What is the definition of "Molech"?
Rashi: "Molech" is the name of a specific Avodah-Zarah. 1
Ramban (citing Sanhedrin 64a) and Ibn Ezra: It is anything that people crown over themselves.
Targum Yonasan #2 and Tosfos Yom Tov, in Megilah 4:9, citing the Aruch ('Arma'ah'): It is a prohibition against being intimate with a Nochris - to impregnate her to have a child that will serve idolatry. 2
Ramban and Ibn Ezra: Perhaps it is Malkom, the god of Amon. However, later, in 20:5 the Ramban proves that Molech is a general form of worship, which Amon called by that name because he was their king, but which applies equally to any Avodah-Zarah that one worships in this (irregular) manner. See Ramban there DH 've'Hinei'.
The Mishnah states that we vehemently silence anyone who explains it like this. Tosfos Yom Tov: the Mishnah is discussing one who limits the Isur to 'Aramiyusa', a particular nation that worships Molech, but in reality, it applies to being intimate with any Nochris, like Tana de'Bei R. Yishmael (Megilah, 25a) explains. Refer to 18:21:7:2*. See also Na'ar Yonasan. (If it is among the Arayos, the Kareis in Pasuk 29) should apply to it. Why did Sanhedrin 82a learn Kareis only from Nevi'im - Mal'achi 2:11, "u'Va'al Bas Eil Nechar"? (PF)
What did the service of Molech entail?
Rashi: The father would hand over his son to the priests who, then arranged two rows of fire and passed the son between them by his legs. 1
Ramban (based on the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 7:10) and Moshav Zekenim: The father would hand over his son to the priests, 2 who waved or brought him in front of Molech and handed him back to his father, who then puts him in the flame. The Chachamim said that this is "Ma'avir B'no u'Vito ba'Eish" (Devarim 18:10). 3 The prophets of Ba'al would do so to (falsely) predict the future.
Targum Yonasan (in 20:2): The father would hand over his child (to the priests) to be burned in fire.
See Ramban, who queries this explanation from the Gemara in Sanhedrin (Refer to 18:21:5:4) and as to how the father can be Chayav Misah on an act that somebody else performs.
Ramban: In the same way that the owner of a Korban would hand it over to the Kohanim.
Ramban: Seemingly, "Ma'avir B'no" - in Shoftim Devarim, 18:10 - is a form of sorcery (not necessarily connected with Molech), seeing as it is mentioned together with magic in 20:2-6, Devarim 18:10, Divrei ha'Yamim 2, 33:6 and Melachim 2, 17:17. However, the Pasuk in Melachim 2 23:10 indicates that it pertains specifically to Molech. Refer to 18:21:3.2:1.
When passing one's child through the fire of Molech does the child die?
Rashi implies that he does not (necessarily) die (but is merely passed between fires). 1
Ramban and Moshav Zekenim: In most cases, he died. 2 We can say that one is liable once a limb catches fire, only the service is completed when the child is totally burned.
Ramban: As the Pesukim in Yechezkel (23:37 & 39) implies. See Ramban DH "ve'Im Kol Zeh", who elaborates at length. Indeed, the Gemara in Sanhedrin describes how Achaz passed his son Chizkiyahu to Molech, and it was only because his (Chizkiyahu's) mother smeared him with salamander oil, that he survived (Ramban, DH ve'Raboseinu). See also Ibn Ezra.
What are the ramifications of the word "mi'Zar'acha"?
Sanhedrin, 64b: It implies that one is only Chayav for handing over one's children, but not one's father or mother or oneself.
According to Targum Yonason (refer to 18:21:1:3), perhaps it obligates even one who has a Yisrael wife, but he also has Bi'ah with a Nochris. (PF)
What are the implfications of the 'Mem' in "mi'Zar'acha"?
Sanhedrin, 64b: It implies that someone who hands over all his children is Patur.
What are the implfications of "Leha'avir la'Molech"?
Why does the Torah use the double expression "Lo Siten ... Le'ha'avir la'Molech"?
Rashi: It refers to handing one's son over to the priests and passing him between the two rows of fire, respectively.
Ramban: The father hands over his child to the priests, takes him back, and passes him through the fires.
According to Targum Yonason (Refer to 18:21:1:3), he is intimate with a Nochris, and she becomes pregnant with a child that will serve idolatry. 1
Sanhedrin, 64b: To teach us that if the father passes child through the fire without first handing him to the priests or hands him to the priests but does not pass him through the fires, he is Patur.
See Na'ar Yonasan, who reconciles Targum Yonasan with the Mishnah in Megilah, 25a, which rejects this explanation.
Considering that the Torah does not mention "Eish", what if a father perfoms the Avodah of Molech without fire?
Sanhedrin, 64b: We learn via a Gezeirah Shavah "Leha'avir" "Ma'avir" from Shoftim, Devarim, 18:10, that he is only Chayav if he passes him through fire.
What makes sacrificing to Molech a Chilul Hashem?
Ramban, Moshav Zekenim and Seforno: The Chilul Hashem lies in the fact that one sacrifices only animals to Hashem and one's sons to Molech. 1
As the Pasuk intimates in Yechezkel, 23:37, 38, 39 [Ramban]). It is also Metamei the Mikdash (as the Torah adds in 20:3), which refers either to the desecration of the sanctity of Yisrael, referred to below (11:34. "Metamei" is a term that the Torah uses when it speaks about major sins - See, for example, Amos, 2:7]), or to the desecration of the Beis-ha'Mikdash, when they sacrifice their children to Molech and then proceed to the Beis-ha'Mikdash to bring Korbanos (See 19:31, Yechezkel, 36:18 [Ramban]), or to the sanctity of Hashem, which is contained in his son (as it is contained in every Jew [See Ramban, DH 've'Al Derech ha'Emes]).
Why does the Torah insert Molech together with the Arayos?
Seforno: With the promise that Hashem made to Avraham (in Lech-L'cha) to be "his G-d and the G-d of his children after him", 1 the Torah taught the Parshah of Arayos, so that the children should be worthy for His Great Name to fall on them. It therefore follows with the Parshah of Molech, to make it clear that, sacrificing one's son in order to render one's other children worthy of serving Hashem - not only will it not succeed, but it is also a Chilul Hashem.
Yayin ha'Tov: This supports Targum Yonason and the Aruch, who say that the Isur of Molech is 2 to father a child from a Nochris.
Moshav Zekenim: It is placed next to Eishes Ish, to teach us that one who is intimate with an Eishes Ish will ultimately father a child who will pass himself to Molech and serve idolatry.
Oznayim la'Torah: Refer to 18:5:5:2*. To teach us that Avodah Zarah, like Retzichah (both of which one transgresses when serving Molech), is not subject to "va'Chai bahem". 3
Hence the Pasuk concludes "Ani Hashem" - implying that Hashem has not changed, and that that promise remains intact (Seforno).
Tif'eres Yisrael (Megilah 4:9): Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael (25a) said 'the verse discusses Bi'ah with a Nochris.' I.e. it discusses both giving children to Molech (the simple meaning), and Bi'ah with any Nochris. (A support is that below (20:2-5), Targum Yonason implies that it discusses giving children to Molech. Rashi (25a) explained that R. Yishmael explains the mistaken Perush that our Mishnah censures. - PF).
Since the reason that precludes Retzichah and Giluy Arayos from the D'rashah, is not applicable to Avodah Zarah. See Oznayim la'Torah.
