Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 8, 2017 | י״ז באלול תשע״ז

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sanhedrin 54

Study Guide Sanhedrin 54. Rabbi Yehuda according to the version in our mishna, holds (against the rabbis) that if one has relations with one’s mother who is also one’s father’s wife, he is only obligated once (in a case that it was accidental, he would only bring one sin offering).  Several attempts are brought to explain where he derives this halacha, which leads to a long braita about how the 2 verses in Vayikra chapter 18 that relate to the father’s wife and one’s mother are extrapolated.  After explaining how Rabbi Yehuda explains those verses and the ones in Vayikra 20 where the punishment is mentioned, the gemara then explains how the rabbis explain those verses.  The mishna then discusses homosexual relations and bestiality and the gemara proceeds to extrapolate the verses relating to those situations.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

תניא כוותיה דרבא ׳איש׳ פרט לקטן

§ 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.

׳אשר ישכב את אשת אביו׳ משמע בין אשת אביו שהיא אמו ובין אשת אביו שלא אמו אמו שאינה אשת אביו מניין תלמוד לומר ׳ערות אביו גלה׳ מופנה להקיש ולדון ממנו גזרה שוה

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.

׳מות יומתו׳ בסקילה אתה אומר בסקילה או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה נאמר כאן ׳דמיהם בם׳ ונאמר באוב וידעוני ׳דמיהם בם׳ מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה

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.

עונש שמענו אזהרה מניין תלמוד לומר ׳ערות אביך לא תגלה׳ ׳ערות אביך׳ זו אשת אביך

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.

אתה אומר אשת אביך או אינו אלא ערות אביך ממש נאמר כאן ׳ערות אביך לא תגלה׳ ונאמר להלן ׳ערות אביו גלה׳ מה להלן באישות הכתוב מדבר אף כאן באישות הכתוב מדבר

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.

ומשמע בין אשת אביו שהיא אמו בין אשת אביו שאינה אמו אמו שאינה אשת אביו מניין תלמוד לומר ׳ערות אמך לא תגלה׳

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).

אין לי אלא באזהרה שעשה הכתוב אמו שאינה אשת אביו כאמו שהיא אשת אביו עונש מניין

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?

נאמר כאן ׳ערות אביך לא תגלה׳ ונאמר להלן ׳ערות אביו גלה׳ מה באזהרה עשה הכתוב אמו שאינה אשת אביו כאמו שהיא אשת אביו אף בעונש עשה הכתוב אמו שאינה אשת אביו כאמו שהיא אשת אביו

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.

׳אמך היא׳ משום אמו אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום אשת אב

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.

ורבנן ערות אביך ממש

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.

האי מואת זכר נפקא לחייב עליו שתים

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.

וכדרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה נכרי הבא על אביו חייב שתים הבא על אחי אביו חייב שתים

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.

אמר רבא מסתברא מילתא דרב יהודה בישראל בשוגג ובקרבן והאי דקאמר נכרי לישנא מעליא הוא דאי סלקא דעתך נכרי ממש דינו מאי ניהו קטלא בתרי קטלי קטלת ליה

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.

תניא נמי הכי הבא על אביו חייב שתים הבא על אחי אביו חייב שתים

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).

איכא דאמרי דלא כרבי יהודה

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.

ואיכא דאמרי אפילו תימא רבי יהודה ומייתי לה בקל וחומר מאחי אביו ומה אחי אביו דקורבה דאביו הוא חייב שתים אביו לא כל שכן

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?

וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דאביי ורבא מר סבר עונשין מן הדין ומר סבר אין עונשין מן הדין

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.

ורבנן אזהרה לאשת אביו מנא להו נפקא להו מערות אשת אביך לא תגלה

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).

ורבי יהודה ההוא מיבעי ליה לאזהרה לאשת אביו לאחר מיתה

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.

ורבנן ההוא מסיפא דקרא נפקא ערות אביך היא

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.”

