## Sanhedrin Daf 65a

###### Sanhedrin 65a:1
[Sanhedrin 65a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** בַּעַל אוֹב – זֶה פִּיתוֹם הַמְדַבֵּר מִשֶּׁחְיוֹ, וְיִדְּעוֹנִי – זֶה הַמְדַבֵּר בְּפִיו. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בִּסְקִילָה, וְהַנִּשְׁאָל בָּהֶם בְּאַזְהָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The list of those liable to be executed by stoning includes those who practice various types of sorcery. The mishna describes them: **A necromancer is a *pitom* from whose armpit** the voice of the dead appears to **speak. And a sorcerer is** one **from whose mouth** the dead appears to **speak. These,** the necromancer and the sorcerer, **are** executed **by stoning, and one who inquires** about the future **through them is in** violation of **a prohibition.**


###### Sanhedrin 65a:2
[Sanhedrin 65a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּקָתָנֵי בַּעַל אוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי, וּמַאי שְׁנָא גַּבֵּי כָּרֵיתוֹת דְּקָתָנֵי בַּעַל אוֹב וְשַׁיְּירֵיהּ לְיִדְּעוֹנִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **What is different here, that** the mishna **teaches** the *halakhot* of both **a necromancer and a sorcerer, and what is different in** tractate ***Karetot*** (2a), **that** the mishna **teaches** the *halakha* of **a necromancer but leaves out** the *halakha* of **a sorcerer?**


###### Sanhedrin 65a:3
[Sanhedrin 65a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:3)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּשְׁנֵיהֶן בְּלָאו אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The mishna in tractate *Karetot* does not count a sorcerer separately in the list of those liable to receive *karet* **since both** a necromancer and a sorcerer **are stated** in the Torah **in one prohibition.** Consequently, one who unwittingly serves as both a necromancer and a sorcerer is not obligated to bring two sin-offerings, as would be one who transgressed two prohibitions punishable by *karet*.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:4
[Sanhedrin 65a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:4)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: יִדְּעוֹנִי, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish says: A sorcerer** is not included in the list in tractate *Karetot* **because** his transgression **does not involve an action;** it involves only speech, and one does not bring a sin-offering for transgressing a prohibition that does not involve an action.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:5
[Sanhedrin 65a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:5)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי שְׁנָא בַּעַל אוֹב דְּנָקֵט? מִשּׁוּם דִּפְתַח בֵּיהּ קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** that a sorcerer is not listed because sorcery is included in the same prohibition as that of necromancy, **what is different** about **a necromancer that** the mishna **uses** specifically that example, and not the example of a sorcerer? The Gemara answers: The mishna chooses to mention the example of a necromancer **because the verse introduces** the prohibition **with it;** the case of a sorcerer is mentioned in the verse afterward (see Deuteronomy 18:11).


###### Sanhedrin 65a:6
[Sanhedrin 65a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:6)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: חֲלוּקִין הֵן בְּמִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** that **Reish Lakish did not say** an explanation **in accordance with** the explanation of **Rabbi Yoḥanan? Rav Pappa says:** Reish Lakish disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan **because** the cases of a necromancer and a sorcerer **are divided** in the verse **with regard to** the issue of the **death** penalty, i.e., one is liable to receive the death penalty for each transgression. Consequently, one would be obligated to bring a separate sin-offering for sorcery were it not for the fact that this transgression does not involve an action.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:7
[Sanhedrin 65a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:7)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲלוּקָּה דְּלָאו – שְׁמָהּ חֲלוּקָּה, דְמִיתָה – לֹא שְׁמָהּ חֲלוּקָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan** could respond that one cannot infer the number of sin-offerings one is obligated to bring based on capital punishment. With regard to determining the number of sin-offerings, where there is **a division of a prohibition,** i.e., when two acts are listed as two separate prohibitions, it **is considered a division** that leads to a separate sin-offering, but where there is a division **of** a separate **death** penalty, i.e., when the death penalties are listed separately, it **is not considered a division** in this regard.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:8
[Sanhedrin 65a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:8)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? אָמַר לָךְ: מַתְנִיתִין דְּכָרֵיתוֹת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר: לָא בָּעֵינַן מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say** an explanation **in accordance with** the explanation of **Reish Lakish,** that a sorcerer is not listed in tractate *Karetot* because his transgression does not involve an action? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan could have **said to you** that **the mishna of** tractate ***Karetot* is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says** that **we do not require an action** for one to be obligated to bring a sin-offering.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:9
[Sanhedrin 65a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:9)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: נְהִי דְּלָא בָּעֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַעֲשֶׂה רַבָּה, מַעֲשֶׂה זוּטָא בָּעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Reish Lakish** could have responded that **although Rabbi Akiva does not require** that one perform **a significant action** to be obligated to bring a sin-offering; nevertheless, **he does require** that one perform at least **a minor action.** Sorcery, by contrast, involves no action, and therefore even Rabbi Akiva would not deem one obligated to bring a sin-offering for it.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:10
[Sanhedrin 65a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:10)

