Sanhedrin 67a

סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא.

It is merely a mnemonic. The verse is not relevant to this halakha , and it is cited merely as a sign indicating that just as the halakha of a betrothed young woman pertains to her first act of sexual intercourse, so too, the halakha of the daughter of a priest who committed adultery pertains to a case where it is her first disqualification from the priesthood.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמֵּסִית – זֶה הֶדְיוֹט, וְהַמֵּסִית אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹט. אָמַר: יֵשׁ יִרְאָה בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, כָּךְ אוֹכֶלֶת, כָּךְ שׁוֹתֶה, כָּךְ מְטִיבָה, כָּךְ מְרֵיעָה.

MISHNA: With regard to the case of an inciter, listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, this is an ordinary person, not a prophet. And it is referring to one who incites an ordinary person and not a multitude of people. What does the inciter do? He says: There is an idol in such and such a place, which eats like this, drinks like this, does good for its worshippers like this, and harms those who do not worship it like this.

כׇּל חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹרָה, אֵין מַכְמִינִין עֲלֵיהֶם, חוּץ מִזּוֹ.

The mishna states a principle with regard to the halakha of an inciter: With regard to all of those mentioned in the Torah who are liable to receive the death penalty, if there are no witnesses to their transgressions, the court does not hide witnesses in order to ensnare and punish them, except for this case of an inciter.

אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: הֵן עֵדָיו, וּמְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר לְאֶחָד: הוּא אוֹמֵר ״יֵשׁ לִי חֲבֵירִים רוֹצִים בְּכָךְ״.

The mishna elaborates: If the inciter said his words of incitement to two men, they are his witnesses, and he does not need to be warned before the transgression; they bring him to court and stone him. If he said his words of incitement to one man alone, that man’s testimony would not be sufficient to have the inciter executed. Therefore he says to the inciter: I have friends who are interested in this; tell them too. This way there will be more witnesses.

אִם הָיָה עָרוּם וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְדַבֵּר בִּפְנֵיהֶם, מַכְמִינִין לוֹ עֵדִים אֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״אֱמוֹר מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתָּ בְּיִחוּד!״ וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לוֹ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֵיאַךְ נַנִּיחַ אֶת אֱלֹהֵינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם וְנֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבוֹד עֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים?״ אִם חוֹזֵר בּוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּטָב, וְאִם אָמַר: ״כָּךְ הִיא חוֹבָתֵנוּ, כָּךְ יָפֶה לָנוּ״ – הָעוֹמְדִין מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ.

The mishna continues: If the inciter is cunning, and he knows that he cannot speak in front of two men, the court hides witnesses for him behind the fence so that he will not see them, and the man whom the inciter had previously tried to incite says to him: Say what you said to me when we were in seclusion. And the other person, the inciter, says to him again that he should worship the idol. And he says to the inciter: How can we forsake our God in Heaven and go and worship wood and stones? If the inciter retracts his suggestion, that is good. But if he says: This idol worship is our duty; this is what suits us, then those standing behind the fence bring him to court and have him stoned.

הָאוֹמֵר: ״אֶעֱבוֹד״, ״אֵלֵךְ וְאֶעֱבוֹד״, ״נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבוֹד״; ״אֶזְבַּח״, ״אֵלֵךְ וְאֶזְבַּח״, ״נֵלֵךְ וְנִזְבַּח״; ״אַקְטִיר״, ״אֵלֵךְ וְאַקְטִיר״, ״נֵלֵךְ וְנַקְטִיר״; ״אֲנַסֵּךְ״, ״אֵלֵךְ וַאֲנַסֵּךְ״, ״נֵלֵךְ וּנְנַסֵּךְ״; ״אֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶה״, ״אֵלֵךְ וְאֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶה״, ״נֵלֵךְ וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה״.

The halakha of an inciter includes one who says: I shall worship idols, or one of the following statements: I shall go and worship idols, or: let us go and worship idols, or: I shall sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: I shall go and sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: Let us go and sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: I shall burn incense as an idolatrous offering, or: I shall go and burn incense, or: Let us go and burn incense, or: I shall pour an idolatrous libation, or: I shall go and pour a libation, or: Let us go and pour a libation, or: I shall bow to an idol, or: I shall go and bow, or: Let us go and bow.