ורבי יהודה ההוא מיבעי ליה משום אשת אב אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום אשת איש

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.

והאנן תנן הבא על אשת אב חייב עליה משום אשת אב ומשום אשת איש בין בחיי אביו בין לאחר מיתת אביו ולא פליג רבי יהודה

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?

אמר אביי פליג בברייתא

Abaye says: He disputes this ruling in a baraita. Although it is not mentioned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda disputes this ruling, it mentioned in a different source.

ורבנן עונש דאשת אביו לאחר מיתה מנא להו בשלמא רבי יהודה מייתי לה בגזרה שוה אלא רבנן מנא להו

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?

אמרי לך ההוא ערות אביו גלה דמפיק לה רבי יהודה לגזירה שוה מפקי ליה אינהו לעונש דאשת אביו לאחר מיתה

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.

ורבנן עונש לאמו שאינה אשת אביו מנא להו אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי אמר קרא אמך היא עשאה הכתוב לאמו שאינה אשת אביו כאמו שהיא אשת אביו

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.

הבא על כלתו כו׳ ולחייב נמי משום אשת בנו אמר אביי פתח הכתוב בכלתו וסיים באשת בנו לומר לך זו היא כלתו זו היא אשת בנו

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.

מתני׳ הבא על הזכור ועל הבהמה והאשה המביאה את הבהמה בסקילה אם אדם חטא בהמה מה חטאה אלא לפי שבאה לאדם תקלה על ידה לפיכך אמר הכתוב תסקל דבר אחר שלא תהא בהמה עוברת בשוק ויאמרו זו היא שנסקל פלוני על ידה

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.

גמ׳ זכר מנא לן דתנו רבנן ׳איש׳ פרט לקטן ׳אשר ישכב את זכר׳ בין גדול בין קטן ׳משכבי אשה׳ מגיד לך הכתוב ששני משכבות באשה

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.

אמר רבי ישמעאל הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד

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.

׳מות יומתו׳ בסקילה אתה אומר בסקילה או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה נאמר כאן ׳דמיהם בם׳ ונאמר באוב וידעוני ׳דמיהם בם׳ מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה

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.

עונש שמענו אזהרה מניין תלמוד לומר ׳ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה היא׳

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).

למדנו אזהרה לשוכב אזהרה לנשכב מניין תלמוד לומר ׳לא יהיה קדש מבני ישראל׳ ואומר ׳וגם קדש היה בארץ עשו ככל התועבת הגוים אשר הוריש׳ וגו׳ דברי רבי ישמעאל

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.

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר ׳ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה׳ קרי ביה ׳לא תשכב׳

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.

בהמה מנא לן דתנו רבנן ׳איש׳ פרט לקטן ׳אשר יתן שכבתו בבהמה׳ בין גדולה בין קטנה

§ 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.

׳מות יומת׳ בסקילה אתה אומר בסקילה או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה נאמר כאן ׳תהרגו׳ ונאמר להלן ׳כי הרג תהרגנו׳ מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה

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.

למדנו עונש לשוכב עונש לנשכב מנלן תלמוד לומר ׳כל שכב עם בהמה מות יומת׳ אם אינו ענין לשוכב תניהו ענין לנשכב

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.

למדנו עונש בין לשוכב בין לנשכב אזהרה מניין תלמוד לומר ׳ובכל בהמה לא תתן שכבתך לטמאה בה׳

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).

למדנו אזהרה לשוכב לנשכב מניין תלמוד לומר לא יהיה קדש מבני ישראל׳ ואומר וגם קדש היה בארץ׳ וגו׳ דברי רבי ישמעאל

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.

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר ׳לא תתן שכבתך׳ לא תתן שכיבתך׳

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].

הבא על הזכור והביא עליו זכר

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?

אמר רבי אבהו לדברי רבי ישמעאל חייב שתים חדא מלא תשכב וחדא מלא יהיה קדש לדברי רבי עקיבא אינו חייב אלא אחת לא תשכב לא תשכב חדא היא

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.

