Sanhedrin 109

הבא על הבהמה בין כדרכה בין שלא כדרכה והאשה המביאה את הבהמה עליה בין כדרכה בין שלא כדרכה חייב

[he] who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally; or a woman who causes herself to be bestially abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Rashi reads [H] instead of the [H] in our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day who commits etc.] There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first — a male aged nine years and a day — refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning — because firstly, the active offender is never explicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha supports Rab's contention that nine years (and a day) is the minimum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable. ');">¹</span>

דרש רב נחמן בר רב חסדא באשה שני משכבות ובבהמה משכב אחד

R. Nahman, son of R. Hisda stated in an exposition: In the case of a woman, there are two modes of intimacy, but in the case of a beast, only one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to bestiality. If a woman allows herself to be made the subject thereof, whether naturally or not, she is guilty. But if a man commits bestiality, he is liable only for a connection in a natural manner, but not otherwise. Thus Rashi. Tosaf., more plausibly, explains it thus: If one commits incest or adultery with a woman, whether naturally or not, guilt is incurred; but bestiality is punishable only for a connection in a natural manner, but not otherwise. ');">²</span>

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>

תניא (דלא כתרוייהו) זכר בן תשע שנים ויום אחד הבא על הבהמה בין כדרכה בין שלא כדרכה והאשה המביאה את הבהמה עליה בין כדרכה בין שלא כדרכה חייב

It has been taught: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; she who commits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally, and a woman who causes herself to be bestially abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, are liable to punishment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 371. n. 5. This refutes the former view; and the latter too, on Rashi's interpretation. ');">⁴</span>

א"ל רבינא לרבא המערה בזכור מהו

Rabina asked Raba: What if one commits the first stage of pederasty? [He replied: Dost thou ask] what if one commits the first stage of pederasty! Is it not written, Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVIII, 20. Hence, why ask? Obviously, just as the first stage of incest or adultery is punishable, so also the first stage of pederasty. ');">⁵</span>

המערה בזכור (ויקרא יח, כב) משכבי אשה כתיב ביה אלא המערה בבהמה מהו

But [the question to be asked is] what if one commits the first stage of bestiality? — He replied: Since the culpability of the first stage of incest, which is explicitly stated with reference to one's paternal or maternal aunt, is redundant there, for it is likened to the first stage of intercourse with a niddah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Niddah, a woman during her menstruation. ');">⁶</span>

א"ל אם אינו ענין להעראה דכתיבא גבי אחות אביו ואחות אמו דלא צריכא דהא איתקש להעראה דנדה תניהו ענין להעראה דבהמה

apply its teaching to the first stage of bestiality [as being punishable].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of one's paternal or maternal aunt, Scripture states: And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin. (Lev. XX, 19). The word for 'he uncovereth' (Heb. he'erah [H]) is understood as meaning the first stage of sexual intercourse, and this verse teaches that this is a culpable offence. But this teaching is superfluous, for in the preceding verse the same is taught of a niddah, which serves as a model for all forbidden human sexual intercourse. Hence the teaching, being redundant here, is applied to the first stage of bestiality. V. p. 368, n. 7. ');">⁷</span>

מכדי בהמה מחייבי מיתות ב"ד היא למה לי דכתיב להעראה דידה גבי חייבי כריתות לכתביה גבי חייבי מיתות בית דין וליגמור חייבי מיתות בית דין מחייבי מיתות בית דין

Now consider: bestiality is a capital offence, punishable by <i>Beth din</i>. Why then does the Scripture teach the capability of its first stage in a law relating to a sin punishable by extinction:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Incest with a paternal or a maternal aunt is so punishable. ');">⁸</span>

הואיל וכוליה קרא לדרשא הוא דאתי כתיבא נמי מילתא דדרשא

should it not rather have been indicated in a verse dealing with sexual intercourse as a capital offence too;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E. g., incest with one's mother, father's wife, or daughter-in-law is punished by stoning; v. supra 53a. ');">⁹</span>

בעא מיניה רב אחדבוי בר אמי מרב ששת המערה בעצמו מהו אמר ליה קבסתן

so that one capital offence might be deduced from another? Since this entire verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 19, referring to incest with a paternal or material aunt. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב אשי מאי תיבעי לך בקושי לא משכחת לה כי משכחת לה במשמש מת למאן דאמר משמש מת בעריות פטור הכא פטור ולמאן דאמר חייב הכא מיחייב תרתי מיחייב אשוכב ומיחייב אנשכב

is written for the sake of new interpretations [whereby additional laws are deduced] — another statement for the same purpose is inserted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Yeb. 54b it is shewn that the whole verse is superfluous, its provisions being stated in Lev. XVIII, 12f. Hence it is written in XX, 19 in order that additional laws might be deduced. ');">¹¹</span>

בעו מיניה מרב ששת עובד כוכבים הבא על הבהמה מהו תקלה וקלון בעינן והכא תקלה איכא קלון ליכא או דילמא תקלה אע"פ שאין קלון

R. Ahdaboi b. Ammi propounded a problem to R. Shesheth: What if one excited himself to the first stage [of masturbation]? — He replied: You annoy us!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By a reprehensible sophistry, the thing being an impossibility. Other translations: 'You disgust us; insolent man that you are!' ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב ששת תניתוה מה אילנות שאין אוכלין ואין שותין ואין מריחין אמרה תורה השחת שרוף וכלה הואיל ובא לאדם תקלה על ידן המתעה את חבירו מדרכי חיים לדרכי מיתה על אחת כמה וכמה

R. Ashi said: What is your problem? This is impossible in self-stimulation; but it is possible in the case of coition with a membrum mortuum. On the view that such, in incest, is not punishable, in masturbation too it is not punishable. But on the view that it is punishable, a twofold penalty is incurred here, since he is simultaneously the active and passive partner of the deed.

