Sanhedrin 67
סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא.
It is merely a mnemonic. The verse is not relevant to this halakha, and it is cited merely as a sign indicating that just as the halakha of a betrothed young woman pertains to her first act of sexual intercourse, so too, the halakha of the daughter of a priest who committed adultery pertains to a case where it is her first disqualification from the priesthood.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמֵּסִית – זֶה הֶדְיוֹט, וְהַמֵּסִית אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹט. אָמַר: יֵשׁ יִרְאָה בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, כָּךְ אוֹכֶלֶת, כָּךְ שׁוֹתֶה, כָּךְ מְטִיבָה, כָּךְ מְרֵיעָה.
MISHNA: With regard to the case of an inciter, listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, this is an ordinary person, not a prophet. And it is referring to one who incites an ordinary person and not a multitude of people. What does the inciter do? He says: There is an idol in such and such a place, which eats like this, drinks like this, does good for its worshippers like this, and harms those who do not worship it like this.
כׇּל חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹרָה, אֵין מַכְמִינִין עֲלֵיהֶם, חוּץ מִזּוֹ.
The mishna states a principle with regard to the halakha of an inciter: With regard to all of those mentioned in the Torah who are liable to receive the death penalty, if there are no witnesses to their transgressions, the court does not hide witnesses in order to ensnare and punish them, except for this case of an inciter.
אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: הֵן עֵדָיו, וּמְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר לְאֶחָד: הוּא אוֹמֵר ״יֵשׁ לִי חֲבֵירִים רוֹצִים בְּכָךְ״.
The mishna elaborates: If the inciter said his words of incitement to two men, they are his witnesses, and he does not need to be warned before the transgression; they bring him to court and stone him. If he said his words of incitement to one man alone, that man’s testimony would not be sufficient to have the inciter executed. Therefore he says to the inciter: I have friends who are interested in this; tell them too. This way there will be more witnesses.
אִם הָיָה עָרוּם וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְדַבֵּר בִּפְנֵיהֶם, מַכְמִינִין לוֹ עֵדִים אֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״אֱמוֹר מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתָּ בְּיִחוּד!״ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לוֹ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֵיאַךְ נַנִּיחַ אֶת אֱלֹהֵינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם וְנֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבוֹד עֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים?״ אִם חוֹזֵר בּוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּטָב, וְאִם אָמַר: ״כָּךְ הִיא חוֹבָתֵנוּ, כָּךְ יָפֶה לָנוּ״ – הָעוֹמְדִין מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ.
The mishna continues: If the inciter is cunning, and he knows that he cannot speak in front of two men, the court hides witnesses for him behind the fence so that he will not see them, and the man whom the inciter had previously tried to incite says to him: Say what you said to me when we were in seclusion. And the other person, the inciter, says to him again that he should worship the idol. And he says to the inciter: How can we forsake our God in Heaven and go and worship wood and stones? If the inciter retracts his suggestion, that is good. But if he says: This idol worship is our duty; this is what suits us, then those standing behind the fence bring him to court and have him stoned.
הָאוֹמֵר: ״אֶעֱבוֹד״, ״אֵלֵךְ וְאֶעֱבוֹד״, ״נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבוֹד״; ״אֶזְבַּח״, ״אֵלֵךְ וְאֶזְבַּח״, ״נֵלֵךְ וְנִזְבַּח״; ״אַקְטִיר״, ״אֵלֵךְ וְאַקְטִיר״, ״נֵלֵךְ וְנַקְטִיר״; ״אֲנַסֵּךְ״, ״אֵלֵךְ וַאֲנַסֵּךְ״, ״נֵלֵךְ וּנְנַסֵּךְ״; ״אֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶה״, ״אֵלֵךְ וְאֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶה״, ״נֵלֵךְ וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה״.
The halakha of an inciter includes one who says: I shall worship idols, or one of the following statements: I shall go and worship idols, or: let us go and worship idols, or: I shall sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: I shall go and sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: Let us go and sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: I shall burn incense as an idolatrous offering, or: I shall go and burn incense, or: Let us go and burn incense, or: I shall pour an idolatrous libation, or: I shall go and pour a libation, or: Let us go and pour a libation, or: I shall bow to an idol, or: I shall go and bow, or: Let us go and bow.
