nasa

It is a condition of Joshua that one may collect grasses everywhere except in a field of fenugreek. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: The Mishnah deals with him who sowed for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in his own name: “When it grew for seeds.” Rebbi Yose said, did Joshua come only to help sinners? If he committed a sin, it is forbidden as robbery, if he did not commit a sin it is permitted in respect to robbery. Hence, there is no difference whether he sowed for seeds or for sheaves. But did we not state: “One is not required to weed … fenugreek in which grasses appeared?” If he intends to use the grasses, one should oblige him to weed! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: He would be happy if they were torn out and lying before him. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but in the end he approves that they should be torn out and lying before him. But then, if somebody found kilaim in a vineyard, they should be forbidden as robbery since in the end he desires that they should be torn out and lie before him! There, he has the means to bring it in, here he does not have the means to bring it in. Rav Naḥman said that Rebbi Mana asked: Think about it, if he had another field of fenugreek close by, then he has the means to bring it in! The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Zeriqan said in the name of the House of Yannai: All aftergrowth is forbidden except for that which appears on a fallow field, a field ready to be ploughed under, and a vineyard. He should have added, except for a field of fenugreek sown for the production of seeds! Rebbi Yose said, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan support me. It happened that somebody bought a garden plot of vegetables from a Gentile. He came and asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, go, harvest and sell at the going rate. Rebbi Abbahu objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “or the threshing place on which many kinds are appearing?” He said to him, that place proves that he does not want them to exist. Could he not have answered, the one is like robbery, the other is permitted with respect to robbery? How can you object based on a scenario where it is forbidden as robbery to a decision in a case which is permitted with respect to robbery? It is as Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answers. Or it is as Rebbi Nasa said, like a person who has two reasons but he answers only with one of them.

Rebbi Abuna asked before Rebbi Ammi: Are Gentiles required to sanctify the Name? He said to him (Lev. 22:32): “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.” Israel are required to sanctify the Name; the Gentiles are not required to sanctify the Name. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Lazar understood it from the following (2K. 5:18): “May the Eternal forgive His servant for this, etc.” Israel are required to sanctify the Name; the Gentiles are not required to sanctify the Name.

May one use oil for burning on Hanukkah? They said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: One uses oil for burning on Hanukkah. Rebbi Nasa said, I never knew my father. My mother told me, your father said that he who has no profane oil may use oil for burning on Hanukkah.

HALAKHAH: “One does not put a vessel under the light to catch the oil but when he put it there when it still was daylight it is permitted. One may not use it because it is not prepared,” etc. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if it burned out when it still was day but he realized it only after it was dark? The colleagues asked: If it burned out on this Sabbath but he realized it only afterwards on the Sabbath? Rebbi Joḥanan said, nothing in its natural form is not prepared except one item. Rebbi Eleazar objected: Is not oil in the lamp in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the lamp. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected: Is not seed grain in its natural form, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the ground. They objected: Are there not eggs used for chicks which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! They were put there from the start to become chicks. Rebbi Jeremiah objected: Are there not Sukkah decorations which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! There is a difference, as Rebbi Abba Mari, Rebbi Yose’s brother, said: For the seven days they become insignificant in the Sukkah. Afterwards they are prepared. Rebbi Ḥinena objected: Is not lint which was scattered in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food. Rebbi Nasa objected, are there not figs put out to ferment, which dried but he did not touch, in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they permitted the planks of wells only to draw water. If water came on the Sabbath, the Sabbath already came with prohibition. If the well dried out, the Sabbath already came with permission. Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Nasa asked, may one carry between the planks? We should say that if there are four hand-breadths between one and the other it is like a prohibited threshold, otherwise like a permitted threshold, permitted for both domains; only one should not exchange.

There, we have stated: “A slave whom his master gave as mortgage to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: A splinter one leans on the wall lest it scratches. It was stated: One does not extinguish a splinter to save it; if to prevent it filling the house or the pot with smoke it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanania said, if there is no empty space there. But if there is empty space there one throws it into the empty space and this is enough. Rebbi Nasa said, is this correct? Are we saying so, salve one is permitted to rub on to use kohl on the holiday? Rebbi Mana said, one is to guard, the other for healing.

Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A promiscuous priestly woman may eat tithe. Is that not the Mishnah: “the daughter of a Cohen from heave,” this implies that she eats tithe. It may follow him who says that tithe is not given to Cohanim. Rebbi Nasa said, the words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Hila, Simeon ben Yosina, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia said: If a Cohen came upon a divorcee, had a son from her, and died. [If the father died] within thirty days [of the son’s birth], the son must redeem himself. After thirty days, the presumption is that his father redeemed him. If he redeems for others, certainly for his son.

