Sanhedrin 55a (נה.) — the Talmud in English

And likewise,

“One who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in its usual manner or not in its usual manner; and a woman who brings the animal upon herself, whether in its usual manner or not in its usual manner, is liable.”

And it is thereby proven that the one who is penetrated must be nine years and one day old.

The Gemara cites another ruling derived from this beraita:

That is, a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal is liable for

two forms of intercourse.

Whether she engaged in intercourse in its usual manner or not in its usual manner.

And

a male who engages in intercourse with the

animal,

is liable for only

one form of intercourse.

That is, only if he engaged in intercourse with it in its usual manner.

Rav Pappa strongly challenged this: On the contrary!

The reasoning would indicate the opposite!

A woman, whose usual manner is

to engage in intercourse in its usual manner, it stands to reason that she is liable only

for the usual form of intercourse

in the usual manner,

and not liable,

however,

for another matter

[intercourse not in its usual manner]

.

For she does not derive such great pleasure from it.

Whereas

an animal, whose usual manner is not

to engage in intercourse, and all forms of intercourse are equivalent for it,

should be liable for it for every opening

!

The Gemara cites a proof from the aforementioned beraita that there is no distinction between a woman and an animal, contrary to the statements of the amoraim above:

A beraita was taught that disagrees with both of them 29, “

One who engages in intercourse with

a male who is nine years and one day old,

and likewise

one who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in its usual manner or not in its usual manner; and a woman who brings the animal upon herself, whether in its usual manner or not in its usual manner, is liable.”

Ravina said to Rava: One who partially penetrates

a male,

and does not engage in complete intercourse with him,

what is

the halakha? Is he liable for this act of intercourse?

And we raise an objection:

Partial penetration of a male?!

He is certainly liable, as

“the forms of intercourse of a woman” is written with regard to him!

And everything for which one is liable with a woman, one is liable for with a male.

Rather,

this is what they were uncertain about:

One who partially penetrates an animal, what is the halakha?

He said to him:

With regard to one’s paternal aunt and maternal aunt, it is stated: [Leviticus 20:19,] “And the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover, for he has uncovered his close relation; they shall bear their iniquity.” And it is explained that one becomes liable for them already through partial penetration.

However, this verse is superfluous, since the law of partial penetration with one’s paternal aunt and maternal aunt is derived by means of a juxtaposition to a menstruating woman, concerning whom it is stated: [Leviticus 20:18,] “He has uncovered her source.”

Therefore,

if it is not needed for the partial penetration that is written with regard to one’s paternal aunt and maternal aunt, as it is unnecessary, since

it was juxtaposed to the partial penetration of a menstruating woman,

as stated above,

apply it to

the liability for

partial penetration of an animal.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Since an animal is among those subject to capital punishment by a court,

whereas one’s paternal aunt and maternal aunt are among those subject to karet, if so,

why do I need the verse concerning her partial penetration

[for the liability for partial penetration with an animal]

to be written with regard to those subject to karet?

Let it be written with regard to

one of the forbidden relations who are

subject to capital punishment by a court, and let us derive

[and learn]

the law of those subject to capital punishment by a court from those subject to capital punishment by a court?

The Gemara answers:

Since the entire verse

stated with regard to one’s paternal aunt and maternal aunt is superfluous, as it was already stated: [Leviticus 18:12–13,] “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relation. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s close relation,”

and all of it

comes for exposition,

as explained in tractate Yevamot (54b), therefore

it is also written

the liability for partial penetration so that it may be derived from it with regard to an animal, as this too is

a matter derived by exposition.

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami asked Rav Sheshet:

A male who

partially penetrates himself, what is the halakha?

He said to him: You have disgusted me

[you have distressed me]! That is, you have asked about something that is not physically possible.

Rav Ashi said: What is your question? With difficulty,

[if the organ is erect],

you cannot find it

so that he could bend it toward himself

. When you can find it, it is when he engages in intercourse with a

non-erect

organ.

And if so,

according to the one who says that one who engages in intercourse with a non-erect organ in the context of forbidden sexual relations is exempt

29, here too he is exempt.

And according to the one who says he is liable, here he is liable

because of

two

prohibitions.

