Pt1 Sexual Penetration and Liability: Halachic Aspects of Active and Passive Roles in the Context of Homosexual Sex and Bestiality (Sanhedrin 54a-55a)

With emphasis, in both translation and commentary, on the use of precise clinical and legal terminology

This is the first part of a two-part series. The outline of the series is below.¹

Part 1

This sugya analyzes the technical halachic liability structure of the biblical prohibitions of homosexuality and bestiality. Its central legal problem is the difference between the active party (the one who sexually penetrates) and the passive party (the one who is penetrated).

The Mishnah states three capital cases punished by stoning: a man who penetrates another male; a man who penetrates an animal; and a woman who causes herself to be penetrated by an animal. The Talmud then supplies the scriptural derivations for each category. For male-male (=homosexual) penetration, the punishment is derived from Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman.” The word “man” excludes a penetrating minor (=under age 13) from liability. The phrase “with a male” includes a penetrated male whether adult or minor (subject to later discussion of minimum age thresholds). The phrase “as with a woman” is read as teaching that male-male penetration is legally modeled on the two forms of intercourse recognized with a woman: vaginal and anal penetration. In this context, since the penetrated party is male, the operative form is anal penetration.

The sugya distinguishes between punishment (עונש) and prohibition (אזהרה). The punishment for male-male penetration is derived from Leviticus 20:13, and stoning is established through a gezerah shavah from the phrase “their blood is upon them” to the same phrase used in the case of ov and yid’oni. The active prohibition, meaning the prohibition on the one who penetrates, is derived from Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.” The passive prohibition, meaning the prohibition on being penetrated by a male, is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. R. Yishmael derives it from Deuteronomy 23:18, “There shall not be a male prostitute² among the children of Israel,” clarified by I Kings 14:24, where male prostitution (kadesh) is associated with the sexual abominations of the local Canaanite nations. R. Akiva does not require a separate verse. He reads “don’t lie” (“lo tishkav”) not only as “don’t penetrate” (active role), but also as implying “lo tishakhev,” “don’t be penetrated” (passive role).

The same structure is then applied to bestiality. Leviticus 20:15 establishes punishment for a man who penetrates an animal. The word “man” again excludes a penetrating minor, while the phrase “with an animal” includes prohibiting penetrating all animals, whether old or young. Stoning is derived by comparison to the inciter, where the Torah explicitly uses stoning language. The punishment for passive bestiality, meaning a male who causes himself to be penetrated by an animal, is derived from Exodus 22:18: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death.” Since the active case is already known, the verse is redirected to the passive case. The active prohibition is derived from Leviticus 18:23: “You shall not give your lying with any animal.” The passive prohibition is again disputed: R. Yishmael again derives it from “There shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh),” while R. Akiva again derives it from the wording of Leviticus 18:23, reading “shekhovtekha” (active penetration) as also implying “shekhivatkha,” “your being lain with” (passively being penetrated).

Part 2

These derivations determine the number of liabilities when one person performs multiple prohibited acts during a single lapse of awareness. R. Abbahu states that if a person both penetrates a male and causes himself to be penetrated by a male, R. Yishmael would make him liable for two sin-offerings, since active and passive male-male intercourse are derived from two distinct prohibitions: “You shall not lie” and “There shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh).” According to R. Akiva, he is liable only once, because both active and passive liability are read from the same verse. The same logic is initially applied to active and passive bestiality: according to R. Yishmael, two liabilities; according to R. Akiva, one. Abaye limits this claim, arguing that “male prostitute” (“kadesh”) is written in relation to homosexuality, not bestiality, so even R. Yishmael may not use it as an independent prohibition for passive bestiality.

The sugya then reverses the configuration. If a person is penetrated by a male and also penetrated by an animal in one lapse of awareness, R. Abbahu says that according to R. Akiva he is liable twice, because passive male-male intercourse and passive bestiality are derived from two different verses, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 18:23. According to R. Yishmael, however, he is liable only once, since both passive prohibitions are derived from the same verse, “There shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh)”. Abaye again modifies the analysis. He argues that passive bestiality has its own derivation from Exodus 22:18, where the Torah expresses the passive case in the language of the active case. Since the Torah uses the same verbal category for both, just as active bestiality has both punishment and prohibition, passive bestiality also has both punishment and prohibition. On this reading, even R. Yishmael can produce two liabilities for passive male-male intercourse and passive bestiality.

The sugya ultimately gives a consolidated case: if one person, in one lapse of awareness, penetrates a male, causes himself to be penetrated by a male, penetrates an animal, and causes himself to be penetrated by an animal, R. Yishmael yields three liabilities, while R. Akiva yields two.³

The final part of the sugya turns from source-derivation to legal thresholds and definitions of “sex”. A baraita states that, in male-male intercourse (=homosexual sex), a penetrated minor is not treated like an adult, while in animal cases (=bestiality), a young animal is treated like an old animal. Rav explains this to mean that penetration of a boy under 9 years old is not legally equivalent to penetration of a boy 9 years or older. Shmuel disagrees and sets the relevant threshold at 3 years old, analogizing the passive male to a penetrated female because the verse says “as with a woman.”⁴

The sugya then addresses the forms and degrees of penetration that count legally. A baraita supports Rav by setting the male threshold at 9 years and one day and states that liability applies to bestiality whether the penetration is vaginal or anal, both for a male who penetrates an animal and for a woman who causes herself to be penetrated by an animal. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda had distinguished between a woman, for whom two forms of intercourse count, and an animal, for which only one form counts. Rav Pappa objects in the opposite direction: if anything, a woman should be liable only in the typical manner (=vaginal), while with an animal, since the act is already outside ordinary sexual categories, every orifice should count (i.e. both vaginal and anal). A baraita is then cited which rejects both limitations, and treats both vaginal and anal penetration as legally sufficient in animal cases.

The sugya closes with questions about partial penetration (העראה - ha’ara’ah - on this, see my previous piece). Ravina asks Rava about partial penetration of a male. The Talmud reframes the question: for male-male intercourse (=homosexual sex) the answer is clear, because “as with a woman” imports the general rule that partial penetration counts. The real question is whether partial penetration of an animal (=bestiality) counts. Rava derives that it does, using the otherwise redundant term “he’era” in Leviticus 20:19 concerning one’s father’s sister and mother’s sister. Since partial penetration is already known in forbidden sexual relations from the menstruating woman, the redundant term is reassigned to bestiality.

A final extreme case tests the limits of the active/passive distinction: one who partially penetrates himself (=self-penetration). Rav Sheshet rejects the case as impossible or repulsive. Rav Ashi reformulates it: with an erect penis the case is impossible; it is only conceivable with a flaccid penis.⁵ Liability then depends on the broader dispute over whether penetration with a flaccid penis counts as legally recognized intercourse in forbidden sexual relations. According to the view that such intercourse is exempt, this case is exempt. According to the view that it is liable, the person would incur liability both as the active penetrator and as the passive penetrated party.

Leviticus 18:22-24

Leviticus 18:22-24:

ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה

תועבה הוא

You shalt not lie with a man after the manner of a woman (משכבי אשה):

it is abomination (תועבה).

ובכל בהמה לא תתן שכבתך לטמאה בה

ואשה לא תעמד לפני בהמה לרבעה

תבל הוא

Neither shall you lie (תתן שכבתך) with any beast to defile yourself (לטמאה) with it:

neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down before it (לרבעה):

it is perversion.⁶

אל תטמאו בכל אלה

כי בכל אלה נטמאו הגוים

אשר אני משלח מפניכם

Defile not yourselves in any of these things:

for in all these the nations were defiled

which I cast out before you:

Outline

Intro

Leviticus 18:22-24

The Passage

Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:4)

1. Male-male intercourse, male-animal intercourse, and woman-animal intercourse incur stoning - Leviticus 20:13, 15-16

Talmud

1. Baraita - “Man” excludes a penetrating minor; “with a male” includes a penetrated adult or minor; “as with a woman” teaches two forms of forbidden intercourse with a woman (vaginal and anal) - Leviticus 20:13

2. R’ Yishmael - The phrase “as with a woman” teaches male-male intercourse, and in turn teaches liability for the second form of intercourse (=anal) with forbidden women - Leviticus 20:13

3. Baraita - Male-male intercourse is punished by stoning - Leviticus 20:13

   1. Derived by gezerah shavah from “their blood is upon them” by ov and yid’oni - Leviticus 20:27

4. The active prohibition of male-male intercourse comes from “do not lie with a male” - Leviticus 18:22

5. R’ Yishmael - The passive prohibition (getting penetrated) in male-male intercourse comes from “there shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh),” clarified by the verse about male prostitute (kadesh) in the land - Deuteronomy 23:18; I Kings 14:24

6. R’ Akiva - No separate verse is needed for the passive role (getting penetrated) in male-male intercourse; read “lo tishkav” as also implying “lo tishakhev” - Leviticus 18:22

7. Baraita - “Man” excludes a minor; “with an animal” includes old or young animals - Leviticus 20:15

8. Male-animal intercourse is punished by stoning - Leviticus 20:15

   1. Derived from “you shall kill” by comparison to the inciter - Deuteronomy 13:10-11

9. The punishment for passive bestiality (=getting penetrated) is derived by applying “whoever lies with an animal” to the passive case - Exodus 22:18

10. The active prohibition (=penetrating) of bestiality comes from “do not give your lying with any animal” - Leviticus 18:23

11. R’ Yishmael - The passive prohibition (=getting penetrated) of bestiality comes from “there shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh)” (as with male-male intercourse) - Deuteronomy 23:18; I Kings 14:24

12. R’ Akiva - No separate verse is needed for passive bestiality; “shekhovtekha” can be read as “shekhivatkha,” forbidding being acted upon - Leviticus 18:23

Part 2

1. R’ Abbahu - In one lapse of awareness, both penetrates another male, and gets penetrated by another male: according to R’ Yishmael liable twice; according to R’ Akiva liable once - Leviticus 18:22; Deuteronomy 23:18

2. R’ Abbahu - Active and passive bestiality: according to R’ Yishmael liable twice; according to R’ Akiva liable once - Leviticus 18:23; Deuteronomy 23:18

3. Abaye - Even R’ Yishmael would make one liable only once for active and passive bestiality, since “kadesh” refers to males, not animals - Deuteronomy 23:18

4. R’ Abbahu - Passive male-male intercourse and passive bestiality: according to R’ Akiva liable twice; according to R’ Yishmael liable once, since both derive from “kadesh” - Leviticus 18:22; 18:23; Deuteronomy 23:18

5. Abaye - Even according to R’ Yishmael, passive male-male intercourse and passive bestiality generate two liabilities, since passive bestiality has its own derivation - Exodus 22:18

6. If one does all four acts in one lapse of awareness, R’ Yishmael gives three liabilities, R’ Akiva gives two - Leviticus 18:22; 18:23; Deuteronomy 23:18

7. Baraita - For male-male intercourse, a penetrated minor is not treated like an adult; for animal cases, a penetrated young animal is treated like an old animal

8. Rav - “Minor is not like adult” means that penetrating a boy under age 9 is not legally treated like penetrating a boy 9 or older

9. Shmuel - “Minor is not like adult” means intercourse with a male under 3 is not legally treated like intercourse with one 3 or older - Leviticus 18:22

10. Explanation - Rav holds active (penetrating) and passive (penetrated) legal thresholds correspond; Shmuel treats the passive (penetrated) male like a (penetrated) woman because of “as with a woman” - Leviticus 18:22

11. Baraita (supporting Rav) - Liability applies with penetrating a male aged 9 and up, and with animals in typical manner (=vaginal) or atypical (=anal)

12. Rav Naḥman b. Ḥisda - For a woman with an animal there are two forms of intercourse; for a man with an animal only one

13. Rav Pappa - Objects: if anything, a woman should be liable only in the usual manner, while with an animal every orifice should count

