- women may be liable for bestiality that is vaginal or anal; man may be liable only for vaginal bestiality
- a man who has intercourse with a boy over nine years
- if a man does not have full intercourse with another man, the rabbis consider that to be liable as if it were full intercourse
- if a man attempts to have anal intercourse with himself, is he liable?
- Rav Sheshet calls this disgusting and impossible; one cannot do such a thing with an erection, and the penis must be erect to call any interaction an act of intercourse
The rabbis wonder whether or not an animal should be killed if found to have participated in intercourse with a human. One argument for killing such an animal is that people will remember the incident when they see the animal and think of the discretion. If it is only that the animal took part in a transgression, however, the rabbis argue about whether or not it should be killed.
As part of their conversation, the rabbis consider other comparative cases, such as killing a tree used as an asheira, an idol, or an animal worshipped as an idol. The rabbis argue that we care more about animals than we do about trees. However, that does not necessarily mean that the animal should be killed because it has been worshipped as an idol. Isn't bestiality much worse a transgression?
The rabbis compare their argument to the consequences that accompany a three year old girl who transgresses halachot, obviously without her acting as a willing accomplice. In some cases her status changes while the active transgressor is killed. In other cases nothing changes for her though the active transgressor is killed. If the animal is the active transgressor, then the animal is killed while she is not.
The Gemara then considers a comparison with a nine year-old boy who does yibum. Though he is a minor and not subject to many halachot, he is forbidden from divorcing her until he becomes an adult. The rabbis walk through the consequences to him and others if different halachot are transgressed. If he participates in bestiality, he is left alive but the animal is either stoned to death or otherwise killed. In both of these circumstances, the rabbis suggest that the Torah has mercy on minors but not upon animals.
We end our daf with the rabbis continuing to argue about whether disgrace and being a 'stumbling block' are both necessary requirements for an animal to be killed.
As part of their conversation, the rabbis consider other comparative cases, such as killing a tree used as an asheira, an idol, or an animal worshipped as an idol. The rabbis argue that we care more about animals than we do about trees. However, that does not necessarily mean that the animal should be killed because it has been worshipped as an idol. Isn't bestiality much worse a transgression?
The rabbis compare their argument to the consequences that accompany a three year old girl who transgresses halachot, obviously without her acting as a willing accomplice. In some cases her status changes while the active transgressor is killed. In other cases nothing changes for her though the active transgressor is killed. If the animal is the active transgressor, then the animal is killed while she is not.
The Gemara then considers a comparison with a nine year-old boy who does yibum. Though he is a minor and not subject to many halachot, he is forbidden from divorcing her until he becomes an adult. The rabbis walk through the consequences to him and others if different halachot are transgressed. If he participates in bestiality, he is left alive but the animal is either stoned to death or otherwise killed. In both of these circumstances, the rabbis suggest that the Torah has mercy on minors but not upon animals.
We end our daf with the rabbis continuing to argue about whether disgrace and being a 'stumbling block' are both necessary requirements for an animal to be killed.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment