## Sanhedrin Daf 64b

###### Sanhedrin 64b:1
[Sanhedrin 64b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:1)

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּמְסְרֶנּוּ לְכוֹמָרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לְהַעֲבִיר לַמֹּלֶךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yannai says:** One is **not liable** for passing his child through fire to Molekh **unless he hands him over to** the **priests** of Molekh, **as it is stated: “And you shall not give any of your offspring to pass them over to Molekh”** (Leviticus 18:21), which indicates that the prohibition is to give, i.e., to hand the child over to the priests.


###### Sanhedrin 64b:2
[Sanhedrin 64b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:2)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: יָכוֹל הֶעֱבִיר וְלֹא מָסַר יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא תִתֵּן״. מָסַר לַמּוֹלֶךְ וְלֹא הֶעֱבִיר, יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְהַעֲבִיר״. מָסַר וְהֶעֱבִיר שֶׁלֹּא לַמּוֹלֶךְ, יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַמֹּלֶךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This is also taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that one who **passed** his child through fire **but did not hand** him **over** to the priests of Molekh **should be liable.** Therefore, **the verse states: “You shall not give.”** If one **handed over** his son **to the** priests of **Molekh but did not pass** him through fire, one **might** have thought that **he should be liable.** Therefore, **the verse states: “To pass,”** indicating that passing is also necessary. If one **handed over** the child **and passed** him through fire, **not to** priests of **Molekh** but rather to priests of another object of idol worship, one **might** have thought that **he should be liable.** Therefore, **the verse states: “To Molekh.”**


###### Sanhedrin 64b:3
[Sanhedrin 64b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:3)

מָסַר וְהֶעֱבִיר לַמּוֹלֶךְ, וְלֹא בָּאֵשׁ – יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּיב? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לְהַעֲבִיר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ״. מָה לְהַלָּן בָּאֵשׁ, אַף כָּאן בָּאֵשׁ. וּמָה כָּאן מוֹלֶךְ, אַף לְהַלָּן מוֹלֶךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **handed over** his child **and passed** him **over to the** priests of **Molekh, but** he did **not** pass him **through the fire,** one **might** have thought that **he should be liable. It is stated here,** in the verse: **“To pass,” and it is stated there,** in another verse: **“There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fire”** (Deuteronomy 18:10). **Just as there,** the verse is referring to passing one’s child **through the fire, so too here,** the reference is to passing one’s child **through the fire. And just as here,** the verse is referring to one who passes his child over to the priests of **Molekh, so too there,** the reference is to **Molekh** alone, excluding any other object of idol worship.


###### Sanhedrin 64b:4
[Sanhedrin 64b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:4)

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הֶעֱבִיר כׇּל זַרְעוֹ – פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מִזַּרְעֲךָ״ – וְלֹא כׇּל זַרְעֲךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, says:** One who **passed all his offspring** through fire to the priests of Molekh is **exempt, as it is stated: “Of your offspring,”** indicating: **But not all your offspring.**


###### Sanhedrin 64b:5
[Sanhedrin 64b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:5)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: הֶעֱבִירוֹ סוֹמֵא, מַהוּ? יָשֵׁן, מַהוּ? בֶּן בְּנוֹ וּבֶן בִּתּוֹ, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi raises a dilemma:** If one **passed** through the fire a child of his who is **blind, what is** the *halakha*? Furthermore, if one passed his child through the fire while the child was **asleep, what is** the *halakha*? Does the child need to be capable of passing through on his own, or is that not necessary? Likewise, if one passed **his son’s son or his daughter’s son** through the fire, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Sanhedrin 64b:6
[Sanhedrin 64b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:6)

תִּפְשׁוֹט מִיהָא חֲדָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״כִּי מִזַּרְעוֹ נָתַן לַמֹּלֶךְ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ. בֶּן בְּנוֹ וּבֶן בִּתּוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּתִתּוֹ מִזַּרְעוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Resolve at least one** of these dilemmas, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Why** must **the verse state: “Because he has given of his offspring to Molekh”** (Leviticus 20:3)? What is added by this statement? **Because it is stated: “There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fire,” I have** derived **only** that it is prohibited for one to pass **his son or daughter. From where** do I derive that one who passes **his son’s son or his daughter’s son** is also liable? **The verse states: “When he gives of his offspring”** (Leviticus 20:4). The term “offspring” indicates that grandchildren are included. This resolves one of Rav Ashi’s dilemmas.


