And Rav said to Rav Asi: Do not live in a city where horses do not neigh and where dogs do not bark, as the these animals provide security and protection. And do not live in a city where the mayor is a doctor, as he will be too busy working to govern properly. And do not marry two women, as they will likely join forces against you. And if you do marry two, marry a third as well. If two of your wives plot against you, the third will inform you of their plans.

Rav Kahana said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and some say Rav Asi said that Reish Lakish said, and some say Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Anyone who raises an evil dog within his home prevents kindness from entering into his home, since poor people will hesitate to enter his house. As it is alluded to in the verse: “To him that is afflicted [lamas],kindness from his friend and awe of the Almighty will leave” (Job 6:14), since in the Greek language they call a dog lamas. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: One who keeps an evil dog in his home even divests himself of fear of Heaven, as it is stated at the end of that verse: “And awe of the Almighty will leave.” The Gemara relates: A certain pregnant woman who entered to use the oven in a certain house to bake, the dog in that house barked at her, and her fetus was displaced. The owner of the house said to her: Do not be afraid because his teeth have been removed and his claws have been removed. She said to him: Take your goodness and throw it on the thorns. Your encouragement is useless as the fetus has already been displaced and will certainly die.

The Sages taught: If the dogs in a certain place are crying for no reason, it is a sign that they feel the Angel of Death has come to the city. If the dogs are playing, it is a sign that they feel that Elijah the prophet has come to the city. These matters apply only if there is no female dog among them. If there is a female dog nearby, their crying or playing is likely due to her presence.

The Gemara asks: When the residents of Geder go to Ḥamtan, they will assault the residents there; of what use, then, is this ordinance? The Gemara answers, citing a popular saying: A dog that is not in its place will not bark for seven years. On its own turf, a dog barks readily, but it becomes scared in unfamiliar surroundings and remains silent. Similarly, the people of Geder are not nearly as bold when they visit Ḥamtan as they are in their own town.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita against Rav’s ruling that it is prohibited to keep a cat. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may raise village dogs, cats, monkeys, and genets, because they serve to clean the house of mice and other vermin. The Gemara resolves the apparent contradiction: It is not difficult. This ruling in the baraita is stated with regard to a black cat, which is harmless, whereas that ruling of Rav is stated with regard to a white cat, which is dangerous.

One who sees a dog in a dream should rise early and recite: “But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog whet his tongue” (Exodus 11:7), before a different verse, with a negative connotation, can precede it in becoming reality: “Yea, the dogs are greedy” (Isaiah 56:11). One who sees a lion in a dream should rise early and recite: “The lion has roared, who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken, who can but prophesy?” (Amos 3:8), before a different verse, with a negative connotation, can precede it in becoming reality: “A lion is gone up from his thicket, and a destroyer of nations is set out, gone forth from his place” (Jeremiah 4:7).

The justification for this is from the ruling of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that one may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and one may not set up an unstable ladder in his house? The verse states: “You shall not bring blood into your house” (Deuteronomy 22:8), i.e., one may not allow a hazardous situation or item to remain in one’s house. As long as the hazard remains, the owner is in violation of this verse and therefore the court may excommunicate him for failing to remove the danger.

Rebbi Yose ben Abun said: I shall keep the King’s sayings, Who told me at Sinai I am the Eternal, your God, on the pronouncement, you shall not have other gods before Me, of God’s oath, do not take the Name of the Eternal, your God, in vain. In this matter we come together, this man and this dog are both equal.

All that live in the sea are clean, except the sea-dog because it seeks refuge on dry land, the words of Rabbi Akiba. If one made vessels from what grows in the sea and joined to them anything that grows on land, even if only a thread or a cord, if it is susceptible to uncleanness, they are unclean.

