Sanhedrin 67a (סז.) — the Talmud in English

And the answer:

A mere mnemonic!

It is only a mnemonic. The verse has no connection to the halakha about which Rabbi spoke, and was cited only as a verse that speaks of the beginning of desecration.

Mishna: [

In the Mishna above, on 53a, the inciter was also counted among those liable to stoning. Below, the Mishna explains his laws:]

The inciter

who is judged by stoning—

this refers to an ordinary person.

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 13:11]: “And you shall stone him with stones, and he shall die.”

However, a prophet who incited is not liable to stoning, but to strangulation. As it is stated [Deuteronomy 13:6]: “And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death.” And an unspecified death stated in the Torah refers only to strangulation.

And

even an ordinary person

who incites

is not liable to stoning unless he incited

an ordinary person.

But if he incited the public, for example, if he incited an entire city that became an idolatrous city — he is judged by strangulation.

And what constitutes incitement?

The inciter said

to him:

There is a deity

an idol

in such-and-such a place. It eats in this manner and drinks in that manner;

this is how it benefits

those who worship it,

and this is how it harms

it does evil to those who do not worship it.

And the Mishna explains how witnesses are brought against him:

For all those liable to one of the death penalties stated in the Torah, witnesses do not lie in wait

hiding and ambushing

for them,

in order to testify against them and have them put to death. Rather, everything is done to save them from death—

except for

the death penalty

of this inciter,

for whom witnesses are stationed and lie in wait, in order to judge him and have him put to death.

If

the inciter said

to two

people together these words of incitement—

they are his witnesses!

They are the ones who will testify against him, and they do not need to issue a warning to him, as is required with regard to all others liable to punishment.

And they bring him to the court

and testify against him that he incited them—

and they stone him.

And the source for doing everything possible to seize him and put him to death is the verse [Deuteronomy 13:9]: “And you shall neither pity nor conceal him.”

If

the inciter said his words of incitement

to

one

person,

and

he,

the one incited,

says

to the inciter:

I have friends

who

want this,

to hear your words about worshipping idolatry. [So that his friends will testify against him, since he is only one person, and one witness is not believed for the purpose of putting him to death.]

If

that inciter was

clever and

claims that he

cannot

speak in their presence

because he fears that they might testify against him in court,

then

they conceal

hiding and lying in wait

for him, with witnesses behind a fence,

and he,

the one incited,

says to him

the inciter:

Say

to me

what you said—

in private!

When we are alone and no one hears us.

And the other,

the inciter,

says to him

the words of incitement,

and he,

the one incited,

says to him

the inciter:

How can we abandon our God in Heaven and go worship wood and stone?!

The law is:

If he retracts

the inciter retracts from his words of incitement

, that is best!

And if

he did not retract and

said, “This is our obligation; this is good for us,”

then

those standing behind the fence

bring him to court,

and they stone him

on the basis of their testimony!

Likewise, an inciter

who says, “I will worship

idolatry],

I will go and worship; let us go and worship,

I will sacrifice [to idolatry],

I will go and sacrifice; let us go and sacrifice,

I will burn incense [

to idolatry],

I will go and burn incense; let us go and burn incense,

I will pour a libation [

to idolatry],

I will go and pour a libation; let us go and pour a libation,

I will bow down [

to idolatry],

I will go and bow down; let us go and bow down. -

All these are included among words of incitement, and the inciter is liable to stoning!

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

“The inciter”—

“this refers to an ordinary person!”

The Gemara infers:

The reason is that he is an ordinary person

and only he is judged by stoning.

But

if this inciter were a

prophet

who prophesied in the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, to worship idolatry—

by strangulation!

We further learned:

“And

one is liable to stoning only if he is

the one who incites an ordinary person. The reason

is specifically

that he

incited

one person. But

if he incited

many people—

by strangulation!

And the Gemara analyzes this:

“Who is the author of the Mishna?”

According to whose opinion was it stated?

The Gemara proves:

It is Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita: “A prophet who led others astray”—

is judged

by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says—

he is judged

by strangulation.

Those who lead an idolatrous city astray—

are judged by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says—

they are judged

by strangulation.

