אשר יתן מזרעו למולך יומת עם הארץ ירגמוהו באבן, “who gives of his seed to the Moloch, shall be executed, the people of the land shall pelt him with stones.” The Talmud Sanhedrin 64 sees in the word מזרעו as opposed to כל זרעו, “of his seed,” instead of “all his seed,” a restrictive clause, i.e. that if a father gives all his children to this god he is not liable to execution at the hands of man. This does not mean that he goes free, on the contrary, if he is executed for giving some of his children to that god his execution is his expiation provided he accepts the judgment and repents. When he has given all his children to that god he is not afforded the opportunity of atonement until after he dies and is consigned to gehinom, purgatory. A person who has reached the depth of deprivation by consigning all his children to the fire-god Moloch is not entitled to execution as a means of cleansing himself of his sin. Seeing that he does not have available to him such a method of expiating for his sin he will carry his sin to the grave with him and will remain guilty forever. [Rabbi Moshe ben Rabbi Yaakov Mikutzi, in his Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot on negative commandment 40 writes in a similar vein. The author of that work preceded our author by close to a century. Ed.] The guilt of such a person is so deeply engraved in his soul that it parallels the examples of which the Torah had written הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא עונה בה, “this soul shall be cut off again and again, it will continue to bear its guilt” (Numbers 15,31). The reason the Torah writes מות יומת, which sounds like a repetition, is that in the first instance it is up to the court to execute such an individual. Should circumstances be such that the court lacks the power to carry out the death penalty, the common people are encouraged to do this on their own. In the two scenarios just mentioned the situation was judicially clear-cut, i.e. there had been valid witnesses and the culprit had been properly cautioned before committing the deed. In the event that there were legal snags which made a conviction of such a person impossible, the Torah writes in verse 3 “and I (G’d) will set My face against such a man and will exterminate him from amongst his people.” This refers to such situations as the deed being committed in secret when no witnesses were present at all, or a situation where the deed had been witnessed but the people do not care and do not testify against such a person. This may be due to their fear of revenge by family members of the guilty person or to other considerations. G’d means that He will not only intervene against the actively guilty party who “murdered” his children under the guise of a religious ceremony, but also against the silent onlookers who agreed with this cult. To make this wider application of G’d’s retributive arm clear, the Torah repeats in verse 5 that “I will set My face against such a man and his family and I will exterminate him and all those who stray after him.”

Maimonides, in his Moreh Nevuchim section three chapter 37 concerning the practice of the Moloch-cult, writes as follows: the fire-worshippers in those days engaged in all kinds of endeavors to strengthen the hold their religion exerted on its followers by claiming that people who refrained from offering their sons or daughters as potential sacrifices to that god would see their children die. There is no question that the fathers who worshipped that cult were not motivated by cruelty but by the utmost concern for their other children. They hoped to satisfy their god with a token offering so that the remainder of their children would not only not be harmed but would be blessed by that deity. They encouraged the child to run the gauntlet of the fire hoping the child would escape unharmed. The cult was performed with very young children, children under the constant supervision of their mothers. Seeing that women are easily influenced by horror tales, these women were ready victims of all these kinds of threats and warnings if they did not allow at least one of their children to pass between the two fires dedicated to the Moloch. Keeping this in mind, the Torah addressed itself to this particular form of idolatry more than to any others knowing how vulnerable the mothers of children are to tales of horror concerning the retributive powers of that deity. To demonstrate the extreme concern of the Torah with this cult the Torah wrote the additional words למען טמא את מקדשי ולחלל את שם קדשי, “in order to defile My Sanctuary and to desecrate My holy Name” (verse 3). The Torah tells us that he who worships that cult hoping to sacrifice only one of his children will have all his children destroyed by G’d as a result. This is what is meant by verse 5. G’d’s retribution always fits the crime. Thus far Maimonides. I had written on 18,21 that some commentators believed that the “passing through fire” mentioned resulted in the child in question being burned to death as the child would be made to pass between the flames repeatedly. Maimonides did not understand the procedure in that way. He thought that the chances of the child being burned to death during the procedure were remote. If he is correct then the words of Deut. 13,31 which clearly speak of parents burning their children must refer to a different cult.

ואני אתן את פני באיש ההוא, “and I will set My face against that man.” Nachmanides points out that this is the only time in the entire Torah that the attribute אני for G’d appears in connection with the karet penalty. The reason is that G’d feels that by following this abominable cult the sinner has defiled the great Name and thereby defiled the entire concept of כנסת ישראל, what the Jewish people symbolize. Our sages in Berachot 35 have compared someone enjoying the fruits of this world without first reciting a benediction giving thanks to G’d for the availability of such fruit as stealing from G’d. They based this on Proverbs 28,24: ”whoever robs his father and mother and says: ‘it is no sin,’ is a companion of a destroyer.” The “father” Solomon speaks of may be understood as our father in heaven. The “mother” Solomon refers to is the כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept of the Jewish people. We have seen the prophet Isaiah 50,1 use that simile for the Jewish people when he said: “ובפשעכם שלחה אמכם, “on account of your sins your mother was dismissed.” The words “companion to the destroyer” refer to King Jerobam who caused Israel to become corrupted to their father in heaven. If Jerobam who merely blocked the way to Jerusalem is described in such terms how much more so must a father who offers his children (fruit of his loins) as a sacrifice to the Moloch cause estrangement between G’d and His people! Thus far Nachmonides. In the course of his remarks Nachmonides explained to us that in most instances when the Torah mentions the name of אני it refers to the attribute of Justice, whereas in this instance it represents the attribute of Mercy because it is written in connection with the word פני, “My face.” We find a similar example of the word אני as the attribute of Mercy in Genesis 6,17 as there too it is written in connection with the word לפני in verse 13; a similar construction occurs in Exodus 6,5 where the name אני evidently refers to the attribute of Mercy. It is clear there from the context that the word אני does not refer to the attribute of Justice. [When G’d said there that He had heard the pleas of the Israelites this is equivalent to saying that their pleas had come לפני, “before Me.” Ed.]

ואיש אשר ינאף את אשת רעהו, “and the man who engages in an adulterous relationship with the wife of his fellow, etc.” our sages see in the word איש an exclusion of the death penalty for a minor between the ages of nine and thirteen who sleeps with the wife of a fellow Jew. In the words אשת רעהו they see an exclusion of the death penalty for someone who sleeps with the wife of a Gentile (compare Sanhedrin 52). The words אשת איש indicate that sleeping with the wife of a minor is also not subject to the death penalty. Our verse proves that a marriage ceremony entered into with a Gentile is not considered a legal marriage.

ואת הבהמה תהרגו, “and the beast you shall kill.” Rashi, following our sages, asks the rhetorical question why the animal should be killed seeing it had not committed a crime? The answer given is that seeing the animal was the catalyst leading to the sin by the human being involved in the act the Torah decreed that it be stoned to death. You may apply some logic here. If even an animal which is unable to distinguish between right and wrong is executed, how much more so will execution be the penalty for a human being who does know right from wrong. When a human being is the cause of a fellow human committing a sin, he is certainly culpable for what he did. We have a verse in Deut. 12,2 where the Torah commands us to destroy all the sites on which idolatry was performed by the Canaanites prior to the Israelites coming to the Holy Land. This provides us with a similar reason of why humans guilty of idolatry will be subject to the death penalty. If even trees, which most certainly were totally passive and had no knowledge of something sinful being performed involving them, are subject to destruction on account of this, how much more so are human beings who were the cause of another human being induced to worship idols through deceiving such a person, subject to execution for their deeds?

ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו ..חסד הוא, “if a man takes his sister from his father’s side or from his mother’s side as a wife,.....it is a disgrace (or kindness).” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah here describes sexual intercourse as קיחה i.e. an act of acquisition such as marriage. The reason is that when a man marries a woman he does so with the implied understanding that he will sleep with her. We have found the word יקח used in that sense in verse 14 where clearly the whole concept of someone “marrying” his mother-in-law in addition to his wife is ludicrous. The same applies to the verse which speaks of someone “marrying” the wife of his brother (verse 21), technically an obvious impossibility. Clearly, in each of these verses the word יקח is used as a euphemism for having sexual intercourse with the second party mentioned in each of these verses. The reason the Torah describes such an act as חסד, is based on Proverbs 25,10: פן יחסדך שומע, “lest the one who hears it puts you to shame.” Onkelos translates the word here as קלנא, “shame, disgrace.”

Nachmanides does not want to translate the word חסד as different from most instances when it appears and when it means “an act of loving kindness.” He considers the basic meaning of the word as either an act of kindness beyond the call of duty, or the very reverse, an act of unheard of debauchery. He feels that the Torah chose this word to emphasise that compared to other forbidden sexual unions this is the worst, the most disgraceful.

A Midrashic approach (Sifra Kedoshim 11,11) the words חסד הוא refer to the time when one had to marry a sister as no one else was around. Kayin is given credit for marrying his sister (three girls were born at the time Kayin and Hevel were born). The word refers to a true kindness as we know from Psalms 89,3 where Eytan (Avraham) says כי אמרתי עולם חסד יבנה, “for I said the universe was constructed on loving kindness.” According to tradition the extra twin was intended for Adam, but he generously waived his claim and allowed Kayin to marry her. Had Adam’s daughter not been assigned a husband the world would not have become populated.

