Giving One's Seed to Molekh/2

Molekh

Exegetical Approaches

This topic is currently in progress

Idolatry

Child Sacrifice

The verse forbids immolating one's children in worship of Molekh.

Sources:1st version of Targum NeofitiVayikra 18:21Vayikra 20:2About Targum Neofiti, Mishna SanhedrinSanhedrin 7:13About the Mishna, SifraKedoshim Parashah 10:3About the Sifra, 1st opinion in Sifre Devarim171About Sifre Devarim, Rabbis in Midrash TannaimDevarim 18:9About Midrash Tannaim, Yerushalmi SanhedrinSanhedrin 7:10About the Yerushalmi, R. Saadia GaonVayikra 18:21About R. Saadia Gaon, Ibn EzraVayikra 18:21About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, 2nd opinion in RambanVayikra 18:21About R. Moshe b. Nachman

"וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ" – This opinion understands "וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ" to be referring to one's children.

"לְהַעֲבִיר"

• To pass through – According to most of these commentators, "לְהַעֲבִיר" means to pass through fire, burning the child. As evidence of such a custom of child immolation, Ramban points to Devarim 12:31, Melakhim II 17:31, Yirmeyahu 7:31, and Yirmeyahu 19:5.
• To sacrifice – R. Saadia suggests that this is simply another term for sacrifice.
• To burn – Alternatively, "להעביר" may be a metathesis of the word "להבעיר", and the verse says explicitly not to give one's child to be burned.¹

Redundant verbs - "לֹא תִתֵּן לְהַעֲבִיר" – The Mishna, Sifra and Yerushalmi suggest that each verb connotes a different action, and only one who does both is punishable.  To be culpable, one must both give the child to the Molekh priest and have him burned.

"מֹּלֶךְ" – According to most of these commentators, "מֹּלֶךְ" is the name of a specific idol.² However, Targum Neofiti translates "מֹּלֶךְ" as a name for idolatry in general.³

Context – Though most of Vayikra 18 deals with sexual offenses, it is prefaced by a general injunction not to follow the practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites.⁴ Thus, the unique prohibition against the Molekh is included as yet another example of the immoral actions of these nations.  Nonetheless, its placement is still somewhat awkward, as one would have expected it to either precede or follow the sexual prohibitions rather than interrupt them in the middle.

Parallel Verses – According to this approach, Vayikra 18:21 is dealing with the same prohibition as Devarim 12:31 and 18:10.⁵ This could be proven from Melakhim II 23:10, "לְהַעֲבִיר אִישׁ אֶת בְּנוֹ וְאֶת בִּתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ לַמֹּלֶךְ", which refers to both passing through fire and the Molekh as the same action.⁶

Consecration

The verse forbids consecrating one's children to the service of Molekh.

Sources:R. Yehuda in Sifre Devarim171About Sifre Devarim and Midrash TannaimDevarim 18:9About Midrash Tannaim, RashiVayikra 18:21Megillah 25aAbout R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, 1st opinion in RambanVayikra 18:21About R. Moshe b. Nachman, others in Ibn EzraVayikra 18:21Vayikra 20:1-6About R. Avraham ibn Ezra

"וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ" – The word refers to one's children.

"לֹא תִתֵּן" – This approach could understand the term to refer to the giving of one's children to another religion.

"לְהַעֲבִיר"

• Pass through – Most of these commentators understand the word to mean to pass through and suggest that as part of the consecration, the child is passed between two fires⁷ (but not burned within them).  R. Yehuda asserts that such an action symbolizes the making of a covenant (in this case with idolatry) and compares it to Yirmeyahu 34:18.  According to this reading, the term "תִתֵּן" refers to the general prohibition of consecarting one's child to idolatry while "לְהַעֲבִיר" explains the process whereby one would do that.
• Transfer – The opinion cited by Ibn Ezra explains "לְהַעֲבִיר" as "transfer", asserting that the verse prohibits transferring one's child from Judaism to worshiping Molekh.  According to this read, the terms "תִתֵּן" and  "לְהַעֲבִיר" are somewhat redundant.

"מֹּלֶךְ" – Rashi and Ramban maintain that this is the name of a specific foreign god.  Ramban agrees with Ibn Ezra that it likely refers to the Ammonite god with this name mentioned in Melakhim I 11:7.

Context – This position would assert that the prohibition is included here as one of the Egyptian and Canaanite abominations that needs to be avoided.

Sexual Misbehaviors

The verse, like those around it, refers to sexual offenses.  Commentators disagree regarding the exact prohibition:

Sexual Relations with Non-Jews

The verse prohibits relations with a non-Jew.

Sources:rejected translation in Mishna MegillahMegillah 4:9About the Mishna, possibility in Sifre Devarim171About Sifre Devarim, R. Yishmael in various sourcesMidrash Tannaim Devarim 18:9Yerushalmi Megillah 4:10Bavli Megillah 25aAbout R. Yishmael, PeshittaVayikra 18:21About the Peshitta, Targum Pseudo-JonathanVayikra 18:21About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

Who is intermarrying? These commentators understand the prohibition to fall on the person himself.⁸

Why is there a prohibition? Sifre Devarim and R. Yishmael emphasize that the children that are born from a union between a Jew and non-Jew will become "אויבים למקום" (enemies of God). It seems that the problematic issue is not so much the actual intermarriage as that the product of the union might turn to idolatry.

"וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ"

• According to Sifre Devarim, R. Yishmael,"וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ" refers to one's children, those who are born of the non-Jewish woman.
• However, it is possible that the other commentators understand "וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ" to be referring to one's semen⁹ and the verse is explicitly referring to having intercourse (מִזַּרְעֲךָ לֹא תִתֵּן in the act of intercourse.).

"לְהַעֲבִיר" – The Peshitta translates "לְהַעֲבִיר" as "למבטנו" (‎"לעבר", to impregnate).¹⁰ According to this understanding there is no redundancy in the verse.  It simply speaks of two stages - intercourse that leads to conception.

"מֹּלֶךְ" – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan seems to understand "מֹּלֶךְ" to be a general term, referring to all idolatry.¹¹

Context – According to this approach, it is clear why this verse is found in the middle of the list of sexual offenses in Vayikra 18.

Parallel Verses – The Sifre Devarim and R. Yishmael in Midrash Tannaim seem to understand "מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ" in Devarim 18:10 to also refer to intermarriage, although it is unclear what "בָּאֵשׁ" would mean.

Intermarriage

The verse forbids marrying one's daughters (or sisters) to non-Jewish men.

Sources:perhaps Jubilees30:7-16About Jubilees¹²

Who is intermarrying? Jubilees prohibits the father or brother of a girl from marrying her to a non-Jew.¹³

"וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ" – This position understands the term to refer to one's children (daughters).

"לֹא תִתֵּן" – According to this position, "תִתֵּן" refers to giving in marriage.

"לְהַעֲבִיר"

"מֹּלֶךְ"

Context

¹ See Divrei HaYamim II 28:3, which uses the word "וַיַּבְעֵר" but is otherwise similar to other verses which speak of "passing" children through fire.

² The verse in Melakhim I 11:7 calls the god of Amon "מֹלֶךְ", so Ibn Ezra suggests that perhaps this is the same god.  One might argue that Yirmeyahu 32:35 (and 19:5 similarly) seem to equate the burning of children to the Baal with Molekh worship.  Ibn Ezra might respond that both gods were worshiped through child sacrifice at Gei b. Hinnom.

³ It is possible that Neofiti understands Molekh to be a form of sacrifice, instead of a name of a god. This would explain how Yirmeyahu 19:5 and 32:35 refer to the same actions of child sacrifice at גיא בן הנם as both "עֹלוֹת לַבָּעַל" and "לְהַעֲבִיר... לַמֹּלֶךְ".  Alternatively, if Molekh is just a genral term for idolatry "עֹלוֹת לַבָּעַל" is equivalent to "passing to... the Molekh".
See also the discussions in the ToseftaSanhedrin 10:4-5About Tosefta Sanhedrin and Yerushalmi SanhedrinSanhedrin 7:10About the Yerushalmi, regarding whether the prohibition is limited to giving one's children to Molekh or also includes giving them to other gods.

⁴ See Vayikra 18:3: "כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם בָּהּ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ". This approach would suggest that the verse refers to their abhorrent sexual practices as well as their idolatry.

⁵ Note that the prohibition of Molekh in Vayikra 20 is immediately followed (verse 6) by the prohibition of אוב and ידעוני, just like in Devarim 18:10-11.

⁶ See also the three parallel verses in Yirmeyahu 7:31, 19:5, and 32:35. These three verses imply that "לְהַעֲבִיר אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם וְאֶת בְּנוֹתֵיהֶם לַמֹּלֶךְ" is equivalent to "לִשְׂרֹף אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם בָּאֵשׁ עֹלוֹת לַבָּעַל" and "לִשְׂרֹף אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם וְאֶת בְּנֹתֵיהֶם בָּאֵשׁ".

⁷ Rashi suggests that he is passed between two bonfires while Ramban proposes that he is passed through flames.

⁸ This fits the pattern of the surrounding prohibitions, which similarly are prohibitions on the individual and not on the giving of someone else to an illicit union.

⁹ Compare the previous verse, Vayikra 18:20, "וְאֶל אֵשֶׁת עֲמִיתְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן שְׁכׇבְתְּךָ לְזָרַע".

¹⁰ Note that while this meaning of the root עבר is common in rabbinic (and modern) Hebrew, it is only found in one other verse in Tanakh: "שׁוֹרוֹ עִבַּר וְלֹא יַגְעִל תְּפַלֵּט פָּרָתוֹ וְלֹא תְשַׁכֵּל" (Iyyov 21:10). For more information, see Dictionary:עבר.

¹¹ Compare Targum NeofitiVayikra 18:21Vayikra 20:2About Targum Neofiti, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Vayikra 20:2-5Vayikra 20:2-5About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Targum YerushalmiVayikra 18:21Vayikra 20:2About Targum Yerushalmi, who also translate "מֹּלֶךְ" as "פולחנא נוכראה", although they understand "זַּרְעֲךָ" and "לְהַעֲבִיר" differently.

¹² Jubilees does not explicitly comment on the verses in Vayikra. However, in its interpretation of the story of Shekhem, it forbids intermarriage in language very similar to that used regarding Molekh.

¹³ While Jubilees also prohibits taking a non-Jewish wife for oneself, here it specifies marrying one's daughter or sister to a non-Jew. This is probably related to the context of Jubilees's comments, the story of Dinah.