## Sanhedrin Daf 55a

###### Sanhedrin 55a:1
[Sanhedrin 55a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:1)

הַבָּא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה, בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְּבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה עָלֶיהָ, בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
or **one who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in a typical manner or in an atypical manner,** i.e., anal intercourse, **and** similarly **a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in a typical manner or in an atypical manner,** is **liable.** This *baraita* sets the minimum age for the passive male at nine years and one day.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:2
[Sanhedrin 55a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:2)

דָּרַשׁ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּאִשָּׁה שְׁנֵי מִשְׁכָּבוֹת, וּבִבְהֵמָה מִשְׁכָּב אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught: With regard to a woman** there are **two** manners of **lying.** A woman who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether it is vaginal or anal intercourse, is liable. **But with regard to** a man who engages in intercourse with **an animal** there is only **one** manner of **lying,** i.e., vaginal intercourse.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:3
[Sanhedrin 55a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:3)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִשָּׁה דְּאוֹרְחַהּ הִיא אַמִּשְׁכָּב מִיחַיַּיב, אַמִּידַּעַם אַחֲרִינָא לָא מִיחַיַּיב. בְּהֵמָה דְּלָאו אוֹרְחָא הִיא, לִחַיַּיב עֲלַהּ עַל כׇּל נֶקֶב וָנֶקֶב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa objects to this** opinion: **On the contrary, a woman, whose typical manner** of intercourse **is** vaginal, **is rendered liable for lying** with an animal only in that manner; she **is not rendered liable for something else,** i.e., for engaging in anal intercourse with an animal. With regard to a man who engages in intercourse with **an animal,** by contrast, **since it is not its typical** conduct to engage in intercourse with a man, he **should be rendered liable for** engaging in intercourse with **it through each and every orifice.**


###### Sanhedrin 55a:4
[Sanhedrin 55a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:4)

תַּנְיָא (דְּלָא כְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ): זָכָר בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד הַבָּא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה, בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְּבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה עָלֶיהָ, בֵּין כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with neither of their** opinions: One who engages in homosexual intercourse with **a male aged nine years and one day,** or **one who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in a typical manner, or in an atypical manner,** i.e., anal intercourse, **and** similarly, **a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in a typical manner or in an atypical manner,** are **liable.** Evidently, there is no difference between the nature of the transgression of a woman who engages in bestiality and a man who engages in bestiality in this regard.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:5
[Sanhedrin 55a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: הַמְעָרֶה בִּזְכוּר, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rava:** With regard to **one who performs the initial stage of intercourse with** another **male,** i.e., insertion of the penis, without completing the intercourse, **what is** the *halakha*? Is he liable for engaging in homosexual intercourse?


###### Sanhedrin 55a:6
[Sanhedrin 55a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:6)

הַמְעָרֶה בִּזְכוּר – מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ. אֶלָּא, הַמְעָרֶה בִּבְהֵמָה, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: With regard to **one who performs the initial stage of intercourse with a male,** what is the question? The expression **“as with a woman”** (Leviticus 18:22) **is written with regard to him,** which indicates that any act that is considered an act of intercourse with a woman is also considered an act of intercourse with a man. **Rather,** the question is as follows: With regard to **one who performs the initial stage of intercourse with an animal, what is** the *halakha*?


###### Sanhedrin 55a:7
[Sanhedrin 55a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְהַעֲרָאָה דִּכְתִיבָא גַּבֵּי אֲחוֹת אָבִיו וַאֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, דְּלָא צְרִיכָא, דְּהָא אִיתַּקַּשׁ לְהַעֲרָאָה דְּנִדָּה – תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָן לְהַעֲרָאָה דִבְהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him:** In the verse: “And you shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister nor of your father’s sister; for he has made naked [*he’era*] his relative” (Leviticus 20:19), the word *he’era* alludes to the initial stage of intercourse [*ha’ara*]. **If** the word *he’era* **is not** needed for the **matter of the initial stage of intercourse** in the context **where it is written,** i.e., for the prohibition of intercourse with one’s **father’s sister and** one’s **mother’s sister, as it is not necessary** in that context since the *halakha* of the initial stage of intercourse with regard to all forbidden sexual relations is **compared** by the Torah **to** the *halakha* of **the initial stage of intercourse** mentioned **with regard to a menstruating woman, apply it** instead **to** the **matter of the initial stage of intercourse with an animal.** The superfluous expression that appears in the verse concerning one’s aunt teaches that the initial stage of intercourse is considered intercourse even with regard to an animal.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:8
[Sanhedrin 55a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:8)

מִכְּדֵי, בְּהֵמָה מֵחַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין הִיא, לְמָה לִי דִּכְתִיב לְהַעֲרָאָה דִּידַהּ גַּבֵּי חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת? לִכְתְּבֵיהּ גַּבֵּי חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, וְלִיגְמוֹר חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין מֵחַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Since** one who engages in intercourse with **an animal is among those who are liable** to receive **a** court-imposed **death** penalty, **why do I** need the *halakha* of one who performs the **initial stage of intercourse with** an animal **to be written** in a verse **concerning those who are liable** to receive ***karet*,** i.e., the case of one who engages in intercourse with his aunt? **Let** the Torah **write** this *halakha* **with regard to those who are liable** to receive **a** court-imposed **death** penalty, **and** one would then **derive** this *halakha* concerning **those who are liable** to receive **a** court-imposed **death** penalty **from** the *halakha* of **those who are liable** to receive **a** court-imposed **death** penalty, and not from the less relevant *halakha* of one who engages in intercourse with his aunt, who is punished with *karet*.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:9
[Sanhedrin 55a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:9)

הוֹאִיל וְכוּלֵּיהּ קְרָא לִדְרָשָׁא הוּא דְּאָתֵי, כְּתִיבָא נָמֵי מִילְּתָא דִּדְרָשָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Since the entire verse** about the punishment of one who engages in intercourse with the sister of his father or mother is superfluous, and **comes for** the sake of **exposition,** as this *halakha* is already stated in other verses (see Leviticus 18:12–13), this **matter,** i.e., the fact that the initial stage of intercourse is halakhically defined as intercourse, **is also written** in this verse for the purpose **of an exposition,** i.e., in order to indicate that this principle holds true with regard to bestiality as well.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:10
[Sanhedrin 55a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:10)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַחָדְבוּי בַּר אַמֵּי מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הַמְעָרֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קְבַסְתַּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥadevoi bar Ami asked Rav Sheshet:** With regard to **one who performs the initial stage of** homosexual **intercourse on himself, what is** the *halakha*? Is he liable for homosexual intercourse? Rav Sheshet **said to him: You disgust me** with your question; such an act is not possible.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:11
[Sanhedrin 55a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:11)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ? בְּקוֹשִׁי לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, כִּי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בִּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ מֵת. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְשַׁמֵּשׁ מֵת בַּעֲרָיוֹת פָּטוּר, הָכָא פָּטוּר. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר חַיָּיב, הָכָא מִיחַיַּיב תַּרְתֵּי: מִיחַיַּיב אַשּׁוֹכֵב, וּמִיחַיַּיב אַנִּשְׁכָּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: What is your dilemma?** With regard to doing so **with an erect** penis, **you cannot find** such a case. **You can find it** only **when** one **performs** this **act of intercourse** with **a flaccid** penis. And the *halakha* is subject to a dispute: **According to the one who says** that a man **who engages in intercourse** with **a flaccid** penis, **with** one of **those with whom relations are forbidden,** is **exempt,** as that is not considered intercourse, **here** too, when one does so to himself, he is **exempt. And according to the one who says** that he is **liable,** he is **rendered liable here** for transgressing **two** prohibitions according to Rabbi Yishmael; he is **rendered liable for engaging in** homosexual **intercourse** actively, **and** he is **rendered liable for engaging in** homosexual **intercourse** passively.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:12
[Sanhedrin 55a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:12)

בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: גּוֹי הַבָּא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה מַהוּ? תַּקָּלָה וְקָלוֹן בָּעֵינַן, וְהָכָא תַּקָּלָה אִיכָּא, קָלוֹן לֵיכָּא? אוֹ דִילְמָא תַּקָּלָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קָלוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The students **asked Rav Sheshet:** With regard to **a gentile who engages in intercourse with an animal, what is** the *halakha*? Must the animal be killed? The Gemara elaborates: **Do we need** two reasons to kill the animal, namely that it caused **a calamity and** that it caused **shame, and** therefore **here** the animal is not killed, as while **there is a calamity,** as it caused a person to sin and be executed, **there is no shame,** as the Jewish court is not responsible for the shame of a gentile? **Or perhaps** one reason is enough, and an animal is killed because of the **calamity** it caused **even if there is no shame?**


