Sanhedrin 129
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בעל אוב זה פיתום המדבר משחיו וידעוני זה המדבר בפיו הרי אלו בסקילה והנשאל בהם באזהרה:
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A BA'AL OB<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 31. 'He that hath a familiar spirit'. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ור' יוחנן מאי שנא בעל אוב דנקט משום דפתח ביה קרא
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Why are both a Ba'al ob and Yidde'oni mentioned here [as being executed], whilst in the list of those who are punished by extinction only Ba'al ob is included, but Yidde'oni is omitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ker. 2a. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
וריש לקיש מ"ט לא אמר כר' יוחנן אמר רב פפא חלוקין הן במיתה
— R. Johanan said: Because both are stated in one negative precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 31. Regard not them that have familiar spirits, and wizards. Now in Ker. 2a, where the Mishnah teaches that thirty six offences are punished by extinction, the Gemara explains that the number — 36 — intimates that if one committed them all in one state of unawareness, he is bound to offer 36 separate sacrifices. Since however, those two are forbidden by one injunction, only one atonement must be made for both. Consequently, the two cannot be taught there. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ור' יוחנן חלוקה דלאו שמה חלוקה דמיתה לא שמה חלוקה
Resh Lakish said: Yidde'oni is omitted [in Kerithoth], because it involves no action.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah there refers to transgressions, the deliberate committal of which is punished by extinction, whilst if unwitting, a sin offering is due; but this is brought only for an offence involving action. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ורבי יוחנן מ"ט לא אמר כריש לקיש אמר לך מתני' דכריתות ר' עקיבא היא דאמר לא בעינן מעשה
Now, according to R. Johanan, why is a Ba'al ob mentioned [rather than a Yidde'oni]? — Because it is written first in the Scripture. Now why does Resh Lakish reject R. Johanan's answer? — R. Papa said: They are stated separately in the verse decreeing death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XX, 27. A man also that hath a familiar spirit, or (not and) that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death. 'Or', ut is a disjunctive particle. Since they are thus sharply distinguished, one would have to make two separate atonements for the unwitting transgression, if the offence of wizardry incurred a sin offering at all. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
וריש לקיש נהי דלא בעי ר' עקיבא מעשה רבה מעשה זוטא בעי
But R. Johanan maintains: Offences which are distinct in their injunctions [there being a different one for each], are held to be separate [in their atonement]; but if only in the decree of death, they are not regarded as separate.
מגדף מאי מעשה איכא עקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה
Now, why does R. Johanan reject Resh Lakish's answer? — He can tell you: The Mishnah of Kerithoth is taught in accordance with R. Akiba's views, that action is unnecessary [for a sin offering to be incurred]. But Resh Lakish maintains: Granted that R. Akiba does not require a great action, but he requires at least a small one. But what action is there in blasphemy [which is included in the enumeration]? — The movement of the lips. But what action is done by a Ba'al ob? — The knocking of his arms.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By flapping his arms about the Ba'al ob made it appear that the dead was speaking from his armpits ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
בעל אוב מאי מעשה איכא הקשת זרועותיו הוי מעשה
Now, is this so even in the view of the Rabbis? But it has been taught: [The idolater] is liable [to a sacrifice] only for that which entails an action, e.g., sacrificing, burning incense, making libations and prostration. Whereon Resh Lakish observed: Which Tanna maintains that a sacrifice is due for prostration? R. Akiba, who rules that a deed entailing [much] action is unnecessary. But R. Johanan said: It even agrees with the Rabbis, for in bending his body, he performs an action. Now, since Resh Lakish maintains that in the view of the Rabbis bending one's body is not regarded as an action, surely the knocking of the arms is not one? — Well then Resh Lakish's statement [that the Ba'al ob performs an action] is made on the view only of R. Akiba, but not of the Rabbis. If so, should not the Mishnah there state, [But the Rabbis maintain that] the blasphemer and Ba'al ob are excluded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Ker. 2a the Rabbis state that a blasphemer is exempted from a sin offering, since his offence involves no action. But according to Resh Lakish, that they regard a Ba'al ob as doing no action too, they should have stated that he also is exempted. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ואפילו לרבנן והתניא אינו חייב אלא על דבר שיש בו מעשה כגון זיבוח קיטור וניסוך והשתחואה
— But 'Ulla answered: The Mishnah there refers to a Ba'al oh who burnt incense to a demon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to the spirit of necromancy. That of course is an action even in the view of the Rabbis. This answer is given on the basis of Resh Lakish's statement. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ואמר ר"ל מאן תנא השתחואה ר"ע היא דאמר לא בעינן מעשה ור' יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא רבנן כפיפת קומתו לרבנן הוי מעשה
Raba asked him: But is not burning incense to a demon idolatry?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And does not come under the heading of Ba'al ob at all. Idolatry is taught there separately. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
השתא לריש לקיש כפיפת קומתו לרבנן לא הוי מעשה הקשת זרועותיו דבעל אוב הוי מעשה
— But Raba said: It [i.e., the Ba'al ob in Kerithoth] refers to one who burns incense as a charm.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To exorcise the demons (Jast.). Rashi reverses the interpretation: to call up the demons, that they may assist him in his sorcery. This is not idolatry, for the demons are not thereby worshipped as divinities, but it comes under the heading of Ba'al 'ob. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
כי קאמר ר"ל נמי לר"ע אבל לרבנן לא
Abaye said to him: But burning incense as a charm is to act as a charmer, which is merely prohibited by a negative precept? — That is so, but the Torah decreed that such a charmer is stoned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently, for unwitting transgression a sin offering is due. But the charmer who is punished by lashes is one who charms animals by bringing them together. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
אי הכי יצא מגדף ובעל אוב מיבעי ליה
Our Rabbis taught: [<i>There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or daughter pass through to the fire …</i>] <i>Or a charmer</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 10f. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
אלא אמר עולא במקטר לשד
This applies to one who charms large objects, and to one who charms small ones,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Large objects, viz., cattle, and beasts; small objects, creeping things, insects, etc. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
א"ל רבא מקטר לשד עובד עבודת כוכבים הוא אלא אמר רבא במקטר לחבר
even snakes and scorpions. Abaye said: Therefore <font>even to imprison wasps or scorpions [by charms]</font>, though the intention is to prevent them from doing harm, <font>is forbidden</font>.
אמר ליה אביי המקטר לחבר חובר חבר הוא
Now, as for R. Johanan, why does he maintain that in the view of the Rabbis the bending of one's body [in prostration] is an action, whilst the movement of the lips is not? — Raba said: Blasphemy is different, since the offence lies in the intention.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For blasphemy is an indictable offence only if it is mentally directed against God. If however, one reviles the Divine Name, whilst mentally employing it to denote some other object, he is not punished. Consequently, since the essence of the offence is mental, the slight action is disregarded. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>