Li-zchus my beloved friend Johnny Hanus  - brachos for a happy birthday and many many more to come in health, happiness and prosperity. 

Says the pasuk [Kedoshim 20-2]

וְאֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תֹּאמַר אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן הַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ מוֹת יוּמָת עַם הָאָרֶץ יִרְגְּמֻהוּ בָאָבֶן.

And to the children of Israel, you shall say: Any man of the children of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall pelt him with stones.

We see that the pasuk emphasizes Geirm specifically regarding Molech in contrast to most mitzvos where Geirim are included in the rest of Klal Yisrael. Why the emphasis here? 

We also have to understand the words "עם הארץ ירגמוהו באבן" - the people of the land. Rashi offers two explanations: that people for whose sake the earth was created: Israel (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:1); or, that people which is destined to remain in possession of the Land (Canaan) through obedience to these commands. Why here specifically does the Torah choose to call us "עם הארץ" and not say simply that the person should be stoned? 

In the next pasuk - פסוק ג, it says:

וַאֲנִ֞י אֶתֵּ֤ן אֶת־פָּנַי֙ בָּאִ֣ישׁ הַה֔וּא וְהִכְרַתִּ֥י אֹת֖וֹ מִקֶּ֣רֶב עַמּ֑וֹ כִּ֤י מִזַּרְעוֹ֙ נָתַ֣ן לַמֹּ֔לֶךְ לְמַ֗עַן טַמֵּא֙ אֶת־מִקְדָּשִׁ֔י וּלְחַלֵּ֖ל אֶת־שֵׁ֥ם קׇדְשִֽׁי׃

And I will set My attention upon that man, and I will cut him off from amidst his people, because he gave of his offspring to Molech in order to defile My holy ones and to profane My holy Name.

On a simple level this is a continuation of the previous pasuk and is talking about where the death penalty has already been carried out by the court [if he wasn't killed then we have another pasuk - פסוק ד the says ואם העלם יעלימו]. The pasuk is saying that there is an additional punishment to the one administered by the "Am Ha-aretz". This is difficult to understand. The rule is that if judgment is administered down here then there is no judgment from above [מדרש תנחומא משפטים ה] so why here is there an additional judgment [of כרת] from above? 

In general, we have to understand why the aveirah of Molech is so severe more so than other aveiros and mandates this double punishment. 

And why here is there a למען טמא את מקדשי - We contaminate the holy of Hashem? Rashi writes:

למען טמא את מקדשי: את כנסת ישראל, שהיא מקודשת לי, כלשון (ויקרא כא כג) ולא יחלל את מקדשי:

In order to defile My holy ones: Heb. מִקְדָּשִׁי. [This is] the congregation of Israel, which is sanctified to Me. [This reference to Israel as מִקְדָּשִׁי, what is sanctified to Me, is] reminiscent of the expression [referring to the holy sacrifices], “he shall not desecrate My holy things (מִקְדָּשַׁי). 

Why is it THAT bad. And in addition this sin is yet worse because it causes -

 "ולחלל את שם קדשי" 

"Profane My Holy Name." 

Also, how do the entire Jewish people become so contaminated because of the sin of one individual? 

It is also difficult according to the opinion that Molech wasn't Avoda Zara [see Sanhedrin 64a a מחלוקת תנאים]. If so, why is this aveira SO BAD?? Especially according to Rashi [סנהדרין ס"ד: ד"ה דרך העברה] who says that they didn't actually burn the child to death but just passed him through the fire. And the Rambam also holds this way [Avoda Zara 6-3] as does the Meiri [Sanhedrin 64a, see also Ramban 18-21]. The child is not dying and there is no Avoda Zara - so what is the big deal??

