Study Sanhedrin folio 65A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מתני׳ בעל אוב – זה פיתום המדבר משחיו, וידעוני – זה המדבר בפיו. הרי אלו בסקילה, והנשאל בהם באזהרה.
Mishnah: The list of those liable to be executed by stoning includes those who practice various types of sorcery. The Mishnah 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.
גמ׳ מאי שנא הכא דקתני בעל אוב וידעוני, ומאי שנא גבי כריתות דקתני בעל אוב ושייריה לידעוני?
Talmud: What is different here, that the Mishnah teaches the halakhot of both a necromancer and a sorcerer, and what is different in tractate Karetot (2a), that the Mishnah teaches the halakha of a necromancer but leaves out the halakha of a sorcerer?
רבי יוחנן אמר: הואיל ושניהן בלאו אחד נאמרו.
R' Yoḥanan says: The Mishnah 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.
ריש לקיש אמר: ידעוני, לפי שאין בו מעשה.
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.
ורבי יוחנן, מאי שנא בעל אוב דנקט? משום דפתח ביה קרא.
The Talmud asks: And according to the opinion of R' 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 Mishnah uses specifically that example, and not the example of a sorcerer? The Talmud answers: The Mishnah 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).