Ba'al-Ov (a form of witchcraft) ...

... is a wizard, called Pitum, who conjures up a dead spirit under one's arm-pit, which then speaks; Yid'oni is - the bone of the wild animal called Yedo'a that speaks from inside his mouth.

... and Yid'oni themselves are punishable by Sekilah, the person who consults them transgresses only a La'av (she'Ein bo Ma'aseh), such as King Shaul did.

... and Yid'oni themselves are warned in the Pasuk in Shoftim "Lo Yimatzei b'cha ... ve'Chover Chaver ve'Sho'el Ov ve'Yid'oni", the Azharah for the person who asks them is the Pasuk in Kedoshim - "Al Tifnu el ha'Ovos".

Our Mishnah mentions both Ba'al-Ov and Yid'oni. The problem with the Mishnah in Kerisus (which lists the thirty-six Chayvei Kareis) is that it mentions - Ov but omits Yid'oni.

Rebbi Yochanan answers that the Mishnah in Kerisus mentions only one of them, because they are both contained in one La'av ("Al Tifnu el ha'Ovos ve'el ha'Yid'onim). The reason that the Tana chose to insert specifically Ba'al-Ov is - because the Torah mentions it first.

Rebbi Yochanan did not rather explain that it is because they are both stated in one Kareis ("ve'Hichrati oso mi'Kerev Amo in Parshas Kedoshim ") - because the criterion for determining the number of Chata'os, lies (not in the number of Kerisus, but) in the number of La'avin (as the Torah indicates in Vayikra (in connection with the Korban Chatas) " ... asher Lo Se'asenah").

The significance of Rebbi Yochanan's statement is that - the Tana in Kerisus lists all the thirty-six Chayvei Kareis (which is synonymous with the number of Chata'os one would bring were one to transgress them all). Consequently, had the Tana inserted 'Yid'oni' too in the Mishnah - the total would then be thirty-seven Kerisus (one too many).

According to Resh Lakish, the Mishnah in Kerisus could, in any event, not have inserted Yid'oni - because it is a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh' (and as we have already learned, a Korban Chatas can only be brought for transgressing a 'La'av she'Yesh bo Ma'aseh').

Ba'al-Ov is considered a Ma'aseh - because it is accompanied by a banging of the arms, which constitutes a Ma'aseh, whereas Yid'oni works without a Ma'aseh, because placing the bone in the Ba'al Yid'oni's mouth is merely a preparation for the sin, as the actual speaking takes place only later.

Rav Papa explains that Resh Lakish declines to learn like Rebbi Yochanan, because, in his opinion, it is not the number of La'avin that determines the number of Korbanos - but the number of Misos (and the Torah writes in Kedoshim "ve'Ish ... ki Yih'yeh bahen Ov O Yid'oni" [and not "Ov ve'Yid'oni"]), giving it a Din as if the Torah had mentioned Misah by each one.

Rebbi Yochanan on the other hand, declines to learn like Resh Lakish. The fact that Yid'oni is a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh' does not bother him - because he establishes the author of the Mishnah in Kerisus as Rebbi Akiva, who maintians that a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh is Chayav.

Resh Lakish argues with Rebbi Yochanan, inasmuch as he requires at least a minimal Ma'aseh. Consequently, even if Rebbi Akiva obligates a Korban by Megadef because of 'Akimas Sefasav' (as we already learned), and Ba'al Ov, because he bangs his arms, he will agree with the Rabbanan that placing the bone in the mouth of the Ba'al Yid'oni cannot even be considered a minimal Ma'aseh (as we explained a little earlier).

Resh Lakish establishes the Beraisa which confines the Chiyuv of Avodah-Zarah to where an act is performed, such as 'Zivu'ach, Kitur, Nisuch and Hishtachavayah' like Rebbi Akiva - because he maintains that the Rabbanan do not consider 'Hishtachavayah' a Ma'aseh.

Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Beraisa obligating the four Avodos (including Hishtachavayah) by she'Lo ke'Darkah, to bring a Korban, even like the Rabbanan, who require a Ma'aseh - because in his opinion, even the Rabbanan agree that 'Kefifas Komaso' (bending one's body) is considered a Ma'aseh.

