Sanhedrin 67a — the Talmud in English

And the answer:

A mere mnemonic!

It is merely a sign. The verse does not pertain to the halakha about which Rabbi spoke, and it was brought only as a verse speaking about the beginning of desecration.

Mishna: [

In the Mishna above, on 53a, the inciter was also enumerated among the other those liable to stoning. And below the Mishna explains his laws:]

The inciter

who is judged by stoning —

this is an ordinary person.

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

But a prophet who incited is not subject 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 is only strangulation.

And

even an ordinary person

the

inciter is not liable to stoning unless he incited

the ordinary person.

But if he incited the many, for example, if he incited an idolatrous city — he is judged by strangulation.

And what is incitement?

The inciter

said:

There is a deity

an idol of idolatry

in such-and-such a place. It eats in this manner, it drinks in this manner,

in this manner it benefits

its worshippers,

in this manner it harms

it does evil to those who do not worship it.

And the Mishna explains how they testify against him:

For all those liable for death in the Torah, they do not conceal themselves

they hide and lie in ambush

for them

in order to testify against them and put them to death, but they do everything to save them from death —

except for

the punishment of death

this

to which the inciter is liable. And they station witnesses and lie in ambush for him, in order to judge him and put him to death.

If

the inciter said

to two

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 warn him, as with all those liable for punishments.

And they bring him to the court

and testify against him that he incited them —

and they stone him.

And the source for this, that they do everything in order to seize him and put him to death, is as it is stated [Deuteronomy 13:9]: “And you shall not pity him nor conceal him”

If

the inciter said the words of incitement

to

one person,

one,

then

he

the incited person

says

to him, the inciter:

I have companions

who

want this,

to hear your words concerning worshipping idolatry. [In order that his companions should testify against him, since he is one, and one witness is not trusted to put him to death.]

If

that inciter

was clever and

claimed that he

cannot

speak in their presence

because he is afraid lest they testify in court,

then

they conceal

they hide and lie in ambush

witnesses for him behind the fence,

and he

the incited person

says to him

the inciter:

Say

to me

what you said —

when we are alone!

when we are in private and no one hears us.

And the latter,

the inciter

says to him

the words of incitement,

and he

the incited person

says to him

the inciter:

“How can we abandon our God in heaven and go and worship wood and stone?!”

The law is:

If he retracts

the inciter from the words of incitement

, that is better!

And if

he did not retract and

said, “So is our duty; so is it good for us,”

then those who

stand behind the fence

bring him to court,

and stone him

on the basis of their testimony!

And likewise an inciter

who says: “I will worship [

idolatry],

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

I will slaughter [for idolatry],

I will go and slaughter, let us go and slaughter,

“I will offer incense” [

for idolatry],

“I will go and offer incense, let us go and offer incense,”

“I will pour a libation” [

for idolatry],

“I will go and pour a libation, let us go and pour a libation,”

“I will bow down” [

for 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 is an ordinary person!”

And the Gemara infers:

The reason is that he is an ordinary person

only he is judged by stoning.

This

if this inciter was a

prophet

and 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

the one who incites the ordinary person. The reason

specifically

that

he incited

one individual. This

he incited

the many —

by strangulation!

And the Gemara discussed:

“Whose Mishna is it,”

according to whose words was it stated?

And the Gemara proves:

It is Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught: A prophet who incited

is judged

by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says —

he is judged

by strangulation.

Those who incite an idolatrous city —

are judged by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says —

they are judged

by strangulation.

And it is explained that our Mishna was stated according to the view of Rabbi Shimon.

But now the Gemara asks:

“Say the latter clause,”

in the Mishna below, which is the end of our Mishna, it is written:

“The one who incites”

who incited the many,

“this is the one who says: ‘Let us go and worship the stars.’”

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: They taught the law of those who incite an idolatrous city

at the end of our Mishna,

and if so, this is difficult: after all, according to Rabbi Shimon, those who incite an idolatrous city 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

it was stated according to the view of the Rabbis, who hold that even those who incite the many are judged by stoning.

And is it so that

the first clause,

the beginning of the Mishna, in which it is explained that only one who incites an individual is subject to stoning, whereas one who incites the many is judged by strangulation —

is Rabbi Shimon

?

And the latter clause

in which it is explained that even one who incites the many is subject to stoning —

is according to the Rabbis?!

And the explanation is:

Ravina said: The whole

of our Mishna is according to the view of

the Rabbis!

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

The answer:

“It teaches: not only this, but also this.”

The intention of the Mishna in the first clause is that not only one who incites an individual is subject to stoning, but also this: one who incites the many is judged by stoning. It does not intend to exclude one who incites the many.

And now it is possible to resolve the second dispute in which the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagreed. It concerns a prophet who incited: he is subject to stoning; Rabbi Shimon says: by strangulation. And 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 view of the Rabbis and not according to Rabbi Shimon, it is necessary to resolve how the first clause of the Mishna excludes the prophet from stoning.

And the explanation is:

Rav Pappa said: When it teaches

in the first clause of the Mishna

“The inciter — this is 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 intention of the Mishna in saying “ordinary person” is

for concealment!