###### Sanhedrin 64b:7
[Sanhedrin 64b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:7)

תַּנָּא פָּתַח בְּ״כִּי מִזַּרְעוֹ״, וְסָלֵיק בְּ״תִתּוֹ מִזַּרְעוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: The ***tanna* began** his exposition **with** the phrase in the verse **“because** he has given **of his offspring,” and ended with** an interpretation of the phrase in the verse **“when he gives of his offspring.”** Why did he cite two different verses as proof for his halakhic statement?


###### Sanhedrin 64b:8
[Sanhedrin 64b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:8)

דְּרָשָׁה אַחֲרִינָא הוּא: ״זַרְעוֹ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זֶרַע כָּשֵׁר, זֶרַע פָּסוּל מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּתִתּוֹ מִזַּרְעוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The second verse **is** stated in the *baraita* for **a different exposition,** which was omitted from the *baraita* and reads as follows: From the term in the verse **“his offspring” I have** derived **only** that one is liable for passing through the fire his **offspring** of **unflawed** lineage, i.e., his descendants from a woman whom he was permitted to marry. **From where** do I derive that one is liable for passing through the fire his **offspring** of **flawed** lineage, e.g., a *mamzer*, as well? **The verse states: “When he gives of his offspring,”** indicating that one is liable for passing any of his offspring.


###### Sanhedrin 64b:9
[Sanhedrin 64b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:9)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲבִירֶנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ הַעֲבָרָה. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁרָגָא דְּלִיבְנֵי בְּמִצְעֵי, נוּרָא מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וְנוּרָא מֵהַאי גִּיסָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda says:** One is **not liable** for passing his child through fire to Molekh **unless he passes him** in the typical **manner of passing.** The Gemara asks: **What is considered** the typical manner of passing? **Abaye says:** The child is taken by foot along **a latticework [*sirega*] of bricks in the middle,** between the **fire on this side and** the **fire on that side.**


###### Sanhedrin 64b:10
[Sanhedrin 64b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:10)

רָבָא אָמַר: כְּמַשְׁוַורְתָּא דְּפוּרַיָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** The typical manner of passing is **like the leaps** of children **on Purim.** It was customary to light a bonfire on Purim inside a pit, and children would amuse themselves by leaping over the bonfires. Passing one’s child over a fire in such a fashion is the typical manner of passing a child over to Molekh.


###### Sanhedrin 64b:11
[Sanhedrin 64b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:11)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲבִירֶנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ עֲבָרָהּ. הֶעֱבִירוֹ בָּרֶגֶל – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rava:** One is **not liable unless he passes** his child through the fire in the typical **manner of passing. If he passed him by foot,** he is **exempt.** Evidently, the passing ritual is performed by leaping and not by walking.


###### Sanhedrin 64b:12
[Sanhedrin 64b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:12)

וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵיכוֹ. הָא כֵּיצַד? בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ – חַיָּיב, אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אָחִיו וַאֲחוֹתוֹ – פָּטוּר. הֶעֱבִיר עַצְמוֹ – פָּטוּר, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְחַיֵּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** one **is liable only for** passing **his descendants. How so?** If one passed **his son or his daughter** through the fire, he is **liable.** If he passed **his father, or his mother, his brother, or his sister,** he is **exempt.** If one **passed himself** over to Molekh, he is **exempt. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, deems** him **liable.**


###### Sanhedrin 64b:13
[Sanhedrin 64b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:13)

אֶחָד לַמּוֹלֶךְ, וְאֶחָד לִשְׁאָר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לַמּוֹלֶךְ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁלֹּא לַמּוֹלֶךְ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Both** one who passes his child through fire **to Molekh and** one who passes his child through fire **to other** objects of **idol worship** are **liable. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says:** If he passes him over **to Molekh,** he is **liable,** but if he transfers him to another object of idol worship, **not to Molekh,** he is **exempt.**


###### Sanhedrin 64b:14
[Sanhedrin 64b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:14)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ״ – בְּךָ בְּעַצְמְךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla says: What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,** who deems one who passes himself over to Molekh liable? **The verse states: “There shall not be found among you** one who passes his son or his daughter through the fire” (Deuteronomy 18:10), and the term **“among you”** is interpreted homiletically to mean: **Among yourself.**


