Sanhedrin 55bסנהדרין נ״ה ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Sanhedrin 55b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
55bנ״ה ב

מדסיפא תקלה וקלון רישא תקלה בלא קלון והיכי דמי עובד כוכבים הבא על הבהמה

evident from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna includes two reasons for the killing of the animal, namely both the calamity and the shame caused by the animal, that the first clause, the first reason stated in the mishna, is referring to a case of a calamity with-out shame? And what are the circumstances of a calamity without shame? It is the case of a gentile who engages in intercourse with an animal. In that case there is a calamity, as the gentile is executed, but his shame is not the concern of the Jewish court.

לא סיפא תקלה וקלון רישא הא קמ"ל דאפילו קלון בלא תקלה נמי מיחייבי והיכי דמי ישראל הבא על הבהמה בשוגג וכדבעי רב המנונא

The Gemara rejects this proof: No. The latter clause is referring to a case of both a calamity and shame, but this first clause teaches us that even in a case where there is a circumstance of shame alone without the calamity of execution, the court is obligated to kill the animal. Although the mishna employs the term: Calamity, it is possible that this is referring to the calamity of the transgression, not the execution of the transgressor. And what are the circumstances of this case? It is a case of a Jew who unwittingly engages in intercourse with an animal, and this is just like the case about which Rav Hamnuna raises a dilemma.

דבעי רב המנונא ישראל הבא על הבהמה בשוגג מהו תקלה וקלון בעינן והכא קלון איכא תקלה ליכא או דילמא קלון אע"פ שאין תקלה

As Rav Hamnuna raises a dilemma: With regard to a Jew who unwittingly engages in intercourse with an animal, what is the halakha? Is the animal stoned to death? Do we need both a calamity and shame in order to put it to death, and therefore here the animal is not killed, as there is shame, but there is no calamity of execution, or perhaps shame is enough, even if there is no calamity?

אמר רב יוסף תא שמע בת שלש שנים ויום אחד מתקדשת בביאה ואם בא עליה יבם קנאה וחייבין עליה משום אשת איש

Rav Yosef says: Come and hear a resolution from a mishna (Nidda 44b): A girl who is three years and one day old whose father arranged her betrothal is betrothed with intercourse, as the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse. And in a case where the childless husband of a girl who is three years and one day old dies, if his brother, the yavam, engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife; and if she is married, a man other than her husband is liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to the prohibition of intercourse with a married woman.

ומטמאה את בועלה לטמא משכב תחתון כעליון ניסת לכהן אוכלת בתרומה בא עליה אחד מן הפסולים פסלה מן הכהונה

The mishna continues: And if she is impure due to menstruation, she transmits impurity to one who engages in intercourse with her, who then renders all the items designated for lying beneath him impure like the items designated for lying above him. If she marries a priest, she may partake of teruma like any other wife of a priest. If she is unmarried and one of the men who are unfit for the priesthood, e.g., a mamzer or ḥalal, engages in intercourse with her, he has disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, and if she is the daughter of a priest, she is disqualified from partaking of teruma.

ואם בא עליה אחד מכל העריות האמורות בתורה מומתין על ידה והיא פטורה

The mishna continues: And if one of any of those with whom relations are forbidden, who are stated in the Torah, engaged in intercourse with her, e.g., her father or father-in-law, they are executed by the court for engaging in intercourse with her, and she is exempt because she is a minor.

אחד מכל עריות ואפילו בהמה והא הכא דקלון איכא תקלה ליכא וקתני מומתין על ידה

The Gemara infers: One of any of those with whom relations are forbidden apparently includes even an animal. And here, there is shame but there is no calamity, as she is not executed due to her status as a minor, and yet the mishna teaches: They are executed for engaging in intercourse with her. Evidently, the animal is killed.

כיון דמזידה היא תקלה נמי איכא ורחמנא הוא דחס עלה עלה דידה חס אבהמה לא חס

The Gemara rejects this proof: Since she committed this transgression intentionally, there is a calamity as well, and it is the Merciful One who has pity on her due to her young age, and exempts her from punishment. And although the Merciful One has pity on her, He does not have pity on the animal. Therefore, it cannot be proven from here that shame without a calamity is sufficient cause for the animal to be put to death, because calamity is present in this case.

אמר רבא ת"ש בן תשע שנים ויום אחד הבא על יבמתו קנאה ואינו נותן גט עד שיגדיל ומטמא כנדה לטמא משכב תחתון כעליון

Rava says: Come and hear a proof from the subsequent mishna (Nidda 45a): With regard to a boy who is nine years and one day old, whose brother died childless, and who engaged in intercourse with his yevama, his brother’s widow, the status of the intercourse is that of full-fledged intercourse and he has acquired her as his wife, but if he chooses to end the marriage, he cannot give her a bill of divorce until he reaches majority. And he becomes ritually impure like a menstruating woman after engaging in intercourse with her, and then renders all the items designated for lying beneath him impure like the items designated for lying above him.

פוסל ואינו מאכיל ופוסל את הבהמה מעל גבי המזבח ונסקלת ע"י ואם בא על אחת מכל העריות האמורות בתורה מומתים על ידו

The mishna continues: If he is disqualified from the priesthood and engages in intercourse with the daughter of a priest, he disqualifies her from partaking of teruma; but if he is a priest who marries an Israelite woman, he does not enable her to partake of teruma. And if he engages in intercourse with an animal, he disqualifies the animal from being sacrificed upon the altar, and the animal is stoned on the basis of intercourse with him. And if he engaged in intercourse with one of any of those with whom relations are forbidden, who are stated in the Torah, they are executed by the court on the basis of intercourse with him, but he is exempt.

והא הכא קלון איכא תקלה ליכא וקתני נסקלת על ידו

The Gemara infers: And here, in a case where he engages in intercourse with an animal, there is shame, but there is no calamity, and yet the mishna teaches that the animal is stoned on the basis of intercourse with him, indicating that shame is sufficient for the animal to be killed.

כיון דמזיד הוא תקלה נמי איכא ורחמנא הוא דחס עילויה עליה דידיה חס רחמנא אבהמה לא חס רחמנא

The Gemara rejects this proof: Since he committed this transgression intentionally, there is a calamity as well, and it is the Merciful One who has pity on him due to his minority. Although the Merciful One has pity on him, the Merciful One does not have pity on the animal. Therefore, it cannot be proven from here that shame without a calamity is sufficient cause for the animal to be put to death, because calamity is present in this case.

תא שמע דבר אחר שלא תהא בהמה עוברת בשוק ויאמרו זו היא שנסקל פלוני על ידה מאי לאו מדסיפא תקלה וקלון רישא קלון בלא תקלה והיכי דמי ישראל הבא על הבהמה בשוגג

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from the mishna (54a): Alternatively, it is so that this animal will not pass through the marketplace, and those who see it will say: This is the animal because of which so-and-so was stoned. What, is it not evident from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna includes two reasons for the killing of the animal, namely both the calamity and the shame caused by the animal, that the first clause, the first reason stated in the mishna, is referring to a case of shame without a calamity? And what are the circumstances of shame without a calamity? It is the case of a Jew who unwittingly engages in intercourse with an animal.

לא סיפא תקלה וקלון רישא תקלה בלא קלון והיכי דמי עובד כוכבים הבא על הבהמה וכדבעו מיניה מרב ששת:

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, perhaps the latter clause is referring to a case where there is both a calamity and shame, while the first clause is referring to a case where there is a calamity without shame. And what are the circumstances of a calamity without shame? It is the case of a gentile who engages in intercourse with an animal, as the students asked Rav Sheshet. The dilemma is left unresolved. No conclusive answer can be inferred from the mishna for either this dilemma or for the dilemma raised by the students of Rav Sheshet.

מתני׳ המגדף אינו חייב עד שיפרש השם א"ר יהושע בן קרחה

MISHNA: One who blasphemes, i.e., one who curses God, is not liable unless he utters the name of God and curses it. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: