Hello. I cannot understand the intention of this first king of Yehuda (or Yisroel altogether) to attempt to put his son through Molech. Achaz was the son of a great tsaddik, so where would he get the idea of doing a new thing, a new aveyra, that no Jew had done before? Furthermore, had his son been covered by salamander oil, wouldn't Achaz have noticed it, especially since the goyim did not actually burn their children in the fire anyway?? Thanks.
David Goldman, USA
1) Melachim II 16:3 tells us that Achaz went in the way of the kings of Yisrael. The verse adds that he also passed his son through fire like the abonimations of the Nochrim. This implies that the bad influence started from the kings of Yisrael but then Achaz declined even further and followed the Nochrim who burnt their children.
2) Rashi (Sanhedrin 64b, DH Shraga) writes that what Achaz did was not actually the worship of the Molech (where the children were not actually killed by the fire) but was in fact the way of the Sepharvites, who burnt their children in the fire (see Melachim II 17:31).
3) It is probable that Chizkiyah's mother smeared her son in salamander oil in such a way that the oil was absorbed inside the skin and was not noticeable on the outside.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thanks. Didn't he also perform it in a way that he wasn't chayav by not giving the child to the priest, who must have been a goy? And did he actually intend to burn his own Jewish child? Then of course he must have reacted to the fact the boy wasn't burned....What is also amazing is that since he was only 11 years old when his son was born. and Achaz did not become king until he was 20, this must have happened when Yosam his father was still alive when Achaz was hardly more than a child himself!!
What is also incredible is that no one was moyche against Achaz in his behavior, for which he was presumably chayav misa. Kings of Yehuda were killed for lesser aveyras, and Achaz got away with what he did, which was TOTALLY unprecedented, even among northern kings. The kohen gadol simply went along with him and was not prepared to give up his life rather than change things in the Temple??!
Then of course one could say that even with salamander oil the boy would have died from smoke inhalation and the sheer heat involved. Alternatively, he could have experienced what Chanania, Mishael and Azariah did! In other words the salamander oil would have been insufficient protection. Aside from the other points I wondered about.
1) The Metzudos David (Divrei ha'Yamim II 28:1) writes that the 16 years of the reign of Achaz were "Mekuta'os" -- they were not consecutive. According to this, even though Achaz was 20 when he became king, he may have been over 36 when he died. So even though Yechizkiyahu, his son, was 25 when he became king, that does not necessarily mean that Achaz was only 11 years older than his son.
Howver, the Seder ha'Doros cites the Tzemach David that Achaz was 11 when his son was born, so it seems there is a dispute among the Mefarshim on this point. According to the Metzudos, for some reason the reign of Achaz must have been interrupted.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin 68b states that a minor (under 13) cannot have children. Tosfos in Sanhedrin 69a writes that in the earlier generations they used to become mature at an earlier age (Betzalel built the Mishkan when he was 13), but the Toras Chaim (69a) writes that even in the earlier generations it was only on a minority of occasions that they had children so young. In short, it is not clear if Achaz was really so young when his son was born.
2) Presumably Achaz did not allow protests against his conduct. The Gemara in Sanhedrin 103b tells us that Achaz abolished the service in the Beis ha'Mikdash and "sealed" the Torah. He forcibly locked up the synagogues and houses of Torah study and hid away the Torah. The Maharsha cites the Midrash that Achaz was consistent with his name: he "grabbed" the synagogues and Batei Midrash so that the children should not learn Torah. He said that if there are no young people to continue the Torah, then in the following generation it will disappear entirely. This was the policy of Achaz: to try to cut off the Jewish people from the Torah so that nobody could protest againt his idolatrous ways.
3) However, there were prophets in his times who rebuked the people against idol-worship. Yeshayahu ha'Navi lived in his times. The Haftarah we read every year on the Shabbos before Tish'ah b'Av (from the first chapter of Yeshayahu), bemoaning all of the bad things that happened in Yerushalayim, is no doubt directed partly against the evils caused by Achaz.
David, so far I still think there are more questions than answers about Achaz, but I must close here.
Dovid Bloom