סנהדרין סה

סנהדרין סה

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

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.

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

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?

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וּשְׁנֵיהֶן בְּלָאו אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ.

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.

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: יִדְּעוֹנִי, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

מְגַדֵּף, מַאי מַעֲשֶׂה אִיכָּא? עֲקִימַת שְׂפָתָיו הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

אִי הָכִי, יָצָא מְגַדֵּף וּבַעַל אוֹב מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

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.

אֶלָּא אָמַר עוּלָּא: בִּמְקַטֵּר לַשֵּׁד.

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.

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

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַמְקַטֵּר לְחַבָּר – חוֹבֵר חָבֵר הוּא.

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.

אִין, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: חוֹבֵר זֶה בִּסְקִילָה.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי מְגַדֵּף, הוֹאִיל וְיֶשְׁנוֹ בַּלֵּב.

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.

מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: יָצְאוּ עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה. וְאַמַּאי? הָא לֵיתַנְהוּ בַּלֵּב!

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to Rava’s answer, as it is stated in a baraita that one who unwittingly commits a transgression punishable by death is obligated to bring a sin-offering, excluding conspiring witnesses, who are not obligated to bring a sin-offering, as their transgressions do not involve an action. Rabbi Zeira asks: And why is a false witness’s testimony not considered a transgression that involves an action? The testimony is delivered through speech, which should be considered an action, as this is not a transgression that is committed in the heart; the witnesses are liable for what they said, and not for their intention.

אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין, הוֹאִיל וְיֶשְׁנוֹ בְּקוֹל.

Rava says: Conspiring witnesses are different, since their transgression is committed through their voice. The essence of their transgression is not speech itself but rather making themselves heard by the court. Therefore, since the projection of one’s voice does not involve action, the transgression of conspiring witnesses is considered not to be involving action.

וְקוֹל, לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, לָאו מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא? וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: חֲסָמָהּ בְּקוֹל וְהִנְהִיגָהּ בְּקוֹל, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פָּטוּר.

The Gemara asks: And is projecting one’s voice not considered an action according to Rabbi Yoḥanan? But wasn’t it stated that amora’im engaged in a dispute concerning the following case: If one muzzled an animal by projecting his voice, by berating it whenever it tried to eat, has he transgressed the prohibition of: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the corn” (Deuteronomy 25:4)? And similarly, if one led different species to work together by projecting his voice, without performing any action, has he transgressed the prohibition of: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (Deuteronomy 22:10)? Rabbi Yoḥanan says he is liable, and Reish Lakish says he is exempt.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב, עֲקִימַת פִּיו הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פָּטוּר, עֲקִימַת פִּיו לָא הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה.

The Gemara explains the reasoning behind their opinions: Rabbi Yoḥanan says he is liable, as he maintains that the twisting of one’s mouth to speak is considered an action, whereas Reish Lakish says he is exempt, because he holds that that the twisting of one’s mouth to speak is not considered an action. Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that a transgression one commits by projecting his voice is considered to involve an action.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין, הוֹאִיל וְיֶשְׁנָן בִּרְאִיָּה.

Rather, Rava says there is a different answer to Rabbi Zeira’s objection: Conspiring witnesses are different, since they are rendered liable mainly through sight, i.e., the important part of their testimony is what they saw, which is not considered an action.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בַּעַל אוֹב – זֶה הַמְדַבֵּר בֵּין הַפְּרָקִים וּמִבֵּין אַצִּילֵי יָדָיו. יִדְּעוֹנִי – זֶה הַמַּנִּיחַ עֶצֶם יָדוּעַ בְּפִיו, וְהוּא מְדַבֵּר מֵאֵלָיו.

§ The Sages taught: A necromancer is one who causes the voice of the dead to be heard speaking from between his joints or from his armpit. A sorcerer [yideoni] is one who places a bone of an animal called a yadua in his mouth, and the bone speaks on its own.

מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְהָיָה כְּאוֹב מֵאֶרֶץ קוֹלֵךְ״. מַאי לָאו, דְּמִשְׁתַּעֵי כִּי אוֹרְחֵיהּ? לָא, דְּסָלֵיק וְיָתֵיב בֵּין הַפְּרָקִים וּמִשְׁתַּעֵי.

