Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) UNNATURAL OR INCOMPLETE RELATIONS

(a) Support (for Rav - Beraisa): If a boy (above) nine years old or a woman commits bestiality, naturally or unnaturally, he or she is liable.
(b) (Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda): Both kinds of relations with a woman are considered relations (we learn from "Mishkevei Ishah"), but only natural relations with an animal is bestiality.
(c) Question (Rav Papa): To the contrary! It is normal for a woman to have (natural) relations (with a man), only natural relations are considered relations - but all bestiality is abnormal, one should be liable for relations in any opening!
(d) Rejection (of Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda and Rav Papa - Beraisa): If a nine-year old boy or a woman commits bestiality, naturally or unnaturally, he or she is liable.
(e) Question (Ravina): If a man does Ha'ara'ah (the first stage of relations, initial penetration (or some say, touching the gentials)) with a man, what is the law?
(f) Objection: Regarding Mishkav Zachar it says "Mishkevei Ishah" - since Ha'ara'ah with a woman is like full relations, also with a man!
(g) Correction: Rather, if a man does Ha'ara'ah with an animal, what is the law?
(h) Answer (Rava): The Torah says "Ha'ara'ah" regarding relations with a paternal or maternal aunt;

1. Since we do not need this to teach about aunts (we already know that Ha'ara'ah with Arayos is like full relations, for they are equated to Nidah, regarding which it says Ha'ara'ah), we use it to teach about Ha'ara'ah with an animal.

(i) Question: One is Chayav Misah for bestiality - why did the Torah write Ha'ara'ah by Chayavei Kerisus (aunts), it should have written it by something else which is Chayav Misah!
(j) Answer: It wrote it regarding aunts, for the entire verse is extra to be expounded (other verses already forbid aunts).
(k) Question (Rav Achadboy bar Ami): If one did Ha'ara'ah to himself, what is the law?
(l) Rav Sheshes: Do not bother me with questions about impossible things!
(m) Rav Ashi: Granted, it is impossible when the Ever is Chai (in erection), but it is possible when it is Mes!

1. According to the opinion that relations with an Ever Mes is exempt, he is exempt; according to the opinion that relations with an Ever Mes is liable, he is liable twice, like a Shochev and a Nishkav.

(a) Question: If a Nochri had relations with an animal, do we kill it?

1. If an animal is killed (when a Yisrael had relations with it) on account of Takalah (a great transgression came about through it) *and* disgrace (people will remember his sin when they see the animal), here there is only Takalah, there is not disgrace (Nochrim often do this), we do not kill it;
2. If an animal is killed on account of Takalah alone, we kill it.

(b) Answer (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): Trees do not eat, drink or smell, yet we destroy an Asheirah because a Takalah resulted from it - if an enticer veers someone from the path of life (Mitzvos) to the path of death, all the more so the enticer should be destroyed!
(c) Question: If so (it only depends on Takalah), if a Nochri bowed to an animal, it should become forbidden and we should kill it!
(d) Answer: We never find something permitted to a Yisrael (if a Yisrael bowed to an animal, it is invalid for a Korban, but he may eat it or benefit from it) and forbidden to a Nochri!
(e) Question: If a Yisrael bowed to it, it should be forbidden, just like an animal a Yisrael slept with!
(f) Answer #1 (Abaye): Bestiality is a greater disgrace than idolatry.

1. Question: But we destroy Asheiros, even though the disgrace is not so great!
2. Answer: The Torah is more concerned for animals than for trees.

(g) Answer #2 (Rava): Because the animal enjoyed the transgression, it is killed.

1. Question: But we destroy Asheiros, even though they did not enjoy the transgression!
2. Answer: The Torah is more concerned for animals than for trees.

(h) Question (against Rav Sheshes - Mishnah): Also, (the animal is killed because) the Torah does not want that people will see the animal and mention that Ploni was stoned on account of it.

1. Suggestion: This second answer mentions both Takalah and disgrace, implying that the first answer (because the animal was a Takalah for a person), is enough to stone it (if not, the first answer could have been omitted)!
2. The first answer refers to a Nochri that committed bestiality (there is only Takalah), the second refers to a Yisrael that committed bestiality.

(i) Answer: No, we only kill it when there is disgrace;

1. This second answer mentions both Takalah and disgrace, the first answer is when there is only disgrace.
2. Question: When is there only disgrace?
3. Answer: A Yisrael committed bestiality b'Shogeg.

(j) Rav Hamnuna was unsure about this.
(k) Question (Rav Hamnuna): If a Yisrael committed bestiality b'Shogeg, do we kill the animal?

1. If we kill an animal only when there is only Takalah and disgrace, here there is only disgrace;
2. If we kill an animal when there is only disgrace, we kill it.

(l) Answer #1 (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): A three year-old girl can become Mekudeshes through relations;

1. If she fell to Yibum and did Yibum, it takes effect (she is married to the Yavam);
2. Anyone (except her husband) is liable for her on account of (relations with) a married woman,
3. One who has relations with her (when she is Nidah becomes Tamei like a Nidah) is Metamei a mattress under him (even if other mattresses are in between) like a vessel above (and touching a Zav);
4. If she marries a Kohen, she may eat Terumah;
5. If a Pasul (e.g. Mamzer) had relations with her, she is disqualified from Kehunah;
6. If any of the Arayos had relations with her, he is killed, she is exempt.
7. Suggestion: 'Any of the Arayos' includes an animal - it is killed, even though there is only disgrace, not Takalah!

(m) Rejection: Since she was Mezidah, there is also Takalah; the Torah had mercy on her (since she is a minor) and does not kill her;

1. The Torah had mercy on her, not on the animal.

(n) Answer #2 (Rava - Mishnah): If a nine-year old boy did Yibum, it takes effect; he cannot divorce her until he becomes an adult;

1. (If he has relations with a Nidah) he becomes Tamei like a Nidah, to Metamei a mattress under him like a vessel above;
2. If he is Pasul and has relations with a woman, she is disqualified from Kehunah;
3. If he is a Kohen, his 'wife' may not eat Terumah (because he cannot Mekadesh);
4. If he had relations with an animal, it is invalid to be a Korban, (if witnesses saw this) it is stoned.
5. If he had relations with any of the Arayos, she is killed.

i. The animal is killed, even though there is only disgrace, not Takalah!

(o) Rejection: Since he was Mezid, there is also Takalah; the Torah had mercy on him, not on the animal.
(p) Answer #3 (Mishnah): Also, the Torah does not want that people will see the animal and mention that Ploni was stoned on account of it.

1. Suggestion: Since this second answer mentions both disgrace and Takalah, the first answer (the animal led to the downfall of a person) must come to include disgrace without Takalah, i.e. a Yisrael that had relations with an animal b'Shogeg!

(q) Rejection: No, the second answer mentions disgrace and Takalah, the first answer comes to include Takalah without disgrace, i.e. a Nochri that had relations with an animal b'Shogeg!