Previous daf

1)

(a) We know from numerous sources that a woman who has unnatural relations with a man is Chayav.
According to Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda, the same will apply if she brings an animal on herself unnaturally. But, he says, if a man performs unnatural bestiality with an animal - is not Chayav.

(b) The basis for this distinction is - the Pasuk "Mishkevei Ishah", comparing the two Mishkavos of a woman, whereas no such Pasuk exists with regard to an animal.

(c) Rav Papa objects on the basis of a S'vara - because he says, if anything, the reverse is true, that the woman is Patur for having unnatural relations with an animal (because she does not derive pleasure from such a relationship); whereas a man (who does) is Chayav.

(d) Both opinions however, are proved wrong by a Beraisa - which renders both the woman and the man Chayav in the respective cases.

(a) Ravina asked Rava what the Din will be with regard to 'ha'Me'areh be'Zachur' - which means somebody who only performs a partial Bi'ah (or only has minimal physical contact) with another male.

(b) Rava dismissed the She'eilah - on the basis of the Pasuk "Mishkevei Ishah", which compares Bi'ah with a man to Bi'ah with a woman in this regard (in which case it is obvious that he is Chayav).

(c) Ravina then went on to ask him - whether one is Chayav for Ha'ara'ah with an animal.

(a) Rava replied that we learn it 'Im Eino Inyan' from the Ha'ara'ah that is written in connection with Achos Aviv va'Achos Imo, by whom "Ha'ara'ah" is superfluous - since we already know the Chiyuv of Ha'ara'ah by all cases of incest from a 'Hekesh' from Ha'ara'ah.

(b) We ask why the Torah then presents the source for Ha'ara'ah by bestiality by Achos Aviv va'Achos Imo - seeing as it is only punishable by Kareis. Bearing in mind that bestiality is Chayav Sekilah (and Achos Aviv ve'Imo Kareis), it would seem more appropriate for the Torah to have presented Ha'ara'ah for bestiality by one of the Chayvei Sekilah.

(c) We answer - by pointing out that since the entire Pasuk of Achos Aviv and Achos Imo (which is superfluous), is anyway used to make various D'rashos from (as is explained in Yevamos), the Torah takes the opportunity of adding this D'rashah, too (no matter that it is slightly inappropriate).

(a) When Rav Sheishes replied 'K'vastan' to Rav Achdevui bar Ami's She'eilah whether a person is Chayav for performing Ha'ara'ah on himself, he meant - that the She'eilah is irrelevant since it cannot happen (the word means 'You hurt (or misled) me' (or 'You made me want to vomit').

(b) Rav Ashi however, explains the possibility of Rav Achdevui bar Ami's She'eilah actually taking place - in the case of an Eiver Meis (when the Eiver is limp and can therefore be stretched).

(c) This is subject to another Machlokes - whether one is Chayav for performing an act of incest with an Eiver Meis.

(d) Rav Ashi concludes, according to the opinion of those who say 'ha'Meshamesh Meis ba'Arayos Chayav' - that one is Chayav two Korbanos, one for Shochev and one for Nishkav.

(a) They asked Rav Sheishes whether the animal with which a Nochri committed bestiality is put to death. It might not be - seeing as our Mishnah (in the case of bestiality) gives two reasons for the animal having to be killed, Takalah (the cause of the person's death) and Kalon (the cause of his disgrace), and the second reason does not apply to a Nochri, who does not consider this a disgrace. So if the Tana considers both reasons crucial to the Chiyuv, the animal will not be put to death).

(b) Rav Sheishes answered them from a Beraisa - which learns that a person who causes others to sin should be destroyed through a 'Kal va'Chomer' from trees of an Asheirah in Eretz Yisrael, which must be burned, because they caused the seven nations to sin. So we see that Takalah applies without Kalon (since worshipping trees is not considered a disgrace in the eyes of Nochrim).

(c) By the same token, we ask, if a Nochri prostrates himself before an animal, it too, ought to be forbidden. The problem with that is - the fact that if a Yisrael does the same thing, it is not forbidden, and we know that from the fact that the Torah forbids it to be brought as a Korban, implying that it is Mutar be'Hana'ah, and need not be killed.

(d) We counter this by suggesting that should indeed be forbidden even if a Yisrael did it, just like it is if he raped it. And as for the Torah's need to forbid it as a Korban - that speaks where there is only one witness or where only the owner knows about it.

(a) Abaye, who requires Takalah and Kalon, explains that a Yisrael who rapes the animal forbids it - because there is both Takalah and Kalon, whereas a Nochri does not, because there is no Kalon (as Rav Sheishes explained).

(b) This explanation assumes that Abaye totally disagrees with Rav Sheishes (with regard to an animal that was raped by a Nochri). We might also partially reconcile his opinion with that of Rav Sheishes - by differentiating between rape, which causes a great Kalon (that applies even by Nochrim), and prostrating oneself, which entails only a small Kalon, even by a Yisrael (and none at all by Nochrim). In this case, Abaye agrees with Rav Sheishes, that an animal that is raped by a Nochri is put to death.

(c) He still argues with him (besides the fact that he requires both Takalah and Kalon) - inasmuch as he does not learn it from the Beraisa of trees (like Rav Sheishes did), as we shall now see.