ואיש אשר יקח את אשת אחיו נדה היא, “when a man takes his brother’s wife it is loathsome, etc.” The Torah does not mean to use the term נדה here in the sense that such a woman is considered like a menstruous woman to her brother-in-law; the term is used in the same sense as the expression זמה היא, “it is sexual depravity.” The meaning is similar to the meaning of the word חסד in verse 17, i.e. it is despicable. Our sages in Yevamot 54 derive an halachic rule from this expression, i.e. that even partial insertion of just the tip of his member in the vagina without ejaculation is culpable. The reason the sages say this is because the Torah specifically mentioned this form of penetration in connection with a menstruous woman in verse 18.

A Midrashic approach (Yevamot 54): the words נדה היא, “she is menstruous,” mean that there is a common denominator between marrying a sister-in-law and sleeping with a menstruous woman. Both categories of women are not absolutely forbidden; the menstruous woman becomes permitted after ritual immersion, and the sister-in law is permitted if her sister who was married to her brother-in-law first has died. All the forbidden sexual unions mentioned in this portion have already been mentioned in the previous portion; in Acharey Mot the penalties for violating these laws were not mentioned at all; this is why here the Torah lists the penalties associated with violation of these laws. The only forbidden union not repeated here is that of someone marrying two sisters while both are alive. The Torah omitted this here out of deference to Yaakov who had married two sisters (before the Torah had been given and not in the land of Israel). The meaning of the word ערירים ימותו in verse 20 is that if these people had children prior to committing the offense listed these children would die during the lifetime of the father; if the father did not have any children at that point in his life he would remain childless for the rest of his natural life.

ואני אתננה לכם, “and I shall give it to you.” With these three words G’d the Unique promises to give the land which is unique to the people who are unique, to Israel. This is the meaning of the words: “and I shall give it to you as a possession.” G’d means that up until that time the land of Canaan had remained His land just as the Jewish people had been special to G’d. He had never assigned any horoscopic constellation to govern the fate of the Jewish people. Neither had G’d appointed a special agent such as a מלאך or שרף to be in charge of the fortunes of the Jewish people. The reason is that “you are part of My share, not their share, I am your national G’d, not theirs.” To the other nations, says G’d, I am only the supreme G’d, i.e. אלוהי האלוהים. This is how Nachmanides explains the above words; (even though this is not his precise wording, this is what he intended to say).

ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי, “I have separated you from the peoples to be Mine.” The wisdom of the Torah which we have absorbed forces us to be separate and different in our food, our drink, our clothing, etc. Seeing that we are singled out to have been given the commandments of the Torah the nations of the universe are jealous of us; being jealous of us they have come to hate us. This is basically what our sages had in mind in Shabbat 89 when they said: “The mountain of Sinai used to be known as Mount Chorev. Why then is it known nowadays as Mount Sinai? It is because the anti-Semitic hatred of the idolaters originated from that mountain.”

A Midrashic approach (Sifra Kedoshim 9,11) The words: “I have separated you from the peoples, etc.,” are to be understood as follows ‘if you keep yourselves apart from the other nations then you will be Mine;’ if not, you will become the property of such kings as Nevuchadnezzar and his colleagues. Rabbi Eliezer son of Azaryah said: ‘how do we know that a person should not say: “I cannot wear a garment composed of a mixture of wool and linen; I cannot commit an incestuous relationship; I cannot eat pig, etc.,” but that a person should admit that he is perfectly capable of participating in those foods, etc.” [He meant a person should not be revolted by such things by nature so that he does not have to make a conscious decision to refrain from them. Ed] A person should feel that the reason he does not try and enjoy any of these otherwise attractive-looking foods and drinks, etc., is because G’d has put it out of bounds to us. This then is the meaning of: “I have separated you from the nations,” i.e. your separation has been divinely decreed. By accepting this decree you will keep away from committing sins and you will accept the yoke of heaven (instead of being slaves to your natural urges). The reason that in this instance the Torah refers to the other nations as העמים instead of as הגויים, [a term which at first glance seems to be complimentary to them, Ed.], is that the word means also חשכים, i.e. כהה, עמיא, “darker,” compare Onkelos on Leviticus 13,6 describing the white of the tzoraat becoming darker. The eyes of the nations have become blinded by being exposed to the brilliance of the light of the Torah. They suffer from the fact that they walk in darkness, having rejected the Torah. Moreover, they are destined for a sojourn in purgatory, a spiritually dark domain. The author quotes a few more verses describing the darkness enveloping the nations of the world.