###### Sanhedrin 64b:15
[Sanhedrin 64b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:15)

וְרַבָּנַן לָא דָּרְשִׁי ״בְּךָ״? וְהָתְנַן: אֲבֵידָתוֹ וַאֲבֵידַת אָבִיו – שֶׁלּוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת. וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאי טַעְמָא? וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אָמַר קְרָא ״אֶפֶס כִּי לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּךָ אֶבְיוֹן״ – שֶׁלּוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לְשֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And do the Rabbis not interpret** the term **“among you”** as referring to oneself? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Bava Metzia* 33a): If one finds **his lost item and his father’s lost item,** taking care of **his** own lost item **takes precedence. And we said** in discussion of that mishna: **What is the reason** for this? **And Rav Yehuda said** that it is because **the verse states: “Only so that there shall be no needy among you”** (Deuteronomy 15:4), meaning that one must avoid becoming needy. Therefore, if one lost an item, tending to **his** lost item **takes precedence over** tending to the lost item **of any** other **person.** Apparently, this interpretation of the verse is based on the understanding that the term “among you” is referring to oneself, i.e., one must take care of himself so that he will not become needy.


###### Sanhedrin 64b:16
[Sanhedrin 64b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:16)

הָתָם מֵ״אֶפֶס״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **And there,** in that discussion, the *halakha* is derived **from** the word **“only,”** a limiting term, which is interpreted to mean that in preventing destitution one should begin with himself.


###### Sanhedrin 64b:17
[Sanhedrin 64b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:17)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שָׁלֹשׁ כָּרֵיתוֹת בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָמָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Why** is the punishment of **excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*]** mentioned **three** times **with regard to idol worship?** It is stated twice with regard to the ritual of Molekh, in the verse: “I will also set My face against that man, and I will excise him from among his people” (Leviticus 20:3), and in the verse: “Then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and I will excise him” (Leviticus 20:5). The third mention of *karet* is with regard to one who blasphemes: “That person blasphemes the Lord, and that soul shall be excised from among his people” (Numbers 15:30).


###### Sanhedrin 64b:18
[Sanhedrin 64b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:18)

אַחַת לִכְדַרְכָּהּ, וְאַחַת לְשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וְאַחַת לַמּוֹלֶךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One** mention **is for** worshipping an idol **in its** typical **manner** of worship, **and one** mention **is for** worshipping an idol **not in its** typical **manner** of worship, **and one** mention **is for** performing the ritual of **Molekh.**


###### Sanhedrin 64b:19
[Sanhedrin 64b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:19)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹלֶךְ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הִיא, כָּרֵת בְּמוֹלֶךְ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to the one who says** that **Molekh is** an object of **idol worship, why do I** need a special mention of ***karet* with regard to Molekh?** The Gemara answers: It is necessary **for** the case of **one who passes his child** through fire to an idol other than Molekh, where this is **not its** typical **manner** of worship. According to this opinion, one who passes his son through fire to any idol is liable.


###### Sanhedrin 64b:20
[Sanhedrin 64b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:20)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מְגַדֵּף עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הִיא, כָּרֵת בִּמְגַדֵּף לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to the one who says** that the verse concerning **one who blasphemes is** referring to one who engages in **idol worship** and not to one who curses God, **why do I** need ***karet*** to be mentioned **with regard to one who blasphemes?**


###### Sanhedrin 64b:21
[Sanhedrin 64b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:21)

לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת״. ״הִכָּרֵת״ – בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״תִּכָּרֵת״ – לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that it is necessary **for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: It is stated with regard to one who blasphemes: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has breached His mitzva, that soul **shall be excised [*hikkaret tikkaret*],** his iniquity shall be upon him” (Numbers 15:31). The phrase “*hikkaret tikkaret*” is interpreted as follows: **“*Hikkaret*”;** the sinner is excised **in this world,** meaning that he will die prematurely. **“*Tikkaret*”;** the sinner is excised **in the World-to-Come,** and he will not merit everlasting life. This is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Sanhedrin 64b:22
[Sanhedrin 64b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/64b:22)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״וְנִכְרְתָה״! וְכִי שְׁלֹשָׁה עוֹלָמִים יֵשׁ? אֶלָּא ״וְנִכְרְתָה״ – בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״הִכָּרֵת״ – לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, ״תִּכָּרֵת״ – דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yishmael said to him: But isn’t it already stated** in the previous verse: “He blasphemes the Lord; that soul **shall be excised [*venikhreta*]”** (Numbers 15:30)? **Are there three worlds** in which the sinner is excised? **Rather,** from the term in the verse **“*venikhreta*”** it is derived that the sinner is excised **in this world,** from the term **“*hikkaret*”** it is derived that the sinner is excised **in the World-to-Come,** and nothing is derived from the doubled verb “*hikkaret **tikkaret*****,”** as **the Torah spoke in the language of people.**