HALAKHAH: “If she stripped off and spat,” etc. Samuel said, if she stripped but did not spit, she shall spit. This follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If she stripped but did not recite nor spit, her ḥalîṣah is invalid. Still that is Rebbi Eliezer’s. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, Zeriqan turned to it in the name of Rav: If she stripped but did not spit, or spat but did not strip, she did not do anything until she strips and spits. Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: If she spat before she stripped? He said, it is as if in the correct order. If he made a betrothal with a cluster of end-of-harvest [figs]? He said to him, with the figs hanging there he made the betrothal. May one open an Egyptian window into a common backyard higher than four cubits? He said to him, so we are saying: He comes simply for the air. Rebbi Nasa said, that is what he said: If somebody wants to build his house in the form of a dovecot, does one not listen to him?

“And all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman. They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” Rebbi Ammi bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They taught this about the skin of the face. But did we not state: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects,” and this is of the visible defects! Explain it if she hid it under her headgear. It was stated: “A mole with hairs is a defect, whether it be large or small, whether it be on the body or on the face. Without a hair it is a defect on the face but not on the body. When has this been said? If it is small. But if it is large, it is a defect whether it be on the body or on the face. How big is large? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, up to an Italic as.” Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina said, for example such a Gordianic denar his measure is half an ubiquitous gold piece. Rebbi Radifa, Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Jeremiah asked: A bald woman with a row of hair going from one ear to the other? They wanted to understand it from the following: “They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” They did not mention baldness. They wanted to conclude that it is not a defect. There came Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Rebbi Nasa said, it is a defect. It is listed only if it is ugly for both sexes. But something which is beautiful in one sex but ugly in the other, like a bald pate, even though it is a defect it was not listed. You should know that this is so because a beard is beautiful for a man and a defect for a woman, and we did not state: In addition, for a woman a beard. There are breasts which are beautyiful for a woman and a defect for men, and we did not state: In addtion, for a man women’s breasts.

We understand “if I wash”. “If I do not wash”? Let her wash! Rebbi Mana said, if she said: “Any benefit from me shall be qônām for you after I shall have washed myself, if I ever wash myself.” Why should he not dissolve for her? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only when she said, “any benefit from my body shall be qônām for you after I shall have washed myself.” Why can he not force? Did not Rebbi Huna say, [if she vowed] any benefit from me [shall be forbidden] to you, he forces her and sleeps with her. Any benefit from you [shall be forbidden] to me, he has to dissolve. There is a difference because it is a benefit for him and her. Rebbi Abba Mari said, If I wash [today], I shall not wash forever. If I wear jewellery [today], I shall not wear jewellery forever. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Nasa: If I wash I shall not wear jewellery; if I wear jewellery I shall not wash.

So far, if he thought that it was the tenth which he called “tenth”. If he knew that it was the ninth and called it “tenth”? The colleagues say, it is sanctified. Rebbi Yudan said, it is not sanctified. The Mishnah supports the colleagues: “The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Do you not agree that it leaves and grazes with the herd? The House of Shammai anwered them, do you not agree that if somebody erred and designated the ninth as the tenth, or the tenth as ninth, or the eleventh as tenth, it is sanctified.” And they do not accept it! Otherwise, they could have answered: Why do you answer us from something which is sanctified only if not in [willful] error about something which will be sanctified both in error and not in error! As Rebbi Immi said, they were rich in answer, or as Rebbi Nasa said, like somebody who has two reasons and he responds by giving one of them.

Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasa’s name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meїr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

“And all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman. They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” Rebbi Ḥamai bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They taught this about the skin of the face. But did we not state: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects.” Is this not of the visible defects? Explain it if she hid it under her headgear. It was stated: “A mole with hairs is a defect, whether it be large or small, whether it be on the body or on the face. Without a hair it is a defect on the face but not on the body. When has this been said? If it is small. But if it is large, it is a defect whether it be on the body or on the face. How big is large? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, up to an Italic as.” Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina said, for example such a Gordianic denar: its measure is half a ubiquitous gold piece. Rebbi Radifa, Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Jeremiah asked: A bald woman with a row of hair going from one ear to the other? They wanted to understand it from the following: “They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” They did not mention baldness. They wanted to conclude that it is not a defect. There came Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Rebbi Nasa said, it is a defect. It is listed only if it is ugly for both sexes. But something which is beautiful in one sex but ugly in the other, like a bald pate, even though it is a defect it was not listed. You should know that this is so because a beard is beautiful for a man and a defect for a woman, and we did not state: In addition, for a woman a beard. There are breasts which are beautiful for a woman and a defect for men, and we did not state: In addition, for a man women’s breasts.

