Sanhedrin 55b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara is precise:

Is it not so, ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

since the latter clause has transgression and disgrace, the first clause has transgression without disgrace.

That is, since in the latter clause a reason was mentioned that includes within it transgression and disgrace, if so, the reason mentioned in the first clause, “because transgression came to a person through it,” is superfluous, and certainly it comes to teach us that even where there is transgression without disgrace, the animal is liable to death.

And what case is this?

In what case is there transgression without disgrace?

For example,

a gentile who has intercourse with an animal!

And it is proven that even in this case they kill the animal.

The Gemara rejects:

No.

It is more reasonable to establish the first clause with regard to a gentile who has intercourse with an animal, and the latter clause with regard to an Israelite.

Rather, indeed, the

latter clause

deals with a case in which there is

transgression and disgrace,

but the

first clause,

in which “transgression” was stated, did not come to teach us that the animal is liable to death even without disgrace; rather,

this it teaches us: that even for disgrace without transgression, they are likewise liable.

And what case is this?

In what case is there disgrace without transgression? For example:

an Israelite who has intercourse with an animal unwittingly,

thinking it is permitted to have intercourse with an animal; he is not put to death, but there is disgrace in it.

And

likewise

that which [

he was uncertain about]

Rav Hamnuna.

Rav Hamnuna was uncertain: An Israelite who has intercourse with an animal unwittingly—what is the law?

Do they kill the animal?

And the sides of the uncertainty are: Do we

require transgression and disgrace, and here there is disgrace, but there is no transgression,

as above?

Or perhaps disgrace

in itself makes one liable to death,

even though there is no transgression?

Rav Yosef said: ta shma,

come and hear a proof for Rav Hamnuna’s uncertainty: “

A woman

three years and one day old,

the Sages have established that her virginity does not return, and from then she is fit for intercourse.

And therefore, if her father wished to betroth her through intercourse,

she is betrothed through intercourse.

And

if she married, and her husband died without children, and she requires levirate marriage, and

the levir had intercourse with her, he acquired her

through this intercourse. And if he wished to divorce her, he must give her a bill of divorce .

And

likewise, if her father accepted betrothal for her,

they are liable on her account because of a married woman.

And

if he had intercourse with her during the days of her menstruation,

she renders the one who has intercourse with her impure, to render the lower bedding impure like the upper.

And if she

was married

through her father

to a kohen,

she is like his wife in every respect, and

she eats teruma .

And if

one of those disqualified

had intercourse with her, such as a gentile, a chalal, a netin, or a mamzer,

he disqualifies her from the kehuna .

And if one of all the forbidden relations stated in the Torah has intercourse with her, they are put to death on her account, but she,

who is not of the age of punishments,

is exempt.”

The Gemara is precise: It is implied in the beraita that if

one of all

the

forbidden relations, even an animal,

is liable to death.

But here, there is disgrace,

yet

there is no transgression,

for she has no understanding, and she is included among the unwitting,

and

nevertheless

it teaches: “They are put to death on her account.”

It is proven that even where there is disgrace without transgression, the animal is killed.

The Gemara rejects: From there one cannot bring a proof,

since she is intentional

44, there is also transgression,

And

even though the minor is not put to death, because

it is the Merciful One who has mercy on her,

nevertheless, only

upon her He has mercy, b

ut upon the

animal

that copulated

He has no mercy.

But where there is no transgression at all, perhaps even the animal will not be killed.

Rava said: ta shma,

come and hear a proof for Rav Hamnuna’s uncertainty: “

A man

nine years and one day old,

whose intercourse is halakhic intercourse,

who has intercourse with his levirate wife, acquires her

through this intercourse.

And

she is like his wife in every respect, and he cannot divorce her except by means of a bill of divorce. But since he does not have the understanding to write a bill of divorce,

he does not give a bill of divorce until he becomes an adult.

And

if he has intercourse with a menstruant,

he renders impure like

one who has intercourse with a

menstruant, to render the lower bedding impure like the upper.

And not merely like one who touches, who is impure with evening impurity.

And if he was one of those disqualified, and had intercourse with a woman,

he disqualifies

her through this intercourse.

And

nevertheless, if he was a kohen, and had intercourse with a woman for the purpose of betrothal,

he does not cause

her to eat teruma, since his acquisition is not an acquisition until he becomes an adult. And she is not called “the acquisition of his money.”

And

if he copulated with an animal,

he disqualifies the animal from [being placed] upon the altar.

As is the law of an animal with which one copulated .

And

if there were two witnesses that he had copulated with it,

it is stoned on his account.

And if he has intercourse with one of all the forbidden relations stated in the Torah, they are put to death on his account.”

It is explained in the beraita that if he copulated with an animal, the animal is stoned on his account.

The Gemara is precise:

But here, there is disgrace,

yet

there is no transgression,

for he has no understanding, and he is included among the unwitting,

and

nevertheless

it teaches: “It is stoned on his account.”

It is proven that even where there is disgrace without transgression, the animal is killed.

The Gemara rejects: From there one cannot bring a proof,

since he is intentional, there is also transgression,

And

even though he is not put to death, because

it is the Merciful One who has mercy upon him,

nevertheless, only

upon him He has mercy, b

ut upon the

animal

with which he copulated

He has no mercy.

But where there is no transgression at all, perhaps even the animal will not be killed.

Another proof:

ta shma,

we learned in the latter clause of our Mishna:

“For another reason: so that an animal should not pass through the marketplace and they should say, ‘This is the one on account of which so-and-so was stoned.’”

Now, this reason includes within it both transgression and disgrace. “And they should say” is disgrace. And “on account of which he was stoned” means transgression, that a person was killed on its account.

The Gemara is precise:

Is it not so,

that it is reasonable to establish the entire Mishna with regard to an Israelite, and to infer:

since the latter clause has transgression and disgrace, the first clause has disgrace without transgression, [

as the Gemara rejected above].

And what case is this?

In what case is there disgrace without transgression?

For example:

an Israelite who has intercourse with an animal unwittingly,

thinking it is permitted to have intercourse with an animal; he is not put to death, but there is disgrace in it.

The Gemara rejects:

No!

One cannot bring from here a proof to resolve Rav Hamnuna’s uncertainty.

Since it is also possible to infer the opposite: since the

latter clause has transgression and disgrace, the first clause has transgression without disgrace.

And what case is this? A gentile who has intercourse with an animal, and like that which they asked Rav Sheshet [

as the words of the Gemara above, when it sought to resolve Rav Sheshet’s uncertainty].

And since there is no proof from the Mishna in either direction, it is impossible to resolve the uncertainties of Rav Sheshet or Rav Hamnuna.:

Mishna:

Above [53a], we learned among those who are stoned, the blasphemer. The Mishna before us will explain in what manner the blasphemer is liable, and how they judge him.

The blasphemer is not liable

to stoning

until he explicitly pronounces the Name.

Until he utters the Name from his mouth and “blesses” [a euphemism in place of curses]. And in the manner that will be explained in the Gemara.

However, if he heard the Name emerge from another’s mouth and “blessed” it, he is exempt.