גְּמָ׳ הַמֵּסִית זֶה הֶדְיוֹט. טַעְמָא דְּהֶדְיוֹט, הָא נָבִיא בְּחֶנֶק. וְהַמֵּסִית אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹט, טַעְמָא דְּיָחִיד, הָא רַבִּים בְּחֶנֶק.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: With regard to the case of an inciter, this is an ordinary person. The Gemara infers: The reason he is executed by stoning is that he is an ordinary person, but if he is a prophet he is executed by strangulation, not by stoning. The mishna states further: And it is referring to one who incites an ordinary person. The Gemara infers: The reason he is executed by stoning is that he incited an individual, but if he subverted a multitude of people, he is executed by strangulation.

מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: נָבִיא שֶׁהֵדִיחַ – בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶנֶק. מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת – בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶנֶק.

Consequently, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita : A prophet who subverted others to participate in idol worship is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: He is executed by strangulation. Likewise, the subverters of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By strangulation.

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הַמַּדִּיחַ זֶה הָאוֹמֵר ״נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת שָׁנוּ. אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן. רֵישָׁא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן?

The Gemara challenges: Say the last clause of the mishna, i.e., say the following mishna: With regard to the case of the subverter listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, this is one who says: Let us go and worship idols. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In this mishna the Sages taught the case of the subverters of an idolatrous city. Here we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that those who incite a multitude of people are also executed by stoning. Is it possible that the first clause of the mishna expresses the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and the last clause expresses that of the Rabbis?

רָבִינָא אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ רַבָּנַן הִיא, וְלָא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי.

Ravina says: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the tanna teaches the mishna employing the style of: Not only this but also that. In other words, the mishna should be explained as follows: Not only is one who incites an individual executed by stoning, but even one who subverts an entire city is executed by stoning.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כִּי קָתָנֵי ״מֵסִית זֶה הֶדְיוֹט״, לְהַכְמָנָה.

Rav Pappa says: When the mishna teaches with regard to one who incites that this is referring to an ordinary person, it is not indicating that a prophet is not included in this halakha . Rather, it is referring to the hiding of witnesses behind a fence in order to ensnare the inciter, as his life is treated with contempt and derision, as though he were an ordinary person, i.e., a simpleton.

דְּתַנְיָא: וּשְׁאָר כׇּל חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, אֵין מַכְמִינִין עֲלֵיהֶן, חוּץ מִזּוֹ.

As it is taught in a baraita : And with regard to all the rest of those liable to receive the death penalty by Torah law, the court does not hide witnesses in order to ensnare them and punish them except for this case of an inciter.

כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין לוֹ? מַדְלִיקִין לוֹ אֶת הַנֵּר בַּבַּיִת הַפְּנִימִי, וּמוֹשִׁיבִין לוֹ עֵדִים בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ הֵן רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ וְשׁוֹמְעִין אֶת קוֹלוֹ, וְהוּא אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה אוֹתָן. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״אֱמוֹר מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתָּ לִי בְּיִחוּד״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֵיאַךְ נַנִּיחַ אֶת אֱלֹהֵינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם וְנַעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״? אִם חוֹזֵר בּוֹ – מוּטָב, וְאִם אָמַר: ״כָּךְ הִיא חוֹבָתֵנוּ וְכָךְ יָפֶה לָנוּ״ – הָעֵדִים שֶׁשּׁוֹמְעִין מִבַּחוּץ מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ.

How does the court do this to him? The agents of the court light a candle for him in an inner room, and they place witnesses for him in an outer room in the dark, so that they can see him and hear his voice but he cannot see them. And the other person, whom the inciter had previously tried to incite, says to him: Say what you said to me when we were in seclusion. And he says to him again that he should worship the idol. And the other person says to him: How can we forsake our God in Heaven and worship idols? If the inciter retracts his suggestion, that is good. But if he says: This idol worship is our duty, and this is what suits us, the witnesses, who are listening from outside, bring him to court, and they have him stoned.

וְכֵן עָשׂוּ לְבֶן סָטָדָא בְּלוֹד, וּתְלָאוּהוּ בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח.

And the court did the same to an inciter named ben Setada, from the city of Lod, and they hanged him on Passover eve.

בֶּן סָטָדָא? בֶּן פַּנְדִּירָא הוּא! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בַּעַל סָטָדָא, בּוֹעֵל פַּנְדִּירָא. בַּעַל? פַּפּוּס בֶּן יְהוּדָה הוּא! אֶלָּא, אִמּוֹ סָטָדָא. אִמּוֹ? מִרְיָם מְגַדְּלָא נְשַׁיָּא הֲוַאי! כִּדְאָמְרִי בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא: ״סְטָת דָּא מִבַּעְלַהּ״.

The Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Setada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda says: Perhaps his mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Setada, but his mother’s paramour, who fathered this mamzer , was named Pandeira. The Gemara challenges: But his mother’s husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, not Setada. Rather, perhaps his mother was named Setada, and he was named ben Setada after her. The Gemara challenges: But his mother was Miriam, who braided women’s hair. The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction; Setada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [ setat da ] from her husband.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּדִּיחַ – זֶה הָאוֹמֵר: ״נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״.

MISHNA: With regard to the case of the subverter listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, this is one who says to a multitude of people: Let us go and worship idols.

הַמְכַשֵּׁף – הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּיב, וְלֹא הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שְׁנַיִם לוֹקְטִין קִשּׁוּאִין, אֶחָד לוֹקֵט פָּטוּר וְאֶחָד לוֹקֵט חַיָּיב. הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּיב, הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם פָּטוּר.

The warlock is also liable to be executed by stoning. One who performs a real act of sorcery is liable, but not one who deceives the eyes, making it appear as though he is performing sorcery, as that is not considered sorcery. Rabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: For example, two people can each gather cucumbers by sorcery. One of them gathers cucumbers and he is exempt, and the other one gathers cucumbers and he is liable. How so? The one who performs a real act of sorcery is liable, and the one who deceives the eyes is exempt.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת שָׁנוּ כָּאן.

GEMARA: With regard to the case of subverters mentioned in the mishna, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The Sages taught here the case of the subverters of an idolatrous city. Accordingly, there is no halakhic difference between one who incites individuals to idolatry and one who subverts an entire city; both are liable to be executed by stoning.

הַמְכַשֵּׁף – זֶה הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מְכַשֵּׁפָה״ – אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מְכַשֵּׁפָה״? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹב נָשִׁים מְצוּיוֹת בִּכְשָׁפִים.

The mishna teaches that the case of the warlock is referring to one who performs a real act of sorcery. The Sages taught in a baraita : The verse: “You shall not allow a witch to live” (Exodus 22:17), does not refer only to a female who practices sorcery; both a man and a woman are included. If so, why does verse state “a witch”? This is because most women are familiar with witchcraft.

מִיתָתָן בַּמֶּה? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״מְכַשֵּׁפָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״לֹא תְחַיֶּה כׇּל נְשָׁמָה״. מָה לְהַלָּן בְּסַיִיף, אַף כָּאן בְּסַיִיף.

In what manner is their death sentence administered? Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is stated here: “You shall not allow a witch to live,” and it is stated there, with regard to the conquest of the Canaanites: “You shall allow nothing that breathes to live” (Deuteronomy 20:16). Just as there, the Canaanites were to be killed by the sword (see Numbers 21:24), so too here, the execution of a witch is administered by the sword.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״מְכַשֵּׁפָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אִם בְּהֵמָה אִם אִישׁ לֹא יִחְיֶה״. מָה לְהַלָּן בִּסְקִילָה, אַף כָּאן בִּסְקִילָה.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is stated here: “You shall not allow a witch to live,” and it is stated there, with regard to Mount Sinai: “No hand shall touch it, for he shall be stoned, or thrown down; whether it be animal or man, it shall not live” (Exodus 19:13). Just as there, the verse speaks of stoning, so too here, a witch is executed by stoning.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֲנִי דַּנְתִּי ״לֹא תְחַיֶּה״ מִ״לֹּא תְחַיֶּה״, וְאַתָּה דַּנְתָּ ״לֹא תְחַיֶּה״ מִ״לֹּא יִחְיֶה״!

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: I derived the meaning of the verse “You shall not allow a witch to live” from the verse “You shall allow nothing that breathes to live” via a verbal analogy between two similar phrases, but you derived the meaning of the verse “You shall not allow a witch to live” from the verse “It shall not live,” which is a less similar phrase.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אֲנִי דַּנְתִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁרִיבָּה בָּהֶן הַכָּתוּב מִיתוֹת הַרְבֵּה, וְאַתָּה דַּנְתָּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִגּוֹיִם, שֶׁלֹּא רִיבָּה בָּהֶן הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא

Rabbi Akiva said to him: I derived a halakha concerning Jews from a halakha concerning Jews, with regard to whom the verse included many types of death penalties. Therefore, the fact that the expression “It shall not live” refers to stoning when stated with regard to Jews is especially significant. But you derived a halakha concerning Jews from a halakha concerning gentiles, with regard to whom the verse included only