Sanhedrin 54b — the Talmud in English

The beraita asks:

“We have heard the punishment; from where [do we derive] the warning

” ?

The verse states [

Leviticus 18:22 ]:

“And with a male you shall not

lie” “the lyings of a woman; it is an abomination.”

We have learned a warning for the one who lies; a warning

for the one with whom one lies—from where

? The verse states

[

Deuteronomy 23:18 ]

“There shall not be a male prostitute

[ prepared for intercourse with a male ]

among the Children of Israel.”

And it says,

[

I Kings 14:24 ]:

“And there was also a male prostitute in the land; they did according to all the abominations of the nations whom he had dispossessed,” and so on.

These are the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Takovo mnenie rabbi Ishmaela.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary

an additional verse for the warning of the one with whom one lies .

For it says, “And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman”; read in it, “You shall not be lain with.”

The Gemara continues to explain the laws stated in the Mishna:

The one who has intercourse with

an animal—from where do we know

that his law is stoning

? For the Sages taught :

It is stated in the Torah (Leviticus 20:15): “And a man who gives his lying with an animal shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.”

The Sages expounded:

“A man”—excluding a minor

who lies with an animal

. “Who gives his lying with an animal”—whether

«Kto podast svoe semyaizverzhenie zhivotnomu» — eto otnositsya

with an animal

large,

or

whether

with an animal

small.

“He shall surely be put to death”—by stoning.

The beraita asks: From where

do you say

that its law is

by stoning? Or

perhaps it is

not

judged

except by one of all

the deaths stated in the Torah?

The beraita answers:

It is stated here

“and you shall kill the animal”

“you shall surely kill,”

and it is stated elsewhere concerning an inciter and one who leads astray [

Deuteronomy 13:10–11 ]:

“For you shall surely kill him;

your hand shall be against him first, to put him to death, and the hand of all the people afterward; and you shall stone him with stones, and he shall die...”

; just as there,

when the expression “killing” is stated, he is judged

by stoning, so here,

where the expression “you shall kill” is stated, they are judged

by stoning.

We have learned the punishment for the one who lies

with an animal

, the punishment for the

male who is

lain with

by an animal

from where?

The verse states, [

Exodus 22:18 ]:

“Everyone who lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.”

And we expound:

If it does not concern the one who lies,

the man who has intercourse with an animal, since it has already been stated concerning him, “And a man who gives his lying with an animal shall surely be put to death,”

assign it to

teach the punishment of death to the

one with whom one lies,

who brings an animal upon himself .

We have learned the punishment both for the one who lies and for the one with whom one lies; from where [do we derive] the warning?

The verse states, [

Leviticus 18:23 ]:

“And with any animal you shall not give your lying, to become impure through it.”

We have learned a warning for the one who lies; for the one with whom one lies

from where?

The verse states, “There shall not be a male prostitute [

prepared for intercourse with a male, and intercourse with an animal ]

among the Children of Israel,”

and from where [do we know] that “male prostitute” also refers to the one with whom an animal lies

?

It

says, “And there was also a male prostitute in the land

They did according to all the abominations of the nations whom he dispossessed

,” and so on,

so the expression “abomination” is mentioned concerning “male prostitute”

, and, on the other hand, it is said at the conclusion of the section of forbidden sexual relations, and it also refers to intercourse with an animal [ Leviticus 18:27 ]: “For all these abominations the people of the land have done”; it follows that the expression “male prostitute,” which is called “abomination,” also refers to intercourse with an animal . These are the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Takovo mnenie rabbi Ishmaela.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary

an additional verse for the warning of the one with whom an animal lies .

For it says

[ Leviticus 18:23 ]: “

And with any animal

i s lyubym zhivotnym

you shall not give your lying,”

and we expound the expression “your lying” both for the one who lies and for the one with whom one lies, as though it had said

“you shall not give your lying.”

Several distinctions of law resulting from the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva will be brought below:

One who has intercourse with a male, and

in one lapse of awareness

brings a male upon himself. Rabbi Abbahu said: According to the words of Rabbi Yishmael, he is liable for two,

since they were learned from two separate verses ,

one from “You shall not lie,” and one from “There shall

not be a male prostitute,”

therefore he is liable to a sin-offering for each of them .

However,

according to the words of Rabbi Akiva, he is liable only for

zhertvu za grekh

odnu.

Tak kak

«ne lezhist»

i

«ne lezhist» — eto odno i to zhe.

A poskolku eto vyvedeno iz odnogo stiha, za eto on prinosät tolko odnu zhertvu za grekh.

Drugoj variant:

esli chelovek sovershil akt s

zhivotnym

i v odnom sostoyanii nevedeniya podverg zhivotnoe sebe.