הבא על הבהמה והביא בהמה עליו אמר רבי אבהו לדברי רבי ישמעאל חייב שתים חדא מלא תתן שכבתך וחדא מלא יהיה קדש לדברי רבי עקיבא אינו חייב אלא אחת שכבתך ושכיבתך חדא היא

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.

אביי אמר אפילו לדברי רבי ישמעאל נמי אינו חייב אלא אחת דכי כתיב לא יהיה קדש בגברי כתיב

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.

אלא לרבי ישמעאל אזהרה לנשכב מנא ליה נפקא ליה מכל שכב עם בהמה מות יומת אם אינו ענין לשוכב תניהו ענין לנשכב

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.

ואפקיה רחמנא לנשכב בלשון שוכב מה שוכב ענש והזהיר אף נשכב ענש והזהיר

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.

הנרבע לזכר והנרבע לבהמה אמר רבי אבהו לדברי רבי עקיבא חייב שתים חדא מלא תשכב וחדא מלא תתן שכבתך לדברי רבי ישמעאל אינו חייב אלא אחת אידי ואידי לא יהיה קדש הוא

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.”

אביי אמר אפילו לדברי רבי ישמעאל נמי חייב שתים דכתיב כל שכב עם בהמה מות יומת אם אינו ענין לשוכב תניהו ענין לנשכב ואפקיה רחמנא לנשכב בלשון שוכב מה שוכב ענש והזהיר אף נשכב ענש והזהיר

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.

אבל הבא על הזכור והביא זכר עליו הבא על הבהמה והביא בהמה עליו בין לרבי אבהו בין לאביי לרבי ישמעאל חייב שלש לרבי עקיבא חייב שתים

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.

תנו רבנן זכור לא עשו בו קטן כגדול בהמה עשו בה קטנה כגדולה

§ 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.

מאי לא עשו בו קטן כגדול אמר רב לא עשו ביאת פחות מבן תשע שנים כבן תשע שנים ושמואל אמר לא עשו ביאת פחות מבן שלש שנים כבן שלש שנים

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.

במאי קמיפלגי רב סבר כל דאיתיה בשוכב איתיה בנשכב וכל דליתיה בשוכב ליתיה בנשכב

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.

ושמואל סבר משכבי אשה כתיב

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.

תניא כוותיה דרב זכר בן תשע שנים ויום אחד

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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 54

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 54

תניא כוותיה דרבא ׳איש׳ פרט לקטן

§ 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.

׳אשר ישכב את אשת אביו׳ משמע בין אשת אביו שהיא אמו ובין אשת אביו שלא אמו אמו שאינה אשת אביו מניין תלמוד לומר ׳ערות אביו גלה׳ מופנה להקיש ולדון ממנו גזרה שוה

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.

׳מות יומתו׳ בסקילה אתה אומר בסקילה או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה נאמר כאן ׳דמיהם בם׳ ונאמר באוב וידעוני ׳דמיהם בם׳ מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה

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.

עונש שמענו אזהרה מניין תלמוד לומר ׳ערות אביך לא תגלה׳ ׳ערות אביך׳ זו אשת אביך

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.

אתה אומר אשת אביך או אינו אלא ערות אביך ממש נאמר כאן ׳ערות אביך לא תגלה׳ ונאמר להלן ׳ערות אביו גלה׳ מה להלן באישות הכתוב מדבר אף כאן באישות הכתוב מדבר

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.

ומשמע בין אשת אביו שהיא אמו בין אשת אביו שאינה אמו אמו שאינה אשת אביו מניין תלמוד לומר ׳ערות אמך לא תגלה׳

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).

אין לי אלא באזהרה שעשה הכתוב אמו שאינה אשת אביו כאמו שהיא אשת אביו עונש מניין

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?

נאמר כאן ׳ערות אביך לא תגלה׳ ונאמר להלן ׳ערות אביו גלה׳ מה באזהרה עשה הכתוב אמו שאינה אשת אביו כאמו שהיא אשת אביו אף בעונש עשה הכתוב אמו שאינה אשת אביו כאמו שהיא אשת אביו

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.

