ורמינהי לוקחין מהן בהמה לקרבן ואין חוששין לא משום רובע ולא משום נרבע ולא משום מוקצה ולא משום נעבד
GEMARA: With regard to the assumption that gentiles are suspected of bestiality, the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta 2:1): One may purchase an animal from gentiles for use as an offering, and there is no concern that it might be unfit due to it being an animal that copulated with a person, or due to is being an animal that was the object of bestiality, or due to it having been set aside for idol worship, or due to the animal itself having been worshipped.
בשלמא מוקצה ונעבד אם איתא דאקצייה ואם איתא דפלחיה לא הוה מזבין ליה אלא רובע ונרבע לחוש אמר רב תחליפא אמר רב שילא בר אבינא משמיה דרב עובד כוכבים חס על בהמתו שלא תעקר
The Gemara analyzes this ruling: Granted, there is no concern that the animal was set aside for idolatry or was itself worshipped. The reason is that if it is so that it was set aside, or if it is so that it was worshipped, then the gentile would not have sold it to the Jew in the first place. But with regard to the possibility that it is an animal that copulated with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality, let one raise a concern in line with the ruling of the mishna. The Gemara explains: Rav Taḥlifa says that Rav Sheila bar Avina says in the name of Rav: A gentile protects and thereby spares his own animal so that it will not become barren. Since an act of bestiality may cause an animal to become barren, there is no concern that the gentile engaged in immoral behavior with it. Therefore, one may use an animal purchased from a gentile as an offering.
התינח נקבות זכרים מאי איכא למימר אמר רב כהנא הואיל ומכחישין בבשר
The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to female animals, as they can become barren, but with regard to males, what is there to say? Rav Kahana says: Gentiles also refrain from engaging in bestiality with their male livestock, since doing so deteriorates the animals’ flesh, i.e., it makes them physically weaker.
אלא הא דתניא לוקחין בהמה מרועה שלהן ליחוש דלמא רבעה לה רועה שלהן מתיירא משום הפסד שכר
Rather, the Gemara instead raises a contradiction from that which is taught in a baraita: One may purchase an animal for use as an offering from their shepherd, i.e., a gentile shepherd. The Gemara explains the apparent contradiction: In light of the ruling of the mishna, let us be concerned that perhaps he engaged in bestiality with the animal, as it does not belong to him, and therefore it should be prohibited to purchase an animal from gentile shepherds. The Gemara answers: Their shepherd is fearful of engaging in bestiality with the animals under his care, due to the forfeit of his wages that would result if this were discovered.
אלא הא דתניא אין מוסרין בהמה לרועה שלהן לימא רועה שלהן מתיירא משום הפסד שכרו
Rather, the Gemara instead raises a contradiction from that which is taught in a baraita: One may not deliver an animal to their shepherd, i.e., a gentile shepherd. The Gemara explains the contradiction: Why may one not do so? Let us say that their shepherd is fearful due to the forfeit of his wages, and accordingly one should be permitted to give him an animal.
אינהו דידעי בהדדי מרתתי אנן דלא ידעינן בהו לא מרתתי אמר רבה היינו דאמרי אינשי מכתבא גללא בזע רגלא בחבריה ידע
The Gemara answers: With regard to themselves, i.e., other gentiles, as they are aware of each other’s actions, they are fearful that they may be caught, and therefore will not engage in bestiality with an animal belonging to another gentile. But with regard to ourselves, Jews, as we are not aware of them and their behavior, they are not fearful of us. The Gemara notes that Rabba said: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: Just as the stylus etches script upon marble, a sinner knows his fellow sinner, i.e., a transgressor is acutely aware of others who act in the same manner.
