Sanhedrin 110

מדסיפא תקלה וקלון רישא תקלה בלא קלון והיכי דמי עובד כוכבים הבא על הבהמה

since the latter reason embraces both the reason of a stumbling block and of human degradation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When people remark that so and so was stoned through this animal, its own part in enticing to sin and the degradation of the offender are brought to mind. ');">¹</span>

לא סיפא תקלה וקלון רישא הא קמ"ל דאפילו קלון בלא תקלה נמי מיחייבי והיכי דמי ישראל הבא על הבהמה בשוגג וכדבעי רב המנונא

the former reason is that of stumbling block alone, e.g. when a heathen commits bestiality!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reasoning is as follows: Since the second reason refers to both sin and disgrace, the first is superfluous; hence it must have been given in order to shew that even where sin alone is incurred, without degradation, the animal is stoned. ');">²</span>

דבעי רב המנונא ישראל הבא על הבהמה בשוגג מהו תקלה וקלון בעינן והכא קלון איכא תקלה ליכא או דילמא קלון אע"פ שאין תקלה

— No. The second reason is that of stumbling block and of degradation, but the first teaches that even if there is degradation without a stumbling block, the animal is stoned, e.g., if a Jew committed bestiality in ignorance [of the fact that it is forbidden].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to this, the 'stumbling block' refers to the degradation involved, and not to the sin. When bestiality is committed in ignorance, one has not sinned, yet he has greatly degraded himself. The superiority of this explanation lies in the fact that both reasons now refer to a Jew, instead of one referring to a Jew and one to a heathen, which is not very plausible. ');">³</span>

אמר רב יוסף תא שמע בת שלש שנים ויום אחד מתקדשת בביאה ואם בא עליה יבם קנאה וחייבין עליה משום אשת איש

&nbsp;

ומטמאה את בועלה לטמא משכב תחתון כעליון ניסת לכהן אוכלת בתרומה בא עליה אחד מן הפסולים פסלה מן הכהונה

Even as R. Hamnuna propounded: What if a Jew committed bestiality in ignorance; must there have been botha stumbling block and degradation [for the animal to be stoned] and in thiscase there is only degradation, but no sin; or perhaps for degradation alonewithout there having been a stumbling block [the animal isstoned]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the latter explanation of the Mishnah, this problem is solved, whilst the first remains unanswered; but according to the first explanation, the first problem is solved, but not the second. As we cannot be certain which is correct, both so far are unsolved. ');">⁴</span>

ואם בא עליה אחד מכל העריות האמורות בתורה מומתין על ידה והיא פטורה

— R. Joseph said: Come andhear! <font>A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage bycoition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomeshis.</font> The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; [if a <i>niddah</i>] <font>shedefiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles thatupon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon [a person afflictedwith gonorrhoea]</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man who had sexual connection with a niddah, defiles that upon which he lies even if he does not actually touch it. But the degree of uncleanliness it thereby acquires is not the same as that of bedding upon which a niddah herself, or a person afflicted with gonorrhoea, lies. For in the latter case, the defilement is so great that the bedding in turn renders any person or utensil with which it comes into contact unclean; whilst in the former, it can only defile foodstuffs and liquids. This is the same degree of uncleanliness possessed by a garment which has lain upon, or been borne by a zab (i.e., one afflicted with issue). ');">⁵</span>

אחד מכל עריות ואפילו בהמה והא הכא דקלון איכא תקלה ליכא וקתני מומתין על ידה

If she married apriest, she may eat of <i>terumah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the law of an Israelite's (adult) daughter who married a priest. But if she was less than three years old, although the Kiddushin accepted on her behalf by her father is valid, yet since she is sexually immature, the marriage cannot be consummated, and hence she is not thereby enabled to eat of terumah. On terumah, the priest's portion of an Israelite's produce, v. Glos. ');">⁶</span>

כיון דמזידה היא תקלה נמי איכא ורחמנא הוא דחס עלה עלה דידה חס אבהמה לא חס

Ifany unfit person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a heathen, hallal, nathin, or bastard. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רבא ת"ש בן תשע שנים ויום אחד הבא על יבמתו קנאה ואינו נותן גט עד שיגדיל ומטמא כנדה לטמא משכב תחתון כעליון

has a connectionwith her, he disqualifies her from the priesthood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a priest's daughter, or if the daughter of a Levite or Israelite married to a priest, she may not eat of terumah. ');">⁸</span>

פוסל ואינו מאכיל ופוסל את הבהמה מעל גבי המזבח ונסקלת ע"י ואם בא על אחת מכל העריות האמורות בתורה מומתים על ידו

— <font>If any of the forbiddendegrees had intercourse with her, they are executed on heraccount</font>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they are of those forbidden on pain of death, v. supra 53a. ');">⁹</span>

והא הכא קלון איכא תקלה ליכא וקתני נסקלת על ידו

but she isexempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As she is a minor. ');">¹⁰</span>

כיון דמזיד הוא תקלה נמי איכא ורחמנא הוא דחס עילויה עליה דידיה חס רחמנא אבהמה לא חס רחמנא

Now, 'any of the forbiddendegrees' implies even a beast: in this case, there is degradation but nostumbling-block, yet it is taught that they [including a beast] are slainon her account.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This solves R. Hamuna's problem. ');">¹¹</span>

תא שמע דבר אחר שלא תהא בהמה עוברת בשוק ויאמרו זו היא שנסקל פלוני על ידה מאי לאו מדסיפא תקלה וקלון רישא קלון בלא תקלה והיכי דמי ישראל הבא על הבהמה בשוגג

[No, this is notconclusive, as it can be argued that] since she deliberately offended thereis a stumbling-block] [though she is a minor] but the All-Merciful One hadmercy upon her; now, He shewed mercy to her, but not to the animal.

לא סיפא תקלה וקלון רישא תקלה בלא קלון והיכי דמי עובד כוכבים הבא על הבהמה וכדבעו מיניה מרב ששת:

Raba said: Come and hear! A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits withhis deceased brother's wife [the former having left no issue] acquires her[as wife]. But he cannot divorce her until he attains hismajority.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, being a minor, he has no power to release her from a bond laid upon her, in the first place, by an adult (his brother). ');">¹²</span>

<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>