When our Mishnah says ...

... 'ha'Meisis, Zeh Hedyot', it is coming to preclude - a Navi who is Meisis, from Sekilah.

... 've'ha'Meisis es ha'Hedyot' - it is coming to preclude someone who is Meisis a Tzibur (Madi'ach Ir ha'Nidachas [though both of these will be queried in the Sugya]).

It does not however, preclude someone who is Meisis a king.

The Meisis must tell his client - about the god from such-and-such a place, what it eats and what it drinks, and about the good and bad things that it does.

We learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Lo Sachmol ve'Lo Sechaseh alav" - that the witnesses do not need to warn the Meisis.

If the Meisis refuses to speak to a Yachid in front of witnesses - one may request the admission of two more 'clients' to join the group, whose sole purpose in fact, is to act as witnesses.

Should the Meisis refuse that too, and insists on the Nisas being alone - the latter may later hide witnesses behind the wall, and ask him to repeat what he said.

The Nisas responds to the Meisis' overtures - 'How can we forsake our G-d in Heaven to go and serve wood and stone'? (See Rashash).

In the event that the Meisis declines to retract - the witnesses then come out of hiding and take him to the Beis-Din.

The Mishnah cites five possible cases for the Meisis to be Chayav (see Tosfos Yom-Tov). Where he says 'A'avod, Eilech ve'A'avod, Neilech ve'Na'avod' - 'Ezbach, Eilech ve'Ezbach' ... 'Aktir ... ', 'Anasech ... ' (the four major Avodos), or 'Eshtachaveh ... '.

We extrapolated from our Mishnah that both a Navi who is Meisis a Yachid, and a Yachid who is Meisis a Tzibur are subject to Chenek. We know that when the Tana says 'ha'Meisis es ha'Hedyot', he is coming to preclude 'Meisis es ha'Tzibur' and not 'Meisis es ha'Navi' - because although the Torah does make a distinction between a Yachid and Navi who are Meisis, it makes no similar distinction between a Yachid who is Meisis a a Hedyot and a Yachid who is Meisis a Navi.

The author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Shimon, as we learn in a Beraisa. According to the Rabbanan there - all of the above cases are subject to Sekilah.

The next Mishnah (the Seifa) describing 'Medi'ach', presents the case as 'ha'Omer Neilech ve'Na'avod Avodas-Kochavim'. According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, this pertains - to the Madichei Ir ha'Nidachas.

This creates a problem with our previous statement - which established our Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon, in whose opinion the Madichei Ir ha'Nidachas receive Chenek; whereas the Seifa (the following Mishnah), which states that Madichei Ir ha'Nidachas receive Sekilah goes like the Rabbanan: 'Reisha Rebbi Shimon, ve'Seifa Rabbanan?'

Ravina answers 'Kula Rabbanan hi' - and we cannot infer anything from the Reisha, because the Seifa supplements what the Reisha omits (one teaches us the Din by a Yachid, the other, the Din by a Tzibur ('Lo Zu Af Zu Katani').

Ravina's answer is inadequate however - because we will still have a Kashya from the Reisha 'ha'Meisis, Zeh ha'Hedyot', which still suggests (by implication), that our Mishnah holds like Rebbi Shimon, as we already explained.

When Rav Papa therefore says 'Ki Katani Meisis Zeh Hedyot, le'Hachmanah', he means that - 'Hedyot' in this context, merely means that he (all Mesisin, even a Navi) is a fool (Hedyot = idiot), and that is how we treat him, by hiding witnesses in the prescribed manner.

We can prove that Ravina and Rav Papa do not argue - from the Lashon 'Amar Ravina' (and not 'Ravina Amar' [which would have suggested that he argues with Rav Papa]).

The Tana adds one point to the Din of 'Machminim' discussed in our Mishnah. To ensure that, when the Meisis repeats what he said, the witnesses (who are hiding in the outer room) see him clearly, the Nisas - kindles lights in the inner room.

We might have thought that this is not necessary, and that it will suffice for them to recognize the Meisis' voice (see Rashash).

Our Mishnah continues with the Din of Mechashef. The Tana rules that - someone who performs illusionary Kishuf (making people believe that he has produced something, when he hasn't) is Patur, because he has not performed a Ma'aseh.

Rebbi quoting Rebbi Yehoshua said in support of this, that if two people perform Kishuf in front of us - where one of them actually harvests a field of squash (or cucumbers) through Kishuf, and the other only makes out that he has (as there is no field there to begin with), the former is Chayav, the latter, Patur.

We know that a wizard is Chayav like a witch - from Ov ve'Yid'oni, where the Torah specifically writes "Ish ve'Ishah" ...

... and the reason that the Torah presents the case of 'Machshefah' (and not Mechashef) is - because it is mostly women who indulge in it.

Rebbi ...

... Yossi ha'Hagelili learns via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Mechashefah Lo Sechayeh" from "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah" (in Parshas Shoftim - with regard to the seven nations of Cana'an) that a witch is killed by the sword.

... Akiva learns via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', "Mechashefah Lo Sechayeh" from "Im Beheimah Im Ish Lo Yichyeh" (in Yisro - with regard to Har Sinai) that she is killed by stoning.

It is easy to understand why Rebbi Yossi ha'Hagelili prefers to learn "Lo Sechayeh" from "Lo Sechayeh" (rather than from "Lo Yichyeh"). Despite Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's argument, Rebbi Akiva learns Machshefah from Har Sinai and not from the Shiv'ah Umos - because he counters, it is better to learn Yisrael from Yisrael (who receives a variety of deaths) rather from Nochrim, who are only subject to the sword).

