1)

(a)The Pasuk in Nechemyah writes "va'Yitz'aku el Hash-m Elokeihem". The Anshei K'neses ha'Gedolah were crying ('Baya Baya', which is the equivalent of 'Oy Vay'!) about - the Yeitzer-ha'Ra for Avodah-Zarah, which was still rampant, even after they returned from Galus Bavel.

(b)They decided to pray for the removal of that particular Yeitzer ha'Ra - because its benefit (of being overcome) was outweighed by its loss (of overcoming them [in other words, it was too powerful for most people to handle]).

2)

(a)After they had fasted for three days - a 'piece of paper' fell from Heaven containing the word 'Emes', a sign that Hash-m agreed with their decision.

(b)Rebbi Chanina proves from there that - Hash-m's seal is 'Emes' (and it was as if He was adding a stamp of approval to their Takanah).

(c)The Yeitzer ha'Ra was delivered to them - in the form of a lion cub of fire, which emerged from the Kodesh Kodshim.

(d)When a hair fell from it - its roar could be heard at a distance of four hundred Parsah.

3)

(a)Acting on the advice of the Navi, they ensured that it remained in captivity - by sealing it in a lead pot, which they covered with a lid also made of lead.

(b)In an effort to take advantage of the opportunity - they then Davened for the Yeitzer-ha'Ra of Arayos to be handed over to them (a request that was duly grnated).

(c)They retracted however - when, after holding that Yeitzer-ha'Ra too in captivity for three days, not even an egg for a sick person was to be found (since even the animals were no longer interested in intimacy).

(d)They did not pray for Hash-m to at least remove the sinful aspect of adultery - because they knew that Hash-m does not answer partial requests.

(e)So they finally decided to paint its eyes - with the result that at least the Yeitzer-ha'Ra for incest was removed, even though the desire for adultery and relations with a Nidah remained intact.

4)

(a)A certain Nochris undertook that, should she recover from a serious illness - she would worship every Avodah-Zarah in the world.

(b)When she came to Pe'or, the priests instructed her - to eat spinach, drink beer and defecate in front of Pe'or.

(c)She reacted to this - by declaring that it was better to become ill once more than to perform something so disgusting.

(d)Based on the Pasuk "ha'Nitzmadim le'Ba'al Pe'or", we comment on this that - this woman was more refined than our ancestors, who cleaved to Pe'or, 'like a lid that is fastened to a jar'.

(e)Based on the Pasuk in Va'eschanan (following the account of Ba'al Pe'or) "ve'Atem ha'Deveikim ba'Hashem Elokeichem" the Beraisa comments that - when it comes to Avodah-Zarah, Yisrael only worship it loosely ("Nitzmadim"), like a bracelet ('Tzamid') on a woman's arm; whereas when they cleave to Hash-m they cleave to Him tightly ("Deveikim").

5)

(a)The Beraisa tells the story of Savta ben Elles - a plain Yisrael, who rented his donkey to a Nochris.

(b)When the Nochris, who had just worshipped Ba'al Pe'or, expressed surprise that he, a Yisrael, should want to do likewise, he replied - 'What business is it of yours?'

(c)He subsequently did what he had to do, but before leaving, he cleaned himself on the idol's nose (with the intention of denigrating it).

(d)The priests - were ecstatic. Never, they said, had they ever seen anyone worship their god so enthusiastically.

6)

(a)The Beraisa go on to say that someone who worships Pe'or with the intention of putting it to shame, or Markulis with the intention of stoning it - is Chayav (since that is the way it is normally worshipped).

(b)Rav Menasheh arrived in Tursa. When they informed him that ...

1. ... there was an idol there - he pelted it with clods of earth.

2. ... the idol was called Markulis - he went to the Beis-Hamidrash to find out whether seeing as he did so in order to denigrate it, his actions were justifiable.

3. ... that it was forbidden to do so even if his intention was to denigrate it, he asked whether he could rectify what he had done by removing the clods.

(c)They answered his final She'eilah - in the negative, because, they said, removing one stone makes room for another stone to take its place.

7)

(a)The two things that our Mishnah requires a father to do before he can be Chayav for worshipping Molech are - handing over his son to the priests and passing him through the fire.

(b)Rebbi Avin establishes the previous Mishnah, which mentions Molech as well as Avodah-Zarah, like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the Beraisa, who holds that Molech cannot therefore be considered an Avodah-Zarah. The Tana Kama rules - that he is Chayav because of Avodah-Zarah, irrespective of whether he worships Molech or any other Avodah-Zarah in this way.

(c)The difference between whether Molech is an Avodah-Zarah or not is 1. where one worships Molech with one of the four Avodos (Zivu'ach, Kitur, Nisuch and Hishtachavayah]), and - 2. where one passes one's son through the fire to an idol other than Molech. In both cases, he will not be Chayav if Molech is not an Avodah-Zarah.

(d)According to the Tana Kama, we need a Pasuk (not for Molech itself, which is normally worshipped in this way, and which we therefore already know from "Eichah Ya'avdu", but) for other forms of Avodah-Zarah - which are not.

8)

(a)According to Abaye, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos say one and the same thing. Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos explains that this type of worship is called 'Molech' - because the very essence of the Avodah that he performs proclaims that the worshipper accepts it as his king, adding 'Afilu Tz'ror va'Afilu Kisam' (a clod of earth or a splinter of wood [become his king if he serves them in this way]).

(b)According to Rava however - Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon will disagree with Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos' last statement, inasmuch as, in his opinion, Molech must be something fixed, and not something as casual as a clod of earth or a splinter of wood.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yanai learns from the words "Lo Siten" (in the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "u'mi'Zar'acha Lo Sitein Leha'avir la'Molech") that - one is only Chayav if one first hands over the child to the priests.

(b)The Beraisa too, makes this D'rashah and from "le'Ha'avir" and the Tana learns that the father is not Chayav unless he (the father), is also the one who passes his son through the fire And he learns from ...

1. ... the word "la'Molech" that - the Chiyuv is confined to 'Molech' (like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon).

2. ... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ma'avir" "Ma'avir" from the Pasuk "Lo Yimatzei b'cha Ma'avir B'no u'Vito ba'Eish" that - one is only Chayav if one passes him through fire, and not through anything else.

(c)The Tana ...

1. ... knows that the latter Pasuk does not incorporate other forms of Avodah-Zarah (even though it does not mention specifically 'Molech') - via the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (which generally works both ways.

2. ... interprets "Lo Sitein Le'ha'avir" to mean that - the father hands him to the priest and then passes him through the fire (and not that he hands him to the priest in order to pass him through the fire).

10)

(a)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava learns from the word "u'mi'Zar'acha ..." - "mi'Zar'acha", 've'Lo Kol Zar'acha' (that one is not Chayav for giving all one's children to Molech).

(b)Rav Ashi asked what the Din will be if the child that is being passed through the fire is a. blind b. asleep. Perhaps the father will not be Chayav - because the child is unable a. permanently, b. temporarily, to do so himself.

(c)Rav Ashi's third She'eilah was whether one is Chayav for handing one's grandson to Molech - seeing as the Torah writes in Kedoshim "Lo Yimatzei b'cha Ma'avir B'no u'Vito la'Molech" (which apparently comes to preclude one's grandchild).

(d)When the Beraisa quotes the Pasuk "Ki mi'Zar'o Nasan la'Molech", it is coming to resolve - the third She'eilah, since "mi'Zar'o" includes one's grandchildren.

(e)The Tana finally learns from the Pasuk "be'Sito mi'Zar'o la'Molech" that - one is even Chayav for handing over one's children or grandchildren who are Pasul.

11)

(a)Rav Yehudah absolves someone who performs the Avodah of Molech she'Lo ke'Darko. Abaye describes 'ke'Darko' as - passing him along a row of bricks with a raging fire on either side.

(b)Rava disagrees. He describes 'ke'Darko' as 'ke'Mashvarta de'Purya' which means that - the child has to jump across a pit in which a raging fire is burning, like the children used to do on Purim (presumably without the fire).

