Temat: Wojna w Izraelu

Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 54b
This teaches the punishment: whence do we derive the formal prohibition? — From the verse, Thou
shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.1 From this we learn the formal
prohibition for him who lies [with a male]: whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person
who permits himself thus to be abused? — Scripture saith: There shall be no sodomite of the sons of
Israel:2 and it is further said, And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to
the abominations of the nations which the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel:3 this is R.
Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: This is unnecessary, the Writ saith, thou shalt not lie with mankind as
with womankind: read, ‘thou shalt not be lain with.’4 Whence do we learn a formal prohibition
against bestiality? — Our Rabbis taught : [and if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to
death: and ye shall slay the beast].5 A man excludes a minor; [that] lieth with a beast — whether it
be young or old; he shall surely be put to death — by stoning. You, by stoning; but perhaps one of
the other deaths decreed in the Torah is meant? — It is here said, [and] ye shall kill [the beast]; and it
is stated elsewhere, But thou shalt surely kill him. [. . . And thou shalt stone in him with stones]:6
just as there, stoning is meant, so here too.
We have learnt from this the punishment for him who commits bestiality; whence do we derive
punishment for him who allows himself to be thus abused? — The Writ saith: Whosoever lieth with
a beast shall surely be put to death.7 Since this is redundant in respect of the person committing
bestiality,8 you must regard it as applying to the person permitting himself to be thus abused.9 From
the Writ we know that there is punishment both for him who commits bestiality and for him who
permits himself to be thus abused; whence do we know the formal prohibition? — Scripture saith,
neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith.10 From this verse we learn the formal
prohibition for him who commits bestiality, whence do we derive the formal prohibition for him who
allows himself to be thus abused? Scripture saith: There shall be no Sodomite of the sons of Israel;
and it is elsewhere said, And there were also sodomites in the land, etc.11 R. Akiba said: This is
unnecessary. The Writ saith, Thou shalt not lie [with any beast], which means, thou shalt not permit
thy lying [with any beast, whether actively or passively].
Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty, and also [passively] permits himself to be thus abused
— R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he is liable to two penalties, one [for the injunction]
derived from thou shalt not lie with mankind, and the other for [violating the prohibition,] There
shall not be a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. But on R. Akiba's view, he incurs only one penalty,
since thou shalt not lie and thou shalt not be lain with is but one statement.12
He who commits bestiality, and also causes himself to be thus abused — R. Abbahu said: On R.
Ishmael's view, he incurs two penalties, one for the injunction, thou shalt not lie with any beast, and
one for the prohibition, there shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel. But on R. Akiba's view, he
incurs but one penalty, since thy lying [actively] and thy lying [passively] is but one injunction.
Abaye said: Even on R. Ishmael's view he incurs one penalty only, for there shall be no Sodomite
applies to sodomy with mankind.13 If so, whence does R. Ishmael derive a formal prohibition against
permitting oneself to be bestially abused? — From the verse, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall
surely be put to death.14 Now, this being redundant in respect of him who [actively] lies with a
beast,15 apply it to him who [passively] permits himself to be abused this; and the Divine Law
designates the passive offender as the active offender:16 this teaches that the punishment for, and the
formal prohibition against, active bestiality17 apply to passive submission too.18
He who submits both to pederasty and to bestiality — R. Abbahu said: On R. Akiba's view, he
incurs two penalties; one for thou shalt not lie [with mankind], and the other for thou shalt not lie
[with any beast]. But on R. Ishmael's view, he incurs only one punishment, both offences being
derived from the single verse, There shall be no Sodomite.19 Abaye said: Even on R. Ishmael's view,
he incurs two penalties, because it is written, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to
death.20 This being redundant in respect of active bestiality, it must be applied to passive submission,
and the Divine Law thus designated passive submission as an active offence: just as for the active
offence there is punishment and prohibitions so for the passive offence too.21 But he who commits
pederasty and causes himself to be abused thus; and also commits bestiality and causes himself to be
abused too — both R. Abbahu and Abaye maintain that on R. Ishmael's view he is trebly guilty, and
on R. Akiba's view he is doubly guilty.22
Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not regarded as on a par with an old
one; but a young beast is treated as an old one.23 What is meant by this? — Rab said: Pederasty with
a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said:
Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 What is the basis
of their dispute? — Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as
the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who is unable to
engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty [in that respect].25 But Samuel
maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman.26
It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day;