מְגַדֵּף, מַאי מַעֲשֶׂה אִיכָּא? עֲקִימַת שְׂפָתָיו הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In the case of **a blasphemer,** i.e., one who curses God, **what action is there?** He merely speaks, and nevertheless Rabbi Akiva deems him obligated to bring a sin-offering. Clearly, Rabbi Akiva maintains that no action is necessary at all. The Gemara answers: **The twisting of his lips** while he speaks **is** considered **an action.**


###### Sanhedrin 65a:11
[Sanhedrin 65a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:11)

בַּעַל אוֹב, מַאי מַעֲשֶׂה אִיכָּא? הַקָּשַׁת זְרוֹעוֹתָיו הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What action is there** in the case of **a necromancer?** The Gemara answers: **The striking of his arms** against each other in order to create the sound of a voice **is** considered **an action.**


###### Sanhedrin 65a:12
[Sanhedrin 65a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:12)

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, כְּגוֹן זִיבּוּחַ, קִיטּוּר, וְנִיסּוּךְ, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is this considered an action **even according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who require a significant action for one to be obligated to bring a sin-offering? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: One **is liable** for idol worship **only for a matter that involves an action, e.g., sacrificing** an idolatrous offering, **burning** incense to an idol, **and pouring** a libation to an idol, **and bowing** to an idol.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:13
[Sanhedrin 65a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:13)

וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאן תְּנָא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר: לָא בָּעֵינַן מַעֲשֶׂה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כְּפִיפַת קוֹמָתוֹ לְרַבָּנַן הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Reish Lakish says: Who** is the *tanna* who **taught bowing** among these examples? **It is Rabbi Akiva, who says: We do not require** a significant **action** for one to be liable; any action is sufficient. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: You** may **even say** that the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** as **the bending of one’s height, according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis, is** considered a significant **action.**


###### Sanhedrin 65a:14
[Sanhedrin 65a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:14)

הַשְׁתָּא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, כְּפִיפַת קוֹמָתוֹ לְרַבָּנַן לָא הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה, הַקָּשַׁת זְרוֹעוֹתָיו דְּבַעַל אוֹב הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Now** consider, if **according to Reish Lakish, the bending of one’s height is not** considered a significant **action according to the Rabbis,** can a less noticeable action such as **the striking of the necromancer’s arms be** considered a significant **action?**


###### Sanhedrin 65a:15
[Sanhedrin 65a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:15)

כִּי קָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ נָמֵי – לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֲבָל לְרַבָּנַן – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish concedes that according to the Rabbis, the striking of the necromancer’s arms is not considered a significant action. **When Reish Lakish says** that it is considered an action, that statement is **also in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva. But according to the Rabbis,** it is **not** considered a significant action.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:16
[Sanhedrin 65a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:16)