This proves that, when Resh Lakish says 'Hakashas Zero'osav havi Ma'aseh', it must be according to Rebbi Akiva - because if the Rabbanan do not consider bending one's body a Ma'aseh, then how much more so banging one's arms!

The problem with the Seifa of the Mishnah in Kerisus, where the Chachamim preclude a Megadef from a Chatas is - why they do not preclude a Ba'al-Ov as well?

We reject the initial answer, suggesting that Ba'al-Ov in Kerisus refers to someone who sacrifices to a demon (which is a proper Ma'aseh), because of Rava - who considers that to be Avodah-Zarah (which the Tana deals with independently).

Rava therefore establishes 'Ba'al-Ov' in Kerisus - by someone who sacrifices to a Chaver (which we will explain shortly).

We refute Abaye's Kashya, that seeing as this is merely one aspect of "Chover Chaver", it should be no more than a plain Lav (like Chover Chaver itself) - inasmuch as the Torah, for some reason, sentenced specifically this particular aspect of Chover Chaver to Sekilah.

One of the La'avin pertaining to witchcraft is "Chover Chaver" - which comprises gathering animals to one place by means of incantations.

When the Beraisa states that there is no difference between a big Chover Chaver and a small one - it is referring to big animals and small ones.

One is ...

... permitted to collect the animals in this way - if they are chasing him (and threatening his life), but not ...

... merely because they are potentially dangerous (such as snakes and scorpions).

Abaye extrapolates from the latter ruling that somebody who gathers bees or scorpions - is Chayav.

The Tana might also mention specifically snakes and scorpions - because he intends them to fight (and destroy) each other.

Even though, according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Rabanan consider Hishtachavayah a Ma'aseh (because of Kefifas Komaso, as we explained earlier), they do not consider Megadef (cursing Hash-m) a Ma'aseh as well (because of Akimas Sefasav) - since the main sin of Megadef takes place in the heart (that he actually intends to curse Him). Otherwise, if he merely uses Hash-m's Name for example, to describe something else, and then curses it, he will not be Chayav.

The Torah presents the case of Avodah-Zarah by Par He'elam Davar of a Kohen Mashi'ach to confine the Din of Korban Chatas to cases of Zedonah Kareis ve'Shig'gasah Chatas. We know that Eidim Zomemin never bring a Chatas - because the Torah writes "ve'Asah"(as we have already learned) in the Parshah of Chatas.

The problem with this, according to the way we just explained Rebbi Yochanan is - that, seeing as this has nothing to do with the heart, why should they not be Chayav because of Akimas Sefasayim?

When initially, we answer 'Sha'ani Eidim Zomemin Ho'il ve'Yeshno be'Kol' - we mean that the Chiyuv of Eidim Zomemin is caused by their voices (giving false testimony), which is not considered a Ma'aseh.

The Torah forbids a. muzzling an animal whilst it is threshing, and b. leading two different animals tied to the same yoke. Resh Lakish exempts someone who does either of these with his voice. Rebbi Yochanan disagrees - because he follows the principle 'Akimas Piv (Sefasayim) havi Ma'aseh' ...

... from which we see that 'the voice' is considered a Ma'aseh according to Rebbi Yochanan, clashing with what we just said to explain his previous statement (see also Tosfos DH 'Ho'il').

The Beraisa of Eidim Zom'min is different however, because there, it is not their voices that render it a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh', according to Rebbi Yochanan - but the fact that they claim to have seen the act, and seeing is certainly not a Ma'aseh (see also Tosfos ha'Rosh).

We learned in our Mishnah that by the Ba'al Ov, Pitum speaks from a person's armpit. Alternatively, says the Beraisa, it speaks from 'bein ha'Perakim', which means - from any other joints on his body (such as the finger or knee-joints).

We reconcile this with the Pasuk in Yeshayah "ve'Hayah ke'Ov me'Eretz Kolecha" and the Pasuk in Shmuel "va'Tomer ha'Ishah, el Shaul, Elohim Ra'isi Olim min ha'Aretz" - by establishing them where the spirit emerges initially from the ground but then proceeded to speak from one of the above locations.