Let us see the next two psukim: 

וְאִ֡ם הַעְלֵ֣ם יַעְלִ֩ימוּ֩ עַ֨ם הָאָ֜רֶץ אֶת־עֵֽינֵיהֶם֙ מִן־הָאִ֣ישׁ הַה֔וּא בְּתִתּ֥וֹ מִזַּרְע֖וֹ לַמֹּ֑לֶךְ לְבִלְתִּ֖י הָמִ֥ית אֹתֽוֹ: וְשַׂמְתִּ֨י אֲנִ֧י אֶת־פָּנַ֛י בָּאִ֥ישׁ הַה֖וּא וּבְמִשְׁפַּחְתּ֑וֹ וְהִכְרַתִּ֨י אֹת֜וֹ וְאֵ֣ת | כָּל־הַזֹּנִ֣ים אַֽחֲרָ֗יו לִזְנ֛וֹת אַֽחֲרֵ֥י הַמֹּ֖לֶךְ מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמָּֽם:

But if the people of the land ignore that man when he gives of his offspring to Molech, not putting him to death. I will set My attention upon that man, and upon his family, and I will cut him off, and all who stray after him to stray after Molech, from amidst their people. 

Why do these consequences apply only to Molech only??

Rashi says:

ובמשפחתו: אמר ר' שמעון וכי משפחה מה חטאה, אלא ללמדך שאין לך משפחה שיש בה מוכס שאין כולם מוכסין, שכולם מחפין עליו:

Rabbi Shimon says: [In] what [way] did the family sin [that they are punished]? However, this teaches you that there is no family in which there is an [unfair] tax collector which may not [be regarded as consisting] entirely of tax collectors, for they all cover up for him. — [Torath Kohanim 20:95; Shev. 39a]. 

If the issue is that that if he is a sinner then the entire family are sinners and are therefore punished, then this shouldn't apply only to the sin of Molech but to all sins, as we see in the Gemara with the moshol of the tax collector. 

LOTS to deal with!!😊😊

We can say as follows: Every sin is BAD!! But every sin relates to the individual who commits the sin. So we don't view it as if all of the Jewish people are sinning. There is an obligation of ערבות - that every Jew is responsible for the actions of every other Jew, but the act itself relates to the individual. The sin of giving one's child to Molech is different. This is a sin that impinges on the GENERATIONS. That is an ENTIRELY different story. This sin relates the the Jews as a community by connecting the generations. This sin is REALLY BAD NEWS. Not just a personal indiscretion but one that bears upon the entire community. Since the sin relates to the community, it will also cause great spiritual harm to the entire community. A פגם in the כלל! Every other sin relates to the individual - even if many people commit the sin - a פגם in the יחיד. Horrible but not the end of the world. Here the sin relates to the totality. Almost the end of the world.

Now we can understand why the pasuk emphasized Geirim. One would think that the proper, official Jewish community excludes Geirim who are outsiders [see Kiddushin 75a] and thus the severity of this sin wouldn't apply to them. In order to disabuse us of this mistaken notion, the pasuk says that Geirim ARE included in the prohibition. 

We also understand the emphasis of the pasuk that עם הארץ ירגמוהו באבן. Since there was a פגם in the כלל, it must be rectified by the כלל. The nation for whom the earth was created and Eretz Yisrael was given [as per Rashi] has been harmed and they need to fix it by carrying out retribution. [See Ramban פסוק ג]. 

Now we can explain what it says in 'פסוק ג. 

"ואני אתן וכו' למען טמא את מקדשי ולחלל את שם קדשי"

And I will set My attention upon that man, and I will cut him off from amidst his people, because he gave of his offspring to Molech in order to defile My holy ones and to profane My holy Name.

In 'פסוק ב we saw in the punishment an allusion to the fact that this sin relates the Klal Yisrael as a whole, now we see this explicitly because this sin involves "וטמא את מקדשי" as Rashi explains "את כנסת ישראל שהיא מקודשת לי" - The Jewish people who are sanctified to Me. This indicates that this sin engenders a contamination of the Jewish people who are holy to Hashem. Just as defiling the Mikdash [טומאת מקדש וקדשיו] is an extremely serious offense, so is defiling the Jewish people by giving one's child over to Molech. 

