Commentary for Sanhedrin 110:15

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המגדף אינו חייב עד שיפרש השם א"ר יהושע בן קרחה

He is defiled throughcoition with a <i>niddah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This rendering follows the more correct text of the Mishnah, Niddah 45a, of which this is a quotation, which has umittamma beniddah (through or by a niddah), instead of the reading here: umittamma keniddah, as a niddah. ');">¹³</span> so that hein turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon[a person afflicted with gonorrhoea] — He disqualifies [a woman from thepriesthood],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 343, n. 6. ');">¹⁴</span> but cannot enable awoman to eat [of <i>terumah</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he is a priest, and has sexual connection with an Israelite's daughter with marital intent, this does not authorise her to eat of terumah, because he has no legal powers of acquisition in marriage, excepting over his levirate sister-in-law, who is already bound to him. ');">¹⁵</span> He rendersan animal unfit for the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he committed bestiality therewith, only one witness attesting the offence, the animal is not killed, nor does it become unfit for secular use, but it may no longer be offered as a sacrifice. ');">¹⁶</span> andit is stoned on his account,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If his bestiality was attested by two witnesses. ');">¹⁷</span> andif he had intercourse with one of the degrees forbidden in the Torah, thelatter is executed. Now here there is degradation, but no stumbling-block,yet it is taught: 'It is stoned on his account.' Since it was a deliberateoffence, there is a stumbling-block, but the All-Merciful One had mercy uponhim; now, He showed mercy to him, but not to the animal. Come and hear! ANOTHER REASON IS THAT THE ANIMAL SHOULD NOT PASS THROUGHTHE STREETS WHILST PEOPLE SAY, 'THIS IS THE ANIMAL ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH SOAND SO WAS STONED.' Now surely, since the latter reason embraces bothstumbling-block and degradation, the former reason refers to degradationonly, that is, when a Jew committed bestiality in ignorance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which solves the problem propounded by R. Hamnunah. ');">¹⁸</span> No! The second reasonis one of stumbling-block and degradation; but the first teaches that evenif there is a stumbling block without degradation, the animal isstoned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which solves the problem propounded by R. Hamnunah. ');">¹⁸</span> e.g., if a heathen committedbestiality, even as it was asked of R.Shesheth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 373, supra. ');">¹⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 110:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.