The signs of an insane: One who goes out in the night, stays overnight in a graveyard, tears his clothing, and destroys what one gives to him. Rebbi Huna said, only if all of that is in him since otherwise I say that one who goes out in the night is a man-dog; he who stays overnight in a graveyard burns incense to spirits, he who tears up his clothing is a choleric person, and he who destroys what one gives to him is a cynic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is proof. Rebbi Abun said, what Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is reasonable only for him who destroys what one gives to him; even the greatest idiot does not destroy all one gives to him. The mad dancer does not exhibit any of these signs. What is a mad dancer? Rebbi Yose said, a decrepit one. There came a case before Rebbi Yose of a weaver who, when one gave him red on black he was exerting himself, black on red he was exerting himself. He said, this is the mad dancer described by the Sages.

The Roman authorities then sent Vespasian Caesar against the Jews. He came and laid siege to Jerusalem for three years. There were at that time in Jerusalem these three wealthy people: Nakdimon ben Guryon, ben Kalba Savua, and ben Tzitzit HaKesat. The Gemara explains their names: Nakdimon ben Guryon was called by that name because the sun shined [nakad] on his behalf, as it is related elsewhere (see Ta’anit 19b) that the sun once continued to shine in order to prevent him from suffering a substantial loss. Ben Kalba Savua was called this because anyone who entered his house when he was hungry as a dog [kelev] would leave satiated [save’a]. Ben Tzitzit HaKesat was referred to by that name because his ritual fringes [tzitzit] dragged along on blankets [keset], meaning that he would not walk in the street with his feet on the ground, but rather they would place blankets beneath him. There are those who say that his seat [kiseh] was found among the nobles of Rome, meaning that he would sit among them.

The Gemara continues discussing the power of a ban. Rav Yosef said: Cast an excommunication on the tail of a dog and it, the excommunication, will do its work and harm the dog. It was related that there was a certain dog that would eat the shoes of the Sages, and they did not know who it was causing this damage. They thought that it was a person, and so they excommunicated whoever was doing it. Soon thereafter, the dog’s tail caught fire and got burnt. This shows that excommunication can have a harmful effect even on a dog.

§ It was taught that in the case of one whom a mad dog bit, one does not feed him the lobe of its liver. The Gemara clarifies the concept of the mad dog. The Sages taught in a baraita: Five signs were said about a mad dog: Its mouth is always open; and its saliva drips; and its ears are floppy and do not stand up; and its tail rests on its legs; and it walks on the edges of roads. And some say it also barks and its voice is not heard. The Gemara asks: From where did the dog become mad? Rav said: Witches play with it and practice their magic on it, causing it to become mad. And Shmuel said: An evil spirit rests upon it.

With regard to a remedy for a stinging pain [gira], let him bring a stone called an arrow of Lilith, and let him turn it upside down. And let him pour water on it and drink it. And if he is not able to do that, let him bring water from which a dog drank at night, and let him be careful about leaving the water uncovered at night, in case a snake drank from it and left its venom in the water. A remedy for drinking uncovered water is to drink a quarter-log[anpaka] of undiluted wine.

The Gemara comments: This was taught in a baraitain accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: When one kills a mad dog, he should kill it only with a thrown object. Furthermore, one who is rubbed by mad dog will become dangerously ill, while one bitten by the dog will die. The Gemara asks: What is the remedy for one who is rubbed by mad dog and becomes dangerously ill? The Gemara answers: Let him take off his clothing and run. The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, was rubbed by one of these mad dogs in the market, whereupon he took off his clothing and ran. He said: I have fulfilled the verse: “Wisdom preserves the lives of those who have it” (Ecclesiastes 7:12).

The Gemara asks: And was the altar’s fire crouched like a lion? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, said: I saw the fire in the Temple and it was crouched like a dog and not a lion? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where the baraita stated that the fire resembled a lion, it refers to the fire in the First Temple; there, where Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, said that the fire resembled a dog, it refers to the fire in the Second Temple.

As a remedy for night blindness, he should bring a rope of animal hair [shudra barka], and he should tie one of his legs and one leg of a dog together with the rope. And let children throw pottery shards behind him, and let them say to him: The dog is old and the rooster is foolish. And let him take seven pieces of raw meat from seven houses and let him leave them for him in the socket of the door. And let him then eat them in the junkyard of the city. Afterward, he should untie the rope of hair and say as follows: The blindness of so-and-so, son of so-and-so; leave so-and-so, son of so-and-so; and then they say: Let them blow into the dog’s eye.