אלא מעתה עובד כוכבים המשתחוה לבהמתו תיתסר ומקטלא מי איכא מידי דלישראל לא אסר ולעובד כוכבים אסר

It was asked of R. Shesheth: What if a heathen committed bestiality [is the animal killed or not]? Must it have been both a stumbling block and a cause of degradation [in order for it to be stoned], but here it was only a stumbling block, but not a cause of degradation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because bestiality was not unusual among the heathens, therefore he would not feel himself disgraced. This Talmudic judgment on heathen morals may appear very harsh and prejudiced, yet it is not a malicious slander. In the Gilgamesh epic Ebani, the primitive man, lives a wild life with the animals and satisfies his lust with them. Bestiality seems to have been prevalent among the Greeks and Romans of a later period, as is proved by an extremely unsavoury adventure described in the Metamorphoses of Apuleius. Cf. 'A. Z. 22a, which forbids the stabling of cows with heathens, for fear of bestiality. (Hast. Dict. s.v. Bestiality.) ');">¹³</span>

ישראל גופיה ליתסר מידי דהוה ארביעה אמר אביי זה קלונו מרובה וזה קלונו מועט

or perhaps, even if it was only a stumbling block, without having led to degradation, [it is still stoned]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The point of the problem is this: The Mishnah states two reasons for the stoning of the animal. The first, that it had been a stumbling block; the second, that it was a constant reminder that someone had been executed through it, i.e., that man had degraded himself thereby. Hence the question whether both are necessary before the animal must be stoned, or only one. ');">¹⁴</span>

והרי אילנות דאין קלונן מרובה ואמרה תורה השחת שרוף וכלה בבעלי חיים קאמרינן דחס רחמנא עלייהו

— R. Shesheth replied, We have learnt it: If in the case of trees, which neither eat nor drink nor smell, the Torah decreed that they should be burnt and destroyed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 3: And ye shall burn their groves with fire. ');">¹⁵</span>

רבא אמר אמרה תורה בהמה נהנית מעבירה תיהרג

because they had proved a stumbling block: how much more so [must thou destroy him] who seduces his neighbour from the path of life to that of death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to idolatry. That proves that that which caused sin, even without degradation, (the worship of trees by heathens not being accounted a disgrace to them) must be destroyed. ');">¹⁶</span>

והרי אילנות דאין נהנין מעבירה ואמרה תורה השחת שרוף וכלה בבעלי חיים קאמרינן דחס רחמנא עלייהו

If so, where a heathen worships his cow, should it not be forbidden and killed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a heathen is liable to death for animal worship, though it is not accounted a disgrace to him. ');">¹⁷</span>

ת"ש ד"א שלא תהא בהמה עוברת בשוק ויאמרו זו היא שנסקל פלוני על ידה מאי לאו

— Is there anything which is not forbidden to an Israelite, yet forbidden to a heathen?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. If a Jew worships his cow, it is not forbidden to benefit therefrom (Tem. 29a). Hence we cannot impose a prohibition if a heathen worships it. This is a general principle in the Talmud. It is very instructive as showing quite clearly the temper in which the Rabbis regarded the idea of election of Israel. So far from conferring special privileged dispensations, it could be taken as axiomatic that nothing permitted to the Jew was forbidden to the heathen. Cf. Joseph, M., Judaism as Creed and Life, pp. 153-4. 'In styling ourselves God's people we do not claim to possess any worldly advantage, or even any special share of the Divine love … The pledge of God's affection for his people lies in his gift to them of a special opportunity of service, with its additional joys but also with its additional obligations. Nay, by taking upon himself the Yoke of the Law, Israel has been self-doomed to a life of trial.' ');">¹⁸</span> But why should it not be forbidden if an Israelite worshipped it: is it not analogous to bestiality? — Abaye answered: In the latter case [bestiality] the degradation is great; whilst in the former [animal worship] the disgrace is little.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus Tosaf. and R. Han. and one interpretation of Rashi. Another explanation by Rashi (adopted by Jast., s. v. [H]) is: In this case (of a Jew being the criminal) his disgrace is great, but in the latter (that of a Gentile) his disgrace is little. The first explanation seems to be more suited to the context. ');">¹⁹</span> But in the case of trees, the degradation is not great, yet did not the Torah order them to be burnt, destroyed, and annihilated? — We are speaking of living creatures, for which the All-Merciful One shewed pity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, only where there is much degradation, as in bestiality, is the animal destroyed; but trees are destroyed even when the disgrace is not great. ');">²⁰</span> Raba said: The Torah ordered that the animal should be destroyed, because it too derived pleasure from sin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is another point of difference between bestiality and animal worship. In the former, the animal too derives pleasure, but not in the latter. ');">²¹</span> But trees derive no pleasure, yet the Torah commanded that they should be destroyed, burnt, and annihilated! We are speaking of living creatures, for which the All-Merciful One shewed pity. Come and hear!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In answer to the problem, R. Shesheth's proof not being considered conclusive. ');">²²</span> ANOTHER REASON IS, THAT THE ANIMAL SHOULD NOT PASS THROUGH THE STREETS, WHILST PEOPLE SAY, THIS IS THE ANIMAL ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH SO AND SO WAS STONED. Now surely,