It is also "ולחלל את שם קדשי" - A Chilul Hashem of the GREATEST magnitude. When one causes a Chilul Hashem in front of ten people it is very serious [and one must gives one's life rather than do so - see Sanhedrin 74b and Rambam Yesodei Hatorah Ch. 5] but here is worse because the very sin itself is all about defiling Hashem's name in a public way i.e. this sin inherently relates to the Klal, as we saw. This would explain why the death penalty down here on earth doesn't suffice and it is also necessary to mete out Divine retribution - unlike other sins where one is either punished by the courts or by Hashem but not by both. So we require that he be executed, it be carried out by the Am Ha-aretz [in order to rectify their blemish - the פגם הכלל] and in addition - כרת from Above. 

Whoa!!

On that it says in 'פסוקים ד' וה - But if the people of the land ignore that man when he gives of his offspring to Molech, not putting him to death. I will set My attention upon that man, and upon his family, and I will cut him off, and all who stray after him to stray after Molech, from amidst their people. Here is says that that if the "Am Ha-aretz" don't detach themselves from this man and his sin by stoning him, then Hashem will find another Tikkun for the Jewish people [Hashem loves us and wants to fix us]. That is by punishing not only him [with כרת] but his family as well [according to Rashi it means that they will suffer Yisurin because the כרת relates only to the sinner himself - והכרתי אותו]. The family is a microcosm of the Klal. By punishing them it effects a Tikkun for the greater Jewish community. Rashi says that they too are guilty because ".... there is no family in which there is an [unfair] tax collector which may not [be regarded as consisting] entirely of tax collectors, for they all cover up for him." As we said, this moshol could apply to ANY sin. But when it comes to other sins that are not of a communal-Klal-Yisrael-nature, being an accomplice who didn't actually commit the sin is not enough to mandate punishment. But here where the sin is inherently one that relates to the community at large [because it involves a father giving over his son granting it a generational element, as we explained] we don't need much in order to punish the family. The fact that they cover up for him is enough. 

As they say in the yeshivos - farentfert aleh kashyes!! [Polish for "this is AWESOME!!"] 

Now we can understand the Gemara in Sanhedrin [64b]: 

"העביר כל זרעו פטור שנאמר מזרעך ולא כל זרעך". 

If one gave all of his children over to Molech he is פטור because the pasuk says "from" his seed and not "all" his seed. 

Asked Tosfos:

העביר כל זרעו פטור - וא"ת מקמא מיחייב ליה?

Once he passes the first child through the fire he is already חייב so how can he then become פטור when he passes the rest of his children through? 

וי"ל כגון שאין לו אלא בן אחד או שהעברם בבת אחת.

Tosfos answer that it must be either talking about where he has only one child or that he passes them through in one shot.

The Kesef Mishna [KS"M] has a different approach. He says that after passing the first child through, the חיוב is in limbo. If he doesn't pass all of them through then he is חייב. If he does pass the rest of them through then he is פטור. 

Since Tosfos didn't offer that explanation it must be that it is simple to them that it is not true and if he passes them through one by one then he is חייב on the earlier ones and can't suddenly become פטור when the last one comes through. 

Asked the Rashash [who took the approach of the KS"M without mentioning him]: We find this idea of חיובים being in limbo with regard to an עיר נדחת!! When an individual serves idols he receives סקילה but when it is the majority of the town serves then they receive סייף. According to R' Yehuda even AFTER there was a גמר דין for סקילה we incarcerate them and wait to see if more people are going to serve and his חיוב is transformed into סייף. Here also we should be able to change his דין if he gave the rest of his children to Molech [from חייב to פטור]. 