גְּמָ׳ הַמֵּסִית זֶה הֶדְיוֹט. טַעְמָא דְּהֶדְיוֹט, הָא נָבִיא בְּחֶנֶק. וְהַמֵּסִית אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹט, טַעְמָא דְּיָחִיד, הָא רַבִּים בְּחֶנֶק.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: With regard to the case of an inciter, this is an ordinary person. The Gemara infers: The reason he is executed by stoning is that he is an ordinary person, but if he is a prophet he is executed by strangulation, not by stoning. The mishna states further: And it is referring to one who incites an ordinary person. The Gemara infers: The reason he is executed by stoning is that he incited an individual, but if he subverted a multitude of people, he is executed by strangulation.
מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: נָבִיא שֶׁהֵדִיחַ – בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶנֶק. מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת – בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶנֶק.
Consequently, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: A prophet who subverted others to participate in idol worship is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: He is executed by strangulation. Likewise, the subverters of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By strangulation.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הַמַּדִּיחַ זֶה הָאוֹמֵר ״נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת שָׁנוּ. אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן. רֵישָׁא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן?
The Gemara challenges: Say the last clause of the mishna, i.e., say the following mishna: With regard to the case of the subverter listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, this is one who says: Let us go and worship idols. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In this mishna the Sages taught the case of the subverters of an idolatrous city. Here we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that those who incite a multitude of people are also executed by stoning. Is it possible that the first clause of the mishna expresses the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and the last clause expresses that of the Rabbis?
רָבִינָא אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ רַבָּנַן הִיא, וְלָא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי.
Ravina says: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the tanna teaches the mishna employing the style of: Not only this but also that. In other words, the mishna should be explained as follows: Not only is one who incites an individual executed by stoning, but even one who subverts an entire city is executed by stoning.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כִּי קָתָנֵי ״מֵסִית זֶה הֶדְיוֹט״, לְהַכְמָנָה.
Rav Pappa says: When the mishna teaches with regard to one who incites that this is referring to an ordinary person, it is not indicating that a prophet is not included in this halakha. Rather, it is referring to the hiding of witnesses behind a fence in order to ensnare the inciter, as his life is treated with contempt and derision, as though he were an ordinary person, i.e., a simpleton.
דְּתַנְיָא: וּשְׁאָר כׇּל חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, אֵין מַכְמִינִין עֲלֵיהֶן, חוּץ מִזּוֹ.
As it is taught in a baraita: And with regard to all the rest of those liable to receive the death penalty by Torah law, the court does not hide witnesses in order to ensnare them and punish them except for this case of an inciter.
כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין לוֹ? מַדְלִיקִין לוֹ אֶת הַנֵּר בַּבַּיִת הַפְּנִימִי, וּמוֹשִׁיבִין לוֹ עֵדִים בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ הֵן רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ וְשׁוֹמְעִין אֶת קוֹלוֹ, וְהוּא אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה אוֹתָן. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״אֱמוֹר מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתָּ לִי בְּיִחוּד״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֵיאַךְ נַנִּיחַ אֶת אֱלֹהֵינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם וְנַעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״? אִם חוֹזֵר בּוֹ – מוּטָב, וְאִם אָמַר: ״כָּךְ הִיא חוֹבָתֵנוּ וְכָךְ יָפֶה לָנוּ״ – הָעֵדִים שֶׁשּׁוֹמְעִין מִבַּחוּץ מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ.
How does the court do this to him? The agents of the court light a candle for him in an inner room, and they place witnesses for him in an outer room in the dark, so that they can see him and hear his voice but he cannot see them. And the other person, whom the inciter had previously tried to incite, says to him: Say what you said to me when we were in seclusion. And he says to him again that he should worship the idol. And the other person says to him: How can we forsake our God in Heaven and worship idols? If the inciter retracts his suggestion, that is good. But if he says: This idol worship is our duty, and this is what suits us, the witnesses, who are listening from outside, bring him to court, and they have him stoned.
וְכֵן עָשׂוּ לְבֶן סָטָדָא בְּלוֹד, וּתְלָאוּהוּ בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח.
And the court did the same to an inciter named ben Setada, from the city of Lod, and they hanged him on Passover eve.
בֶּן סָטָדָא? בֶּן פַּנְדִּירָא הוּא! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בַּעַל סָטָדָא, בּוֹעֵל פַּנְדִּירָא. בַּעַל? פַּפּוּס בֶּן יְהוּדָה הוּא! אֶלָּא, אִמּוֹ סָטָדָא. אִמּוֹ? מִרְיָם מְגַדְּלָא נְשַׁיָּא הֲוַאי! כִּדְאָמְרִי בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא: ״סְטָת דָּא מִבַּעְלַהּ״.
The Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Setada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda says: Perhaps his mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Setada, but his mother’s paramour, who fathered this mamzer, was named Pandeira. The Gemara challenges: But his mother’s husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, not Setada. Rather, perhaps his mother was named Setada, and he was named ben Setada after her. The Gemara challenges: But his mother was Miriam, who braided women’s hair. The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction; Setada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּדִּיחַ – זֶה הָאוֹמֵר: ״נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״.
MISHNA: With regard to the case of the subverter listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, this is one who says to a multitude of people: Let us go and worship idols.
הַמְכַשֵּׁף – הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּיב, וְלֹא הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שְׁנַיִם לוֹקְטִין קִשּׁוּאִין, אֶחָד לוֹקֵט פָּטוּר וְאֶחָד לוֹקֵט חַיָּיב. הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּיב, הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם פָּטוּר.
The warlock is also liable to be executed by stoning. One who performs a real act of sorcery is liable, but not one who deceives the eyes, making it appear as though he is performing sorcery, as that is not considered sorcery. Rabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: For example, two people can each gather cucumbers by sorcery. One of them gathers cucumbers and he is exempt, and the other one gathers cucumbers and he is liable. How so? The one who performs a real act of sorcery is liable, and the one who deceives the eyes is exempt.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת שָׁנוּ כָּאן.
GEMARA: With regard to the case of subverters mentioned in the mishna, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The Sages taught here the case of the subverters of an idolatrous city. Accordingly, there is no halakhic difference between one who incites individuals to idolatry and one who subverts an entire city; both are liable to be executed by stoning.
הַמְכַשֵּׁף – זֶה הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מְכַשֵּׁפָה״ – אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מְכַשֵּׁפָה״? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹב נָשִׁים מְצוּיוֹת בִּכְשָׁפִים.
The mishna teaches that the case of the warlock is referring to one who performs a real act of sorcery. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse: “You shall not allow a witch to live” (Exodus 22:17), does not refer only to a female who practices sorcery; both a man and a woman are included. If so, why does verse state “a witch”? This is because most women are familiar with witchcraft.
מִיתָתָן בַּמֶּה? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״מְכַשֵּׁפָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״לֹא תְחַיֶּה כׇּל נְשָׁמָה״. מָה לְהַלָּן בְּסַיִיף, אַף כָּאן בְּסַיִיף.
In what manner is their death sentence administered? Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is stated here: “You shall not allow a witch to live,” and it is stated there, with regard to the conquest of the Canaanites: “You shall allow nothing that breathes to live” (Deuteronomy 20:16). Just as there, the Canaanites were to be killed by the sword (see Numbers 21:24), so too here, the execution of a witch is administered by the sword.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״מְכַשֵּׁפָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אִם בְּהֵמָה אִם אִישׁ לֹא יִחְיֶה״. מָה לְהַלָּן בִּסְקִילָה, אַף כָּאן בִּסְקִילָה.
Rabbi Akiva says: It is stated here: “You shall not allow a witch to live,” and it is stated there, with regard to Mount Sinai: “No hand shall touch it, for he shall be stoned, or thrown down; whether it be animal or man, it shall not live” (Exodus 19:13). Just as there, the verse speaks of stoning, so too here, a witch is executed by stoning.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֲנִי דַּנְתִּי ״לֹא תְחַיֶּה״ מִ״לֹּא תְחַיֶּה״, וְאַתָּה דַּנְתָּ ״לֹא תְחַיֶּה״ מִ״לֹּא יִחְיֶה״!
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: I derived the meaning of the verse “You shall not allow a witch to live” from the verse “You shall allow nothing that breathes to live” via a verbal analogy between two similar phrases, but you derived the meaning of the verse “You shall not allow a witch to live” from the verse “It shall not live,” which is a less similar phrase.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אֲנִי דַּנְתִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁרִיבָּה בָּהֶן הַכָּתוּב מִיתוֹת הַרְבֵּה, וְאַתָּה דַּנְתָּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִגּוֹיִם, שֶׁלֹּא רִיבָּה בָּהֶן הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא
Rabbi Akiva said to him: I derived a halakha concerning Jews from a halakha concerning Jews, with regard to whom the verse included many types of death penalties. Therefore, the fact that the expression “It shall not live” refers to stoning when stated with regard to Jews is especially significant. But you derived a halakha concerning Jews from a halakha concerning gentiles, with regard to whom the verse included only
מִיתָה אַחַת.
one type of death penalty, namely, decapitation. Since that is the only type of capital punishment that applies to gentiles, it cannot be derived through a verbal analogy that the same type applies to a Jewish sorceror.
בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר ״מְכַשֵּׁפָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה״, וְנֶאֱמַר ״כׇּל שֹׁכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת״. סְמָכוֹ עִנְיָן לוֹ, מָה שׁוֹכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה בִּסְקִילָה – אַף מְכַשֵּׁף בִּסְקִילָה.
The baraita continues: Ben Azzai says that it is stated: “You shall not allow a witch to live” (Exodus 22:17), and it is stated in the following verse: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death” (Exodus 22:18). The fact that the Torah juxtaposes this matter to that matter is to teach that just as one who lies with an animal is executed by stoning (see Leviticus, chapter 20), so too, a warlock is executed by stoning.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסְּמָכוֹ עִנְיָן לוֹ, נוֹצִיא לָזֶה בִּסְקִילָה? אֶלָּא, אוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי בִּכְלַל מְכַשְּׁפִים הָיוּ, וְלָמָּה יָצְאוּ? לְהַקִּישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן וְלוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה אוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי בִּסְקִילָה – אַף מְכַשֵּׁף בִּסְקִילָה.
With regard to this derivation, Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And because the Torah juxtaposes this matter with that matter, shall we take this person out to be stoned? Should he be sentenced to the most severe type of capital punishment on that basis? Rather, the source is as follows: A necromancer and a sorcerer were included in the general category of warlocks, and why were they singled out from the rest, with their prohibition and punishment stated independently? This was done in order to draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed by stoning, so too, a warlock is executed by stoning.
לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי, לִיהְווֹ אוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין!
The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda as well, let the punishment with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer be considered two verses that come as one, i.e., that teach the same matter, and therefore the halakha of other cases cannot be derived from it, according to the principle that any two verses that come as one do not teach about other cases. In other words, if a halakha is taught with regard to two individual cases in the Torah, the understanding is that this halakha applies only to those cases. Had this halakha applied to all other relevant cases as well, it would not have been necessary for the Torah to teach it twice. The fact that two cases are mentioned indicates that they are the exceptions rather than the rule.
אָמַר רַבִּי זְכַרְיָה: עֲדָא אָמְרָה, קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד מְלַמְּדִין.
Rabbi Zekharya says: This means that Rabbi Yehuda holds that two verses that come as one do teach about other cases.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָן כְּשָׁפִים? שֶׁמַּכְחִישִׁין פָּמַלְיָא שֶׁל מַעְלָה.
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why is sorcery called keshafim? Because it is an acronym for: Contradicts the heavenly entourage [shemakhḥishin pamalia shel mala]. Sorcery appears to contradict the laws of nature established by God.
״אֵין עוֹד מִלְבַדּוֹ״, אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אֲפִילּוּ לִדְבַר כְּשָׁפִים.
The verse states: “To you it was shown, so that you should know that the Lord is God; there is none else besides Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35). Rabbi Ḥanina says: This is true even with regard to a matter of sorcery; sorcery is ineffective against a righteous person.
הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דַּהֲוָת קָא מְהַדְּרָא לְמִשְׁקַל עַפְרָא מִתּוּתֵי כַּרְעֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא. אֲמַר לַהּ: אִי מִסְתַּיַּיעְתְּ, זִילִי עֲבִידִי. ״אֵין עוֹד מִלְבַדּוֹ״ כְּתִיב.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who was attempting to take dust from under the feet of Rabbi Ḥanina in order to perform sorcery on him and harm him. Rabbi Ḥanina said to her: If you succeed, go and do it. I am not concerned about it, as it is written: “There is none else besides Him.”
אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָן מְכַשְּׁפִים? שֶׁמַּכְחִישִׁין פָּמַלְיָא שֶׁל מַעְלָה. שָׁאנֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דִּנְפִישׁ זְכוּתֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Why are sorcerers called mekhashefim? Because it is an acronym for: Contradicts the heavenly entourage. This indicates that one should be wary of sorcery. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina is different, as his merit is great, and sorcery certainly has no effect on such a righteous person.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַיְיבוּ בַּר נַגָּרֵי אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: ״בְּלָטֵיהֶם״ – אֵלּוּ מַעֲשֵׂה שֵׁדִים, ״בְּלַהֲטֵיהֶם״ – אֵלּוּ מַעֲשֵׂה כְשָׁפִים. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאֵת לַהַט הַחֶרֶב הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת״.
Rabbi Aivu bar Nagri says that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that in the verse: “And the magicians of Egypt did in that manner with their secret arts [belateihem]” (Exodus 7:22), these words are describing acts of employing demons, which are invisible, and their actions are therefore hidden [balat]. With regard to the similar term “belahateihem” (Exodus 7:11), these are acts of sorcery, which sorcerers perform themselves, without using demons. And likewise it says: “And the flaming [lahat] sword that turned every way” (Genesis 3:24), referring to a sword that revolves by itself.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דְּקָפֵיד אַמָּנָא – שֵׁד, דְּלָא קָפֵיד אַמָּנָא – כְּשָׁפִים.
Abaye says: A sorcerer who is particular about using a certain utensil for his sorcery is employing a demon; one who is not particular about using a certain utensil is performing an act of sorcery.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הִלְכוֹת כְּשָׁפִים כְּהִלְכוֹת שַׁבָּת, יֵשׁ מֵהֶן בִּסְקִילָה, וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר, וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן מוּתָּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
Abaye says: The halakhot of sorcery are like the halakhot of Shabbat, in that their actions can be divided into three categories: There are some of them for which one is liable to be executed by stoning, and there are some of them for which one is exempt from punishment by Torah law but they are prohibited by rabbinic law, and there are some of them that are permitted ab initio.
הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה – בִּסְקִילָה, הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם – פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר. מוּתָּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה – כִּדְרַב חֲנִינָא וְרַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: כׇּל מַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא הֲווֹ עָסְקִי בְּהִלְכוֹת יְצִירָה, וּמִיבְּרֵי לְהוּ עִיגְלָא תִּילְתָּא, וְאָכְלִי לֵיהּ.
Abaye elaborates: One who performs a real act of sorcery is liable to be executed by stoning. One who deceives the eyes is exempt from punishment, but it is prohibited for him to do so. What is permitted ab initio is to act like Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya: Every Shabbat eve they would engage in the study of the halakhot of creation, and a third-born calf would be created for them, and they would eat it in honor of Shabbat.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חֲזֵינָא לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּהּ דְּקַרְנָא, דְּנָפֵיץ וְשָׁדֵי כְּרִיכֵי דְשִׁירָאֵי מִנְּחִירֵיהּ.
Rav Ashi said: I saw Karna’s father perform a magic trick in which he would blow his nose and cast rolls of silk from his nostrils by deceiving the eye.
״וַיֹּאמְרוּ הַחַרְטֻמִּם אֶל פַּרְעֹה אֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים הִיא״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מִיכָּן שֶׁאֵין הַשֵּׁד יָכוֹל לִבְראוֹת בְּרִיָּה פָּחוֹת מִכִּשְׂעוֹרָה.
With regard to the verse: “And the magicians said to Pharaoh: This is the finger of God” (Exodus 8:15), Rabbi Eliezer says: It is derived from here that a demon cannot create an entity smaller than the size of a barley grain. Consequently, the magicians were not capable of duplicating the plague of lice, and they realized that this was not an act of sorcery but was performed by God.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: הָאֱלֹהִים! אֲפִילּוּ כְּגַמְלָא נָמֵי לָא מָצֵי בָּרֵי. הַאי מִיכְּנִיף לֵיהּ, וְהַאי לָא מִיכְּנִיף לֵיהּ.
Rav Pappa said: By God! They cannot create even an entity as large as a camel. They do not create anything. Rather, they can gather these large animals, leading them from one place to another, but they cannot gather those small animals.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא: לְדִידִי חֲזֵי לִי הַהוּא טַיָּיעָא, דְּשַׁקְלֵיהּ לְסַפְסִירָא וְגַיְּידֵיהּ לְגַמְלֵאּ, וּטְרַף לֵיהּ בְּטַבְלָא, וְקָם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְבָתַר הָכִי, דָּם וּפַרְתָּא מִי הֲוַאי? אֶלָּא, הַהִיא אֲחִיזַת עֵינַיִם הֲוָה.
Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: I myself saw a certain Arab who took a sword and sliced a camel and then beat a drum [betavla], and the camel arose from the dead. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: Was there blood and excretion afterward in that place, which flowed from the camel when it was sliced? Rather, since there was none, that was clearly a deception of the eyes and not sorcery.
