Sanhedrin 55a — the Talmud in English

And so,

“One who has intercourse with an animal, whether in the usual manner or not in the usual manner, and the woman who brings the animal upon her, whether in the usual manner or not in the usual manner, is liable.”

And it is proven that the one upon whom intercourse is performed must be nine years and one day old.

The Gemara brings another law learned from this beraita:

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda expounded: In the case of a woman,

that is, one upon whom an animal has intercourse, she is liable for

two modes of intercourse.

Whether intercourse was performed with her in the usual manner or not in the usual manner.

And in

a male who has intercourse with the

animal,

is liable only for

one mode of intercourse.

That is, only if he had intercourse with it in the usual manner.

Rav Pappa raised an objection against it: On the contrary!

The reasoning suggests saying the opposite!

A woman, as it is her usual manner,

whose usual manner is to be penetrated in the usual manner, it stands to reason that she is liable only

for intercourse

in the usual manner,

but is liable

for

something else

—intercourse not in the usual manner—

not liable.

For her pleasure is not so great.

Whereas

an animal, for it is not its usual manner

to be penetrated, and all modes of intercourse are equal for it,

to make it liable for every aperture

and aperture!

The Gemara brings from the beraita above a proof that there is no distinction between a woman and an animal, and not as the statements of the amoraim above:

A beraita was taught not in accordance with either of them 29 , "

“One who has intercourse with a

male who is nine years and one day old,

and so,

one who has intercourse with an animal, whether in the usual manner or not in the usual manner, and the woman who brings the animal upon her, whether in the usual manner or not in the usual manner, is liable.”

Ravina said to Rava: One who merely begins intercourse

with a male,

and does not have intercourse with him ממש,

what is the law?

Is he liable for this intercourse?

And we are astonished:

“One who merely begins intercourse with a male?!”

He is certainly liable, for

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

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

Rather,

this is what they were uncertain about:

One who merely begins intercourse with an animal, what is the law?

He said to him:

It is stated with regard to one’s father’s sister and one’s mother’s sister [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 kin; they shall bear their iniquity,” and it is explained that one becomes liable for them already through ha'ara'a.

However, this verse is superfluous, since the law of ha'ara'a with regard to one’s father’s sister and one’s mother’s sister is learned through a juxtaposition to menstruation, concerning which it is stated [Leviticus 20:18]: “He has uncovered her source.”

And therefore,

if it is not needed for the ha'ara'a that is written with regard to one’s father’s sister and one’s mother’s sister, for it is unnecessary, since

it was juxtaposed to the ha'ara'a of menstruation,

as stated above,

apply it to

being liable for

the ha'ara'a of an animal.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Granted, an animal is among those liable for capital punishment by a court,

whereas one’s father’s sister and one’s mother’s sister are among those liable for karet. If so,

why do I need that its

ha'ara'a—for liability for ha'ara'a with an animal—

be written with regard to those liable for karet?

Let it be written with regard to

one of the forbidden relations who are

liable for capital punishment by a court, and let us derive

—and learn—

those liable for capital punishment by a court from those liable for capital punishment by a court?

The Gemara answers:

Since the entire verse

stated with regard to one’s father’s sister and one’s mother’s sister is superfluous, for it was already stated [Leviticus 18:12–13]: “The nakedness of your father’s sister you shall not uncover; she is your father’s close kin. The nakedness of your mother’s sister you shall not uncover, for she is your mother’s close kin,”

and all of it

comes for an exposition,

as explained in tractate Yevamot [54b], therefore

it is also written

that the liability for ha'ara'a may be learned from it with regard to an animal, for that too is

a matter of exposition.

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami asked Rav Sheshet:

A male

who merely begins intercourse with himself, what is the law?

He said to him: You have disgusted me

—you have caused me distress! That is, you asked about something that does not occur in reality.

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

—if the organ is erect—

you cannot find it,

such that he could bend it toward himself

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

with a

lifeless organ.

And if so,

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

31 , here he is exempt.

