Sanhedrin 54
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״אִישׁ״ – פְּרָט לְקָטָן.
§ It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: With regard to the verse: “And the man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death, their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:11), the term: “The man,” excludes a minor.
״אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו״ – מַשְׁמָע בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו שֶׁהִיא אִמּוֹ, וּבֵין אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו שֶׁלֹּא אִמּוֹ. אִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עֶרְוַת אָבִיו גִּלָּה״, מוּפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ וְלָדוּן מִמֶּנּוּ גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה.
The phrase “who lies with his father’s wife” indicates that he is liable to receive capital punishment whether she is his father’s wife who is his mother or whether she is his father’s wife who is not his mother. From where is it derived that he is liable in a case where she is his mother who is not his father’s wife? The verse states: “He has uncovered his father’s nakedness.” Although this phrase does not relate directly to the case of one’s mother who is not his father’s wife, the halakha in this case is derived from this phrase as it is free, i.e., the phrase is superfluous in this context, and is evidently included in the verse in order to compare between the two cases and learn a verbal analogy from it, as the baraita will elaborate below.
״מוֹת יוּמְתוּ״ – בִּסְקִילָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּסְקִילָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאַחַת מִכׇּל מִיתוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּאוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי ״דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם״. מָה לְהַלָּן בִּסְקִילָה, אַף כָּאן בִּסְקִילָה.
From the phrase “both of them shall be put to death” it is derived that they are executed by stoning. The baraita asks: Do you say that that they are executed by stoning, or is it rather by one of all the other types of the death penalty that are stated in the Torah? The baraita answers: It is stated here: “Their blood shall be upon them,” and it is stated with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer: “Their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:27). Just as there the verse states that a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed by stoning, so too here, with regard to one who engages in intercourse with his father’s wife, the transgressors are executed by stoning.
עוֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ, אַזְהָרָה מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה״. ״עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ״ – זוֹ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ.
The baraita asks: We have learned the punishment for one who engages in intercourse with his father’s wife. From where is the prohibition against doing this act derived? The baraita answers: The verse states: “The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover” (Leviticus 18:7); the phrase “the nakedness of your father” is referring to your father’s wife.
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ״, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ מַמָּשׁ? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עֶרְוַת אָבִיו גִּלָּה״. מָה לְהַלָּן בְּאִישׁוּת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אַף כָּאן בְּאִישׁוּת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
The baraita asks: Do you say that the reference is to your father’s wife, or is it rather referring to the nakedness of your father literally, i.e., to homosexual intercourse with one’s father? The baraita answers: It is stated here: “The nakedness of your father…you shall not uncover,” and it is stated there, in the verse that describes the punishment: “And the man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 20:11). Just as there, the verse is speaking of marriage, i.e., it is not referring to the father himself but to his wife, so too here, the verse is speaking of marriage, i.e., his father’s wife.
וּמַשְׁמָע, בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו שֶׁהִיא אִמּוֹ, בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו שֶׁאֵינָהּ אִמּוֹ. אִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עֶרְוַת אִמְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה״.
And the verse indicates that one’s father’s wife is forbidden to him whether she is his father’s wife who is his mother or whether she is his father’s wife who is not his mother. From where is it derived that she is forbidden to him in a case where she is his mother who is not his father’s wife? The verse states: “The nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover” (Leviticus 18:7).
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּאַזְהָרָה, שֶׁעָשָׂה הַכָּתוּב אִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו כְּאִמּוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. עוֹנֶשׁ מִנַּיִין?
The baraita asks: I have derived only with regard to the prohibition that the verse renders the halakha of his mother who is not his father’s wife like that of his mother who is his father’s wife. But with regard to the punishment, from where do I derive that they share the same halakha?
נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עֶרְוַת אָבִיו גִּלָּה״. מָה בְּאַזְהָרָה עָשָׂה הַכָּתוּב אִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו כְּאִמּוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו, אַף בְּעוֹנֶשׁ עָשָׂה הַכָּתוּב אִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו כְּאִמּוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו.
The baraita answers, expounding on the verbal analogy it mentioned earlier: It is stated here, in the verse that describes the prohibition: “The nakedness of your father…you shall not uncover” (Leviticus 18:7), and it is stated there, in the verse that describes the punishment: “He has uncovered his father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 20:11). It is derived from this verbal analogy that just as with regard to the prohibition, the verse renders his mother who is not his father’s wife like his mother who is his father’s wife, i.e., both are forbidden, so too, with regard to the punishment, the verse renders his mother who is not his father’s wife like his mother who is his father’s wife.
״אִמְּךָ הִיא״ – מִשּׁוּם אִמּוֹ אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב.
It is derived from the phrase: “She is your mother” (Leviticus 18:7), that you render him liable due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with his mother, but you do not render him liable due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with his father’s wife. The baraita ends here. Since the halakhot in the collection of baraitot where this baraita appears, Torat Kohanim, are in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda, the baraita supports the opinion of Rava, who explains the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this manner.
וְרַבָּנַן, ״עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ״ – מַמָּשׁ.
The Gemara discusses the baraita, asking: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, interpret the phrase “the nakedness of your father”? The Gemara answers: They hold that this phrase is meant literally, i.e., that it is referring to homosexual intercourse. They do not accept the verbal analogy from which Rabbi Yehuda derives that the reference is to intercourse with one’s father’s wife.
הַאי מִ״וְּאֶת זָכָר״ נָפְקָא? לְחַיֵּיב עָלָיו שְׁתַּיִם.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t this prohibition against homosexual intercourse with one’s father derived from the verse: “And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22)? The Gemara answers: The prohibition is stated specifically with regard to one’s father in order to render him liable to bring two sin-offerings for unwittingly engaging in intercourse with his father.
וְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: נׇכְרִי הַבָּא עַל אָבִיו – חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, הַבָּא עַל אֲחִי אָבִיו – חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם.
And it is in accordance with the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says: A gentile who engages in intercourse with his father is liable for committing two transgressions. Likewise, one who engages in intercourse with his father’s brother is liable for committing two transgressions.
אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשׁוֹגֵג, וּבְקׇרְבָּן. וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר נׇכְרִי – לִישָּׁנָא מְעַלְּיָא הוּא. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ נׇכְרִי מַמָּשׁ, דִּינוֹ מַאי נִיהוּ? קְטָלָא! בִּתְרֵי קְטָלֵי קָטְלַתְּ לֵיהּ?
Rava says: It stands to reason that the statement of Rav Yehuda is with regard to a Jew who does this unwittingly. And the statement that he is liable for committing two transgressions concerns his liability to bring an offering, i.e., he is liable to bring two sin-offerings. And even though the fact remains that he said gentile, it is a euphemism, as he did not want to attribute such a sin to a Jew. As if it enters your mind that the reference is literally to a gentile, the statement that he is liable for committing two transgressions is meaningless; what is his punishment for such a transgression? It is death. Could you kill him twice? Rather, it must be referring to a Jew who acted unwittingly.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַבָּא עַל אָבִיו – חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, הַבָּא עַל אֲחִי אָבִיו – חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם.
This halakha is also taught in a baraita: One who engages in intercourse with his father is liable for committing two transgressions. One who engages in intercourse with his father’s brother is liable for committing two transgressions, as it is stated: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother” (Leviticus 18:14).
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
Some say that this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as in his opinion there is no special prohibition against homosexual intercourse with one’s father. He interprets the verse: “The nakedness of your father…you shall not uncover” as referring to one’s father’s wife. Accordingly, one who engages in homosexual intercourse with his father or with his father’s brother is liable only due to the general prohibition against homosexual intercourse.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵאֲחִי אָבִיו. וּמָה אֲחִי אָבִיו, דְּקוּרְבָה דְּאָבִיו הוּא, חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם – אָבִיו לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?