אי הכי זכרים מנקבות לא ניזבון דחיישינן דלמא מרבעא ליה עילוה כיון דמיגרי בה מרתתא
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, and the reason one may purchase an animal for use as an offering from a gentile is that engaging in bestiality has a negative impact on the animal, then let us not purchase male animals from female gentiles, as we should be concerned that perhaps she engaged in bestiality with it. This would not damage the animal or render it barren, and therefore there is no deterrent that would prevent a gentile woman from doing so. The Gemara answers: Since, if she were to engage in bestiality, the animal would follow her around in public, she is afraid of others discovering her behavior.
אלא הא דתני רב יוסף ארמלתא לא תרבי כלבא ולא תשרי בר בי רב באושפיזא בשלמא בר בי רב צניע לה אלא כלבא כיון דמיגרה בה מרתתא
The Gemara further asks: But consider that which Rav Yosef teaches: A widow may not raise a dog due to the suspicion that she may engage in bestiality, and she may not allow a student of Torah to dwell as a lodger [be’ushpiza] in her home. Granted, it makes sense that is prohibited for her to have a student of Torah lodging in her home, as he is regarded as discreet in her eyes, so she will not be deterred from sinning with him. But with regard to a dog, since it would follow her around after she mates with it, she is afraid to engage in bestiality with it. Therefore, it should be permitted for her to raise a dog.
כיון דכי שדיא ליה אומצא ומסריך אבתרה מימר אמרי אינשי האי דמסריך אבתרה משום אומצא דקא מסריך
The Gemara answers: Since it will also follow her around in a case when she throws it a piece of meat, people will say: The fact that it is following her is due to the meat she threw at it, and they will not suspect her of bestiality. Consequently, she will not be deterred from transgressing.
נקבות אצל נקבות מאי טעמא לא מייחדינן אמר מר עוקבא בר חמא מפני שהעובדי כוכבים מצויין אצל נשי חבריהן ופעמים שאינו מוצאה ומוצא את הבהמה ורובעה
The Gemara asks: With regard to female animals with females, what is the reason that we do not permit them to be secluded with each other? Mar Ukva bar Ḥama says: It is because gentiles frequent the wives of others, and on occasion the gentile does not find her, and he finds the animal and engages in bestiality with it instead.
ואיבעית אימא אפילו מוצאה נמי רובעה דאמר מר חביבה עליהן בהמתן של ישראל יותר מנשותיהן דא"ר יוחנן בשעה שבא נחש על חוה הטיל בה זוהמא אי הכי ישראל נמי ישראל שעמדו על הר סיני פסקה זוהמתן עובדי כוכבים שלא עמדו על הר סיני לא פסקה זוהמתן
And if you wish, say instead: Even when he finds the wife, he also engages in bestiality with the animal, as the Master said: The animal of a Jew is more appealing to gentiles than their own wives, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: At the time when the snake came upon Eve, at the time of the sin of her eating from the Tree of Knowledge, it infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination lingers in all human beings. The Gemara asks: If that is so, a Jew should also be suspected of engaging in bestiality. The Gemara answers: With regard to the Jewish people, who stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah, their contamination ended, whereas in the case of gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai and receive the Torah, their contamination has not ended.
איבעיא להו עופות מאי תא שמע דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רבי חנינא אני ראיתי עובד כוכבים שלקח אווז מן השוק רבעה חנקה צלאה ואכלה וא"ר ירמיה מדיפתי אני ראיתי ערבי אחד שלקח ירך מן השוק וחקק בה כדי רביעה רבעה צלאה ואכלה
§ The Gemara inquires with regard to the halakha in the case of a bird. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to birds, what is the halakha? Are gentiles suspected of engaging in bestiality with birds? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that they are suspected of doing so, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: I once saw a gentile who bought a goose in the market, engaged in bestiality with it, strangled it, roasted it, and then ate it. And similarly, Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti says: I saw a certain Arab who bought a thigh of meat from the market and carved a space in it that was the size necessary to allow for penetration. Subsequently, he penetrated it, roasted it, and ate it. These incidents demonstrate that gentiles are suspected of immoral conduct with fowl.