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 as part of the worship of Molekh.

Sources: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 GaonCommentary Vayikra 18:21Tafsir Devarim 18:10About 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, and refers to burning the child. As evidence of such a custom of child immolation, Ramban points to Devarim 12:31, Melakhim II 17:31, Melakhim II 23:10,¹ Yirmeyahu 7:31, and Yirmeyahu 19:5 amongst others. 
• To sacrifice – R. Saadia suggests that this is simply another term for sacrifice.
• To burn – Alternatively, "לְהַעֲבִיר" may be a metathesis of the word "להבעיר", and the verse says explicitly not to give one's child to be burned.²

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. Ibn Ezra identifies him with the god of Amon who is so named in Melakhim I 11:7.³ However, Targum Neofiti translates "מֹּלֶךְ" as a name for idolatry in general.⁴

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.⁵ Thus, the unique prohibition against the Molekh is included as yet another example of the immoral actions of these nations.⁶  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.  As such, one might suggest that the problem relates to wasting seed;⁷ sacrificing a child is a loss of one's seed.

Parallel Verses – According to this approach, Vayikra 18:21 is dealing with the same prohibition as Devarim 12:31 and 18:10.⁸ 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.⁹

Desecration of God's name

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 would understand the term to refer to the giving of one's children to another religion.

"לְהַעֲבִיר"

• Transfer – The opinion cited by Ibn Ezra asserts that since the verse does not mention fire, the verb has nothing to do with burning. Rather, it simply means to "transfer" (to switch one's child from belief in Judaism to the Molekh religion). According to this read, the verbs "תִתֵּן" and "לְהַעֲבִיר" would be somewhat synonymous.
• Pass through – The other commentators understand the word to mean to pass through and suggest that, as part of the consecration, the child is passed between two fires¹⁰ (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 consecrating one's child to idolatry while "לְהַעֲבִיר" explains the process whereby one would do that.

"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 whose name is mentioned in Melakhim I 11:7.

Context – As above, this position might assert that the prohibition is included here both as an example of the Egyptian and Canaanite abominations that needs to be avoided and of wasting seed.

Desecration of God's name

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 (in contrast to the position below) understand the prohibition to fall on the person himself.¹¹

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 for them is not so much the actual intermarriage as that the product of the union might turn to idolatry.
• The others might suggest that the act of relations with a non believer is itself problematic.

"וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ לֹא תִתֵּן" – These commentators¹² might understand "וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ" to be referring to one's semen,¹³ in which case the verse is explicitly speaking of having intercourse.¹⁴

"לְהַעֲבִיר" – The Peshitta translates "לְהַעֲבִיר" as "למבטנו" (‎"לעבר", to impregnate).¹⁵ 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 idolatry¹⁶ while the rejected possibility in the Mishnah and the Peshitta appear to understand it to refer to an idolatress.

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. It immediately precedes the offenses dealing with intercourse with an animal or male and is likely connected to the problem of wasting one's seed.¹⁷

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.

Motivations – Besides the contextual motivation, this position might be driven to read the verse in this manner so as to find an explicit prohibition against general intermarriage (that is not limited to the seven nations).

Desecration of God's name

Intermarriage

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

Sources:perhaps Jubilees30:7-16About Jubilees¹⁸ Yaakov Kirkisani the KaraiteKitab al-Anwar wal-Marakib 23

Who is intermarrying? In contrast to the above approach, this position understand the sexual prohibition to be not on the man himself but on his daughter.¹⁹ This would make the prohibition exceptional in the chapter, for all the other unions are prohibited on the individual himself.

Why is there a prohibition? Kirkisani emphasizes that the problem relates to the product of the union, who will be worshipers of idolatry.  Jubilees likely agrees.²⁰

"וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ" – This position understands the term to refer to one's daughters.²¹

"לֹא תִתֵּן"

• Marrying off – According to this position, "תִתֵּן" refers to giving in marriage.
• Giving – Kirkisani also raises the possibility that the verse reads "do not [marry your daughters to idolators and thereby] give of your descendants to sacrifice to the Molekh".  As the children born of the intermarriage will likely become idolatrous, by making the marriage a father is in effect giving his descendants (מִזַּרְעֲךָ) to idolatry.

"לְהַעֲבִיר" – According to Kirkisani the word means to sacrifice.  The offspring of the union will sacrifice to the Molekh.²²

"מֹּלֶךְ" – Jubilees seems to understand this to refer to a worshiper of idolatry, though Kirkisani views it as a general term for all idolatry.

Context – Kirkisani explicitly states that the advantage of this read is that it fits within the larger context of the chapter, as it simply speaks of another example of an illicit union.

Motivations – Besides the contextual motivation, this position might be driven to read the verse in this manner so as to find an explicit prohibition against general intermarriage (that is not limited to the seven nations).  This is an extremely important issue for Jubilees and a theme that the book returns to repeatedly.

Desecration of God's name

¹ This is probably the strongest support for this understanding of the verse as it mentions both fire and the Molekh explicitly.

² 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.

³ Cf. the variant "לְמִלְכֹּם תּוֹעֲבַת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן" in Melakhim II 23:13. One might argue that Yirmeyahu 32:35 (and 19:5 similarly) seem to equate the burning of children to the Baal with Molekh worship. Ramban suggests that the Baal and Molekh are one and the same god.  Both names are similar in meaning, referring to one who is master over another. Alternatively, they are distinct gods who were both worshiped in the valley via child immolation.

⁴ 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 action of child sacrifice at גיא בן הנם as both "עֹלוֹת לַבָּעַל" and "לְהַעֲבִיר... לַמֹּלֶךְ".  Alternatively, if Molekh is just a general 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.

⁵ 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.

⁶ See B. Shwartz, "איסור העברת הזרע למלך" in "שנתון לחקר המקרא והמזרח הקדום", vol. 12, (2000): 65-81 who raises this possibility.

⁷ See the immediately following prohibitions, against intercourse with animals and fellow males, other examples of wasting seed.

⁸ 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.

⁹ See also the three parallel verses in Yirmeyahu 7:31, 19:5, and 32:35. Taken together, 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".

¹⁰ Rashi suggests that he is passed between two bonfires while Ramban proposes that he is passed through flames.

¹¹ 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.

¹² It is possible that R. Yishmael reads the verse differently.  Though he too understands the prohibition to refer to having sexual relations, he might nonetheless be underanding the verse to say "do not give of your children to worship the Molekh", since is the feared consequence of such relations.

¹³ Compare the previous verse, Vayikra 18:20, "וְאֶל אֵשֶׁת עֲמִיתְךָ לֹא תִתֵּן שְׁכׇבְתְּךָ לְזָרַע".

¹⁴ "לֹא תִתֵּן" would then refer to the act of insemination.

¹⁵ 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.

¹⁶ 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.

¹⁷ Anan the Karaite (brought by Yaakov Kirkisani) goes a step further to suggest that the entire prohibition of the Molekh refers to not wasting one's seed.

¹⁸ 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.

¹⁹ The man is not warned here about his own sexual act but just about marrying off his daughter.  While Jubilees also prohibits taking a non-Jewish wife for one's self, it does not punish one with stoning for such an offense.  Thus, Shimon and Yehuda are not punished for their marrying of non-Jews.
It is possible that when Jubilees was written the concept of matrilineal descent was not yet widespread and it was assumed that a woman marrying someone of another faith would accept the religion of her husband.  Thus it is much more dangerous for a woman to marry out than for a man.  Many Karaites also believe in patrilineal descent and would likewise assume that a family follows the father's religion. As such, it is understandable that both these sources read the verse as a prohibition against marrying off one's daughter for only in such a case is there a danger of turning to idolatry. In contrast, the sources above, which accept matrilineal descent, are more
worried about the male having relations with the female idolatress and less about one's daughters intermarrying.

²⁰ See above that since both these sources might have held of patrilineal descent, they saw great danger in a woman's marrying into an idolator's family.

²¹ See below that Kirkisani also allows for the possibility that the word's meaning is broader and refers to one's descendants. 

²² Since Jubilees does not comment on the verse itself it is difficult to know how it would read this verb and whether it adds anything to the verb "תִתֵּן".