And some say: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that he derives that there is a specific prohibition against homosexual intercourse with one’s father by an a fortiori inference from the prohibition concerning one’s father’s brother. And the inference is as follows: If for intercourse with one’s father’s brother, who is merely his father’s relative, one is liable for committing two transgressions, for intercourse with his father, is it not clear all the more so that he should be liable for committing two transgressions?
וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא. מָר סָבַר: עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין, וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין.
And the Sages who provide these two interpretations of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Abaye and Rava. One Sage, he of the second interpretation, holds that one administers punishment based on an a fortiori inference. Even with regard to a prohibition that is derived a fortiori, one who transgresses it is liable. And one Sage, he of the first interpretation, holds that one does not administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference.
וְרַבָּנַן, אַזְהָרָה לְאֵשֶׁת אָבִיו מְנָא לְהוּ? נָפְקָא לְהוּ מֵ״עֶרְוַת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה״.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, from where do they derive the prohibition of intercourse with one’s father’s wife? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the verse: “The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 18:8).
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְאַזְהָרָה לְאֵשֶׁת אָבִיו לְאַחַר מִיתָה.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from this verse, since he derives the prohibition from the verse: “The nakedness of your father…you shall not uncover”? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary for the prohibition of one’s father’s wife after his father’s death; even though his father is dead, his father’s wife remains forbidden to him.
וְרַבָּנַן, הַהוּא מִסֵּיפָא דִּקְרָא נָפְקָא: ״עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ הִיא״.
The Gemara asks: And from where do the Rabbis derive that halakha? The Gemara answers: That halakha is derived from the last clause of the verse: “It is your father’s nakedness.”
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from that clause? The Gemara answers: That clause is necessary to teach the halakha that if one engages in intercourse with his father’s wife, you render him liable due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with his father’s wife, but you do not render him liable due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a married woman.
וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אָב, חַיָּיב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו, וְלָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי יְהוּדָה?
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: One who engages in intercourse with his father’s wife is liable to bring two offerings, one due to the fact that she is his father’s wife and one due to the fact that she is a married woman, and he is liable due to the former prohibition both during his father’s lifetime and after his father’s death? The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yehuda does not dispute this. So how can it be suggested that in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, one who engages in intercourse with his father’s wife is not liable for engaging in intercourse with a married woman?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: פְּלִיג בְּבָרַיְיתָא.
Abaye says: He disputes this ruling in a baraita. Although it is not mentioned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda disputes this ruling, it is mentioned in a different source.
וְרַבָּנַן, עוֹנֶשׁ דְּאֵשֶׁת אָבִיו לְאַחַר מִיתָה מְנָא לְהוּ? בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַיְיתֵי לַהּ בִּגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, אֶלָּא רַבָּנַן מְנָא לְהוּ?
The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, from where do they derive the punishment for one who engages in intercourse with his father’s wife after his father’s death? Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is derived by means of a verbal analogy. But from where do the Rabbis, who do not accept the verbal analogy, derive it?
אָמְרִי לָךְ: הָהוּא ״עֶרְוַת אָבִיו גִּלָּה״ דְּמַפֵּיק לַהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, מַפְּקִי לֵיהּ אִינְהוּ לְעוֹנֶשׁ דְּאֵשֶׁת אָבִיו לְאַחַר מִיתָה.
The Gemara answers: The Rabbis can say to you that it is derived as follows: With regard to that phrase, “he has uncovered his father’s nakedness,” from which Rabbi Yehuda derives a verbal analogy, they derive from it the punishment for one who engages in intercourse with his father’s wife after his father’s death.
וְרַבָּנַן, עוֹנֶשׁ לְאִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו מְנָא לְהוּ? אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: אָמַר קְרָא ״אִמְּךָ הִיא״. עֲשָׂאָהּ הַכָּתוּב לְאִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו כְּאִמּוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו.
The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, from where do they derive the punishment for one who engages in intercourse with his mother who is not his father’s wife? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, says: The verse states: “She is your mother” (Leviticus 18:7). The verse renders the halakha of his mother who is not his father’s wife like that of his mother who is his father’s wife.