The Gemara raises an objection from the verse: “And your voice shall be as a ghost out of the ground” (Isaiah 29:4). What, does the dead person not speak from the grave on his own? The Gemara answers: No, this is not so, as the dead person rises by sorcery and sits between the joints of the necromancer and speaks.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה אֶל שָׁאוּל אֱלֹהִים רָאִיתִי עֹלִים מִן הָאָרֶץ״. מַאי לָאו, דְּמִשְׁתַּעֵי כִּי אוֹרְחֵיהּ? לָא, דְּיָתֵיב בֵּין הַפְּרָקִים וּמִשְׁתַּעֵי.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the statement of the necromancer to King Saul: “And the woman said to Saul, I see a godlike being coming up out of the earth” (I Samuel 28:13). What, does the verse not mean to say that the dead person spoke on his own? The Gemara refutes this proof: No, this is not so, as the dead person sits between the joints of the necromancer and speaks.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בַּעַל אוֹב – אֶחָד הַמַּעֲלֶה בִּזְכוּרוֹ, וְאֶחָד הַנִּשְׁאָל בְּגוּלְגּוֹלֶת. מָה בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה? מַעֲלֶה בִּזְכוּרוֹ – אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה כְּדַרְכּוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה בַּשַּׁבָּת. נִשְׁאָל בְּגוּלְגּוֹלֶת – עוֹלֶה כְּדַרְכּוֹ, וְעוֹלֶה בַּשַּׁבָּת.

The Sages taught: The category of a necromancer includes both one who raises the dead with his zekhur, which is a form of sorcery, and one who inquires about the future from a skull [begulgolet]. What is the difference between this type of necromancer and that type of necromancer? When one raises the dead with his zekhur, the dead does not rise in its usual manner, but appears upside-down, and it does not rise on Shabbat. By contrast, when one inquires about the future from a skull, the dead rises in its usual manner, and it rises [oleh] even on Shabbat.

עוֹלֶה? לְהֵיכָא סָלֵיק? הָא קַמֵּיהּ מַנַּח! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: עוֹנֶה כְּדַרְכּוֹ, וְעוֹנֶה בַּשַּׁבָּת.

The Gemara asks with regard to the wording of the last statement: Rises? To where does it rise? Isn’t the skull lying before him? Rather, say as follows: The dead answers in its usual manner, and it answers [ve’oneh] even on Shabbat.

וְאַף שְׁאֵלָה זוֹ שָׁאַל טוֹרָנוּסְרוּפוּס הָרָשָׁע אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה יוֹם מִיָּמִים? אָמַר לוֹ: וּמָה גְּבַר מִגּוּבְרִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּמָרִי צָבֵי. שַׁבָּת נָמֵי דְּמָרִי צָבֵי.

With regard to the statement that the dead do not rise on Shabbat, the Gemara relates: The wicked Turnus Rufus, the Roman governor of Judea, asked this question of Rabbi Akiva as well. Turnus Rufus said to him: And what makes this day, Shabbat, different from other days? Rabbi Akiva said to him: And what makes this man, referring to his interlocutor, more distinguished than other men? Turnus Rufus said to him: I am more distinguished because my master the emperor wants it that way. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Shabbat too is unique because my Master wants it that way, as he has sanctified that day.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא לָךְ: מִי יֵימַר דְּהָאִידָּנָא שַׁבְּתָא? אָמַר לוֹ: נְהַר סַבַּטְיוֹן יוֹכִיחַ, בַּעַל אוֹב יוֹכִיחַ, קִבְרוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵין מַעֲלֶה עָשָׁן בַּשַּׁבָּת. אָמַר לוֹ: בִּיזִּיתוֹ, בִּיַּישְׁתּוֹ, וְקִילַּלְתּוֹ!

Turnus Rufus said to him: This is what I mean to say to you: Who is to say that now is Shabbat? Perhaps a different day of the week is Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva said to him: The Sabbatyon River can prove that today is Shabbat, as it is calm only on Shabbat. A necromancer can also prove this, as the dead do not rise on Shabbat. The grave of his father, referring to Turnus Rufus’s father, can also prove this, as it does not emit smoke on Shabbat, although smoke rises from it all week, as during the week he is being punished in Gehenna. Turnus Rufus said to him: You have demeaned my father, you have publicly shamed him, and you have cursed him by saying that he is being punished in Gehenna.

שׁוֹאֵל אוֹב, הַיְינוּ ״וְדֹרֵשׁ אֶל הַמֵּתִים״!

§ The Gemara asks: Isn’t one who inquires about the future from a necromancer the same as what is described in the verse: “Or directs inquiries to the dead” (Deuteronomy 18:11)? Why are they mentioned separately in the verse?

דּוֹרֵשׁ לַמֵּתִים, כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְדֹרֵשׁ אֶל הַמֵּתִים״ – זֶה הַמַּרְעִיב עַצְמוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ וְלָן בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּשְׁרֶה עָלָיו רוּחַ טוּמְאָה.

The Gemara answers: One who directs inquiries to the dead employs a different method to contact the dead, as it is taught in a baraita: “Or directs inquiries to the dead”; this is one who starves himself and goes and sleeps overnight in a graveyard so that a spirit of impurity should settle upon him, and he can listen to what the dead are saying.

וּכְשֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַגִּיעַ לְמִקְרָא זֶה הָיָה בּוֹכֶה, וּמָה הַמַּרְעִיב עַצְמוֹ כְּדַי שֶׁתִּשְׁרֶה עָלָיו רוּחַ טוּמְאָה – שׁוֹרָה עָלָיו רוּחַ טוּמְאָה, הַמַּרְעִיב עַצְמוֹ כְּדַי שֶׁתִּשְׁרֶה עָלָיו רוּחַ טׇהֳרָה – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה שֶׁעֲוֹנוֹתֵינוּ גָּרְמוּ לָנוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי [אִם] עֲוֹנוֹתֵיכֶם הָיוּ מַבְדִּלִים בֵּינֵיכֶם לְבֵין אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״.

And when Rabbi Akiva would arrive at this verse he would weep and say: If one who starves himself so that a spirit of impurity will settle upon him succeeds in doing so, and a spirit of impurity settles upon him, all the more so one who starves himself so that a spirit of purity will settle upon him should be successful, and a spirit of purity should settle upon him. But what can I do, as our iniquities have caused us not to merit the spirit of sanctity and purity, as it is stated: “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear” (Isaiah 59:2).

אָמַר רָבָא: אִי בָּעוּ צַדִּיקֵי, בָּרוּ עָלְמָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי עֲוֹנוֹתֵיכֶם הָיוּ מַבְדִּלִים וְגוֹ׳״.

Rava says: If the righteous wish to do so, they can create a world, as it is stated: “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God.” In other words, there is no distinction between God and a righteous person who has no sins, and just as God created the world, so can the righteous.

רָבָא בְּרָא גַּבְרָא. שַׁדְּרֵיהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא. הֲוָה קָא מִשְׁתַּעֵי בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וְלָא הֲוָה קָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִן חַבְרַיָּא אַתְּ, הֲדַר לְעַפְרָיךְ.

Indeed, Rava created a man, a golem, using forces of sanctity. Rava sent his creation before Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira would speak to him but he would not reply. Rabbi Zeira said to him: You were created by one of the members of the group, one of the Sages. Return to your dust.

רַב חֲנִינָא וְרַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא הֲווֹ יָתְבִי כׇּל מַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא, וְעָסְקִי בְּסֵפֶר יְצִירָה, וּמִיבְּרֵי לְהוּ עִיגְלָא תִּילְתָּא, וְאָכְלִי לֵיהּ.

The Gemara relates another fact substantiating the statement that the righteous could create a world if they so desired: Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya would sit every Shabbat eve and engage in the study of Sefer Yetzira, and a third-born calf [igla tilta] would be created for them, and they would eat it in honor of Shabbat.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מְעוֹנֵן״ – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: זֶה הַמַּעֲבִיר שִׁבְעָה מִינֵי זְכוּר עַל הָעַיִן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זֶה הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: זֶה הַמְחַשֵּׁב עִתִּים וְשָׁעוֹת וְאוֹמֵר ״הַיּוֹם יָפֶה לָצֵאת״, ״לְמָחָר יָפֶה לִיקַּח״, ״לִמּוּדֵי עַרְבֵי שְׁבִיעִיּוֹת חִטִּין יָפוֹת״, ״עִיקּוּרֵי קִטְנִיּוֹת מֵהֱיוֹת רָעוֹת״.

§ The Sages taught: What is the definition of the soothsayer mentioned in the verse: “There shall not be found among you…a soothsayer” (Deuteronomy 18:10)? Rabbi Shimon says: This is one who applies seven types of semen [zekhur] to one’s eye in order to perform sorcery. And the Rabbis say: This is one who deceives the eyes, as though he is performing sorcery. Rabbi Akiva says: This is one who calculates the fortune of times and hours, and says, for example: Today is a propitious day for going away on a journey; tomorrow is propitious for purchasing property successfully. Or he says that on the eve of the Sabbatical Years, the wheat harvest is generally good; uprooting legumes rather than cutting them from above the ground prevents them from going bad.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מְנַחֵשׁ״ – זֶה הָאוֹמֵר: ״פִּתּוֹ נָפְלָה מִפִּיו״, ״מַקְלוֹ נָפְלָה מִידּוֹ״, ״בְּנוֹ קוֹרֵא לוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו״, ״עוֹרֵב קוֹרֵא לוֹ״, ״צְבִי הִפְסִיקוֹ בַּדֶּרֶךְ״, ״נָחָשׁ מִימִינוֹ״, וְ״שׁוּעָל מִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ״.

The Sages taught: The enchanter mentioned in the verse (Deuteronomy 18:10) is one who relies on superstitious signs, e.g., one who says: If one’s bread fell from his mouth, that is a bad sign for him; or: If one’s staff fell from his hand, it is a bad sign; or: If one’s son calls him from behind, it is a sign that he should return from his journey; or: If a raven calls to him, or if a deer blocks him on the way, or if a snake is to his right, or if a fox is to his left, all of these are bad signs. An enchanter is one who relies on these as bad signs and consequently changes his course of action.