He is liable for the one who lies beneath, and he is liable for the one who lies upon.

For both descriptions apply to him.

They asked

[a question was asked]

of Rav Sheshet: A gentile who engages in intercourse with an animal, what is the halakha?

Should the animal be stoned?

The two sides of the uncertainty are as follows: The Mishna mentions two reasons why the animal is stoned: first, because it caused a transgression, and second, because of disgrace.

And we are uncertain whether

both a transgression and disgrace are required, and here

indeed

there is a transgression,

as the descendants of Noah were warned with regard to forbidden sexual relations, but

there is no disgrace.

This is their manner, and they are not ashamed. And even if they were ashamed, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not take pity on their honor. And in a case where there is a transgression without disgrace, the animal is not stoned.

Or perhaps,

even

for a transgression

alone the animal must be stoned,

even though there is no disgrace.

Rav Sheshet said: You have learned it

[we have learned this matter]

: “Just as with regard to the trees

of an idolatrous grove,

from which one may neither eat nor drink nor derive fragrance, the Torah says: Destroy, burn, and eradicate them, since they caused a transgression to a person.”

And even though there is no disgrace in an idolatrous grove, as it is the practice of gentiles to bow down to it,

a person

who leads another astray from the paths of life to the paths of death is certainly all the more so.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

If that is so, when a gentile bows down to his animal, it should become forbidden

and the animal should become forbidden to Jews for benefit,

and it should be killed,

and it should be executed?

Here too there is a transgression, as the descendants of Noah were warned with regard to idolatry, and they are executed for this transgression.

And if you would say: From where is it so obvious to you that a gentile who bows down to an animal does not cause it to be killed? Perhaps indeed it is killed because it caused a transgression? This cannot be said, since when a Jew bows down to an animal, he does not render it forbidden, and there is no obligation to kill it,

is there anything that is not forbidden to a Jew but is forbidden to a gentile?!

[Is there something forbidden to a gentile but permitted to a Jew?] Rather, certainly even when a gentile bows down to an animal, he does not render it forbidden.

The Gemara raises an objection: Perhaps even

the Jew himself,

when he bows down to an animal,

should render it forbidden,

and the animal should become forbidden and be subject to execution,

just as is the case with bestiality,

just as it becomes forbidden and is killed in the case of bestiality?

Abaye said: This one

[one who engages in bestiality]

has great disgrace. And this one

[idolatry]

has little disgrace.

And in any event, the animal is killed only where there are both a transgression and disgrace. However, Abaye holds that there is disgrace even in bestiality committed by a gentile and an animal.

But in the case of idolatry, it is not killed, since there is no disgrace.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But

we find with regard to the

trees

of an idolatrous grove

that their disgrace is not great, and

nevertheless

the Torah says: Destroy, burn, and eradicate them,

so why should an animal that was worshipped as an idol not be subject to execution?

The Gemara answers:

We are speaking of animals! For the Merciful One took pity on them

.

Therefore, they are killed only where there are both a transgression and disgrace. But with regard to the wood of an idolatrous grove, He did not take pity on it, and it is burned even without disgrace.

Rava said: The Torah says that an animal

that

benefits from a transgression must be killed.

Therefore, an animal that engages in bestiality, whether with a Jew or with a gentile, is killed. But an animal that was worshipped as an idol, which did not benefit from the transgression, is not killed.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But in the case of the trees

of an idolatrous grove,

which do not benefit from a transgression, and

nevertheless

the Torah says: Destroy, burn, and eradicate them?

The Gemara answers:

We are speaking of animals! For the Merciful One took pity on them.

Therefore, they are killed only if they benefited from the transgression.

But with regard to the wood of an idolatrous grove, He did not take pity on it, and it is burned even without benefit.

The Gemara below will prove that even in a case where there is a transgression without disgrace, the animal is killed.

Come and hear,

we learned in the latter clause of our Mishna:

“Alternatively, so that an animal should not pass through the marketplace and people say: This is the animal because of which so-and-so was stoned.”

Now, this reason contains both a transgression and disgrace. “And people say” refers to disgrace. And “because of which he was stoned” refers to a transgression, as a person was killed because of it.