(Mishnah): One who gives from his seed to Molech, he is liable only if he hands over to [the priests of] Molech and passes him through a fire;

If he handed over to Molech but did not pass [him] through a fire, or passed [him] through a fire but did not hand over to Molech, he is exempt until he hands over to Molech and passes through a fire.

A Ba'al Ov is a witch who ]conjures up a Mes, and it] speaks under his armpit. Yid'oni is one who talks with his mouth. Both of these are stoned. One who asks (either of them to conjure up the dead) transgresses a Lav.

(Gemara): What is the Lav forbidding giving from one's seed to Molech? "Umi'Zar'acha Lo Siten Leha'avir l'Molech."

What is the source for Kares? "Ki mi'Zar'o Nasan l'Molech v'Nichresah."

What is the source for punishment? "Ish Ish mi'Bnei Yisrael u'Min ha'Ger ha'Gar b'Yisrael Asher Yiten mi'Zar'o l'Molech Mos Yumas Am ha'Aretz Yirgemuhu b'Aven."

Suggestion: "Umi'Zar'acha Lo Siten" - perhaps even if he handed over, but did not pass [him], he is liable!

Rejection: It says "umi'Zar'acha Lo Siten Leha'avir."

Suggestion: Perhaps even if he handed over and passed not to Molech, he is liable!

Rejection: It says "umi'Zar'acha Lo Siten Leha'avir l'Molech."

Suggestion: Perhaps even if he handed over and passed to Molech not in a fire, he is liable!

Rejection: It says "Lo Yimatzei Vecha Ma'avir Beno u'Vito ba'Esh" - we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Avarah-Avarah." Just like Avarah said there is in fire, also here ("umi'Zar'acha Lo Siten Leha'avir l'Molech").

Conclusion: It turns out that he is never liable until he hands over and passes through fire to Molech.

(R. Nasah citing R. Lazar): He is never liable until he hands him over to the priests [of Molech], and [later] takes him and passes him [through fire] normally.

Question: What is considered normally?

Answer (Beraisa): He pulled him and passed him through.

(Beraisa): If he passed him through on his legs, he is exempt. One is liable only for his seed. One who passes his father and mother, brother and sister is exempt. One who passes himself is exempt. R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon obligates.

The same applies to Molech, and to every idolatry. R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon says, one is liable only for Molech.

(R. Yochanan): The reason of R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon [who obligates for passing oneself] is "Lo Yimatzei Vecha" - in your body.

"V'Hichrati Oso v'Es Kol ha'Zonim Acharav" includes other idolatries for Kares. What is the source for punishment [for other idolatries]? "Mi'Zar'o Nasan l'Molech Mos Yumas."

Question: One who passes himself, does he not pass through his legs? How could R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon say that one who passes himself is liable? (We explained the Sugya like ZAHAV HA'ARETZ.)

Answer: The case is, he passed through via jumping.

Question (R. Bun bar Chiyah, to R. Zeirah): We should say that if he handed him over but did not pass him through, this depends on the argument of Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan, who argued about one who kidnapped and did not sell. Chizkiyah obligates [lashes, for it is a Lav by itself] and R. Yochanan exempts [since the Lav is a warning for Misah]! (NO'AM YERUSHALAYIM)

(R. Ba citing R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): See the wording that the Torah taught you! "Molech" - anything that you made sovereign over yourself, even a chip of wood, even a pebble.

"V'Hichrati Oso v'Es Kol ha'Zonim Acharav" includes other idolatries for Kares;

(R. Nasah citing R. Lazar): It includes other idolatries for sons and daughters;

(Beraisa): The same applies to Molech and other idolatries - whether he passed sons and daughters, or fathers and mothers, he is liable.

(R. Zeirah): This is when it is served this way, but if it is served this way, he is exempt. (He holds that the Tana'im argue about when it is served this way, but if not, even the first Tana exempts; he holds that Molech is not idolatry. The verse teaches only about it. R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon exempts, since we need a verse to obligate for Molech.)

(R. Heila): Even if it is not served this way, he is liable twice. (He holds that the first Tana holds that Molech is idolatry. The verse teaches that one is liable for other idolatries Lo k'Darkah. Even without a verse, we knew that one is liable k'Darkah. R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon exempts Lo k'Darkah. However, k'Darkah all agree that he is liable.)

Support (for R. Heila - Beraisa - R. Shimon): Molech was included in idolatry. It was taught by itself to be lenient about it, that one is liable only for one's seed. (We do not use it to teach about other Isurim, for it is needed to teach about itself, that one is liable only for his seed.)

(R. Tanchum bar Yirmeyah): R. Lazar bei R. Shimon holds like his father, R. Shimon. Just like R. Shimon said that Molech was included in idolatry, and it was taught by itself to be lenient about it, that one is liable only for one's seed, so R. Lazar bei R. Shimon said that Molech was included in idolatry, and it was taught by itself to be lenient about it, that one is liable only for one's seed.

(R. Tanchum bar Yudan): Even though R. Lazar bei R. Shimon said that if one slaughtered, burned and poured libations [to idolatry] in one Helam, he is liable only once, he agrees that if he did the special Avodah [of the idolatry], and Avodas Gavoha (Hakravah), and bowed, he is liable for each one.

Question: What is the source that if he served it through its Avodah, and Avodas Gavoha, and Avodah of bowing, he is liable for each one?

Answer #1 (R. Shmuel citing R. Zeirah): It says "v'Lo Yizbechu Od Es Zivcheihem la'Se'irim."

Rebuttal: He told him "turn it to Kodshim." (It discusses Shechutei Chutz, and not idolatry. There is only one Lav for Avodos of Hash-m - Lo Sishtachaveh.)

(R. Yosa citing R. Yochanan): If one slaughtered a lamb Ba'al Mum [to idolatry], he is liable.

What is the source of this? It is like R. Heila said, "Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Shem Elokecha" - everything to Hash-m Elokecha, do not do so [to idolatry].

(R. Pinchas in front of R. Yosa citing Rav Chisda): If an idolatry was [normally] served through sons and daughters, and he served it through fathers and mother, he is liable twice.

R. Zeirah was happy. He wanted to say that this was said like the opinion of R. Heila, his Rebbi, and according to R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon. (He is liable once for Eichah Ya'avdu, even though it is normally served through passing children, and for the Ribuy that Avodas Molech applies to other idolatries, even not through one's seed.)

R. Pinchas: Why are you happy? This was said according to Rabanan! (I hold that R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon totally argues. He holds that the Isur of Avodas Molech does not apply to other idolatries!)

R. Zeirah: Was it needed [to teach so according to Rabanan]?!