It was stated: “A smooth stone the size of an olive, or a walnut, or an egg, he may take and cleanse his feet with it. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name: up to a full hand.” Rav Jehudah said, Boetius ben Zenon was sitting and repeating before Rebbi; he said, so we are saying, it is necessary that he sit down and take it in his hand. He told him, everything is permitted except what is formed like a small sack. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: it may be like the base of a small mortar of a spice dealer. Rebbi Yose said, they only said, of a spice. But not of spices. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A pebble on which grasses grew he may take and cleanse his feet with it. But if he plucks off from it on the Sabbath he is liable for a purification sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: It is forbidden to cleanse oneself with any potsherd. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only potsherds but even handles of amphoras, and anything which was brought into the fire and came out again. Rebbi Yose ben Yose said, a pebble which had been used by another person and water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah one may not use to cleanse himself. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Mana: It is forbidden to cleanse himself with water which a dog licked. And it was stated so: One cleans himself neither with a dog’s mouth, nor in presence of a dog, nor with water which the dog had licked off, nor with water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah. And if somebody washes in the bath house or washes in a bathtub, it is bad for hemorrhoids. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Five things were said about a reed blade: One does not use it to slaughter, nor to circumcise, nor to clean teeth with it, nor does one use it to cut meat on the table, nor does one cleanse himself, because an evil spirit resides on it.

And Rav Sheshet further said, citing Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: Anyone who speaks slander, and anyone who accepts and believes the slander he hears, and anyone who testifies falsely about another, it is fitting to throw him to the dogs, as it is stated: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field, you shall cast it to the dogs” (Exodus 22:30), and afterward it is written: “You shall not utter [tisa] a false report; put not your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness” (Exodus 23:1). Uttering rumors is here equated to delivering false testimony. Furthermore, read into the verse as though it stated: Do not cause a false report to be accepted [tasi], i.e., do not lead others to accept your false reports.

The Gemara concludes: It, i.e., a tereifa, you may throw to a dog, but you may not throw all other items prohibited by Torah law to a dog, as both eating and deriving benefit are prohibited. The Gemara asks: And what halakha does Rabbi Meir learn from this verse? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir draws the following inference: It, you may throw to a dog, but you may not throw the meat of a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard to a dog, as it is prohibited to benefit from it.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav said: One may establish an eiruv with lentil bread. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Is such bread edible? But there was that lentil bread in the days of Mar Shmuel, which he threw to his dog, and even it would not eat it. Clearly, lentil bread is not fit for human consumption. The Gemara answers: That bread which the dog refused to eat was a mixture of various types of grain. It was baked in order to discover the taste of a bread of mixed ingredients and was similar to that which the prophet Ezekiel was commanded to eat, as it is written: “Take you for yourself wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and spelt, and put them in one vessel, and make them for yourself into bread” (Ezekiel 4:9). This bread is unfit for human consumption, as even a dog at times will not eat it. However, bread prepared from lentils alone is edible. Rav Pappa said: That bread of Ezekiel’s was roasted in human excrement, as it is written: “And you shall eat it as barley cakes, and you shall bake it with human excrement, in their sight” (Ezekiel 4:12).

MISHNA:Leavened bread upon which a rockslide has fallen is considered as though it has been eliminated, and it is not necessary to dig it up in order to burn it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any leavened bread that has been covered to such an extent that a dog cannot search after it is considered to have been eliminated. GEMARA:Rav Ḥisda said: Although it is not necessary to dig up the leavened bread, one is nevertheless required to nullify the leavened bread in his heart lest it become exposed during Passover. Although it may not be visible at the moment, this leavened bread may be uncovered during Passover, and he will transgress a prohibition by its being seen. It was taught in the Tosefta: How much, how deep, will a dog search? It will search three handbreadths deep. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: With regard to that which Shmuel said, that deposited money is considered to be guarded securely by an unpaid bailee, who would nonetheless not be responsible if it were stolen, only when it is buried in the ground, is it necessary to bury this deposited money three handbreadths deep, comparable to leavened bread, or not? He said to him: Here, with regard to Passover, the concern is that the dog will find the food due to its smell, and therefore three handbreadths are required. There, in the case of money, it is necessary to bury the money in order to conceal it from view. Therefore, it is not required to bury it three handbreadths deep, as animals will not search for it and people will not see it. The Gemara asks: If this is the case, then how deep is one required to bury it? Rafram bar Pappa from the city of Sikhra said: One handbreadth is sufficient for the money to be considered concealed.