Rabbi Avahu skazal: po mneniyu rabbi Ishmaela on obyazan prinesti dve zhertvy za grekh.

Tak kak to, kto lezhit, i tot, s kem lezhat, vyvedeny iz dvukh raznykh stikhov:

odno — iz «ne podast svoe semyaizverzhenie», a drugoe — iz «ne budet kadesh»,

i poetomu za nikh on obyazan prinesti dve zhertvy za grekh.

No

po mneniyu rabbi Akivy on obyazan prinesti tolko

a sin-offering

one.

Since

“You shall not lie,” and “you shall not lie” are one. And since it is derived from one verse, he is liable for only one sin-offering . Another case : One who has intercourse with an animal, and in one lapse of awareness brings an animal upon himself. Rabbi Abbahu said: According to the words of Rabbi Yishmael, he is liable for two. Since the one who lies and the one with whom one lies were learned from two separate verses , one from “You shall not give your lying,” and one from “There shall not be a male prostitute,” therefore he is liable for two sin-offerings on their account . But according to the words of Rabbi Akiva, he is liable only for a sin-offering one. Since “your lying” and “your being lain with” are one.

Abaye said: Even according to the words of Rabbi Yishmael as well, he is liable for only one.

For when “There shall not be a male prostitute” is written, it is written with regard to

male prostitution

among men.

That is, concerning intercourse with a male; but concerning intercourse with an animal, the expression “male prostitution” and prostitution

do not apply. And what was said above, that we derive the warning concerning an animal from “There shall not be a male prostitute,” is only for the sake of completeness . But the principal warning is not from there .

Rather, according to Rabbi Yishmael, from where does he derive the warning for the one with whom one lies?

He derives it from “Everyone who lies with an animal shall surely be put to death,” [

Exodus 22:18 ].

And we expound:

If it does not concern the one who lies,

to est k cheloveku, sovershayushchemu akt s zhivotnym, ved o nem uzhe skazano: «Muzhchina, kotoryĭ podast svoe semyaizverzhenie zhivotnomu, dolzhen byt ubit»,

otnesti eto

k izucheniyu nakazaniya smertyu

dlya togo, s kem sovershayut akt,

to est dlya togo, kto podvergayet sebya soversheniyu s zhivotnym.

I

my uznaem, chto

Vselennaya vyvela v Pisme togo, s kem sovershayut akt, v vyrazhenii «tot, kto lezhit»,

i iz etogo my uznaem takzhe predpisanie dlya togo, s kem lezhat, kotoryĭ sravnen s tem, kto lezhit.

I kak «tot, kto lezhit», nakazyvaetsya i dlya nego est predpisanie, tak i «tot, s kem lezhat», nakazyvaetsya i dlya nego est predpisanie.

Poetomu Abaye zaklyuchil: poskolku dazhe po mneniyu rabbi Ishmaela predpisanie i dlya togo, kto lezhit, i dlya togo, s kem lezhat, vyvedeno iz odnogo stiha, on obyazan prinesti tolko odnu zhertvu za grekh .

Drugoj variant:

esli s chelovekom sovershili akt i

v

odnom

sostoyanii nevedeniya

sovershili s nim akt s zhivotnym. Rabbi Avahu skazal: po mneniyu rabbi Akivy,

kotoryĭ vyvodit predpisanie tomu, s kem sovershayut akt s zhivotnym, iz «tvoe semyaizverzhenie» kak «tvoe lezhanie»,

on obyazan prinesti dve zhertvy za grekh.

Odnu — iz «ne lezhist»,

skazannogo o tom, s kem sovershaet akt chelovek, kak vyshe.

A druguyu — iz «ne podast svoe semyaizverzhenie»,

skazannogo o tom, s kem sovershaet akt zhivotnoe.

No

po mneniyu rabbi Ishmaela,

kotoryĭ vyshe vyvel predpisanie tomu, s kem sovershayut akt s muzhchinoj, i tomu, s kem sovershayut akt s zhivotnym, iz «ne budet kadesh»,

on obyazan prinesti tolko odnu,

tak kak

i odno, i drugoe — «ne budet kadesh» [

oba zapreta vyvedeny iz odnogo stiha].

No

Abaye skazal: dazhe po mneniyu rabbi Ishmaela on obyazan prinesti dve.

Ved po mneniyu Abaye, po mneniyu rabbi Ishmaela predpisanie tomu, s kem sovershayut akt s zhivotnym, ne vyvoditsya iz «ne budet kadesh», tak kak eto otnositsya k rasputstvu muzhchin, kak bylo skazano vyshe.

On vyvodit ego iz

napisannogo: «Vsyakij, kto lezhit s zhivotnym, dolzhen byt ubit»,

i tolkuet:

esli eto ne otnositsya k tomu, kto lezhit,

the man who has intercourse with an animal, since it has already been stated concerning him, “And a man who gives his lying with an animal shall surely be put to death,”

assign it to

teach the punishment of death to the

one with whom one lies,

who brings an animal upon himself

. And

why

did the Merciful One express the “one with whom one lies” in the language of “the one who lies”?

We have learned also a warning for the “one with whom one lies,” who is compared with “the one who lies.” And

just as “the one who lies” is punished and warned, so “the one with whom one lies” is punished and warned. And therefore Abaye concluded: Since even according to Rabbi Yishmael we have learned the warning for the one who lies and for the one with whom one lies from the same verse, he is liable for only one sin-offering . Another case : The one with whom a male has intercourse, and in one lapse of awareness he is lain with by an animal. Rabbi Abbahu said: According to the words of Rabbi Akiva, who derives the warning for the one with whom an animal lies from “your lying” and “your being lain with,” he is liable for two. One from “You shall not lie,” which is stated concerning the one with whom a man lies, as above . And one from “You shall not give your lying” which is stated concerning the one with whom an animal lies . But , according to the words of Rabbi Yishmael who earlier derives the warning for the one with whom a male lies and for the one with whom an animal lies from “There shall not be a male prostitute,” he is liable for only one, since both this and that are “There shall not be a male prostitute” [ the two prohibitions were learned from the same verse ]. But , Abaye said: Even according to the words of Rabbi Yishmael as well, he is liable for two. For according to Abaye’s method, according to Rabbi Yishmael we did not derive the warning for the one with whom an animal lies from “There shall not be a male prostitute,” since that is written concerning male prostitution among men, as above . Rather, we learned it from what is written: “Everyone who lies with an animal shall surely be put to death,” and we expound : If it does not concern the one who lies, the man who has intercourse with an animal, since it has already been stated concerning him, “And a man who gives his lying with an animal shall surely be put to death,” assign it to teach the punishment of death to the one with whom one lies, who brings an animal upon himself . And why did the Merciful One express the “one with whom one lies” in the language of “the one who lies”? We have learned also a warning for the “one with whom one lies,” who is compared with “the one who lies.” And just as “the one who lies” is punished and warned, so “the one with whom one lies” is punished and warned.

As above

. Therefore, if he was lain with by a male and by an animal in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for two sin-offerings .

But one who has intercourse with a male, and

in one lapse of awareness

brings a male upon himself,

and

he

continued, and

has intercourse with an animal and

in one lapse of awareness

brings an animal upon himself, whether according to Rabbi Abbahu or according to Abaye: according to Rabbi Yishmael, he is liable for three; according to Rabbi Akiva, he is liable for two.

According to Rabbi Abbahu, who derives “has intercourse with a male” from “You shall not lie,” “brings a male upon himself” from “There shall not be a male prostitute,” and “has intercourse with an animal” from “You shall not give your lying,” he is liable for three sin-offerings for these three prohibitions; but for being lain with by an animal, which is also learned from “There shall not be a male prostitute,” he does not incur liability .

And according to Abaye, who derives “has intercourse with a male” and “brings him upon himself” from two separate verses—one from “And with a male you shall not lie,” and one from “There shall not be a male prostitute”—and “has intercourse with an animal” from “You shall not give your lying,” he is liable for three sin-offerings for these three prohibitions, but he is not made liable on account of being lain with by an animal, since that too is learned from “your lying”—“your being lain with.”

The Sages taught

in a beraita: Intercourse with a

male—the minor was not made like the adult.

As will be explained below

. But the one who penetrates an

animal—the small was made like the large.

That is, he is liable whether he penetrated a large animal or a small one .

The Gemara explains

: What is [the meaning of] “the minor was not made like the adult”?

Rav said: They did not make intercourse with one younger than nine years like

intercourse with

one nine years old.

That is, if the one with whom one lies was a minor who was not yet nine years old, he is not liable on his account, even if the one who penetrates was an adult .

And Shmuel said: They did not make intercourse with one younger than three years like

intercourse with

one three years old.

In what do they disagree?

Rav holds

, since the warning of “the one with whom one lies” is learned from the warning of “the one who lies,” according to Rabbi Akiva’s view above ,

everything

that is a law

that exists with the one who lies exists with the one with whom one lies, and everything that does not exist with the one who lies does not exist with the one with whom one lies.

And since the one who lies must be nine years old and one day, and before that his intercourse is not considered intercourse, the one with whom one lies must likewise be nine years old and one day .

And Shmuel holds: “The lyings of a woman” is written

concerning intercourse with a male, and a woman is fit for intercourse from the age of three .

Indeed, in a beraita

it was taught in accordance with Rav’s view: “One who has intercourse with a

male

nine years old and one day

,