׳אמך היא׳ משום אמו אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום אשת אב

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.

ורבנן ערות אביך ממש

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.

האי מואת זכר נפקא לחייב עליו שתים

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.

וכדרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה נכרי הבא על אביו חייב שתים הבא על אחי אביו חייב שתים

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.

אמר רבא מסתברא מילתא דרב יהודה בישראל בשוגג ובקרבן והאי דקאמר נכרי לישנא מעליא הוא דאי סלקא דעתך נכרי ממש דינו מאי ניהו קטלא בתרי קטלי קטלת ליה

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.

תניא נמי הכי הבא על אביו חייב שתים הבא על אחי אביו חייב שתים

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).

איכא דאמרי דלא כרבי יהודה

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.

ואיכא דאמרי אפילו תימא רבי יהודה ומייתי לה בקל וחומר מאחי אביו ומה אחי אביו דקורבה דאביו הוא חייב שתים אביו לא כל שכן

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?

וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דאביי ורבא מר סבר עונשין מן הדין ומר סבר אין עונשין מן הדין

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.

ורבנן אזהרה לאשת אביו מנא להו נפקא להו מערות אשת אביך לא תגלה

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).

ורבי יהודה ההוא מיבעי ליה לאזהרה לאשת אביו לאחר מיתה

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.

ורבנן ההוא מסיפא דקרא נפקא ערות אביך היא

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.”

ורבי יהודה ההוא מיבעי ליה משום אשת אב אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום אשת איש

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.

והאנן תנן הבא על אשת אב חייב עליה משום אשת אב ומשום אשת איש בין בחיי אביו בין לאחר מיתת אביו ולא פליג רבי יהודה

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?

אמר אביי פליג בברייתא

Abaye says: He disputes this ruling in a baraita. Although it is not mentioned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda disputes this ruling, it mentioned in a different source.

ורבנן עונש דאשת אביו לאחר מיתה מנא להו בשלמא רבי יהודה מייתי לה בגזרה שוה אלא רבנן מנא להו

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?

אמרי לך ההוא ערות אביו גלה דמפיק לה רבי יהודה לגזירה שוה מפקי ליה אינהו לעונש דאשת אביו לאחר מיתה

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.

ורבנן עונש לאמו שאינה אשת אביו מנא להו אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי אמר קרא אמך היא עשאה הכתוב לאמו שאינה אשת אביו כאמו שהיא אשת אביו

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.

הבא על כלתו כו׳ ולחייב נמי משום אשת בנו אמר אביי פתח הכתוב בכלתו וסיים באשת בנו לומר לך זו היא כלתו זו היא אשת בנו

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.

מתני׳ הבא על הזכור ועל הבהמה והאשה המביאה את הבהמה בסקילה אם אדם חטא בהמה מה חטאה אלא לפי שבאה לאדם תקלה על ידה לפיכך אמר הכתוב תסקל דבר אחר שלא תהא בהמה עוברת בשוק ויאמרו זו היא שנסקל פלוני על ידה

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.

גמ׳ זכר מנא לן דתנו רבנן ׳איש׳ פרט לקטן ׳אשר ישכב את זכר׳ בין גדול בין קטן ׳משכבי אשה׳ מגיד לך הכתוב ששני משכבות באשה

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.

אמר רבי ישמעאל הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד

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.

׳מות יומתו׳ בסקילה אתה אומר בסקילה או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה נאמר כאן ׳דמיהם בם׳ ונאמר באוב וידעוני ׳דמיהם בם׳ מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה

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.

עונש שמענו אזהרה מניין תלמוד לומר ׳ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה היא׳

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).

למדנו אזהרה לשוכב אזהרה לנשכב מניין תלמוד לומר ׳לא יהיה קדש מבני ישראל׳ ואומר ׳וגם קדש היה בארץ עשו ככל התועבת הגוים אשר הוריש׳ וגו׳ דברי רבי ישמעאל

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.

