Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:7

משנה: הַבָּא עַל הַזָּכָר וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָאִשָׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. אִם אָדָם חָטָא בְּהֵמָה מָה חָטָאת. אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁבָּאת לָאָדָם תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדָהּ לְפִיכָךְ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב תִּיסָּקֵל. דָּבָר אַחֵר שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא הַבְּהֵמָה עוֹבֶרֶת בַּשּׁוּק וְיֹאמְרוּ זוֹ הִיא שֶׁנִּסְקַל אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עַל יָדֶיהָ׃ MISHNAH: A man who had sexual relations with a male or an animal, or a woman who brings an animal [upon herself]¹⁷¹These are to be stoned, Sanhedrin 7:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.5.1">Mishnah 5.. If a human sinned, what did the animal sin¹⁷²Leviticus.20.15">Lev. 20:15 decrees that a male who had relations with an animal shall be killed together with the animal, while v. 16 decrees that a woman who had relations with an animal shall be stoned together with the animal. The two verses are considered a unit, so that killing in v. 15 is read as stoning.? But because it caused a mishap to a human, therefore the verse decreed that it should be stoned. Another explanation: Lest the animal be seen in public and people say, this is the one because of which X was stoned.

הלכה: הַבָא עַל הַזְּכוּר. אַזְהָרָה לָבֹא עַל הַזְּכוּר מְנַיִין. וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּב֭ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה. כָּרֵת מְנַיִין. כִּ֚י כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה מִכֹּ֥ל הַתּֽוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵ֑לֶּה וְנִכְרְת֛וּ וגו׳׃ עוֹנֶשׁ מְנַיִין. וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תּֽוֹעֵיבָה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מ֥וֹת יוּמָת֭וּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם׃ אַתְּ יְלִיף דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם מִדְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם. עַד כְּדוֹן לַשּׁוֹכֵב. לַנִּשְׁכַּב מְנַיִין. וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּב֭ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה. קְרֵי בֵיהּ. לֹא תִישַּׁכָּב. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֥ה קָדֵ֖שׁ מִבְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל. כָּרֵת לַנִּשְׁכַּב כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מְנַיִין. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן קָדֵשׁ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וְגַם־קָדֵ֖שׁ הָיָה֣ בָאָ֑רֶץ. אַתְּ לָמֵד קָדֵשׁ מִקָּדֵשׁ וְקָדֵשׁ מִתּוֹעֵבָה. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר אָדָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. תּוֹעֵיבָה מִתּוֹעֵיבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּרִבִּי בּוּן. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן. תּֽוֹעֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם. שְׁנֵיהֶם בִּסְקִילָה. שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּאַזְהָרָה. שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּהִכָּרֵת. HALAKHAH: “A man who had sexual relations with a male.” From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with a male¹⁷³The form זְכוּר denotes, if not the penis, then the male as appendix to his sex organ.? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways¹⁷⁴Leviticus.18.22">Lev. 18:22. A general parallel to this paragraph is in the Sanhedrin.54b">Babli, 54b.. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Leviticus.18.29">Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted., etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a male in women’s ways, an abomination did both of them commit; they shall be put to death; their blood be on them¹⁷⁵Leviticus.20.13">Lev. 20:13.. You learn their blood be on them from their blood be on them¹⁵Leviticus.20.12">Lev. 20:12. From Leviticus.20.27">Lev. 20:27: they shall be put to death, by a stone they shall be stoned, their blood be on them, it is inferred that any expression “their blood be on them” means execution by stoning. Sanhedrin.54a">Babli 54a.. That is for the active one. For the passive one from where? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways, read: to be slept with¹⁷⁶The unvocalized text תשכב can be read either with the masoretes as active תִּשְׁכַּב “you shall sleep” or as passive תִּשָּׁכֵב “you shall be slept with”. The nonstandard vocalization in the text is from the ms. (Sanhedrin.54b">Babli 54b).. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? There shall be no qadeš among the sons of Israel¹⁷⁷Deuteronomy.23.18">Deut. 23:18. The identification of the qadeš as the male prostitute follows later from the verse in Kings.. From where extirpation for the passive homosexual following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. It says here qadeš and it says there, also a qadeš was in the land¹⁷⁸1K. 14:24.. You learn qadeš from qadeš and qadeš from abomination¹⁷⁹It is assumed that qadeš means the same in both verses. Also, qadeš must refer to the male since the feminine form qedešah is explicitly mentioned in Deuteronomy.23.18">Deut. 23:18. 1K. 14 continues: They did all the abominations of the peoples whom the Eternal had uprooted from before the Children of Israel. These abominations are referred to in Leviticus.18.29">Lev. 18:29 and the only abominations unique to a male are homosexuality and active bestiality. In the Sanhedrin.54b">Babli, 54b, both R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s statements are quoted as baraitot; partially also in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12).. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Abomination from abomination¹⁸⁰In Lev.20, the expression abomination is only used for the homosexual. This implies that the qadeš in 1K. 14:24, and therefore in Deuteronomy.23.18">Deut. 23:18 is engaged in homosexual acts.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita¹⁸¹Not recorded elsewhere. states this: Both committed an abomination¹⁷⁴Leviticus.18.22">Lev. 18:22. A general parallel to this paragraph is in the Sanhedrin.54b">Babli, 54b.. Both are stoned, both are subject to warning, both by extirpation.

אַזְהָרָה לָבֹא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה מְנַיִין. וּבְכָל־בְּהֵמָ֛ה לֹֽא־תִתֵּ֥ן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ֖ לְטָמְאָה־בָ֑הּ. כָּרֵת מְנַיִין. כִּ֚י כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה מִכֹּ֥ל הַתּֽוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵ֑לֶּה וְנִכְרְת֛וּ וגו׳׃ עוֹנֶשׁ מְנַיִין. וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֧ן שְׁכָבְתּ֛וֹ בִּבְהֵמָה֭ מ֣וֹת יוּמָ֑ת׃ אַתְּ יְלִיף דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם מִדְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מִן אַתְרֵיהּ וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מִן אַתְרֵיהּ. כָּרֵת לַנִּשְׁכַּב עַל דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לֵית מַשְׁכַּח. עוֹנֶשׁ לַנִּשְׁכַּב בֵּין עַל דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּין עַל דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה לֵית מַשְׁכַּח. וּכְתִיב זוֹבֵחַ לָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים יָחֳֽרָ֑ם. מַה זֶה בִסְקִילָה וְכָרֵת אַף זֶה בִסְקִילָה וְכָרֵת. מַה מַפְקָא מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. שָׁכַב אֶת הַזְּכוּר וְנִשְׁכַּב מִמֶּנּוּ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. שָׁכַב אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְנִשְׁכַּב הִימֶינָה. בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. שָׁכַב אֶת הַזְּכוּר וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. נִשְׁכַּב מִן הַזְּכוּר וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. שָׁכַב שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים כְּאַחַת. מֵאַחַר שֶׁמִּתְחַייְבִין עַל יָדוֹ שְׁנַיִם חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. נִשְׁכַּב מִשְּׁנֵי זְכָרִים כְּאַחַת. מֵאַחַר שֶׁמִּתְחַייְבִין עַל יָדוֹ שְׁנַיִם חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. תַּנֵּי. הַזְּכוּר לֹא עָשָׂה בוֹ הַקָּטוֹן כְּגָדוֹל וְהַבְּהֵמָה עָשָׂה בָהּ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה כִּגְדוֹלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ מִתְחַייֵב עָלֶיהָ עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא בַּת שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד. From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it¹⁸²Leviticus.18.23">Lev. 18:23. The entire paragraph has a parallel in the Sanhedrin.54b">Babli, 54b.. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Leviticus.18.29">Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted., etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death¹⁸³Lev.20:15. The corresponding verse for a woman is 20:16.. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them^15,Leviticus.20.12">Lev. 20:12. From Leviticus.20.27">Lev. 20:27: they shall be put to death, by a stone they shall be stoned, their blood be on them, it is inferred that any expression “their blood be on them” means execution by stoning. Sanhedrin.54a">Babli 54a.¹⁸⁴The expression is used only in v. 16. It is implied that the punishment for male bestiality cannot be less than that of female bestiality.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source¹⁷⁹It is assumed that qadeš means the same in both verses. Also, qadeš must refer to the male since the feminine form qedešah is explicitly mentioned in Deuteronomy.23.18">Deut. 23:18. 1K. 14 continues: They did all the abominations of the peoples whom the Eternal had uprooted from before the Children of Israel. These abominations are referred to in Leviticus.18.29">Lev. 18:29 and the only abominations unique to a male are homosexuality and active bestiality. In the Sanhedrin.54b">Babli, 54b, both R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s statements are quoted as baraitot; partially also in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12). and Rebbi Aqiba from his source¹⁸⁵R. Ismael includes bestiality in the actions of a qadeš. R. Aqiba always refers to Leviticus.18.29">Lev. 18:29.. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael¹⁸⁶The Babli disagrees and finds the passive participant in bestiality in Exodus.22.18">Ex. 22:18.. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba¹⁸⁷In Leviticus.20">Lev. 20., but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation¹⁸⁸The worshipper of the forces of nature is banned Exodus.22.19">Ex. 22:19, but as adherent of foreign worship he is stoned. It is implied that the death penalty decreed in the preceding verse, anybody lying with an animal shall be put to death, for the passive participant in bestiality also must be executed by stoning.. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice¹⁸⁹In the Sanhedrin.54b">Babli, 54b, the attributions are switched. One has to follow the classical commentaries in correcting the Yerushalmi following the Babli since, as explained in Sanhedrin 7:7:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.7.2">Notes 175–178, R. Aqiba finds the prohibition of active and passive homosexuality in the same verse whereas R. Ismael defines the passive homosexual as qadeš. Therefore, combined active and passive homosexual activity violates one verse for R. Aqiba, two for R. Ismael.. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice¹⁹⁰For both R. Aqiba and R. Ismael both Leviticus.18.22">Lev. 18:22 (or 23) and Exodus.22.18">Ex. 22:18 are violated. The Sanhedrin.54b">Babli disagrees, 54b.. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult¹⁹¹Sexual relations with males under the age of nine years and one day, and females under three years and one day, are not considered as sexual activities; cf. Ketubot1:3 Notes 147,152.; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age¹⁹²This does not refer to bestiality but to homosexuality. Homosexual relations of a male with an underage boy are not punishable unless the boy is at least three years and one day of age, i. e., that a valid sex act would have been performed if the child had been a girl. In the Sanhedrin.54b-55a">Babli, 54b/55a, Samuel derives this from Leviticus.18.22">Lev. 18:22 where homosexual acts are called lyings in woman’s way..

רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְעָא מֵרִבִּי זְעִירָא. מָה רָאָה רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה לֵיחָלֵק בִּזְכוּר וּבִבְהֵמָה וּבִשְׁאָר כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שֶׁבְּכָל־הָעֲרָיוֹת כָּתוּב בָּהֶן שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר וְאֵילּוּ אֵין כָּתוּב בָּהֶן שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי נִידָּה אֵין כָּתוּב בָּהּ שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר וְנֶחְלְקוּ עָלֶיהָ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. מִכֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב קְרֵיבָה קְרֵיבָה. כְּמִי שֶׁכּוּלְּהֶם כָּאן וְכוּלְּהֶם כָּאן. רִבִּי חִייָא בַּר אָדָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. וְאֶל־אִשָּׁה֭ בְּנִידַּת טוּמְאָתָהּ לֹ֣א תִקְרַ֔ב לְגַלּ֖וֹת עֶרְוָתָֽהּ׃ אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. הִיא בַּל תִקְרַב הִיא בַּל תְגַלֶּה. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked of Rebbi Zeˋira: For what reason did Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba disagree about a male and an animal but did not disagree about any incest prohibition¹⁹³For all other sexual prohibitions they agree that the warnings and punishments equally apply to both partners.? He told him, because for all incest prohibitions it is written blood relative,¹⁹⁴The introductory clause Leviticus.18.6">Lev. 18:6: No human shall come near to his blood relative to uncover nakedness refers to both sexes. The detailed prohibitions always are formulated for the male and mention the female’s nakedness, but here nakedness is mentioned without any pronoun, masculine or feminine. and about these it is not written blood relative. They objected: About the menstruating woman it is not written blood relative; did they disagree about her¹⁹⁵Both agree that for both partners the warning is Leviticus.18.19">Lev. 18:19 and the punishment, explicitly for both sexes, is 20:18.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: For it is written approach, approach; it is as if all were here and there¹⁹⁶The singular in 18:19 is equivalent to the plural used in 18:6; it is as if “blood relative” were written there.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Aba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: To the wife in the separation of her impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness¹⁹⁷Leviticus.18.19">Lev. 18:19. The verse seems to refer exclusively to the male; it is quoted as an objection.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “not to come near” is “not to uncover.¹⁹⁸Since “not to uncover” is used in 20:18 explicitly for both sexes, “not to come near” in 18:19 also must apply to both sexes.”

