Sanhedrin 55b (נה:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara analyzes:

Is it not

that since the latter clause involves both degradation and disgrace, the first clause involves degradation without disgrace?

That is, since the latter clause mentions a reason that includes both degradation and disgrace, the reason mentioned in the first clause—“because degradation comes to a person through it”—is superfluous. It must certainly come to teach us that even in a case involving degradation without disgrace, the animal is liable to be put to death.

And what are the circumstances?

In what case is there degradation without disgrace?

For example,

a gentile who engages in intercourse with an animal!

And it follows that even in this case the animal is put to death.

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

It is more reasonable to interpret the first clause as referring to a gentile who engages in intercourse with an animal, and the latter clause as referring to an Israelite.

Rather, indeed, the

latter clause

deals with a case involving

degradation and disgrace,

but the

first clause,

in which “degradation” is mentioned, does not come to teach us that the animal is liable to be put to death even without disgrace. Rather,

this comes to teach us that even disgrace without degradation also renders the animal liable to be put to death.

And what are the circumstances?

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

an Israelite who engages in intercourse with an animal unwittingly,

believing it permitted to engage in intercourse with an animal. He is not put to death, but there is disgrace in the act.

And

similarly,

as

was asked

by Rav Hamnuna.

Rav Hamnuna asked: In the case of an Israelite who engages in intercourse with an animal unwittingly, what is the law?

Is the animal put to death?

And the sides of the uncertainty are as follows: Do

we require degradation and disgrace, and here there is disgrace but no degradation,

as above?

Or perhaps, disgrace

in itself renders the animal liable to be put to death,

even though there is no degradation?

Rav Yosef said: Come and hear,

come and hear a proof concerning Rav Hamnuna’s uncertainty: "

A woman

three years and one day old,

the Sages have established that her hymen will not regenerate, and from that point 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, so that she requires levirate marriage, and

the yavam had intercourse with her, he acquired her

through this intercourse. And if he wishes to divorce her, he must give her a divorce document .

And

likewise, if her father accepted betrothal on her behalf,

they are liable concerning her for the prohibition of a married woman.

And

if one had intercourse with her during her menstruation,

she renders the one who had intercourse with her impure, causing him to render his lower bedding impure like his upper garment.

And if she

was married

by her father

to a priest,

she is like his wife in every respect, and

she may eat teruma .

And if

one of those disqualified

from marrying into the priesthood had intercourse with her, such as a gentile, a halalkh, a netin, or a mamzer,

he disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood .

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

who is not subject to punishments,

is exempt."

The Gemara analyzes: It is implied by the beraita that if

one of all

the

forbidden relations, even an animal,

he becomes liable to the death penalty.

But here, there is disgrace,

yet

there is no degradation,

since she lacks awareness and is therefore considered unwitting,

and

nevertheless

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

It is proved that even where there is disgrace without degradation, the animal is put to death.

The Gemara rejects this: No proof can be brought from there,

since she is intentional

44; there is degradation as well,

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 does He have mercy,

but not upon the

animal

that engaged in intercourse with her,

does He have mercy.

But where there is no degradation whatsoever, perhaps the animal is not put to death either.

Rava said: Come and hear,

come and hear a proof concerning Rav Hamnuna’s uncertainty: "

A male

nine years and one day old,

whose intercourse is halakhically considered intercourse,

who had intercourse with his yevama, acquired her

through this intercourse.

And

she is like his wife in every respect, and he cannot divorce her except by means of a divorce document. But since he lacks the awareness necessary to write a divorce document,

he does not give a divorce document until he reaches maturity.

And

if he had intercourse with a menstruating woman,

he renders her impure like

one who has intercourse with a

menstruating woman, rendering the lower bedding impure like the upper garment.

And he is not merely like one who touches her, who is impure until evening.

And if he was one of those disqualified from marrying into the priesthood and had intercourse with a woman,

he disqualifies

her through this intercourse.

And

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

he does not enable

her to eat teruma, since his acquisition is not a valid acquisition until he reaches maturity. And she is not called “his monetary acquisition.”

And

if he engaged in intercourse with an animal,

he disqualifies the animal from the altar.

According to the law governing an animal with which intercourse was performed .

And

if there were two witnesses that intercourse had been performed with the animal,

it is stoned on his account.

And if he had 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 engaged in intercourse with an animal, the animal is stoned on his account.

The Gemara analyzes:

But here, there is disgrace,

yet

there is no degradation,

since he lacks awareness and is therefore considered unwitting,

and

nevertheless

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

It is proved that even where there is disgrace without degradation, the animal is put to death.

The Gemara rejects this: No proof can be brought from there,

since he is intentional; there is degradation as well,

and

even though he is not put to death, because

it is the Merciful One who has mercy upon him,

nevertheless, only

upon him does He have mercy,

but not upon the

animal

with which intercourse was performed,

does He have mercy.

But where there is no degradation whatsoever, perhaps the animal is not put to death either.

Another proof:

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 one on account of which so-and-so was stoned.”

Now, this reason includes both degradation and disgrace. “People say” is disgrace, and “on account of which he was stoned” refers to degradation, since a person was put to death on its account.

The Gemara analyzes:

Is it not

reasonable to interpret the entire Mishna as referring to an Israelite, and to infer

that since the latter clause involves degradation and disgrace, the first clause involves disgrace without degradation, .

as the Gemara rejected above?

And what are the circumstances?

In what case is there disgrace without degradation?

For example:

an Israelite who engages in intercourse with an animal unwittingly,

believing it permitted to engage in intercourse with an animal. He is not put to death, but there is disgrace in the act.

The Gemara rejects this:

No!

No proof can be brought from here to resolve Rav Hamnuna’s uncertainty.

Since one can also infer the opposite: Since the

latter clause involves degradation and disgrace, the first clause involves degradation without disgrace.

And what are the circumstances? A gentile who engages in intercourse with an animal, as they asked Rav Sheshet

[as stated by the Gemara above, when it sought to resolve Rav Sheshet’s uncertainty].

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

Mishna:

Earlier [53a], we learned among those who are stoned the blasphemer. The Mishna before us will explain in what manner the blasphemer becomes liable and how he is judged.

The blasphemer is not liable

to stoning

until he explicitly pronounces the Divine Name.

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

However, if he heard the Name uttered by someone else and “blessed” it, he is exempt.