Another question: The sefer Divrei Emes [עמ' ק"כ] cites the Sifre on the pasuk

 "כל הבא אל וכל אשר באהל"

"אין לי אלא בא מקצתו, בא כולו מנין? ת"ל וכל אשר באהל"

The Sifre learns that not only when PART [מקצתו] of the object enters the tent in which there is a dead body does it become Tamei but even if ALL of the object entered the tent it becomes Tamei. The Sifre explains that we need a special limmud because the law may not be derived from a kal va-chomer [because we can't punish based on a kal vachomer - אין עונשין מן הדין]. 

We also have the drasha in Makkos 5b to include that one is חייב for being with one's sister who is related to him both from his mother and father and we can't learn that din from a kal vachomer from ones maternal sister [because אין עונשין מן הדין]. 

Now from the question of Tosfos we see that they learned that מקצתו is included in כולו because they said that we can't exclude כולו [i.e. when he passes all the children to Molech] when he was already חייב on מקצתו. When the part joins the whole its din doesn't change. Yet, from the two sources we just cited we see that this is not so and מקצתו isn't included in כולו and part of an entity is in a completely different category than the entire entity. So why don't we say the SAME THING about giving ones children to Molech and even though he gave some of them already, giving all of them puts him in a completely different category [and he would thus be פטור]? 

The answer is that there is a distinction between the case of Molech and the other cases. In the case of the עיר נדחת, when most of the town serves idols, the part that served earlier becomes a new entity. The part that previously served now joins everyone and becomes part of a new whole. The "part" becomes a new מציאות when joining the whole. When the object entered partially into the tent and then entered completely we say that the מקצת is transformed into a new entity - part of the whole. It is a new מציאות so we need a pasuk to teach that it is Tamei. So too with one's sister. A half sister is not a complete sister, so the former doesn't necessarily have the same halachic status as the latter. We therefore need a pasuk to teach both independently. 

But when to comes to Molech it was axiomatic ["pashut" in French] to Tosfos that one child has NOTHING to do with a second child and after giving one to Molech what he does with other children has no halachic ramifications or impact on the act of giving the first child. There is NO צירוף, no glue, that will combine one child with the next. So if he is already חייב for one child, how can he suddenly become פטור when he gives future children to Molech? So Tosfos' question was valid. And the answer that he passed them all at once doesn't necessarily mean EXACTLY at the same second [because that is virtually impossible - א"א לצמצם - see ערוך לנר] but that it was done תוך כדי דיבר creating a צירוף between the children. 

With this we can explain the Toras Kohanim [צו פ"י] which says that only a יחיד gets כרת for consuming חלב but not a צבור. Asked the ר"ש משאנץ - How is it possible for the entire צבור to have consumed חלב at EXACTLY the same millisecond?? And if they ate it one after the other then they are יחידים and will thus be חייבים כרת?? Ahhhh!! 

Rav Yosef Engel [בית האצר ח"א כלל נ"ג] argued back that we see regarding עיר הנדחת that the din changes after the majority serve the idols from סקילה to סייף so why can't it change here also?

The Margaliyos Hayam added that the Yerushalmi in Horiyos [1-1] says that if a יחיד ate חלב based on a mistaken psak of the Beis Din he is held in limbo and if the majority of people ate חלב then he is פטור from a korban and a פר העלם דבר של צבור is brought. So we again see that a din can change from a יחיד to a צבור?? 

The answer is that in the case where one person ate חלב, there is no צירוף and connection between him and the other people, so it is not possible for his din to change. That is what the ר"ש משאנץ meant [ask him next time you see him!!]. But in the case of the עיר נדחת there is a din of רוב עיר and thus the יחידים connect, combine and coagulate with the rest of the people and they take upon a new status of being a "city" that served idols. So the חיוב of the יחידים is transformed to סייף. So too when it comes to a פר העלם דבר של צבור, there is a צירוף מן התורה of the יחידים with those who later ate the חלב that negates the חיוב קרבן of the יחידים. The יחידים become part of a new entity because of this צירוף. But when one person eats חלב and then the rest of the צבור eats חלב there is no צירוף between them created by the Torah that would remove the דין כרת from the first person. 