§ The Gemara relates: Berurya, the wife of Rabbi Meir, was a daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon. She said to Rabbi Meir: It is a disrespectful matter for me that my sister is sitting in a brothel; you must do something to save her. Rabbi Meir took a vessel [tarkeva] full of dinars and went. He said to himself: If no transgression was committed with her, a miracle will be performed for her; if she committed a transgression, no miracle will be performed for her. Rabbi Meir went and dressed as a Roman knight, and said to her: Accede to my wishes, i.e., engage in intercourse with me. She said to him: I am menstruating [dashtana] and cannot. He said to her: I will wait. She said to him: There are many women in the brothel, and there are many women here who are more beautiful than I. He said to himself: I can conclude from her responses that she did not commit a transgression, as she presumably said this to all who come.Rabbi Meir went over to her guard, and said to him: Give her to me. The guard said to him: I fear that if I do so, I will be punished by the government. Rabbi Meir said to him: Take this vessel full of dinars; give half to the government as a bribe, and half will be for you. The guard said to him: But when the money is finished, what shall I do? Rabbi Meir said to him: Say: God of Meir answer me! And you will be saved. The guard said to him:And who can say that this is the case, that I will be saved by this utterance? Rabbi Meir said to him: You will now see. There were these carnivorous dogs that would devour people; Rabbi Meir took a clod of earth, threw it at them, and when they came to devour him, he said: God of Meir answer me! The dogs then left him alone, and after seeing this the guard gave the daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon to Rabbi Meir.

§ Apropos the obligation of a student to walk backward when taking leave of his teacher, the Gemara discusses a similar topic. Rabbi Alexandri said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who prays must take three steps backward upon concluding his prayer and then recite: Peace, in a manner befitting one who departs from before the Holy One, Blessed be He. Rav Mordekhai said to him: Since he has taken three steps backward, he should stand there and not return to his place immediately. This is analogous to a student who takes leave of his teacher. If he returns immediately to the place where was first standing, he is similar to a dog who returns to its vomit, and his previous action is spoiled.

The Gemara considers the ramifications of this halakha: And now that you have said that the halakha is that the payment of half the cost of the damage is a fine, with regard to this innocuous dog that ate lambs or this innocuous cat that ate a chicken, which is atypical behavior for dogs and cats, we do not collect the payment for these acts in the courts in Babylonia. Since it is not common for these animals to eat those animals, these acts are classified as Goring, irrespective of the fact that the animal gained pleasure from the damage, for which it would normally be classified in the category of Eating. Therefore, in cases where these animals had not performed this act of damaging before, and were therefore considered innocuous, the owner is liable for only half the cost of the damage, which is a fine. Since the collection of fines may be imposed only by judges who have been ordained, and ordination is given only in Eretz Yisrael, these payments are not collected in Babylonia. The Gemara adds: And this matter applies only where they attacked large animals, as it is atypical behavior for them; but where they attacked small animals, since that is their typical manner of behavior, it is classified as Eating, for which the owner pays the full cost of the damage, which is certainly considered monetary restitution. Accordingly, the payment is collected by the courts in Babylonia.

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: When I was an ignoramus I said: Who will give me a Torah scholar so that I will bite him like a donkey? His students said to him: Master, say that you would bite him like a dog! He said to them: I specifically used that wording, as this one, a donkey, bites and breaks bones, and that one, a dog, bites but does not break bones.

