The Torah threatens that if the “am ha’aretz” ignore the
crime of the Molech worshipper, not only will G-d mete out the punishment to
the Molech worshipper, but He will also mete out punishment to the entire
family.
Why should the family of the Molech worshipper bear
responsibility for his crimes or the crime of the “am ha’aretz” who refuse to do
justice?
Rashi (20:5) already raises the question, and quotes R’
Shimon who explains that if one member of a family is a cheat, they are all
cheaters, as they cover for his crimes. According
to Rashi, it sounds like an inevitable conclusion. Ibn Ezra softens it somewhat. He reads the lesson directly into the pesukim
by equating the “am ha’aretz” referred to in pasuk 4 with
the family of the Molech worshipper threatened with punishment in pasuk 5. *If* (the choice is their’s to make) the family
ignores the crimes of one of their own, they become culpable as well.
(Parenthetically, Ibn Ezra learns that b’peshuto the parsha
refers to one who marries a non-Jew and has a child who is an idolator, an
interpretation Chazal explicitly reject (Megillah 25).)
The Seforno preserves the distinction between “am ha’aretz”
and “mishpachto” -- one refers to the public at large, one is family – yet draws
a similar lesson. The public’s choice to
ignore the Molech worshipper’s wrongdoing is likely due to his family protecting
him or protesting against the punishment.
Therefore, they share in his guilt.
At first glance equating “am ha’aretz” with “mishpachto” makes
for a weaker reading – why use different words for the same group of
people? Was Ibn Ezra perhaps
uncomfortable with Seforno’s assertion that public indifference is automatically an
indication of family pressure to cover up the crime? Or maybe the shift in terminology here helps
shed light on the crime. We use the term “am ha’aretz”
to connote ignorance (granted that meforshim here explain it
differently). The family of the Molech
worshipper may argue that as far as they are concerned, they prefer to remain
in a state of willful ignorance and turn the other way rather than confront the crimes of one of their own. Why should they get involved in the affairs
even of someone close? The Torah, however, emphasizes in its threat
of punishment that they are “mishpachto,” and as family it behooves them, as ones who would be privy to the crime, not
to ignore it.
According to any of these approaches, the question that begs
asking is why make this point here? If the
lesson is that ignoring a crime or covering up wrongdoing means sharing in the
blame, then why does the Torah not warn, for example, that the family of a
mechalel Shabbos will be punished, or that the family of a thief will be
punished? Why bring it up only in the context of Molech?
The Rambam (Moreh III:37, also see Abarbanel, R’ Bachyei)
addresses this point. The Molech cult attracted
followers by threatening that harm will befall the entire family of the person
who does not turn over his children. It’s
one thing to refuse to be involved in idolatry when the risk is only to
oneself; it’s quite another when there is a threat or perceived risk to one’s
children and family. The only way
to counter this type of threat is to offer an equally compelling
counter-incentive. The Torah therefore
warns that not only will the person who worships Molech be punished, but his
family, the very ones he wants to protect by getting involved in Molech worship,
will come to harm as well.
It still seems that something is missing. In addition to the threat of punishment to the family of the
Molech worshipper, Ramban points out that phrases like “...eiten as panay...,” “...v’samti
es panay...,” come up only here. No where
else do we find kareis couched in such terms, almost as if the sin is a personal
offence to G-d kavyachol and therefore he will personally attend to the
punishment. There is a severity to the punishment for Molech worship, perhaps due to the fact that it involves children, that goes above and beyond even other avodah zarah.
No comments:
Post a Comment