POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Sanhedrin 64
1) ABOLITION OF THE "YETZER HA'RA" FOR IDOLATRY
(a) Question: "Vayiz'aku b'Kol Gadol El Hash-m" - what did
2) SERVING "MOLECH"
(b) Answer (Rav Yehudah): They moaned - 'The Yetzer ha'Ra
(evil inclination) caused the destruction of the Beis
ha'Mikdash and the Heichal, the killing of Tzadikim, the
exile of Yisrael from Eretz Yisrael, and it still wreaks
havoc among us;
1. You (Hash-m) only gave us the Yetzer ha'Ra to
overcome it and receive reward - we prefer not to
have it nor its reward!'
(c) Answer: After they were steeped in idolatry, they lusted
to serve it.
(d) (Rav Yehudah): They fasted for three days and asked
Hash-m to hand the Yetzer ha'Ra over to them; a note fell
from Shamayim, it said 'Emes'.
1. (R. Chanina): This teaches that Hash-m's signature
(e) A lion of fire came out from the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim;
Zecharyah told them that this was the Yetzer ha'Ra. They
seized it, a hair came out, it roared and was heard for
400 Parsa'os. They were concerned that Hash-m had mercy
1. Zecharyah: Throw it in a lead pot and cover it with
lead - "Zos ha'Rish'ah va'Yashlech Osah El Toch
ha'Eifah...Oferes Al Piha".
(f) (Rav Yehudah): A case occurred, a Nochris was very sick;
she said that if she recovers, she will serve every
idolatry in the world. She recovered and went to serve
every idolatry. When she came to Ba'al Pe'or, she asked
its priests how to serve it.
2. Since they were granted this, they requested the
Yetzer ha'Ra for Arayos; Hash-m agreed, they held it
for three days.
3. A fresh egg was needed for a sick person, it could
not be found (hens were not even laying eggs, even
those finished inside the hen).
4. They reasoned - Hash-m will not consent to remove
only half of the Yetzer (for what is permitted).
They blinded it - this helped that people would not
lust for their relatives.
1. The priests: Eat beets and drink beer (these induce
bowel movement) and excrete in front of it.
(g) (Rav Yehudah): Yisrael sunk lower than this Nochris!
"Ha'Nitzmadim l'Ba'al Pe'or" - Yisrael clung to Ba'al
Pe'or like a Tzamid Pasil (a tightly sealed container);
2. The woman: It is better to be sick than to do so!
1. "V'Atem ha'Devaekim ba'Sh-m" - they clung to Hash-m
like dates (that do not cling to each other so
(h) (Beraisa): "Ha'Nitzmadim l'Ba'al Pe'or" - like a Tzamid
(bracelet) on a woman's hand (that does not cling);
1. "V'Atem ha'Devaekim ba'Sh-m" - truly clinging.
(i) (Beraisa): A case occurred, Savta ben Eles rented a
donkey to a Nochris; when she came to Ba'al Pe'or, she
went to serve it. Afterwards, he told her that he wants
to serve it.
1. The woman: Aren't you a Yisrael?!
(j) Excreting in front of Ba'al Pe'or is its normal Avodah,
one is liable (Rambam - a Korban, if he was Shogeg; Rashi
- and if he was Mezid and warned, Misah) even though he
intends to disgrace it (Tosfos -to serve it through
disgrace); throwing rocks at Markulis is its Avodah, he
is liable even if he intends to stone it.
2. Savta: What difference does it make?
3. He excreted in front of it, and wiped himself with
its nose. The priests were ecstatic - 'No one ever
served like this before!'
(k) Rav Menasheh was travelling; they told him 'There is
idolatry here'. He threw a clod of earth at it; they told
him that it was Markulis.
1. Rav Menasheh the Mishnah only forbids throwing rocks
*to* Markulis, i.e. to honor it!
2. Rabanan: The Mishnah forbids throwing rocks *at*
Markulis, even if he intends to stone it.
3. Rav Menasheh: I will remove what I threw! (so it
will not be adorned by my act)!
4. Rabanan: One is liable for taking rocks from or
throwing rocks at Markulis;
i. By "taking" one away, you make room for others
(a) (Mishnah): To be liable for giving a child to Molech, he
must give his child to (the priests of) Molech and pass
him through a fire;
1. If he only gave his child to Molech, or only passed
him through a fire he is exempt.
(b) (Gemara) Question: Another Mishnah teaches about
liability for idolatry!
(c) Answer (R. Avin): Our Tana holds that Molech is not
idolatry (rather, a forbidden ritual for which one is
1. (Beraisa): If one gives a child to Molech or to any
other idolatry and passes him through a fire, he is
(d) (Abaye): R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and R. Chanina ben
Antigonus agree with each other.
2. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, for Molech he is
liable, not for any other idolatry.
1. (R. Chanina ben Antigonus): The Torah says Molech
because people were Mamlich (crowned) it upon
themselves; it can be anything, even a pebble or
chip of wood.
(e) (Rava): R. Elazar and R. Chanina argue about a temporary
Molech (such as a pebble or chip, which is not likely to
be served again - R. Shimon exempts for it).
(f) (R. Yanai): He is not liable until he gives his child to
the priests of Molech and passes him through a fire -
"Umi'Zar'acha Lo Siten Leha'avir la'Molech".
3) THE PUNISHMENTS OF "KARES" REGARDING IDOLATRY
(g) Support (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable for
passing a child through a fire, without giving him to the
1. Rejection: "Lo Siten".
(h) (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): If one gave all his children (to
the priests of Molech and passes them) through a fire, he
is exempt - "U*mi*'Zar'acha", not all your children.
2. Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable for giving a child
to the priests, without passing him through a fire!
3. Rejection: "Leha'avir".
4. Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable for giving him to
the priests and passing him through a fire to an
idolatry other than Molech!
5. Rejection: "La'Molech".
6. Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable for giving him to
the priests and passing him to Molech, but not
through a fire!
7. Rejection: It says here "Leha'avir", another verse
says "Ma'avir Beno u'Vito ba'Esh" - just like there
it refers to fire, also here; just like here it
refers to Molech, also there.
(i) Questions (Rav Ashi): What is the law if one gave a child
that is blind, sleeping, or the son of his son or
(j) Answer (to one of them - Beraisa) Question: What do we
learn from "Ki mi'Zar'o Nosan la'Molech"?
1. Answer: Since it says "Lo Yimatzei Becha Ma'avir
Beno u'Vito ba'Esh", one might have thought that he
is liable only for his own son or daughter;
(k) (Rav Yehudah): He is liable only for passing through in
the normal way (of Molech).
2. "B'Sito mi'Zar'o" teaches, he is liable even for a
3. Question: The Tana asked 'What do we learn from "Ki
mi'Zar'o...", and he answered by expounding a
different verse, "B'Sito mi'Zar'o"!
4. Answer: Really, "Ki mi'Zar'o" teaches that he is
liable even for a grandson;
i. "B'Sito mi'Zar'o" teaches something else:
ii. Suggestion: "(Ki) mi'Zar'o" - perhaps he is
liable only for legitimate children!
iii. Rejection: "B'Sito mi'Zar'o" - he is liable
even for illegitimate children.
(l) Question: What is this?
(m) Answer #1 (Abaye): He passes his child along a brick
wall, with a fire on each side of it.
(n) Answer #2 (Rava): He makes the child jump over a fire in
a pit, as children jump on Purim.
(o) Support (for Rava - Beraisa): He is liable only for
passing through in the normal way;
1. If he made him walk across, he is exempt.
(p) (Ula): R. Elazar bar Shimon (who obligates for oneself)
learns from "Lo Yimatzei *Becha*" - yourself.
2. He is liable only for his own descendants:
i. He is liable for (giving and passing ) a son or
daughter, he is exempt for a parent or sibling
or for himself.
3. He is liable for giving and passing to Molech or to
any other idolatry;
ii. R. Elazar bar Shimon obligates for giving and
4. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, he is liable only for
(q) Question: Do Chachamim not expound 'Becha'?!
1. (Mishnah): If Reuven sees his lost object and his
father's and he cannot save both, he should save his
(r) Answer: There we expound "Efes" (this word is extra), not
2. Question: What is the reason?
3. Answer (Rav Yehudah): "Efes Ki Lo Yihyeh Becha
Evyon" (do not allow yourself to become poor), save
your lost object before anyone else's.
(a) Question (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): Why does the Torah
say three times that idolatry is Chayavei Kerisus (once
regarding idolatry in general, and twice regarding
(b) Answer: One is Mechayev Kares for serving k'Darko, one is
Mechayev for Lo k'Darko, one is Mechayev for Molech.
(c) Question: According to the opinion that Molech is an
idolatry, what do we learn from the third?
(d) Answer: It is Mechayev for passing one's child to a
(e) (Tana'im argue whether "Megadef" refers to blasphemy or
(f) Question: According to the opinion that Megadef refers to
idolatry, what do we learn from the Kares written by it?
(g) Answer (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "Hikares Tikares" - he will
be cut off from this world and the next;
(h) R. Yishmael: It already says "V'Nichresa" - is there a
1. Rather, "V'Nichresa" - he will be cut off from this
world; "Hikares" - he will be cut off from the next;
"Tikares" - the Torah speaks as people do (we need
not expound the extra word).