It is thus clear that our Mishna was stated according to Rabbi Shimon.

The Gemara now raises an objection:

“Say the latter clause,”

in the Mishna below, which concludes our Mishna, it is written:

“The one who leads others astray,”

who led the public astray,

“this refers to one who says: ‘Let us go and worship idolatry.’”

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: “They taught the case of those who lead an idolatrous city astray”

at the end of our Mishna.

If so, this is difficult: According to Rabbi Shimon, those who lead an idolatrous city astray are not judged by stoning, but by strangulation, whereas at the end of the Mishna it is explained that they are judged by stoning.

And if so, the latter clause of the Mishna

“is according to the Rabbis,”

as it was stated according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that even those who lead the public astray are judged by stoning.

But is it possible that

the first clause,

the beginning of the Mishna, which explains that only one who incites an individual is liable to stoning, whereas one who incites the public is judged by strangulation, is

Rabbi Shimon’s

opinion,

while the latter clause,

which explains that even one who incites the public is liable to stoning, is the opinion of

the Rabbis?!

The explanation is:

Ravina said: The entire Mishna

all of it, is according to the opinion of

the Rabbis!

If so, how could the first clause exclude the inhabitants of an idolatrous city from stoning?

The answer is:

It teaches, “Not only this, but also that.”

The intention of the first clause of the Mishna is that not only is one who incites an individual liable to stoning; rather, this too—that one who incites the public is judged by stoning. It does not intend to exclude one who incites the public.

From this, the second dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon can now be resolved: A prophet who led others astray is liable to stoning; Rabbi Shimon says he is liable to strangulation. We had established our Mishna as stating that only an ordinary-person inciter is judged by stoning, whereas a prophet who incited is judged by strangulation.

However, now that we have established our Mishna according to the opinion of the Rabbis and not according to Rabbi Shimon, we must explain how the first clause of the Mishna excludes a prophet from stoning.

The explanation is:

Rav Pappa said: When it teaches

in the first clause of the Mishna

“The inciter—this refers to an ordinary person,”

it does not mean that only an ordinary person is judged by stoning, thereby excluding a prophet from this punishment.

Rather, the Mishna’s reference to an ordinary person means

for purposes of an ambush!

That is, every inciter is treated like an ordinary person, and his life is treated with contempt and regarded lightly, to the extent that witnesses are concealed and lie in wait for him in order to have him put to death. Nor is he given a warning beforehand!

For this reason they are called ordinary persons, and all inciters are included in this category. Both an ordinary person and a prophet. If so, our Mishna is explained according to the Rabbis: even a prophet who incited is liable to stoning! [

The Gemara proceeds to explain how they conceal themselves and lie in wait for him.]

As it is taught in a beraita: With regard to all other liable for execution by court-mandated death in the Torah, witnesses are not concealed—

they do not hide the witnesses and lie in ambush

for them, except in this case—

the execution of one who incites others to idolatry.

How do they do this to him? They light a lamp for him in the inner room, and seat witnesses in the outer room, so that they can see him and hear his voice, while he—

the inciter—

cannot see them.

And the other party—

the one who was incited—

says to him: Say—

and repeat

what you said to me in private,

in this secluded place where we are now, as though no one sees or hears us.

And he—

the inciter—

says to him

the words of incitement.

And the other party—

the one who was incited, responds and

says to him: How could we abandon our God in Heaven and worship idols?

If he recants

his words—

good. But if he says—

the inciter:

This is our obligation, and this is fitting for us

to worship idolatry, then

the witnesses who hear from outside bring him to the court, and he is stoned!

Mishna:

We learned above in the Mishna, on 53a, that even one who incites an entire city is included among those liable to stoning.

And the Mishna explains:

“One who incites”—

this is one who says: “Let us go and worship idols.”

The Gemara explains that he said this and incited the residents of an idolatrous city.

“The sorcerer”

is also listed in the Mishna above, on 53a, among those liable to stoning.

And what is a sorcerer? This is one who

performs an act

of actual sorcery , and only when he performs these acts is he—

liable

for stoning!

“Nor one who deceives the eyes”

who displays to people as though he is performing acts, although he is doing nothing at all. Such a deceiver is not liable to stoning.

Rabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: Two

sorcerers

gather cucumbers

through sorcery.

One gathers

cucumbers and

is exempt, while the other gathers

cucumbers and

is liable!

How can it be that, concerning the same act, one is liable while the other is exempt?

And the Mishna explains:

“One who performs an act”—

for example, there was a field full of cucumbers before us, and he actually gathered them through sorcery—

is liable!

Whereas

“one who deceives the eyes,”

for example, he displays through deception of the eyes as though the cucumbers were gathered through his sorcery, although in truth they all remained in their places—

is exempt,

because this is not sorcery.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: “One who incites”—this is one who says, “Let us go and worship idols.”

Regarding this, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

They taught here about those who incite the residents of an idolatrous city

—that he did not incite an individual, as does an inciter, but incited the many.

We learned in our Mishna:

“The sorcerer”—

“this is one who performs an act, etc.”

And he is liable only for performing an act.

The Sages taught:

The law

of a female sorcerer

who is executed by stoning is the same for—

both a man and a woman.

As it is stated [with regard to a person possessing an ov or a yidoni, who are sorcerers, Leviticus 20:27]: “Whether a man or a woman has an ov or a yidoni, they shall surely be put to death,” and so on. There is no distinction between a man and a woman.

But if that is so:

If so, what is the meaning of [Exodus 22:17]

[Exodus 22:17]

“A female sorcerer

shall not be allowed to live,” which indicates in this verse that the law of a “female sorcerer” applies only to a woman?

The answer is: Because

most women are involved in sorcery!

The Torah spoke only of the prevalent case. But as a matter of law, there is no difference between a man and a woman.

The Gemara clarifies:

Their execution

of the male or female sorcerer

by what

does it take place?

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is stated here [Exodus 22:17]

“A female sorcerer shall not be allowed to live.” And it is stated elsewhere

[concerning the war to conquer the seven nations, Deuteronomy 20:16]

“You shall not allow any soul to live.”

Just as there

in the war

their execution is by the sword,

as it is stated [Numbers 21:24], “And Israel struck him by the sword,” so too here, in the case of a female sorcerer, it is by the sword!

Rabbi Akiva says: It is stated here, “A female sorcerer shall not be allowed to live.” And it is stated elsewhere,

with regard to one who approaches and touches Mount Sinai when the Divine Presence rested there at the giving of the Torah:

[Exodus 19:13] “No hand shall touch it, for he shall surely be stoned or shot through;

whether beast or man, he shall not live.”

Just as there

at Mount Sinai “he shall not live” is stated, and its law

—

by stoning, so too here

in the case of a female sorcerer, “she shall not be allowed to live” is stated, and her law is—

by stoning! Rabbi Yosei said to him: I derived

through a gzera shava as follows:

“She shall not be allowed to live,”

stated with regard to a female sorcerer,

from “You shall not allow any soul to live,”

stated with regard to the seven nations. Therefore, their punishment is execution by the sword.

But

if you, Rabbi Akiva,

derived “she shall not be allowed to live”

stated with regard to a female sorcerer

from “he shall not live,”

stated with regard to Sinai.

And if so, when we have before us a gzera shava derived from two identical words, “she shall not be allowed to live” from “she shall not be allowed to live,” surely this should be preferred to a gzera shava derived from two words that are not entirely identical, such as “she shall not be allowed to live” from “he shall not live” ?

Rabbi Akiva said to him: I derived

the law of execution stated for an

Israelite

sorcerer from among the Israelites

from

the law of execution stated for an

Israelite

who approaches Mount Sinai,

concerning whom the verse increased

among Israelites

many forms of execution.

And when “he shall not live” is written, the Torah intended that this death be by stoning.

But

if

you

derived the law of the sorcerer who is an

Israelite from

the law of

idolaters

who are executed by the sword,

for whom the verse increased only

one form of execution—

the sword—

then it cannot be inferred from there that he must be judged specifically by the sword. For the execution of all gentiles is by the sword. There is no proof that when “he shall not live” is stated with regard to gentiles, it refers to execution by the sword, since no other form of execution was stated for them.