שפתיים ישק!! 😘  

Everything we said was to explain the opinion of Tosfos. But the Kesef Mishna doesn't subscribe to this opinion [nor did he subscribe to Sports Illustrated, but that is besides the point]. The KS"M was of the opinion that the act of passing the child through the fire to Molech is not a מעשה that relates to this or that son but rather an act that relates to the generations. When the father passes one son through and then another there IS a צירוף between them because instead of the father performing an act that relates to PART of the generations [as he did with the first son], he is instead performing an act that relates to ALL the generations [if he has two sons]. That is why the KS"M holds that if he passes one son through and then another later on, the status of the first passing changes and is transformed into an act that relates to ALL the generations and he is thus פטור [because of the drasha of מזרעו ולא כל זרעו].   

But Tosfos didn't buy it [if it is permitted to say that]. They saw the passing of each child as a different, disparate act, disconnected from the act of passing the other sons. For this reason we have to wonder about the discussion of the Aruch La-ner in our sugya, the Pri Chodosh in his chiddushim on the Rambam, the Minchas Chinuch [208] and many many others who asked about the opinion of the KS"M that when he gives all of his sons to Molech, he becomes retroactively פטור for passing the earlier ones through. If that is true, then he is פטור even if he doesn't pass all of them through because each of the earlier התראה's is a התראת ספק - maybe he will pass them all through and be פטור!! We can't punish if it is only a התראת ספק!!   

The Aruch La-ner said that for that very reason Tosfos didn't accept the understanding of the KS"M that one can become retroactively פטור. But of course if that is the case then העיקר חסר מן הספר, because Tosfos didn't breathe a WORD about that. However the Minchas Chinuch [208] and the Binyan Shlomo on the Rambam wrote that there is no issue of התראת ספק according to what Tosfos wrote in a number of places that a Nazir receives Malkus if he transgresses his Nezirus oath and we don't say that it is only a התראת ספק lest he uproot [שואל] the Nezirus since we hold that he has a חזקת נזיר and will stay that way, CERTAINLY here we should hold strongly with the חזקה and assume that he won't pass all of his sons through the fire [see there]. So the התראה for the איסור is considered ודאי! The Mishnas Chachomim in Hilchos Avoda Zara wrote that התראת ספק is only when the ספק is whether he performed an act that would obligate him [מעשה המחייב] and here is different because the act is DEFINITELY a מעשה המחייב and the only question is whether it will be uprooted and "fixed" later [by giving over the rest of his sons]. Such a case is not a התראת ספק.  

But based on what we said there was no מעשה המחייב according to the KS"M in the first place if it turns out that the first one was passed over the fire as part of the passing over of ALL the generations for which there is no חיוב. So this is not a מעשה המתקן - a fixing, but rather it emerges retroactively that there was never a מעשה המחייב in the first place. So then we must say [in order to avoid the התראת ספק problem] like Tosfos that it IS a תיקון because each son is viewed individually. 

On the other hand, according to our explanation of Tosfos that it is a תיקון, then we can employ the סברא of the Mishnas Chachomim that it is not a התראת ספק because his first act was DEFINITELY a מעשה המחייב and the only question is whether it will be fixed later [by passing his other sons through as well]. Therefore we can't say like the Aruch La-ner that Tosfos didn't accept the opinion of the KS"M because they hold that it is a התראת ספק, because according to the Mishnas Chachomim - it ISN'T! In fact, Tosfos holds that it is PASHUT that he will not be פטור for the first one retroactively and thus they explained that the only cases where he will be פטור for כל זרעו is where he passed them through simultaneously or he had only one son. 

WOW! 😀😀       

[עפ"י תורת מו"ר הגאון הגדול ר' ד"י מן זצ"ל]