New Paragraph. “If damage was caused the person responsible is obligated to pay for the damages,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, “he who injures an animal has to pay for it,” he has to pay the diminution in value. Bar Pedaiah said, “if it was torn, he shall bring it up to the place of the carcass, for which he does not have to pay.” Rebbi Nasa said, the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed. If only the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina was given but not that of Bar Pedaiah, I would have said that if he made the damage possible he should not have to pay anything but for bodily damage he has to pay the diminution in value. Therefore, Bar Pedaiah’s quote is necessary. But if only the quote of Bar Pedaiah was given but not that of Rebbi Ḥanina, I would have said that if he made the damage possible he has to pay the diminution in value, but for bodily damage he has to pay the whole. Therefore, the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed.

HALAKHAH: “It is bad to meet a deaf-mute, an insane, or an underage person,” etc. It was stated: If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded the eye of his slave and broke his tooth, for that is what the master said, and they are found to be perjured, they pay to the slave. How can they say this about the case? Rebbi Nasa said, those might say the following: We testify about X that [the slave] came to his hand unimpaired and left with two injuries. Then he gains his freedom with the first and he has to pay him for the second.

It was stated: One gives money to another to buy wheat for him, but the man bought barley. If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him. We stated otherwise: “If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them.” [He who said if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him, is Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer. But he who said, if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them, is Rebbi Jehudah.] What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. Why does he (not) split with him? Because it is forbidden to take advantage of another person. Then even if one gave him money to buy wheat and he bought wheat? [Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had given money to buy wheat and he bought wheat,] the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. If he had given money to buy wheat and he bought barley, the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer, who is stuck with what he has on his hands. Rebbi Nasa said, if he was true to his agency, did the seller not intend to transfer ownership to the owner of the money? If he was not true to his agency, he intended to transfer ownership to the buyer. Then why does he split with him? He said, because he realizes a profit by means of the other man’s money, he splits with him.

Rebbi Samuel bar Abba objected before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did we not state: “Both the person who dedicates and the one who vows his own valuation exclude their wives’ and children’s clothing.” He answered, nobody thought to include their wives’ and children’s clothing. But did we not state: “My valuation on myself”; at the moment when he said, my valuation on myself, he only obligated himself for fifty tetradrachmas. If he says, my valuation on myself on condition not to pledge what is worn by my wife and children? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Samuel bar Abba: One who says, my valuation on myself on condition not to pledge a particular thing, one cannot use that particular thing as a pledge. Rav Hoshaia in the name of Samuel bar Abba: This implies that one does not foreclose valuations from movables by biblical decree but only from the rabbis.

HALAKHAH: “If one recognizes his own vessels or books,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it would have been correct that they should not have to swear. Why did they say they have to swear? That homeowners should not be fences. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, only if it was a known fact that his books had been stolen. Rav said, he has to bring proof that he stayed there the night in question. Assi said, if he claims: “I bought them from X,” he is to be believed. A case came before Rebbi Nasa and he did not accept it. Does he disagree? They said, he was a known troublemaker; therefore he did not accept the case.

HALAKHAH: “If one deposited an animal or vessels with another,” etc. From where does he bring this? “If the stolen object be found in his hand.” Do we not know that if the thief is found that he has to pay double? Why does the verse say, “double he shall pay”? If the verse is not needed for the case, use it for the following subject. Rebbi [ ] went to the “term” of Rebbi Yudan and asked this question before him. He answered, refer to what is stated afterwards: “If the other had sworn and did not pay, in case the thief was found, he pays double restitution; if he had slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposit.” Should he not pay to the person with whom it was deposited? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Jonah: “Alive, double he shall pay.” To the place where the capital goes, there the double fine goes. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar; Rebbi Nasa adds in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Not only when he paid, but even when he stated his willingness to pay it is as if he had paid.

HALAKHAH: “If one deposited an animal or vessels with another,” etc. From where does he bring this? “If the stolen object be found in his hand.” Do we not know that if the thief is found that he has to pay double? Why does the verse say, “double he shall pay”? If the verse is not needed for the case, use it for the following subject. Rebbi [ ] went to the “term” of Rebbi Yudan and asked this question before him. He answered, refer to what is stated afterwards: “If the other had sworn and did not pay, in case the thief was found, he pays double restitution; if he had slaughtered or sold it, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposit.” Should he not pay to the person with whom it was deposited? Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Jonah: “Alive, double he shall pay.” To the place where the capital goes, there the double fine goes. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar; Rebbi Nasa adds in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Not only when he paid, but even when he stated his willingness to pay it is as if he had paid.

HALAKHAH: “If a person appropriates a deposit,” etc. So is the Mishnah: At the time of claim in court. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Aqiba. Even though the House of Hillel disagree with him? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: It happened that there was a case and Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Aqiba. Rav Hoshaia said, if there are no witnesses. But if there are witnesses, everybody agrees with Rebbi Aqiba’s position. There came a case before Rebbi Nasa and he instructed following Rebbi Aqiba.