That is, every inciter is treated in the manner of ordinary people, and they demean him and make light of the value of his life, to the extent that they conceal witnesses and lie in ambush for him in order to put him to death. And they do not even warn him beforehand!

And for this reason they are called ordinary people. And all inciters are included in this. Both a simple person and a prophet. And if so, our Mishna is explained according to the Rabbis, that even a prophet who incited is subject to stoning! [

And the Gemara proceeds to explain how they conceal themselves and lie in ambush for him]

For it was taught: And regarding all the other liable for executions prescribed in the Torah, witnesses are not hidden

they hide the witnesses and lie in ambush

for them, except for this one

the execution of the enticer.

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

the enticer,

does not see them.

And the other one

the one who was enticed

says to him: Say

and repeat

what you said to me in private,

in this privacy in which we are now, as though no one sees or hears us.

And he

the enticer

says to him

the words of enticement.

And the other one

the one who was enticed, responds and

says to him: How can we abandon our God in Heaven and worship idolatry.

If he retracts

the enticer from his words -

it is good. And if he says

the enticer:

Such is our obligation, and such is proper for us

to worship idolatry, then

the witnesses who hear from outside bring him to the court and stone him!

Mishna:

We learned above in the Mishna, on 53a, that even the inciter of a city is included among those liable to stoning.

And the Mishna explains:

The inciter—

this is one who says, “Let us go and worship idolatry.”

And the Gemara explains that he said this and incited the inhabitants of the condemned city.

The sorcerer

he too is enumerated 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 performed these acts -

is he liable

for stoning!

Nor one who deceives the eyes

who shows people as though he performs acts, but does nothing at all. And this deceiver is not subject to stoning.

Rabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: Two

sorcerers

gather cucumbers

through sorcery.

One gathers

cucumbers and

is exempt, and one gathers

cucumbers and

is liable!

How is it possible that for the same act, one is liable whereas the other is exempt?

And the Mishna explains:

One who performs an act

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

is liable!

Whereas

one who deceives the eyes,

for example, he shows through deception of the eyes as though the cucumbers were gathered through his sorcery, but the truth is that they all remained in their places -

is exempt,

for this is not sorcery.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: The inciter—this is one who says, “Let us go and worship idolatry.”

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

The inciters of a condemned city are taught here

for he did not incite an individual, like an enticer, but incited the many.

We learned in our Mishna:

The sorcerer—

this is one who performs an act, etc.

And only for an act is he liable.

The Sages taught:

The law of a

female sorcerer

who is executed by stoning, they are equal in it—

both the man and the woman.

For it is stated [concerning a medium and a yideoni, who are sorcerers; Leviticus 20:27]: “And a man or a woman in whom there is a medium or a yideoni shall surely be put to death,” etc. There is no distinction between a man and a woman.

But if that is so:

If so, what does the verse teach

(Exodus 22:17)

“A female sorcerer

shall not live,” which implies in this verse that the law of “a female sorcerer” is stated only with regard to a woman?

The answer: Because

most women are found among those engaged in sorcery!

And the Torah spoke only of what is usual. But as a matter of law, there is no difference between a man and a woman.

And the Gemara clarifies:

Their execution

of the sorcerer or the female sorcerer

by what means?

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: It is stated here

(Exodus 22:17)

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

[concerning the war of conquest of the seven nations—Deuteronomy 20:16]

“You shall not keep alive any soul.”

Just as there

in the war, their execution is

by the sword,

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

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

concerning one who approaches and touches Mount Sinai at the time of the indwelling of the Divine Presence at the giving of the Torah:

(Exodus 19:13) “No hand shall touch it, for he shall surely be stoned or surely be shot;

whether beast or man, he shall not live.”

Just as there

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

by stoning, so too here

with a female sorcerer, “she shall not live” was stated, and her law is -

by stoning!

Rabbi Yosei said to him: I derived

through the derivation of a gzera shava as follows:

“She shall not live”

stated with regard to a female sorcerer,

from “You shall not keep alive

any soul,” stated with regard to the seven nations. Consequently, their punishment is by the sword.

And

whereas you, Rabbi Akiva,

derived “she shall not live”

stated with regard to a female sorcerer,

from “he shall not live”

stated at Sinai.

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

Rabbi Akiva said to him: I derived

the law of execution stated with regard to

Israel

in the case of a sorcerer from among Israel,

from

the law of execution stated with regard to

Israel

who approaches Mount Sinai,

for Scripture multiplied among them

among Israel

many executions.

And when it wrote “he shall not live,” the Torah intended that this execution be by stoning.

And

if

you

derived the law of the sorcerer, who is from

Israel, from

the law of

idolaters

by the sword,

for Scripture did not multiply among them anything but ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page-column location")

one execution -

the sword.

And if so, one cannot learn from here that he must be judged specifically by the sword. For all the executions of gentiles are by the sword. And there is no proof that when “he shall not live” was stated with regard to gentiles, the intention was execution by the sword, since no other execution was stated for them.