(d) And the reason for this is - because it is only by an animal (on which the Torah has pity [as we see from the fact that twenty-three judges and witnesses], because it has life), that the Torah requires Kalon as well as Takalah, but not by a tree (See also Ran on the Sugya).

(a) Rava learns like Rav Sheishes, who forbids an animal even where there is no Kalon. And he ascribes the fact that an animal that was raped is forbidden - because it derived benefit from the act (which is on a par with Kalon), as opposed to one that was worshipped, which did not.

(b) The Torah nevertheless forbids an Asheirah - because it is only animals that the Torah permits (in spite of the Hana'ah that they derive).

(c) We attempt to resolve Rav Sheishes' She'eilah from the Seifa of our Mishnah, which ascribes the animal being forbidden, to Kalon (in addition to Takalah), from which we try and extrapolate - that the Reisha must be speaking about Takalah where there is no Kalon, such as where the animal was raped by a Nochri (a proof that Takalah without Kalon is forbidden).

(d) We refute this proof - on the grounds that the Reisha is speaking (not where there is Takalah and Kalon, because that is in fact, what the Seifa is talking about, but) about Kalon that is not a Takalah, which is sufficient reason on its own to cause the animal to be put to death.

8)

(a) The standard case of Kalon without Takalah is - if a Yisrael has relations with an animal be'Shogeg (seeing as he is not subject to the seath-sentence).

(b) Rav Hamnuna asked - whether, in such a case, the animal would be stoned (because the Tana only considers Kalon crucial, but not Takalah), or not (because he requires both).

(a) Rav Yosef attempts to resolve Rav Hamnuna's She'eilah from a Beraisa. The Tana ...

1. ...rules - that her Kidushin is valid, her Yavam acquires her with Bi'ah, and that someone who subsequently commits adultery with her is Chayav Miysah.
2. ... says 'u'Metam'ah es Bo'alah le'Tamei Mishkav Tachton ke'Elyon' - he does not mean to preclude a girl of under three from Tum'as Nidah, when in fact, she renders Tamei for one day someone who touches her when she is a Nidah, from the day she is born.

(b) What he does mean is - that she renders whoever is Bo'el her an Av for seven days, and he in turn, renders the bottom sheet underneath him Tamei, but only like the top sheet of a Zav.

(c) The difference between the top sheet of a Zav and the sheets underneath him is - that whereas the former is a Rishon le'Tum'ah, which renders Tamei only food and drink, the latter is an Av ha'Tum'ah, which renders Tamei a person and vessels who touch it as well.

(a) With regard to the Tana's earlier statement, a girl ...

1. ... of three can become betrothed with Bi'ah - only through the auspices of her father.
2. ... under three can become betrothed with Kesef and Sh'tar.

(b) The Beraisa rules that if the girl who is over three marries a Kohen, she is permitted to eat Terumah. If her father was Mekadesh her to a Kohen with Kidushei Kesef or Sh'tar - she would not be able to eat Terumah, since she is not yet fit to make Bi'ah, and therefore not subject to Chupah either (without which she cannot eat Terumah).

(c) If one of the Pesulim (e.g. a Nasin or a Mamzer) rapes her, he disqualifies her from eating Terumah. Rav Yosef extrapolates from the Tana's next statement 've'Im Ba Alehah *Echad mi'Kol ha'Arayos* ha'Amuros ba'Torah, Mumsin al-Yadah, ve'Hi Peturah' - that even the animal that he raped is put to death, even though there is only Kalon without Takalah.

(d) We refute this proof however, on the grounds - that the truth of the matter is that a sinful act was certainly performed, in which case there is Takalah too, only Hashem has pity on a Ketanah, and spares her life.

(a) Another Beraisa rules that a boy of over nine acquires his Yavam. The Tana rules that ...

1. ... he may only give her a Get - once he becomes a Gadol, since the Kidushin was performed by his brother, who was a Gadol when he betrothed her.
2. ... in a case where he is Bo'el a Nidah - he is Metamei the sheet on which he is lying like the sheet that covers a Zav (as we explained earlier).

(b) If he ...

1. ... is a Pasul Yisrael who has relations with a bas Kohen - he disqualifies her from eating Terumah.
2. ... is a Kohen who betroths a bas Yisrael with Bi'ah - he may not feed her Terumah (because, based on the fact that a Katan cannot acquire) she is not called "Kinyan Kaspo").
3. ... commits bestiality in front of only one witness - the animal is Pasul to go on the Mizbe'ach.
4. ... commits bestiality in front of two witnesses - it must be put to death.

(c) Here too, we try and extrapolate from the Tana's next statement 've'Im Ba Al *Achas mi'Kol ha'Arayos* ha'Amuros ba'Torah, Mumsin al-Yado' (incorporating animals), that Kalon without Takalah, will suffice to warrant the animal's death. But here too, like we explained earlier - a sinful act was certainly performed, in which case there is Takalah too, only Hashem has pity on a Ketanah, and spares her life.

(a) We attempt to resolve our She'eilah from the Seifa of our Mishnah, which ascribes the animal being forbidden, to Kalon (in addition to Takalah) - implying that the Reisha is a case of Kalon without Takalah, yet the animal is killed.

(b) But we refute that proof - by extrapolating from the Seifa that the Reisha speaks by Takalah without Kalon.