HALAKHAH: “Condominium owners who want to make a separation,” etc. As we have stated there: “One does not subdivide a courtyard unless each party has four cubits.” They said, there if the two parties do not agree. But here if both parties agree. And you may even say, here if the two parties do not agree. If this one wishes, one forces the other; if the other one wishes, one forces this one. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces for courtyards; one does not force for roofs. Rebbi Nasa wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one forces. Rebbi Joḥanan wanted to say, in case of a courtyard which is higher than the roof one forces. But in case of a roof which is higher than the courtyard, one does not force.

So far lengthwise. What about its width? Rebbi Nasa said, the wall of the courtyard is only made to save for him. They intended to say that if he wanted to make a roof, he cannot make a roof. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it by his beams.

HALAKHAH: “A person should not put,” etc. It was stated: Nor a smithy. Rav Qarna stated: If he was like a metal worker, or it was built originally as a smithy, it is permitted. How is it in front of his dwelling? Rebbi Aḥa said, certainly not in front of his dwelling. Rebbi Jonathan said, a person causing damage has no claim of undisturbed posession. Rebbi Joshua said, the rabbis object to permanent smoke. As the following: A woman was burning sand below [the apartment of] Rebbi Ilfay. He wanted to object to her. The case came before Rebbi Nasa who said, they said it only about continuous smoke.

Rav Ḥisda said, “draw this animal close to you in order to take possession,” he took possession. “To take possession of its offspring,” he did [not] take possession. “To take possession of it together with its offspring,” he did (not) take possession. Rebbi Nasa said, that is, if it was not pregnant. But if it was pregnant, they treated [the fetus] as one of its limbs, as we did state: He who sells the fetus of his animal to another person did not do anything; the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything; the tithes of his field to another person, he did not do anything; the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him an animal and reserve her fetus for himself, sell him a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, sell him dry land and reserve the airspace for himself.

HALAKHAH: “A person may not open windows,” etc. Here you say, a door opposite a door is permitted, and there you say, a door opposite a door is forbidden. Where you say it is permitted, in an alley. And where you say it is forbidden, in a condominium courtyard. But did we not state: “Just as the inhabitants of a courtyard may object to one another, so the inhabitants of an alley may object to one another”? Rebbi La said, here when permission was given, there when permission was not given. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is a difference because gardens are usually dug into. Rebbi Nasa said, are ruins not to be rebuilt?

HALAKHAH: “One who gives any of his descendants to the Moloch.” From where a warning not to give any of his descendants to the Moloch? Do not give any of your descendants to the Moloch. Extirpation from where? For he gave one of his descendants to the Molochand shall be extirpated. Punishment from where? Each one of the Children of Israel, or of the sojourner in Israel, who would give any of his descendants to the Moloch shall be made to die; the people of the Land shall smash him with stones. Do not give any of your descendants, I could think that he was guilty if he handed over but did not make him pass; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through but not for the Moloch; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through for the Moloch. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through for the Moloch but without fire; the verse says: among you, nobody should be found to make his son or his daughter pass through fire. Passing through, passing through as an equal cut. Since “passing through” mentioned there is through fire, so “passing through” mentioned here also is through fire. You have to say that he is not guilty unless he handed over and made him pass through fire for the Moloch. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He is guilty only if he hand him over to the priests, takes him, and makes him pass. What if he lets him walk normally? It was stated: one was drawing him and made him pass through. It was stated: if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty. Whether for the Moloch or for any other foreign worship; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, he is guilty only for the Moloch, he is guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s reason is from here: It shall not be found in you, from your body you should not be found making pass through. I shall extirpate him … from among his people. To include all other foreign worship for extirpation. From where punishment? Of his descendants he gave to the Moloch, death he shall be made to die, if he made him pass through himself. Does he not pass through on his feet? Because he made him pass through himself, but if he was drawing him and made him pass through, he is guilty. What does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon mean, if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable? He has to make him pass through jumping.

Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Look at the expression which the Torah taught you, Moloch; anything that you make king over yourself, even a chip of wood, even a pebble. I shall extirpate him from amidst his people, to include all other foreign worship in extirpation. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to include all other foreign worship relating to sons and daughters, as it was stated: He is guilty whether for the Moloch or any other foreign worship, whether he worshipped them with sons and daughters, or worshipped them with fathers and mothers. Rebbi Zeˋira said: if its worship did not prescribe this; but if its worship did prescribe it, he is free from prosecution. Rebbi Hila said, even if its worship did prescribe it, he is twice guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: The Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, it follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants.