Sanhedrin 65a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

The Torah says: [Leviticus 19:31] “Do not turn to the ov practitioners or to the yideoni practitioners.”

If one transgressed this prohibition intentionally, he is liable to excision, as it is stated: [Leviticus 20:6] “And the person who turns to the ov practitioners and to the yideoni practitioners, to stray after them, I will set My anger against that person and cut him off from among his people.”

And since one who commits the transgression intentionally is liable to excision, one who commits it unintentionally is liable to bring a sin-offering.

And if one transgressed intentionally, after having been warned, he is liable to execution, as it is stated there: “And a man or a woman in whom there is an ov or a yideoni shall surely be put to death.”

One who practices ov —

this

is a sorcerer called

“pithom,” who speaks from his armpits.

This sorcerer raises the soul of the dead from the ground and seats it in his armpit, beneath his arms. He strikes his two arms together, and then the soul of the dead speaks.

And a yideoni —

this is one who speaks through his mouth.

He places in his mouth a bone of an animal called a “yiddua,” and then the soul of the dead speaks from within the bone through the power of his sorcery, on its own, without the sorcerer performing an action.

These,

the ov practitioner and the yideoni practitioner,

are executed by stoning,

as it is stated: [Leviticus 20] “They shall stone them with stones.”

And one who consults them —

is subject to a warning.

As it is stated: [Leviticus 19] “Do not turn to the ov practitioners or to the yideoni practitioners.”

And this warning against consulting them is repeated as part of the general prohibition against sorcery, as it is stated: [Deuteronomy 18] “There shall not be found among you … one who binds a spell, or one who consults an ov practitioner or a yideoni practitioner.”

Gemara:

At the beginning of Tractate Keritot, the Mishna lists the thirty-six transgressions for which one is liable to excision according to the Torah, and for which one who commits them unintentionally must bring a sin-offering. There the Mishna lists only one who practices ov, and not one who practices yideoni, even though one is liable to excision for both. Here, however, concerning those liable to execution by stoning, the Mishna lists the yideoni as well, together with the ov practitioner.

Therefore, the Gemara discusses:

What is different here,

why is our Mishna different from the Mishna in Tractate Keritot,

as it teaches

in our Mishna both

the ov practitioner and

both

the yideoni practitioner,

and what is different concerning excision, where it teaches

only

the ov practitioner, and omits

and the tanna omitted and did not list

the yideoni practitioner

among those liable to excision according to the Torah?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Since both of them,

the ov practitioner and the yideoni practitioner,

are stated under a single prohibition.

Therefore, one who violates both prohibitions unwittingly, without realizing that they are prohibited, does not have separate sin-offerings for each; he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. The tanna in Tractate Keritot, however, listed all those liable to excision that are distinct with regard to sin-offerings: if one performed all of them unwittingly, he would be liable to bring thirty-six separate sin-offerings. But for ov and yideoni he is liable to bring only one sin-offering, since they were stated under a single prohibition. Only separate prohibitions create separate sin-offerings; therefore, the tanna in Tractate Keritot did not say “ov and yideoni.”

Reish Lakish said: A yideoni

is not subject to liability for a sin-offering

because it involves no action,

since the bone speaks on its own. A sin-offering is brought only for an action, whereas the ov practitioner performs an action by striking his arms together. And the Gemara discusses:

And what would Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds

that a yideoni practitioner is also liable to bring a sin-offering, but that there are no separate sin-offerings for an ov practitioner and a yideoni practitioner, say? In that case,

what is different about the ov practitioner, whom he listed

the tanna at the beginning of Tractate Keritot, while he did not list the yideoni practitioner?

The Gemara explains:

Because the verse mentions him first,

as everywhere in the Torah the verse mentions the ov practitioner before the yideoni practitioner.

The Gemara asks:

And according to Reish Lakish, why did he not say in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan?

Rav Pappa said: They are distinct with regard to execution.

With regard to the liability for execution, the verse says “an ov practitioner or a yideoni practitioner,” and not “an ov practitioner and a yideoni practitioner.” The verse distinguishes them with regard to execution, indicating that one is liable to execution for each one separately. From this Reish Lakish proves that a yideoni practitioner is not liable to bring an offering for an unwitting transgression. For if a yideoni practitioner were liable to bring an offering, there would be separate sin-offerings for him and for an ov practitioner, since Reish Lakish holds that separate death penalties for intentional transgressions create separate sin-offerings for unwitting transgressions. Necessarily, then, a yideoni practitioner is not liable to bring a sin-offering, because his act involves no action.

And

if

Rabbi Yohanan

holds that only

a distinction between prohibitions —

is considered a distinction

with regard to sin-offerings, whereas a distinction

between death penalties

for intentional transgressions

is not considered a distinction

with regard to sin-offerings, then, since the ov practitioner and the yideoni practitioner were stated under a single prohibition, there are no separate sin-offerings for them when both are performed unwittingly. Therefore, the verse did not list the yideoni together with the ov practitioner at the beginning of Tractate Keritot.

And Rabbi Yohanan —

why did he not say in accordance with Reish Lakish,

who says that since one is not liable to bring a sin-offering without performing an action, the tanna in Tractate Keritot did not list the yideoni practitioner, because his act involves no action? After all, Rabbi Yohanan also holds that one is not liable to bring a sin-offering without performing an action.

He can say to you

that Rabbi Yohanan would answer:

The Mishna of Tractate Keritot

follows the method of

Rabbi Akiva, who said: We do not require an

action

for liability to bring a sin-offering. The proof is that the Mishna there lists one who blasphemes, whose transgression involves no action, and nevertheless he is liable to bring a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression.

And as for Reish Lakish, although Rabbi Akiva does not require a substantial action,

a major action,

he does require a minor action,

whereas the act of a yideoni practitioner involves no action at all.

The Gemara explains to Reish Lakish, who holds that everyone requires an action:

In the case of one who blasphemes, what minor action

is there

? —

the movement of his lips

when he speaks

is considered an action.

But a yideoni practitioner does not even move his lips, since the dead person speaks by itself from within the bone.

In the case of an ov practitioner, what action is there?

The Gemara explains:

The striking of his arms,

by which he raises the dead through sorcery,

is considered an action.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty:

And even according to the Sages?

Since the Sages disagree with Rabbi Akiva only with regard to one who blasphemes, and not with regard to an ov practitioner, it would seemingly follow that the Sages agree that one is liable to bring a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression involving an ov practitioner.

The following difficulty arises:

But it was taught in a baraita: One is not liable

to bring a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression involving idol worship

except for something that involves an action, such as slaughtering an animal, burning an offering, pouring a libation, or bowing.

Seemingly, this is difficult: Bowing does not involve an action that accomplishes anything; it is performed only with one’s body.

And

concerning this,

Reish Lakish

said in explanation:

Who is the

sage,

the tanna,

who taught in the baraita that one is liable only for something involving an action, and included

“bowing” —

it is Rabbi Akiva, who said that we do not require an action

of a substantial kind; a minor action is sufficient to make one liable to bring a sin-offering. Bowing is considered a minor action. Thus, when the tanna in the baraita said that one is liable to bring a sin-offering only for an action, he meant that at least a minor action is required.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: You may even say

that the baraita that imposes liability for bowing applies even according to

the Sages,

because

according to the Sages, bending one’s body is considered an action.

The Gemara infers from the fact that Reish Lakish disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan and interprets the baraita concerning bowing as referring specifically to Rabbi Akiva that, according to Reish Lakish, bending one’s body is not considered an action and therefore, according to the Sages, one is exempt for it.

And the Gemara asks:

Now, according to Reish Lakish, if bending one’s body is not considered an action according to the Sages,

then how can it be that

the striking of the arms of an ov practitioner —

is considered an action?

The Gemara answers:

When Reish Lakish said as well

that the striking of the arms is considered an action, he said this only

according to Rabbi Akiva;

he made this statement

but according to the Sages —

not

.

But the Gemara asks:

If so,

if according to the Sages even the striking of the arms of an ov practitioner is not considered an action, then the Mishna in Tractate Keritot, which says that according to the Sages one who blasphemes is excluded, should not need to say only “one who blasphemes is excluded.” Rather, according to the Sages,

it should have said: “One who blasphemes and an ov practitioner are excluded,”

it should have said.

Rather, Ulla said:

The Mishna in Tractate Keritot, which implies that according to the Sages one is liable to bring a sin-offering for an ov practitioner, is speaking

of one who burns incense for a demon,

who raises the dead in a manner in which he burns incense for the demon appointed over this matter, and burning incense is a full-fledged action.

Rava said to him: One who burns incense for a demon —

is an idol worshipper!

And why, then, are idol worship and an ov practitioner counted there as two separate liabilities?

Rather, Rava said:

The Mishna in Tractate Keritot is speaking

of one who burns incense for the purpose of bringing the demons together.

He does not accept the demon as a deity; rather, he burns incense that benefits the sorcery he performs in order to bring the demons together with him here.

Abaye said to him:

But

one who burns incense

in order

to bring

the demons together with him violates the prohibition of

“one who brings creatures together,”

and this does not involve liability for excision or stoning, but only violation of a prohibition.

He said to him:

Yes,

it is true that an ordinary person who brings creatures together is prohibited only by a prohibition. However,

the Torah said

here, concerning

this person who brings creatures together,

who burns incense for the minister appointed over the demons, that he

is executed by stoning

if he acted intentionally. Therefore, if he acted unintentionally, he is liable to bring a sin-offering; and this is the case discussed by the Mishna in Tractate Keritot.

The Sages taught: [Deuteronomy 18]

“One who brings creatures together”

includes one who brings together large creatures,

and one who brings together small creatures,

who brings large animals together through sorcery,

and one who brings together small creatures,

who brings small animals together through sorcery,

and even

one who brings together creeping creatures, such as

snakes and scorpions,

even when he does so to prevent them from causing harm—for example, he incites them against one another so that they will go to a deserted place and not cause harm here.

Abaye said: Therefore, one who brings a wasp and a scorpion together,

using incantations to bring a snake and a scorpion together,

even though he intends

to bring them together so

that they should not cause harm —

it is prohibited.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And according to Rabbi Yohanan, why is it that bending one’s body

in the case of idol worship

is considered an action according to the Sages, while

if

the movement of the lips

in the case of one who blasphemes, the Sages say that it

is not considered an action?

The Gemara answers:

Rava said: One who blasphemes is different, since the essential act is in the heart.

The primary basis of liability for one who blasphemes is his intention in his heart to “bless,” that is, curse, God; through his speech he merely expresses what is in his heart. Therefore, the movement of his lips is not considered an action. In contrast, one who bows to idol worship is not liable for the intention in his heart, but for the act of bowing. Therefore, bending his body is considered an action.