The Sages taught: One may move bones on Shabbat, because they are food for dogs.With regard to swollen meat that began to putrefy, it is permitted to move it because it is food for non-domesticated animals. With regard to exposed water, from which a snake might have drunk and into which it injected its venom, it is permitted to move it because it is suitable for a cat, which is somewhat immune to snake venom. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Exposed water itself may not be kept due to the danger that one may inadvertently drink it.

So he took the troops down to the water. Then the LORD said to Gideon, “Set apart all those who lap up the water with their tongues like dogs from all those who get down on their knees to drink.”

For he who is reckoned among^-g the living has something to look forward to—even a live dog is better than a dead lion—

You are not to bring the fee of a whore or the price of a dog to the house of YHWH your God,
for any vow,
for an abomination to YHWH your God are the two-of-them!

THOU SHALT NOT BRING THE HIRE OF A HARLOT, [OR THE PRICE OF A DOG, INTO THE HOUSE OF THE ETERNAL THY G-D FOR ANY VOW]. Harlots are wont to do good deeds with their hire, thinking thereby to atone for their sins, as our Rabbis mentioned in their proverb, “She commits illicit sexual intercourse for apples and she divides them among the sick.” Therefore the Torah prohibited a harlot’s gift to be brought for any vow, for now they sin more and more. Similarly the matter of the price of the dog is that hunters using dogs and watchmen of walls raise brazen dogs that harm the public, and the owners vow [to contribute] their value [to a cause which they consider sacred], as an atonement for their soul. Such is still the custom among men who ride to the hunts that they place the waxen image of their dogs before an idol that they may be successful with them. And the commentators [as mentioned by Ibn Ezra] have said [that the reason for the prohibition is] because they [i.e., these payments] came about in a contemptible manner.

The Sages taught: There are three types of people whose lives are not lives, due to their constant suffering: The compassionate, the hot tempered, and the delicate. Rav Yosef said: All of these attributes are found in me. Furthermore, the Sages taught: Members of three groups hate other members of the same group: Dogs, roosters, and the Persian priests. And some say: Also prostitutes. And some say: Also Torah scholars in Babylonia. Likewise, the Sages taught: Members of three groups love one another: Converts, slaves, and ravens.

BARAITHA. It is further related of R. Ṭarfon that he was once eating figs from his garden when his tenant found him and [not recognizing him] gave him a severe beating but [R. Ṭarfon] said nothing. When he felt that he was [almost] dying he exclaimed, ‘Woe is thee, R. Ṭarfon!’ Whereupon [the tenant] asked him, ‘Are you R. Ṭarfon?’ He replied, ‘Yes’. [The tenant] arose, tore his hair and wept. And why [did he not disclose his identity] all that [length of time]? Because he would not make use of the honour of the Torah. Hence the Rabbis declared: Whoever makes use of the crown of the Torah has no share in the World to Come.
GEMARA. And R. Jonathan b. Amram learnt it from him. For it has been taught: Rabbi the Holy ordered during the years of famine that his storehouses of wheat and foodstuffs should be thrown open. What did he do? He issued a proclamation, ‘Let all those enter who have studied the Scriptures, the Mishnah, halakoth and ’aggadoth, but let not the unlearned enter’. R. Jonathan b. Amram pushed his way through and entered. [Rabbi] asked him, ‘Have you studied the Torah at all?’ He replied, ‘No’. Whereupon [Rabbi] said to him, ‘With what can I provide you?’ He replied, ‘Master, feed me like a dog or raven’. After he had given him food, Rabbi sat grieving and repenting and exclaimed, ‘Woe is me for what I have done! I have given my bread to an ignorant person’. Thereupon R. Simeon his son said to him, ‘Perhaps he is Jonathan b. Amram, your disciple, who does not wish ever to derive material benefit from the honour of the Torah’. On investigation it was discovered that he was. [Rabbi] then issued a proclamation, ‘Let all enter’.
The question was asked: Is it permissible for an ‘am ha-’areẓ to join company [on the road] with a scholar? Come and hear: [It is stated,] For that is thy life and the length of thy days. He has no concern for his own life, so how can he have concern for you?
Our Rabbis have taught: Five things were said of the ‘am ha-’areẓ: We do not accept evidence from him; we do not commit evidence to him; we do not join company with him on the road; we do not appoint him guardian of orphans; and we do not reveal a secret to him.