Rebbi Yehudah objects to ben Azai, who learns from the S'michus of Mechashefah to bestiality, that Mechashefah receives Sekilah - on the grounds that he does not hold of S'michus (except in Seifer Devarim). Consequently, based on the principle 'S'tam Misah Chenek', the witch ought to receive Chenek.

Rebbi Yehudah therefore learns it from Ov and Yid'oni - which were initially part of the K'lal of 'Mechashefah', and now that the Torah singles them out and gives them a Din Sekilah, they reflect on the entire K'lal (one of Rebbi Yishmael's thirteen principle 'Kol Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal ve'Yatza min ha'Kelal le'Lameid ... ').

To answer the Kashya on Rebbi Yehudah from the fact that Ov and Yid'oni are 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad', we cite Rebbi Zecharyah - who maintains that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad, Melamdin'.

Rebbi Yochanan explains the word 'Keshafim' as - the acronym of 'Makchishin Pamalya shel Ma'alah' (they negates the Heavenly decrees), even to the point of causing someone to die, who was destined to live.

Rebbi Chanina on the other hand, based on the Pasuk "Ein od mi'Levado" says that - nothing can negate HaShem's decrees, not even Kishuf.

And this explains why he challenged the witch who was trying to take dust from under his feet (to cast a spell on him) - to go ahead and keep trying, because if he was not destined to suffer, her efforts would be in vain.

We reconcile this with Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement - by differentiating between other people and Rebbi Chanina, who, due to his many merits, enjoyed Divine protection.

Rebbi Ayvu bar Nagri Amar Rebbi Chiya bar Aba translates "Lateihem" ((in Va'eira, in connection with the Egyptian magicians) as Ma'aseh Sheidim (the work of demons) - because Sheidim are generally hidden (and 'Lat' means 'in secret').

And he translates "Lahateihem" as - witchcraft, quoting as a source the Pasuk in Bereishis (following Adam's dismissal from Gan Eden) "ve'es 'Lahat' ha'Cherev ha'Mishapeches" because (like Ma'aseh Keshafim, which operate without the assistance of Sheidim) the sword turned round by itself.

Abaye distinguishes between Ma'aseh Sheidim - which require a vessel, and Ma'aseh Keshafim, which don't. Consequently, one will know which of the two the magician is about to practice, by whether he is fussy about using a vessel or not.

Abaye compares Hilchos Keshafim to Hilchos Shabbos - inasmuch as, like the latter, there are cases where one is Chayav, cases where one is Patur Aval Asur and cases which are permitted Lechatchilah.

Someone who performs a Ma'aseh Keshafim is Chayav like someone who performs a Ma'aseh Melachah on Shabbos. The case in Hilchos Keshafim that is ...

... Patur Aval Asur, like the Shevusin on Shabbos is - where the magician only creates the illusion that he is performing magic, when really he is not (like we learned in our Mishnah).

... Mutar, like it is permitted to guard a trapped animal, to squeeze the pus out of a boil or to trap a snake whilst stopping it from biting is - where one uses the Name of Hash-m, and not a magical formula.

And we learn this latter Halachah from Rav Chanina and Rav Oshaya - who would study Seifer ha'Yetzirah every Erev Shabbos and in the process, they would create a third calf (which we explained earlier in the Perek), which they would eat on Shabbos.

Rav Ashi saw Karna's father - producing bundles of valuable coats from his nose.

Commenting on the Pasuk in Va'eira "Etzba Elokim Hi", Rebbi Elazar explains that Paroh's magicians were unable to produce lice - because Ma'aseh Sheidim is incapable of creating anything that is smaller than a barley-grain.

According to Rav Papa, they can't even create larger creatures either, and the reason that the magicians declared "Etzba Elokim Hi" was - because they could not even gather together creatures as small as that (as they can larger creatures), because they are too weak to come from far away.

Rav told Rebbi Chiya that he saw an Arab take ...

... his sword - and cut up his camel into pieces.

... his bell - ring it, and the pieces came together again.

Rebbi Chiya told him that - the Arab did not really cut up his camel at all (otherwise the remains of blood and dung ought to have been visible), but only appeared to do so).

The (bewitched) donkey that Ze'iri purchased in Alexandria shel Mitzrayim - disintegrated and turned into the plank of a bridge (which it originally was) when he took it down to the river to water it.

He should have known that witchcraft was rampant in Alexandria, and he ought to have tested his purchase by the water before buying it (because whatever is bewitched disintegrates when it comes into contact with water).

They nevertheless gave him his money back - because his name was Ze'iri (he had a good name and people respected him).

When Yanai arrived at an inn and asked for some water - they brought him Shesisa (a mixture of flour and water), and he noticed that the woman who served it was mumbling something, giving rise to the suspicion she had bewitched it.

He ...

... ascertained that the food was bewitched - by pouring a little onto the floor (where it turned into scorpions).

...reacted to that discovery - by pretending to have drunk the Shesisa, and offered the woman some of his own bewitched drink, upon which she turned into a donkey.

After he rode her into town - her friend came and broke the spell, and Yanai found himself riding on a woman's back.

The Yanai mentioned in this incident cannot possibly have been the Amora Rebbi Yanai - because the latter would not have practiced witchcraft.

Rebbi Elazar explains that, in spite of the Pasuk "va'Ta'al ha'Tzefarde'a (in the singular) va'Techas es Eretz Mitzrayim", the frogs filled the whole of Egypt - because swarms of frogs were born from it.

This is also the opinion of Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa, whereas according to Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya - the frog croaked and all the frogs came from far and wide to plague the Egyptians.

Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya told Rebbi Akiva - that he should stick to Nega'im ve'Ohalos (the most complex Halachos, because that is was where he was expert), and leave Agadah to others.