אַזְהָרָה לָאִשָּׁה הַמֵּבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה עָלֶיהָ מְנַיִין. וְאִשָּׁ֗ה לֹֽא תַֽעֲמֹ֞ד לִפְנֵי֧ בְהֵמָ֛ה לְרִבְעָ֖הּ תֶּ֥בֶל הֽוּא׃ כָּרֵת מְנַיִין. כִּ֚י כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה מִכֹּ֥ל הַתּֽוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵ֑לֶּה וְנִכְרְת֛וּ׃ עוֹנֶשׁ מְנַיִין. וְאִשָּׁ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר תַּעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי בְהֵֵמָה לְרִבְעָ֣ה אוֹתָהּ וְהָֽרַגְתָּ֥ אֶת־הָֽאִשָּׁה֭ וְאֶת־הַבְּהֵמָ֑ה מ֥וֹת יוּמָת֭וּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם׃ אַתְּ יְלִיף הֲרִיגָה מֵהֲרִיגָה. סְקִילָה מִסְּקִילָה. דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם מִדְּמֵיהֶם בָּם. From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a woman bringing an animal upon herself? A woman should not stand before an animal to be impregnated; it is mixture¹⁹⁹Leviticus.18.19">Lev. 18:19.. Extirpation from where? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Leviticus.18.29">Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted.. Punishment from where? If a woman stood before an animal to be impregnated, you should slay the woman and the animal; dying they shall be put to death, their blood be on them²⁰⁰Misquoted from Leviticus.20.16">Lev. 20:16.. One infers slaying from slaying, stoning from stoning, their blood be on them from their blood be on them²⁰¹Both for male and female bestiality it is said that the animal has to be slain; this shows that in both cases the animal has to be killed in the same way. Stoning is to be inferred from their blood be on them (Notes 15,184) referring to the female; this then is transferred also to apply to the male..

רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ שׁוֹגֵג. הֲרֵי הִיא נִסְקֶלֶת עַל יָדָיו וְהוּא פָטוּר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בָּעֵי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁחָרַשׁ בָּהּ בַּשַּׁבָּת. הֲרֵי הוּא נִסְקַל עַל יָדָהּ וְהִיא פְטוּרָה. לֵית לָךְ אֶלָּא כְהָדָא דָּמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. כַּסְפָּ֣ם וּזְהָבָ֗ם עָשׂ֤וּ לָהֶם֙ עֲצַבִּ֔ים לְמַעַ֭ן יִכָּרֵתוּן אֵין כָּתוּב כָּאן אֶלָּא לְמַעַ֭ן יִכָּרֵֽת. כְּאִינָּשׁ דָּמַר. שְׁחִיק טִימַייָה דְפַלָּן. דְּאַפִּיק בְּרֵיהּ לְעַבְדָּא בִישָׁא. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Think of it, if he erroneously has sexual relations with it²⁰²If a male thought that bestiality was not forbidden.. Should it be stoned because of him while he is not liable²⁰³Instead of simply stating that the verse requires that the animal be killed, the Mishnah states two different reasons for it. The first reason, that it led a human into sin, applies even if the human is not prosecutable because he was not duly warned of the criminality of the intended act. The second reason, that the animal was known as the one for which a human was stoned, does not apply. Sanhedrin.55b">Babli 55b in the name of Babylonian Amoraïm.? Rebbi Simeon asked: Think of it, if he used it to plough on the Sabbath. Is he not being stoned while it is not liable²⁰⁴The second reason stated in the Mishnah would apply here, but no animal can be stoned for a Sabbath violation.
Since R. Simeon is quoted after R. Abba bar Mamal, it seems that he is to be identified with R. Simeon ben Laqish.? You have only, as Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained: ²⁰⁵Hosea.8.4">Hos. 8:4.With their silver and gold they made idols for themselves; it is not written “that they be extirpated” but that he be extirpated²⁰⁶It is possible that of a group of criminals only one actually is prosecutable. There is nothing remarkable if human and animal are treated differently.. As if a person say: the bones of X be ground up for he led his son to evil ways.