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that it was prohibited for them to engage in intercourse while in the ark? The Gemara answers: It is derived from that which is written: “And you shall come into the ark, you, and your sons, and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you” (Genesis 6:18); and it is written: “Emerge from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you” (Genesis 8:16). And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From here, the Sages derived and said that it was prohibited to engage in intercourse while in the ark, as when Noah and his family entered, the husbands and wives were listed separately, and when they emerged, the husbands were listed with their wives. The Sages taught: Three violated that directive and engaged in intercourse while in the ark, and all of them were punished for doing so. They are: The dog, and the raven, and Ham, son of Noah. The dog was punished in that it is bound; the raven was punished in that it spits, and Ham was afflicted in that his skin turned black. With regard to the verse: “And he sent forth the dove from him, to see if the waters abated” (Genesis 8:8), Rabbi Yirmeya says: From here it is derived that the dwelling place of kosher birds in the ark was with the righteous people, as the verse emphasizes that Noah dispatched the dove from his place.

The Gemara resumes its discussion of the messianic period. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Nehorai says: During the generation in which the son of David comes, youths will humiliate elders and elders will stand in deference before youths, and a daughter will rebel against her mother, and a bride against her mother-in-law, and the face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, and a son will not be ashamed before his father.

§ It was further taught in the mishna: A craftsman, however, may form only temporary stitches [makhliv]. The Gemara asks: What is meant by forming temporary stitches? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He does not sew all the stitches that are necessary, but rather he skips certain stitches in the middle (Rabbeinu Hananel). Rabba bar Shmuel said: He sews stitches that are like the teeth of a dog. He does not sew all the stitches in a straight line, so that they resemble the teeth of a dog, which also are not straight.

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Merodach-Baladan, son of Baladan? If his name was Merodach it was not Baladan. The Sages say: Baladan was a king, and his visage was transformed and became like that of a dog. His son was sitting on the throne in his stead and when he would write a letter he would write his name and the name of his father, King Baladan. That is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the honor accorded by gentiles to their fathers: “A son honors his father and a servant his master” (Malachi 1:6).

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Since the Sages perceived from this retort that his mind was stable, they entered and sat before him at a distance of four cubits, as he was ostracized (see Bava Metzia 59b). It is forbidden to sit within four cubits of an ostracized person. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Why have you come? They said to him: We have come to study Torah, as they did not want to say that they came to visit him due to his illness. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: And why have you not come until now? They said to him: We did not have spare time. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: I would be surprised if these Sages die their own death, i.e., a natural death. Rather, they will be tortured to death by the Romans. Rabbi Akiva said to him: How will my death come about? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Your death will be worse than theirs, as you were my primary student and you did not come to study. Rabbi Eliezer raised his two arms and placed them on his heart, and he said: Woe to you, my two arms, as they are like two Torah scrolls that are now being rolled up, and will never be opened again. I have learned much Torah, and I have taught much Torah. I have learned much Torah, and I have not taken away from my teachers, i.e., I have not received from their wisdom, even like a dog lapping from the sea. I have taught much Torah, and my students have taken away from me, i.e., they have received from my wisdom, only like the tiny amount that a paintbrush removes from a tube of paint.

A dog is a species of domesticated animal, [and] Rabbi Meir says, it is a species of wild animal. What [practical] difference is there between [the opinions of] Rabbi Meir and the Sages? Rather, one who writes over [a document gifting] his "wild animals" to his son, Rabbi Meir says he did write over his dog (i.e., include his dog in the gift), and the Sages say, he did not write over his dog. One who writes over his "domesticated animals" to his son, Rabbi Meir says he did not write over his dog, and the Sages say, he did write over his dog. [But the Sages agree that] a village (כופרי) dog is a wild animal.