הַבָּא עַל כַּלָּתוֹ כּוּ׳. וְלִחַיַּיב נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת בְּנוֹ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: פָּתַח הַכָּתוּב בְּכַלָּתוֹ וְסִיֵּים בְּאֵשֶׁת בְּנוֹ, לוֹמַר לָךְ זוֹ הִיא כַּלָּתוֹ זוֹ הִיא אֵשֶׁת בְּנוֹ.
The mishna teaches with regard to one who engages in intercourse with his daughter-in-law that he is liable both due to the fact that she is his daughter-in-law and due to the fact that she is a married woman. The Gemara asks: And let him also be liable due to engaging in intercourse with his son’s wife, as it is stated in the verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness” (Leviticus 18:15). Abaye says: The verse begins with his daughter-in-law and ends with his son’s wife, to tell you that these are not two prohibitions; rather, his daughter-in-law [kallato] is his son’s wife. They are one and the same.
מַתְנִי׳ הַבָּא עַל הַזְּכוּר, וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְּבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה – בִּסְקִילָה. אִם אָדָם חָטָא, בְּהֵמָה מֶה חָטְאָה? אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁבָּאָה לְאָדָם תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדָהּ, לְפִיכָךְ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב תִּסָּקֵל. דָּבָר אַחֵר: שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא בְּהֵמָה עוֹבֶרֶת בַּשּׁוּק וְיֹאמְרוּ ״זוֹ הִיא שֶׁנִּסְקַל פְּלוֹנִי עַל יָדָהּ״.
MISHNA: A man who engages in intercourse with a male or with an animal, and a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal, are executed by stoning. The animal is likewise stoned to death. The mishna asks: If the person sinned by doing this, how did the animal sin? Rather, because a calamity was caused to a person by it, therefore the verse states that it should be stoned, so that it does not cause another to sin. 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.
גְּמָ׳ זָכָר מְנָא לַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישׁ״ – פְּרָט לְקָטָן, ״אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת זָכָר״ – בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין קָטָן, ״מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה״ – מַגִּיד לְךָ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁשְּׁנֵי מִשְׁכָּבוֹת בָּאִשָּׁה.
GEMARA: From where do we derive the prohibition and punishment for homosexual intercourse with a male? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13): The word “man” excludes a minor boy. The phrase “lies with a male” is referring to any male, whether he is an adult man or whether he is a minor boy. The phrase “as with a woman [mishkevei isha],” referring to lying with a woman, appears in the plural. The verse teaches you that there are two manners of lying with a woman for which one who engages in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him is punished, vaginal and anal intercourse.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: הֲרֵי זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד, וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד.
Rabbi Yishmael says: This phrase is written to come to teach about the punishment for homosexual intercourse, and the halakha that one is liable for anal intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him is found to be derived from it.
״מוֹת יוּמָתוּ״ – בִּסְקִילָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּסְקִילָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאַחַת מִכׇּל מִיתוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּאוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי ״דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם״. מָה לְהַלָּן בִּסְקִילָה, אַף כָּאן בִּסְקִילָה.
The phrase “they shall be put to death” is referring to execution by stoning. Do you say that they are executed by stoning, or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty that are stated in the Torah? It is stated here: “Their blood shall be upon them,” and it is stated with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer: “Their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:27). Just as there the verse states that a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed by stoning, so too here, they are executed by stoning.
עוֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ, אַזְהָרָה מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִיא״.
We have learned the punishment for homosexual intercourse, but from where is the prohibition derived? The verse states: “And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).
לָמַדְנוּ אַזְהָרָה לַשּׁוֹכֵב. אַזְהָרָה לַנִּשְׁכָּב מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְגַם קָדֵשׁ הָיָה בָאָרֶץ עָשׂוּ כְּכֹל הַתּוֹעֲבֹת הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר הוֹרִישׁ וְגוֹ׳״. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
We have learned from here the prohibition for the one who engages in homosexual intercourse actively. From where do we derive the prohibition for one who engages in homosexual intercourse passively? The verse states: “There shall not be a sodomite [kadesh] among the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 23:18). And another verse, cited to clarify the meaning of the term kadesh, states: “And there were also sodomites [kadesh] in the land, they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord drove out before the children of Israel” (I Kings 14:24). This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה״. קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״לֹא תִשָּׁכֵב״.
Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary to derive this halakha from the verse: “There shall not be a sodomite.” Rather, it says: “And you shall not lie [tishkav] with a male as with a woman.” Read into the verse: You shall not enable your being lain with [tishakhev] by a male.
בְּהֵמָה מְנָא לַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישׁ״ – פְּרָט לְקָטָן, ״אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן שְׁכׇבְתּוֹ בִּבְהֵמָה״ – בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה.
§ The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that one who engages in intercourse with an animal is liable to receive capital punishment? It is as the Sages taught: “And if a man lies with an animal, he shall be put to death, and you shall kill the animal” (Leviticus 20:15). The word “man” excludes a minor boy. The phrase “lies with an animal” is referring to any animal, whether old or young.
״מוֹת יוּמָת״ – בִּסְקִילָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּסְקִילָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאַחַת מִכׇּל מִיתוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״תַּהֲרֹגוּ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״כִּי הָרֹג תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ״. מָה לְהַלָּן בִּסְקִילָה, אַף כָּאן בִּסְקִילָה.
The phrase “shall be put to death” refers to execution by stoning. Do you say that they are executed by stoning, or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty that are stated in the Torah? It is stated here: “You shall kill,” and it is stated there, with regard to an inciter: “But you shall kill him…and you shall stone him with stones and he shall die” (Deuteronomy 13:10–11). Just as there the verse states that an inciter is executed by stoning, so too here, one who engages in bestiality is executed by stoning.
לָמַדְנוּ עוֹנֶשׁ לַשּׁוֹכֵב. עוֹנֶשׁ לַנִּשְׁכָּב מְנָלַן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל שֹׁכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת״. אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַשּׁוֹכֵב, תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָן לַנִּשְׁכָּב.
We have learned the punishment for one who engages in bestiality actively, but from where do we derive the punishment for one who engages in bestiality passively? The verse states: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death” (Exodus 22:18). If this verse is not needed for the matter of the one who actively lies with an animal, i.e., a male who sexually penetrates an animal, apply it to the matter of the one who causes an animal to lie with him, by being penetrated by the animal, i.e., any type of intercourse with an animal is punishable by death.
לָמַדְנוּ עוֹנֶשׁ בֵּין לַשּׁוֹכֵב בֵּין לַנִּשְׁכָּב. אַזְהָרָה מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּבְכׇל בְּהֵמָה לֹא תִתֵּן שְׁכׇבְתְּךָ לְטׇמְאָה בָהּ״.
We have therefore learned the punishment for both one who engages in bestiality actively and one who engages in bestiality passively, but from where is the prohibition derived? The verse states: “And you shall not lie with any animal to defile yourself with it” (Leviticus 18:23).
לָמַדְנוּ אַזְהָרָה לַשּׁוֹכֵב. לַנִּשְׁכָּב מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְגַם קָדֵשׁ הָיָה בָּאָרֶץ וְגוֹ׳״. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
We have learned the prohibition for one who engages in bestiality actively. From where do we derive the prohibition for one who engages in bestiality passively? The verse states: “There shall not be a kadesh among the children of Israel,” and another verse states: “And there were also kadesh in the land,” which shows that anyone who engages in intercourse in a way that is like the abominations of the nations is called a kadesh. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״לֹא תִתֵּן שְׁכׇבְתְּךָ״ – לֹא תִתֵּן שְׁכִיבָתְךָ.
Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary to derive the halakha prohibiting passively engaging in bestiality from this verse. Rather, it says: “You shall not lie [shekhovtekha],” which can be read as follows: You shall not enable your being lain with [shekhivatkha].
הַבָּא עַל הַזְּכוּר, וְהֵבִיא עָלָיו זָכָר.