###### Sanhedrin 55a:13
[Sanhedrin 55a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:13)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: תְּנֵיתוּהָ, מָה אִילָנוֹת שֶׁאֵין אוֹכְלִין וְאֵין שׁוֹתִין וְאֵין מְרִיחִין, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הַשְׁחֵת, שְׂרוֹף וְכַלֵּה, הוֹאִיל וּבָאת לְאָדָם תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדָן. הַמַּתְעֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ מִדַּרְכֵי חַיִּים לְדַרְכֵי מִיתָה – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: You learned** the answer to this question in a *baraita*: **If** with regard to **trees, which neither eat nor drink nor smell,** and nevertheless, if they are used in idolatrous rites, **the Torah says: Destroy, burn, and demolish** them (see Deuteronomy, chapters 7, 12), and the reason is **since a calamity was caused to people by them,** then with regard to one **who leads another astray from the ways of life to the ways of death, all the more so** he is liable to be destroyed. It can be derived from here that any item used for a transgression that renders one liable to be executed should be destroyed.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:14
[Sanhedrin 55a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:14)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גּוֹי הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לִבְהֶמְתּוֹ תִּיתְּסַר וּמִקַּטְלָא? מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דִּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל לָא אָסַר וּלְגוֹי אָסַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this ruling: **If that is so,** in the case of **a gentile who bows down to his animal,** the animal **should be forbidden,** i.e., it should be prohibited to derive benefit from it, **and it should be killed.** The Gemara answers: **Is there anything that is not forbidden to a Jew, but is forbidden to a gentile?** Since a Jew who bows down to an animal does not render it forbidden (see *Temura* 29b), a gentile who does so does not render it forbidden either.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:15
[Sanhedrin 55a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:15)

יִשְׂרָאֵל גּוּפֵיהּ לִיתְּסַר, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַרְבִיעָה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: זֶה קְלוֹנוֹ מְרוּבֶּה, וְזֶה קְלוֹנוֹ מוּעָט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges that assumption: With regard to **a Jew himself** who bows down to his animal, **let** the animal **be forbidden, just as it is in** a case of **bestiality,** when the animal is forbidden and is killed. **Abaye says:** The cases are not the same. In **this** case, where one commits bestiality, **his shame is great; but** in **that** case, where one worships an animal, **his shame is slight,** and he will not be so disgraced if the animal is left alive.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:16
[Sanhedrin 55a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:16)

וַהֲרֵי אִילָנוֹת, דְּאֵין קְלוֹנָן מְרוּבֶּה, וְאָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הַשְׁחֵת, שְׂרוֹף וְכַלֵּה! בְּבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים קָאָמְרִינַן, דְּחָס רַחֲמָנָא עֲלַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** with regard to **trees** that are used in idolatrous rites, in **which** case **the shame of** the idol worshippers **is not great, the Torah** nevertheless **says: Destroy, burn, and demolish** them. The Gemara answers: **We are speaking of living animals.** The *halakha* is different there, **as the Merciful One has pity on them.** Therefore, if the shame of the person is not great, the animal is not killed.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:17
[Sanhedrin 55a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:17)

רָבָא אָמַר: אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה, בְּהֵמָה נֶהֱנֵית מֵעֲבֵירָה – תֵּיהָרֵג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says** that there is a different reason for the distinction between an animal that was worshipped and an animal with which one committed bestiality: **The Torah states** that because the **animal enjoyed** the **transgression, it must be killed.** This cannot be said about an animal that was worshipped.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:18
[Sanhedrin 55a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:18)

וַהֲרֵי אִילָנוֹת, דְּאֵין נֶהֱנִין מֵעֲבֵירָה, וְאָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הַשְׁחֵת, שְׂרוֹף וְכַלֵּה! בְּבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים קָאָמְרִינַן, דְּחָס רַחֲמָנָא עֲלַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** with regard to **trees** that are used in idolatrous rites, **which do not enjoy** the **transgression,** nevertheless **the Torah says: Destroy, burn, and demolish.** The Gemara answers: **We are speaking of living animals.** The *halakha* is different there, **as the Merciful One has pity on them.** Therefore, an animal is killed only if it enjoyed the transgression.


###### Sanhedrin 55a:19
[Sanhedrin 55a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/55a:19)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דָּבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא בְּהֵמָה עוֹבֶרֶת בַּשּׁוּק וְיֹאמְרוּ: ״זוֹ הִיא שֶׁנִּסְקַל פְּלוֹנִי עַל יָדָהּ.״ מַאי לָאו,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution from the mishna to the dilemma concerning an animal with which a gentile committed bestiality: **Alternatively,** it is **so that** this **animal will not pass through the marketplace, and** those who see it **will say: This is** the animal **because of which so-and-so was stoned,** and its existence would shame his memory. **What, is it not**