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר ׳ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה׳ קרי ביה ׳לא תשכב׳

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.

בהמה מנא לן דתנו רבנן ׳איש׳ פרט לקטן ׳אשר יתן שכבתו בבהמה׳ בין גדולה בין קטנה

§ 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.

׳מות יומת׳ בסקילה אתה אומר בסקילה או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה נאמר כאן ׳תהרגו׳ ונאמר להלן ׳כי הרג תהרגנו׳ מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה

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.

למדנו עונש לשוכב עונש לנשכב מנלן תלמוד לומר ׳כל שכב עם בהמה מות יומת׳ אם אינו ענין לשוכב תניהו ענין לנשכב

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.

למדנו עונש בין לשוכב בין לנשכב אזהרה מניין תלמוד לומר ׳ובכל בהמה לא תתן שכבתך לטמאה בה׳

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).

למדנו אזהרה לשוכב לנשכב מניין תלמוד לומר לא יהיה קדש מבני ישראל׳ ואומר וגם קדש היה בארץ׳ וגו׳ דברי רבי ישמעאל

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.

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר ׳לא תתן שכבתך׳ לא תתן שכיבתך׳

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].

הבא על הזכור והביא עליו זכר

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?

אמר רבי אבהו לדברי רבי ישמעאל חייב שתים חדא מלא תשכב וחדא מלא יהיה קדש לדברי רבי עקיבא אינו חייב אלא אחת לא תשכב לא תשכב חדא היא

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.

הבא על הבהמה והביא בהמה עליו אמר רבי אבהו לדברי רבי ישמעאל חייב שתים חדא מלא תתן שכבתך וחדא מלא יהיה קדש לדברי רבי עקיבא אינו חייב אלא אחת שכבתך ושכיבתך חדא היא

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.

אביי אמר אפילו לדברי רבי ישמעאל נמי אינו חייב אלא אחת דכי כתיב לא יהיה קדש בגברי כתיב

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.

אלא לרבי ישמעאל אזהרה לנשכב מנא ליה נפקא ליה מכל שכב עם בהמה מות יומת אם אינו ענין לשוכב תניהו ענין לנשכב

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.

ואפקיה רחמנא לנשכב בלשון שוכב מה שוכב ענש והזהיר אף נשכב ענש והזהיר

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.

הנרבע לזכר והנרבע לבהמה אמר רבי אבהו לדברי רבי עקיבא חייב שתים חדא מלא תשכב וחדא מלא תתן שכבתך לדברי רבי ישמעאל אינו חייב אלא אחת אידי ואידי לא יהיה קדש הוא

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.”

אביי אמר אפילו לדברי רבי ישמעאל נמי חייב שתים דכתיב כל שכב עם בהמה מות יומת אם אינו ענין לשוכב תניהו ענין לנשכב ואפקיה רחמנא לנשכב בלשון שוכב מה שוכב ענש והזהיר אף נשכב ענש והזהיר

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.

אבל הבא על הזכור והביא זכר עליו הבא על הבהמה והביא בהמה עליו בין לרבי אבהו בין לאביי לרבי ישמעאל חייב שלש לרבי עקיבא חייב שתים

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.

תנו רבנן זכור לא עשו בו קטן כגדול בהמה עשו בה קטנה כגדולה

§ 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.

מאי לא עשו בו קטן כגדול אמר רב לא עשו ביאת פחות מבן תשע שנים כבן תשע שנים ושמואל אמר לא עשו ביאת פחות מבן שלש שנים כבן שלש שנים

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.

במאי קמיפלגי רב סבר כל דאיתיה בשוכב איתיה בנשכב וכל דליתיה בשוכב ליתיה בנשכב

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.

ושמואל סבר משכבי אשה כתיב

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.

תניא כוותיה דרב זכר בן תשע שנים ויום אחד

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,

Scroll To Top