The Gemara discusses cases to which these halakhic expositions are relevant: What is the halakha of one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with a male, and unwittingly causes a male to engage in intercourse with him, within one lapse of awareness, i.e., without realizing in the interim that these behaviors are forbidden? Is he considered to have transgressed two separate prohibitions and therefore liable to bring two sin-offerings, or is he considered to have transgressed one prohibition twice and liable to bring only one sin-offering?
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, חֲדָא מִ״לֹּא תִשְׁכַּב״ וַחֲדָא מִ״לֹּא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ״. לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. ״לֹא תִשְׁכַּב״ ״לֹא תִשָּׁכֵב״ חֲדָא הִיא.
Rabbi Abbahu says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, he is liable for transgressing two different prohibitions: One is derived from the verse: “You shall not lie,” and the other one is derived from the verse: “There shall not be a sodomite,” which includes one who engages in homosexual intercourse passively. But according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, he is liable for only one prohibition, as the prohibitions of “you shall not lie [tishkav]” and you shall not enable your being lain with [tishakhev] are one statement in the verse.
הַבָּא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְהֵבִיא בְּהֵמָה עָלָיו, אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, חֲדָא מִ״לֹּא תִתֵּן שְׁכׇבְתְּךָ״ וַחֲדָא מִ״לֹּא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ״. לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, ״שְׁכׇבְתְּךָ״ וּ״שְׁכִיבָתְךָ״ חֲדָא הִיא.
Similarly, with regard to one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with an animal, and then unwittingly causes an animal to engage in intercourse with him within one lapse of awareness, Rabbi Abbahu says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael he is liable for transgressing two different prohibitions. One is derived from the verse: “You shall not lie,” and the other one is derived from the verse: “There shall not be a sodomite.” But according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva he is liable for only one prohibition, as the prohibitions of “you shall not lie [shekhovtekha]” and you shall not enable your being lain with [shekhivatkha] are one statement in the verse.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נָמֵי אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, דְּכִי כְתִיב ״לֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ״ – בְּגַבְרֵי כְּתִיב.
Abaye says: Even according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael he is liable for only one prohibition, as when it is written: “There shall not be a sodomite,” it is written only with regard to intercourse with men, but not with regard to bestiality.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אַזְהָרָה לַנִּשְׁכָּב מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״כׇּל שֹׁכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת״. אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַשּׁוֹכֵב, תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָן לַנִּשְׁכָּב.
The Gemara asks: But according to Abaye, from where does Rabbi Yishmael derive the prohibition for one who engages in bestiality passively? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death.” If this verse is not needed for the matter of the one who actively lies with the animal, apply it to the matter of the one who causes the animal to lie with him.
וְאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַנִּשְׁכָּב בִּלְשׁוֹן שׁוֹכֵב: מָה שׁוֹכֵב עָנַשׁ וְהִזְהִיר, אַף נִשְׁכָּב עָנַשׁ וְהִזְהִיר.
And it is derived from the fact that the Merciful One expresses the halakha of one who engages in bestiality passively using the term for one who engages in bestiality actively: Just as with regard to one who engages in bestiality actively the Torah both punishes for this action and prohibits it, so too, with regard to one who engages in bestiality passively, the Torah both punishes for this action and prohibits it.
הַנִּרְבָּע לְזָכָר וְהַנִּרְבָּע לִבְהֵמָה, אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, חֲדָא מִ״לֹּא תִשְׁכַּב״ וַחֲדָא מִ״לֹּא תִתֵּן שְׁכׇבְתְּךָ״. לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, אִידֵּי וְאִידִי ״לֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ״ הוּא.
With regard to the case of one who was unwittingly sodomized by a male and then unwittingly was one with whom an animal copulated within one lapse of awareness, Rabbi Abbahu says that according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva he is liable for transgressing two prohibitions. One is derived from the verse: “You shall not lie with a male,” and the other one is derived from the verse: “You shall not lie with any animal.” According to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael he is liable for transgressing only one prohibition, as both this prohibition and that prohibition are derived from the verse: “There shall not be a sodomite.”