אִי הָכִי, יָצָא מְגַדֵּף וּבַעַל אוֹב מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** that the Rabbis hold that the transgression of a necromancer does not involve an action, then when stating in tractate *Karetot* (2a) that if one unwittingly transgresses a prohibition for which one is liable to receive *karet* if he transgresses it intentionally he is obligated to bring a sin-offering, excluding a blasphemer, as he does not perform an action, the Rabbis **should have** stated: **Excluding a blasphemer and a necromancer,** as they do not perform an action.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:17
[Sanhedrin 65a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:17)

אֶלָּא אָמַר עוּלָּא: בִּמְקַטֵּר לַשֵּׁד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Ulla says:** The reason the Rabbis do not state: Excluding a blasphemer and a necromancer, is that when the mishna there lists the case of a necromancer it is referring **to one who burns** incense **to a demon** in order to raise the dead, which is a significant action.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:18
[Sanhedrin 65a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מְקַטֵּר לַשֵּׁד – עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא! אֶלָּא, אָמַר רָבָא: בִּמְקַטֵּר לְחַבָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Ulla: **One who burns** incense **to a demon is an idol worshipper,** which is already mentioned in the mishna in *Karetot*. **Rather, Rava says:** The mishna there is referring **to one who burns** incense to the demons not as a form of worship but as a manner of sorcery, in order **to gather** the demons, i.e., to bring them to one place.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:19
[Sanhedrin 65a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַמְקַטֵּר לְחַבָּר – חוֹבֵר חָבֵר הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Ulla: **One who burns** incense to the demons in order **to gather** them **is** considered **a charmer,** whom the Torah relates to with a distinct prohibition (see Deuteronomy 18:11), which is not punishable by *karet*.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:20
[Sanhedrin 65a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:20)

אִין, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: חוֹבֵר זֶה בִּסְקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava responded: **Yes,** such a person is also considered a charmer, **but the Torah states** that **this** particular **charmer,** who gathers demons, is included in the category of a necromancer, and therefore he is executed **by stoning,** and *karet* applies as well.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:21
[Sanhedrin 65a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:21)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״חֹבֵר חָבֶר״ – אֶחָד חֶבֶר גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד חֶבֶר קָטָן, וַאֲפִילּוּ נְחָשִׁים וְעַקְרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** with regard to **a charmer** that the prohibition applies **both** to **a gathering of large** animals to one place **and** to **a gathering of small** animals to one place, **and even** to a gathering of **snakes and scorpions.**


###### Sanhedrin 65a:22
[Sanhedrin 65a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:22)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הִלְכָּךְ, הַאי מַאן דְּצָמֵיד זִיבּוּרָא וְעַקְרַבָּא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא מִיכַּוֵּין דְּלָא לַיזְּקוּ, אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says: Therefore,** with regard to **this** person, **who** through sorcery **gathers a hornet and a scorpion** to harm each other, he is nevertheless **prohibited** from doing so **even if he intends to prevent them from harming** him.


###### Sanhedrin 65a:23
[Sanhedrin 65a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:23)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי שְׁנָא דִּכְפִיפַת קוֹמָתוֹ לְרַבָּנַן הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה, וַעֲקִימַת שְׂפָתָיו לָא הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who holds that according to the Rabbis one is liable for bowing to an idol but not for blaspheming, **what is different** between these cases, leading to the conclusion **that the bending of one’s height** while bowing **is** considered **an action according to the Rabbis, but** a blasphemer’s **twisting of his lips** to speak **is not** considered **an action?**


###### Sanhedrin 65a:24
[Sanhedrin 65a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/65a:24)

אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי מְגַדֵּף, הוֹאִיל וְיֶשְׁנוֹ בַּלֵּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** The case of **a blasphemer is different, since** this transgression **is in the heart** as well. The sin of blasphemy does not apply to speech alone, as the blasphemer’s intention is central to the transgression; if he spoke without intention he is not considered a blasphemer. Consequently, one is not obligated to bring a sin-offering for such an action, as it is essentially a sin of the heart.