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

because of

two

prohibitions.

He is liable for the one upon whom intercourse is performed, and he is liable for the one performing intercourse.

For both of these apply to him.

They asked

—a question was asked—

of Rav Sheshet: A gentile who has intercourse with an animal, what is the law?

Will the animal be stoned?

The sides of the uncertainty are as follows: In the Mishna, two reasons are mentioned for why the animal is stoned: first, because of stumbling, and second, because of disgrace. And we are uncertain whether

The question is whether

both stumbling and disgrace are required, and here,

indeed,

there is stumbling,

for the descendants of Noah were warned concerning forbidden sexual relations, but

there is no disgrace.

For this is their way, and they are not ashamed. And even if they are ashamed, the Holy One, blessed is He, did not spare their honor. And in a case where there is stumbling without disgrace, the animal is not stoned.

Or perhaps,

even because of

stumbling

alone the animal must be stoned,

even though there is no disgrace.

Rav Sheshet said: You have learned it

—we have learned concerning this matter—

“Just as trees

of an asherah,

from which one may neither eat nor drink nor derive scent, the Torah said: Destroy, burn, and consume them, since stumbling came to a person through them.

And even though there is no disgrace in an asherah, for it is the way of the gentiles to bow down to an asherah,

a person

who misleads his fellow from the ways of life to the ways of death—how much more so.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so, a gentile who bows down to his animal, let it become forbidden,

the animal should become forbidden to an Israelite for benefit,

and be killed,

and be executed?

Here too there is stumbling, for the descendants of Noah were warned concerning idolatry, and are executed for this transgression.

And if you say: From where is it so obvious to you that a gentile who bows down to an animal is not to have it killed? Perhaps indeed it is to be killed because stumbling came through it? This cannot be said, since an Israelite who bows down to an animal does not render it forbidden, and there is no obligation to kill it,

“Is there anything that is forbidden to an Israelite but forbidden to a gentile?!”

—is there anything that is forbidden to a gentile but permitted to an Israelite?—rather, certainly even a gentile who bows down to an animal does not render it forbidden.

The Gemara raises an objection: Perhaps even

the Israelite himself,

who bows down to an animal,

should render it forbidden,

the animal should become forbidden and become liable to death,

just as is the case with bestiality,

just as it becomes forbidden and is killed through bestiality?

Abaye said: This one

—one who engages in bestiality—

has greater disgrace. And this one

—idolatry—

has lesser disgrace.

And in fact, they kill the animal only where there are stumbling and disgrace; however, Abaye held that there is disgrace even in the bestiality of a gentile and an idolater.

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

But

we find with regard to

trees

of an asherah,

that their disgrace is not great, and

nevertheless

the Torah said: Destroy, burn, and consume them,

so why should an animal with which idolatry was performed not become liable to death?

The Gemara answers:

We are speaking of living creatures! For the Merciful One has compassion upon them .

And therefore, they are killed only where there are stumbling and disgrace.

But as for the wood of an asherah, He did not have compassion upon it, and it is burned even without disgrace.

Rava said: The Torah said: An animal

that

derives pleasure from a transgression shall be killed.

And therefore, an animal with which bestiality was performed, whether by an Israelite or by a gentile, shall be killed. But an animal worshiped as idolatry, which did not derive pleasure from the transgression, shall not be killed.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But the trees

of an asherah,

which do not derive pleasure from a transgression, and

nevertheless

the Torah said: Destroy, burn, and consume them?

The Gemara answers:

We are speaking of living creatures! For the Merciful One has compassion upon them.

And therefore, they are killed only if they derived pleasure from the transgression.

But as for the wood of an asherah, He did not have compassion upon it, and it is burned even without pleasure.

The Gemara below will prove that even where there is stumbling 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 they should say: This is the one because of which so-and-so was stoned.”

Now, this reason contains within it both stumbling and disgrace. “And they should say” is disgrace. And “because of which he was stoned” means stumbling, for a person was killed through it.