Halakhah su Levitico 20:5

I wrote what I have known above about a hint from the roots of the distancing of idolatry more generally in the Order of Vayishma Yitro (Sefer HaChinukh 26). And the matter of this idolatry of Molekh [is that] since it was an extremely bad worship and [its followers] were very fervent at that time, a warning (negative commandment) was specified about it, besides all of the many warnings about idolatry in the Torah. And this is said according to the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed. But according to what appears is the opinion of Ramban, may his memory be blessed, (Ramban on Leviticus 20:5) we do not require this; since he reasons that there is a novel matter in this worship of Molekh [compared to] all of the other idolatries. As with any [other] idolatry, he is only liable if it is not its way [of worship] except for the four well-known [ways] of worship. But in this style of Molekh, one is liable who does this act of Molekh with any idolatry. And therefore, a warning was specified for it. And because the matter was extremely ugly, the Torah was so strict with it, to make one liable for it with any idolatry, even it is not its way with this. This is what appears from the sum of his words. And [regarding] this matter (see Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Negative Commandments 40) that the liability only comes with some of the seed and not with all of it, it is possible that it was because the lying priests would promise the father of the child that through the sacrifice of this child, the rest of his seed would succeed in everything to which they would turn, and blessing and good be found in his home. And from their great trickery, they did not want to fix the law at first except for one who would have seed remain besides the one that he gives to them, lest they refuse to listen to them - whether to completely burn him or whether to pass him through the flame, according to the opinion of some of the commentators; and in order that they could also promise blessing and good to those remaining; and from this, the fools could be deceived. And therefore the Torah only made liable in the matter, just when it was similar to their worship, and not in any other way.

That we not do anything through which the name of the Heavens is profaned among people: That we were prevented from profanation of God, may He be blessed, and that is the opposite of that sanctification of God about which we are commanded - as we will write in the commandment after this - as it is stated (Leviticus 22:32), "And you shall not profane My holy Name." The transcriber wrote in the name of Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 63) "This iniquity is divided into three parts - two are upon the collective, and one on the individual. The first collective part [is] in any case that one is asked to transgress one of the commandments during a time of persecution, and the enforcer intends for [him] to transgress - whether from the light commandments or from the weighty - or if one is asked to transgress idolatry, sexual immorality, or murder even not during a a time of persecution; he is obligated to give his life and be killed rather than transgressing. And if he transgressed and was not killed, he has already profaned God in public and has violated its stating, 'And you shall not profane My holy Name,' and his sin is very giant. However he is not lashed, as he was coerced - since the court only has the ability [to give out] lashes or death for volitional [acts], with desire, with witnesses and with a warning. The language of Sifra Kedoshim, Section 4:13 about one who gives from his seed to Molech, [that] I will place 'My face against that person' (Leviticus 20:5), is that they, may their memory be blessed, said '"That" one, and not coercion, nor inadvertent, nor mistaken.' It has already been elucidated to you that a person who worships idolatry under coercion is not liable for excision, and all the more so, death of the court. However, he has violated profanation of the Name.