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נָמֵי חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, דִּכְתִיב ״כׇּל שֹׁכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת״. אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַשּׁוֹכֵב, תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָן לַנִּשְׁכָּב. וְאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַנִּשְׁכָּב בִּלְשׁוֹן שׁוֹכֵב: מָה שׁוֹכֵב – עָנַשׁ וְהִזְהִיר, אַף נִשְׁכָּב – עָנַשׁ וְהִזְהִיר.
Abaye says: Even according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael he is liable for transgressing two prohibitions, as it is written: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death.” If the verse is not needed for the matter of one who engages in bestiality actively, as this prohibition is stated explicitly in the verse: “And you shall not lie with any animal” (Leviticus 18:23), apply it to the matter of one who engages in bestiality passively. And it is derived from the fact that the Merciful One expresses the halakha of one who engages in bestiality passively using the term for one who engages in bestiality actively: Just as with regard to one who engages in bestiality actively the Torah both punishes for this act and prohibits it, so too, with regard to one who engages in bestiality passively, the Torah both punishes for this act and prohibits it.
אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל הַזְּכוּר, וְהֵבִיא זָכָר עָלָיו, הַבָּא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהֵבִיא בְּהֵמָה עָלָיו – בֵּין לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ בֵּין לְאַבָּיֵי, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל חַיָּיב שָׁלֹשׁ, לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם.
But with regard to one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with a male, and then unwittingly causes a male to engage in intercourse with him, and who unwittingly engages in intercourse with an animal, and then unwittingly causes an animal to engage in intercourse with him, performing all of these actions in one lapse of awareness, in this case, both according to Rabbi Abbahu and according to Abaye, the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael is that he is liable for transgressing three prohibitions; the ones mentioned above and the prohibition of: “There shall not be a sodomite,” whereas according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva he is liable for transgressing only two prohibitions.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: זְכוּר – לֹא עָשׂוּ בּוֹ קָטָן כְּגָדוֹל, בְּהֵמָה – עָשׂוּ בָּהּ קְטַנָּה כִּגְדוֹלָה.
§ The Sages taught: With regard to intercourse with a male, the Torah does not deem a younger boy to be like an older boy; but with regard to intercourse with an animal, the Torah does deem a young animal to be like an old animal.
מַאי ״לֹא עָשׂוּ בּוֹ קָטָן כְּגָדוֹל״? אָמַר רַב: לֹא עָשׂוּ בִּיאַת פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים כְּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לֹא עָשׂוּ בִּיאַת פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים כְּבֶן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים.
The Gemara asks: What does it mean that the Torah does not deem a younger boy to be like an older boy? Rav says: It means that the Torah does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old to be like the intercourse of one who is at least nine years old, as for a male’s act of intercourse to have the legal status of full-fledged intercourse the minimum age is nine years. And Shmuel says: The Torah does not deem the intercourse of a child who is less than three years old to be like that of one who is three years old.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַב סָבַר: כֹּל דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּשׁוֹכֵב – אִיתֵיהּ בְּנִשְׁכָּב, וְכֹל דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בְּשׁוֹכֵב – לֵיתֵיהּ בְּנִשְׁכָּב.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that any halakha that applies to one who engages in intercourse actively applies to one who engages in intercourse passively, and any halakha that does not apply to one who engages in intercourse actively does not apply to one who engages in intercourse passively. Therefore, just as one who engages in intercourse actively is not liable if he is less than nine years old, as the intercourse of such a child does not have the halakhic status of intercourse, so too, if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively, the one who engages in intercourse with him is not liable.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר: ״מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה״ כְּתִיב.
And Shmuel holds: It is written: “And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman,” indicating that the halakha of a male who engages in intercourse passively is like that of a woman; just as the intercourse of a woman has the halakhic status of intercourse from when she is three years old, the same is true with regard to a male who engages in intercourse passively. Consequently, in Shmuel’s opinion, one who engages in intercourse with a male who is older than three is liable.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב: זָכָר בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: One who engages in homosexual intercourse with a male aged nine years and one day,