זְעֵירִי אִיקְּלַע לַאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם. זְבַן חַמְרָא. כִּי מְטָא לְאַשְׁקוֹיֵיהּ מַיָּא, פְּשַׁר וְקָם גַּמְלָא דְּאוּסְקָנִיתָא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אִי לָאו זְעֵירִי אַתְּ, לָא הֲוָה מַהְדְּרִינַן לָךְ. מִי אִיכָּא דְּזָבֵין מִידֵּי הָכָא וְלָא בָּדֵיק לֵיהּ אַמַּיָּא?
The Gemara relates: Ze’eiri happened to come to Alexandria of Egypt. He bought a donkey. When he was about to give it water to drink the magic thawed when the donkey touched the water and it was revealed that it was not a donkey, and it turned into the plank of a bridge. The ones who sold it to him said to him: If you were not Ze’eiri, a distinguished person, we would not refund you the money for the donkey. Is there anyone who buys an item here and does not examine it first with water? Since sorcery was widespread there, anyone who bought an item examined it in order to find out if it was affected by sorcery, and if one did not examine an acquired item by exposing it to water and it turned out to be under a spell, he suffered the loss.
יַנַּאי אִיקְּלַע לְהָהוּא אוּשְׁפִּיזָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אַשְׁקְיַן מַיָּא. קָרִיבוּ שְׁתִיתָא. חֲזָא דְּקָא מְרַחֲשָׁן שִׂפְוָותַהּ, שְׁדָא פּוּרְתָּא מִינֵּיהּ. הֲווֹ עַקְרַבֵּי. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא שְׁתַאי מִדִּידְכוּ, אַתּוּן נָמֵי שְׁתוֹ מִדִּידִי. אַשְׁקְיַיהּ, הֲוַאי חַמְרָא. רַכְבַהּ, סָלֵיק לְשׁוּקָא. אֲתָא חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, פְּשַׁרָה לַהּ. חַזְיֵיהּ דְּרָכֵיב וְקָאֵי אַאִיתְּתָא בְּשׁוּקָא.
The Gemara relates: A man named Yannai arrived at a certain inn. He said to the innkeepers: Give me water to drink. They brought him flour mixed with water. He saw that the lips of the innkeeper woman were moving, and he cast a bit of the drink to the ground, and it turned into scorpions, and he understood that the innkeepers performed sorcery on the drink. Yannai said to them: I drank from yours; you too drink from mine, and he also performed sorcery on the drink. He gave it to her to drink and she turned into a donkey. He rode upon her and went to the marketplace. Her friend came and released her from the sorcery, and people saw him riding on a woman in the marketplace.
״וַתַּעַל הַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ וַתְּכַס אֶת אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: צְפַרְדֵּעַ אַחַת הָיְתָה, הִשְׁרִיצָה וּמִלְּאָה כׇּל אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם.
It is stated with regard to the plagues of Egypt: “And the frog came up and covered the land of Egypt” (Exodus 8:2). Noting that the term “the frog” is written in the singular, Rabbi Elazar says: At first it was one frog; it spawned and filled the entire land of Egypt with frogs.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, צְפַרְדֵּעַ אַחַת הָיְתָה וּמִלְּאָה כׇּל אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: עֲקִיבָא, מָה לְךָ אֵצֶל הַגָּדָה? כַּלֵּה מִדַּבְּרוֹתֶיךָ וְלֵךְ אֵצֶל נְגָעִים וְאֹהָלוֹת. צְפַרְדֵּעַ אַחַת הָיְתָה, שָׁרְקָה לָהֶם וְהֵם בָּאוּ.
The Gemara comments: This matter is subject to a dispute between tanna’im: Rabbi Akiva says: It was one frog, and it spawned and filled the entire land of Egypt with frogs. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, what are you doing occupying yourself with the study of aggada? This is not your field of expertise. Take your statements to the tractates of Nega’im and Oholot. In other words, it is preferable that you teach the halakhot of the impurity of leprosy and the impurity imparted in a tent, which are among the most difficult areas of halakha and are within your field of expertise. Rather, the verse is to be understood as follows: It was one frog; it whistled to the other frogs, and they all came after it.
אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כּוּ׳.
§ In the mishna, Rabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that two people can each gather cucumbers by sorcery, one of whom is exempt, as he merely deceives the eyes, and one of whom is liable, as he performs real sorcery.
