Related%20passage for Sanhedrin 109:3

מתקיף לה רב פפא אדרבה אשה דאורחה היא אמשכב מיחייב אמידעם אחרינא לא מחייב בהמה דלאו אורחא היא לחייב עלה על כל נקב ונקב

R. Papa objected: On the contrary, since sexual intercourse with a woman is a natural thing, guilt should be incurred only for a natural connection, but for nothing else, whilst, since a connection with a beast is an unnatural thing, one should be punished for every such act, however it be done.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meaning according to the interpretation of Tosafoth is clear. Yet R. Papa's objection is not made in order to prove that unnatural incest is not liable (which, in fact, it is), but that if a distinction is to be drawn, unnatural bestiality is far more likely to be liable than unnatural incest. On Rashi's interpretation, R. Papa's objection is explained thus: Since a woman is naturally the passive object of sexual intercourse, it follows that she should be punished for bestiality only when the connection is carried out in a natural way. But as man is the active offender in an unnatural crime he should be punished even for unnatural connection. It must be confessed that this is not without difficulty, and hence Tosaf. rejects Rashi's explanation, which is based on a slightly different reading. ');">³</span>

Explore related%20passage for Sanhedrin 109:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.