The Beraisa speaks about two kinds of Ba'al Ov. One of them brings the spirit onto his Makom ha'Milah, the other one - consults a skull.

In the former case, the spirit arrives upside-down, whereas in the latter, it arrives the right way up. Also - in the former case, the spirit will not appear on Shabbos, whereas in the latter, it will.

When Turnusrufus (a Roman governor) asked Rebbi Akiva, 'Mah Yom mi'Yomayim - (What makes Shabbos superior to the other days of the week)'? he replied 'Mah Gever mi'Guvrin (What makes him [Turnusrufus] superior to other men)'?

And his response to Turnusrufus' reply 'de'Mari Tzaveih' (Because His Master [Hash-m] chose him)', was that - it is for precisely the same reason that Shabbos is superior to the other days.

When the latter explained that what he wanted was tangible proof that today was Shabbos, Rebbi Akiva brought him three proofs; 1. the River Sambatyon, which flows turbulently the whole week, but which flows sedately on Shabbos - 2. The first of the two kinds of Ba'al Ov described by the Beraisa earlier, which does not operate on Shabbos; 3. His (Turnusrufus) own father's grave, from which thick smoke rose during the week, but not on Shabbos.

Turnusrufus reaction to Rebbi Akiva's words was that - he had degraded, embarrassed and cursed his father (by using his grave as an example).

The significance of the smoke rising from Turnusrufus' father's grave during the week but not on Shabbos is - that the fires of Gehinom, that burn furiously the whole week, rest on Shabbos.

Initially, we think that Ov is equivalent to "Doresh el ha'Meisim". The problem with that is that - both are mentioned in the Torah as two separate La'avin.

We answer with a Beraisa, which defines 'Doresh el ha'Meisim' as - someone who fasts and stays overnight in a graveyard to be visited by spirits (demons).

This caused Rebbi Akiva to burst into tears - because he figured that if fasting could cause a person to be visited by spirits, how much more so should it enable him to attain Hashra'as ha'Shechinah and prophecy; yet it did not seem to work ...

... because their sins divided between themselves and Hash-m (not because there was a flaw in the 'Kal va'Chomer').

Rava extrapolates from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Ki im Avonoseichem hayu Mavdilin Beinechem le'Vein Elokeichem" - that if Tzadikim would only remove that division, they would be able to create the world.

Rebbi Zeira ordered the 'man' whom Rava created and sent to him - to return to dust.

He knew that the 'man' was only a Golem - because he could not talk (the distinctive mark of Golomim).

Every Erev Shabbos - Rav Chanina and Rav Oshaya would study the Seifer Yetzirah and create an Egla Tilsa ...

... either a calf that has grown to a third of its full size, or the third-born calf ...

... both of which are particularly tasty.

Rebbi Shimon defines "Me'onen" as 'ha'Ma'avir Shiv'ah Minei Zachur al ha'Einayim' - collecting the seed of seven creatures, and places them on one's eyes (giving him supernatural powers).

According to the Chachamim, it is the performing of conjuring tricks; whilst Rebbi Akiva defines it as - someone who fixes times (which have no basis in Chazal) that are good or bad to begin projects or to set out on a journey.

The 'experts' say that on Erev Shevi'is ...

... one should plant wheat, because one is assured of a good harvest.

... it is best to pull out the legumes, rather than harvesting them in the regular way, because then they will subsequently grow without worms.

The Beraisa defines Menachesh as - superstition.

The Tana cites the soothsayers, who declare that bread falling from one's mouth or dropping one's staff is a bad sign for the rest of the day, and the same goes for someone whose son calls him from behind. They say that ...

... a deer crossing one's path - is a bad omen, as is a snake passing on one's right, and a fox on one's left.

... the Gabai of the Shul, or the tax-collector claiming their dues early in the morning or on Rosh Chodesh - are a bad omen (because it means starting the day or the month with a loss).

Similarly, they claim, it is bad to pay one's debts - on Motza'ei Shabbos, the beginning of a new week.

Another Beraisa defines the Pasuk "Lo Senachashu ve'Lo Se'oneinu" as - someone who divines, using weasels, birds or fish (or stars [see Aruch la'Ner and Agados Maharsha]).