(c)The major difference between 'Molech' and 'S'farvim' (through which Chizkiyah Hamelech was passed, which we discussed earlier) is that - by Molech, the child is not actually passed through the fire, and therefore does not necessarily die.

(d)We know that this definition of Molech is correct - from the Machlokes Tana'im that follows, as to whether someone who passes himself to Molech is Chayav or Patur (indicating that he survives the ordeal).

(e)The Beraisa that supports Rava ('He'eviro be'Raglo Patur') adds that one is only Chayav for Yotz'ei Yereicho, incorporating ...

1. ... incorporating - one's sons and daughters (not to mention one's grandchildren ... ) and ...

2. ... precluding - one's father and mother, brothers and sisters.

12)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa absolves someone who passes himself to Molech. Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - declares him Chayav.

(b)Ula learns from the word "b'cha" (in the Pasuk in Shoftim "Lo Yimatzei b'cha Ma'avir B'no u'Vito la'Molech") that - a person is Chayav for passing himself to Molech (like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon).

(c)We learned in the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a 'Aveidaso va'Aveidas Aviv, she'lo Kodem'. Rav Yehudah learns that from the Pasuk - "Efes ki Lo Yih'yeh b'cha Evyon", which we initially assume he learns from the word "b'cha" ...

(d)... a Kashya on the Tana Kama in the current Beraisa - who does not Darshen "b'cha" (whereas this Tana seems to Darshen it), in which case the author of the Mishnah is Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.

13)

(a)We resolve the problem by establishing the D'rashah (not from "b'cha", as we initially thought, but) from "Efes" (which has connotations of negating).

(b)According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, the connection between the two K'riysus mentioned in Kedoshim by Molech "va'Ani Eten es Panai ba'Ish ha'Hu ve'Hichrati oso mi'Kerev Amo" and "ve'Samti Ani es Panai ... ve'Hichrati oso ... ", and the Pasuk in Sh'lach-L'cha "Ki D'var Hash-m Bazah ... Hikares Tikares" is that - they constitute the three K'riysus by Avodah-Zarah (which will be explained shortly).

(c)This does not mean that he considers Molech an Avodah-Zarah - since he only refers to it as Avodah-Zarah technically, even though it is not an Avodah-Zarah Halachically.

(d)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina knows that the latter Pasuk is referring to Avodah-Zarah - because "D'var Hash-m" hints at the first two of the Aseres ha'Dibros (which we heard directly from Hash-m).

14)

(a)One Kareis applies to Avodah-Zarah ke'Darkah, one, to she'Lo ke'Darkah (by the four Avodos) and the third - to Molech.

(b)According to those who consider Molech an Avodah-Zarah, the third Kareis applies - to someone who passes his son through the fire she'Lo ke'Darkah (in honor of other types of Avodah-Zarah, which are not generally worshipped in this way).

(c)If Megadef is not considered an Avodah-Zarah, we can understand why it requires its own Kareis in Parshas Sh'lach-L'cha ("es Hash-m Hu Megadef"), but we have a problem according to those who hold that it is (which we will resolve shortly). Assuming that it is a form of Avodah-Zarah, it constitutes - singing to Avodah-Zarah (like the Levi'im sang to accompany the Korbanos).

15)

(a)Rebbi Akiva interprets ...

1. ... the double Lashon "Hikares Tikares" in connection with Megadef in Sh'lach-L'cha - "Hikares", 'ba'Olam ha'Zeh', "Tikares", 'ba'Olam ha'Ba'.

2. ... 'Megadef' as - someone who curses Hash-m.

(b)Rebbi Yishmael interprets 'Megadef' to mean - Avodah-Zarah (as we just explained).

(c)The problem Rebbi Yishmael now has is that - bearing in mind that the Torah has already written "ve'Nichr'sah" (in connection with Megadef [which is considered Avodah-Zarah, as we just explained]), why does it need to add "Hikareis Tikareis" (seeing as there only two worlds and not three)?

(d)He solves the problem - by applying to the double Lashon ("Hakareis Tikareis") the principle 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon b'nei Adam' (because it is a manner of speech).