped in that way, even if that particular idol is ordinarily not worshipped in that way” — this interpretation too, is impossible [to accept] for the reason that we have mentioned, namely, that the essential basis for the punishment of excision mentioned specifically in the case of the Molech, is to make one liable for practicing before an idol even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner, and this includes all idols! [Hence it is not necessary to include them on the basis of the phrase before us in Verse 5 — to go astray after the Molech — when this point is already established the overall statement of excision mentioned in Verse 3 which essentially prohibits that kind of worship to any idol, even if it is not normally worshipped in that way]! It is also impossible to say that Scripture made one liable to excision in the case of that idol the name of which is “Molech,” although passing a child through the fire before it was not its usual mode of worship, and that then it reverts [in the verse before us, stating to go astray after Molech, in order, as Rashi said] to include in the punishment of excision he [who passes through the fire of his seed] to Peor or Merkulis [which was also an abnormal mode of worshipping them]. For why was it necessary for Scripture to mention it [i.e., Molech] altogether? Why was that idol [called “Molech” or “Peor” or “Merkulis”] different from all other idols [since the Torah has already prohibited passing one’s children through fire before any idol, under punishment of excision even if that particular idol is ordinarily not worshipped that way]? Moreover, if so you would need a special verse to include one who passes his child through the fire to Peor or Merkulis in the punishment of stoning [if there were witnesses to his act and he was given the proper warning], just as Scripture [according to Rashi] included him in the punishment of excision [when there were no witnesses]!
Rather, [we must conclude] that Scripture only mentioned the admonition, and the punishments of excision and stoning, in the case of Molech, with reference to one who passes his child through the fire to any idol whatsoever, even if that is not its usual mode of worship. Thus whether you say that the term Molech is a name for all idols [since the name is derived from the word malchuth, (royalty)] as we have explained, or whether you say [as Rashi does] that Molech is the name of a particular idol that was so called, [we must say, as explained above] that Scripture mentioned it [in order to prohibit this practice even] if it be an abnormal mode of worship [of that idol, i.e., Molech]; the same law applying to all idols, for this stringency is on account of the frightfulness of this mode of worship. All this is made clear in the Gemara of Tractate Sanhedrin²²⁰Sanhedrin 64 a-b. according to this opinion which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote, that the Molech was an idol. But our Mishnah [which mentions first “the idolator” and then “he that offers of his seed to Molech,” thus indicating that Molech is not an idol, for otherwise this would have been included under the law of “the idolator”],²²³This point is clearly made in the Gemara in Sanhedrin 64 a, in commenting on the Mishnah. is taught in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who says that Molech was not an idol, meaning to say, it was not worshipped in a manner of being accepted as a god, but instead it was like a practice of witchcraft, to seek on behalf of the living unto the dead,²²⁴Isaiah 8:19. unto this dead dog.²²⁵II Samuel 16:9. According to this opinion, one who passed his seed through the fire to Peor or Merkulis, is not liable [since that form of witchcraft was performed only before Molech, and the Torah specifically mentioned that this practice of witchcraft was done before Molech].²²⁶If Molech is held to have been an idol, then, as explained in Ramban above, there was no need for the Torah to prohibit and punish its practice specifically, since it was included in the many general prohibitions against idolatry. We were therefore forced to say that the reason why the Torah specifically mentioned Molech and its practice, was to prohibit that practice to any idol, even if that particular idol was not normally worshipped in that way. Also, the term “Molech” must be an expression not for a particular idol, but for any idol, the word being of the root malchuth (royalty), as the act of idol worship meant that the idolator accepted the idol as his god. But if Molech is held to have been a form of witchcraft [and not a mode of idol worship], then if one is to perform that practice before Peor or Merkulis, it would not come under that specific prohibition which the Torah singled out, and hence he would be free from the punishment of death, although — needless to state — he has committed a heinous sin. Rashi’s words in his commentaries to Tractate Sanhedrin²²⁷Rashi, Sanhedrin 64 a. See my Hebrew commentary p. 129, where this text of Rashi is quoted. are also as we have written. And the Beraitha taught in the Torath Kohanim²²⁸Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 10:15. [which was the source for Rashi’s comment mentioned at the beginning of this verse]: “And I will cut him off, and all that go astray after him, to go astray after Molech. This is intended to include the case of any other idol [which was worshipped in that way, that the worshipper is liable to the punishment of] excision” — the interpretation of this Beraitha is not based upon the redundant expression to go astray after Molech, as appears from the words of the Rabbi [Rashi]. Rather, the Beraitha is stating that this whole [Scriptural passage laying down the law of] excision is redundant, and therefore we are to apply it to any other idol that was worshipped in that way. It is this which the Rabbis have stated in the Gemara:²²⁹Sanhedrin 64 b. “Why is excision mentioned thrice [as the punishment] for idolatry?²³⁰Verses 3 and 5 here; Numbers 15:31. It is prescribed once for [worshipping an idol in] the customary manner; once for worshipping it in a non-customary manner,” that is, if he sacrifices, or burns incense, or pours a libation, or bows down before an idol,²³¹See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 4-6, that these four modes of worship are forbidden to be done before any idol, even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner. which have been included under the punishment of death²³²Exodus 22:19: He that sacrificeth unto the gods shall be utterly destroyed. And see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 6. even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner, and here [in the verse before us] they are made liable to excision [in the absence of witnesses]. “And once excision is mentioned for [the worship of] Molech” [for Molech is not an idol, but a form of witchcraft which the Torah prohibited by means of this strong form of punishment]. And according to the Sage who says that Molech is an idol [we must perforce say that the reason why the Torah singled out the Molech is in order to prohibit and punish] passing a child through the fire before any idol whatever, even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner, as we have mentioned.

ובמשפחתו, seeing that the people at large ignored his evil deed due to the sinner’s family covering up for him in the first place, thereby strengthening the hand of the perpetrator.

ושמתי אני את פני, "then also l will set My face, etc." The plain meaning of the text appears to be that if the people will not exact retribution then G'd will turn His wrath also against the whole family of that father. If the people had carried out the prescribed judgment, G'd on His part would have punished only the guilty individual. This seems a most unusual aspect of G'd's justice! If members of the family shared in the father's guilt why would G'd not punish them regardless of whether the father has been executed?

לזנות אחר המולך, “to stray after the Moloch.” When Rashi, following Torat Kohanim, writes that these words include anyone straying after other types of idolatry whose form of worship is of a similar nature or even of a different nature, he means that the reason why the Torah singled out this particular cult for expressing its extreme abhorrence, is that this form of idolatry is especially abhorrent. When such a cult is worshipped even in a manner not typifying the norms of worship for that particular idolatry, it still carries the death penalty of karet. Nachmanides writes that this is not so, seeing that according to the Talmud Sanhedrin 64 the penalty applicable to that cult is only for those who “crowns” that deity, looking up to it as a “king” [as implied by the word Moloch. Ed.]

For all of them protect him. I.e., they all try to justify his actions since they are his relatives; therefore they are all [considered] robbers. (Nachalas Yaakov) This seems to refer to above [where it says], “If the people of the land will hide, etc.” This is probably because they are afraid of him and his family who protect him. Therefore [the verse writes] “and his family.”

והכרתי אתו AND I WILL CUT HIM OFF — Why is this stated (it appears to be a mere repetition of the statement in v. 3)? Because since Scripture says here for the reason stated above, “[I will set My face…] against his family", I might think that the whole family is also doomed to excision; Scripture therefore states “[I will cut] him [off]"— he alone is subject to excision, but the whole family is not subject to excision but to bodily sufferings (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 14; Shevuot 39a).

[This phrase] includes worship of any other idol. Since it is already written, “I shall cut him off... from among their people,” why does it again write “and cut him off”? It must have been written again in order to write “along with all those who go astray after him, etc.,” meaning, to stray after the Molech, to do like its [service] for other idols. [This teaches] that even though this is not its usual way [of worship], if one worshipped the idol in this way his punishment is kareis. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

We feel that the meaning of the verse is to tell us that whenever the judges appointed by G'd on earth fail to mete out justice, justice will be meted out in the celestial spheres. G'd announces this by saying: "I will set My face, etc." Once the heavenly tribunal opens the file of the accused, the files of his family members will be scrutinised at the same time. This is what the Torah meant by mentioning ובמשפחתו, "and against his family." The Torah explained in our verse that G'd's setting His face against the sinner would result in his being being cut off, plus all others who had gone astray by making common cause with the father. The files of the family members will be examined each on his own merit. Any family member who will not be found guilty of the Molech cult whether in deed or thought will not be wiped out. The Torah uses the words הזונים אחריו לזנות, "who go astray after him in order to go astray" (the Molech cult) in the present tense to tell us that even if they had not yet been guilty in deed they are considered as guilty as if they already had performed the abominable act. Ezekiel 14,5 expressed this thought more directly when he wrote למען תפש את בית ישראל בלבם, "in order to catch the house of Israel while (the sin) is still in their hearts." [We find independent confirmation of this in Chulin 142. Ed.]

לזנות אחרי המלך TO COMMIT WHOREDOM WITH MOLECH — This is intended to include the worship also of any other idol which he worshipped in this way (by letting his children pass through the fire in honor of it) even though this is not the manner of worship peculiar to it (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 15; Sanhedrin 64a).

As a result of what we said we may intepret our verse as assuring us that if the people at large bring the guilty party to justice he alone will be punished and his family will not even be examined by the heavenly tribunal at that time. Should the people fail to get involved, G'd will involve the family of the sinner to the extent that they harbour thoughts similar to those of the father. If so, the family members will be punished by G'd for their ideology though they cannot, of course, be brought to trial on earth. This is the meaning of Devarim Rabbah 5,4 that "in a place where there is judgment there is no judgment, whereas in a place where there is no judgment there is judgment." The difficulty with this saying is that it is obvious that when judgment is carried out in our world that there is no need to carry out judgment in the celestial spheres. Why would the Midrash have to tell us something so obvious? When you follow our approach, however, the Midrash makes sense as the judgment in the celestial spheres referred to is that of the family of the guilty party. You will find that our sages said in Rosh Hashanah 16 that whenever the Book of judgment of a person is opened in the celestial spheres that person's life is in danger and he needs a special merit in order to emerge unscathed.