14. Baraita (against both Rav Naḥman b. Ḥisda and Rav Pappa) - Both male-animal and woman-animal cases are liable whether typical or atypical

15. Ravina asking Rava - partially penetrating a male

    1. Stam reframing - The question of partial penetration is obvious for male-male intercourse because of “as with a woman”; the real question is initial penetration with an animal - Leviticus 18:22

16. Rava - partially penetrating an animal counts, derived from the extra “he’era” language by aunts, since that verse is otherwise available for derashah - Leviticus 20:19

17. Rav Aḥadevoi bar Ami asking Rav Sheshet - Raises the case of one who attempts to partially penetrate himself

18. Rav Sheshet - Rejects the question as repulsive/impossible

19. Rav Ashi - The case is only possible with a flaccid organ; liability depends on the broader dispute over whether such intercourse counts If liable, he incurs both active and passive male-male liabilities

The Passage

Sanhedrin/54a#28 thru 55a#11

Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:4)

Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4

Male-male intercourse, male-animal intercourse, and woman-animal intercourse incur stoning - Leviticus 20:13, 15-16

הבא על הזכור,

ועל הבהמה,

והאשה המביאה את הבהמה –

בסקילה.

A man penetrates (הבא על) a male

or an animal,

and a woman is causes herself to be penetrated by⁷ an animal,

are executed by stoning.

Talmud

Baraita - “Man” excludes a penetrating minor; “with a male” includes a penetrated adult or minor; “as with a woman” teaches two forms of forbidden intercourse with a woman (vaginal and anal) - Leviticus 20:13

זכר מנא לן?

דתנו רבנן:

1. ״איש״ –

   1. פרט לקטן,

2. ״אשר ישכב את זכר״ –

   1. בין גדול בין קטן,

3. ״משכבי אשה״ –

   1. מגיד לך הכתוב ששני משכבות באשה.

From where do we derive the prohibition and punishment for penetrating a male?

It is as a baraita states

with regard to the verse: “And if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13):

1. The word “man” (איש)

   1. excludes a penetrating minor boy (קטן)

2. The phrase “lies with a male”

   1. is referring to penetrating any male, whether he is an adult or whether he is a minor (=under age 13)

3. The phrase “as with a woman [mishkevei isha],”

   1. referring to “lying” (משכבי) with a woman, appears in the plural. The verse teaches you that there are two manners of lying (משכבות) with a woman⁸ for which one who penetrates a woman forbidden to him is punished: 1) vaginal, and 2) anal sex.

R’ Yishmael - The phrase “as with a woman” teaches homosexual sex, and in turn teaches liability for the second form of sex (=anal) with forbidden women - Leviticus 20:13

אמר רבי ישמעאל:

הרי זה בא ללמד,

ונמצא למד.

R’ Yishmael says:

This phrase is written to come to teach about the punishment for homosexual sex,

and the halakha that one is liable for anal sex with a woman who is forbidden to him is found to be derived from it.

Baraita - homosexual sex is punished by stoning - Leviticus 20:13

״מות יומתו״ –

בסקילה.

The phrase “they shall be put to death”

is referring to execution by stoning.

Derived by gezerah shavah from “their blood is upon them” by ov and yid’oni - Leviticus 20:27

אתה אומר בסקילה,

או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה?

Do you say that they are executed by stoning,

or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty that are stated in the Torah?

• נאמר כאן

  • ״דמיהם בם״,

• ונאמר באוב וידעוני

  • ״דמיהם בם״.

• מה להלן

  • בסקילה,

• אף כאן

  • בסקילה.

• It is stated here:

  • “Their blood shall be upon them,”

• and it is stated with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer:

  • “Their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:27).

• Just as there

  • the verse states that a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed by stoning,

• so too here,

  • they are executed by stoning.

The active prohibition of homosexual sex comes from “do not lie with a male” - Leviticus 18:22

עונש שמענו,

אזהרה מניין?

תלמוד לומר:

״ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה

תועבה היא״.

We have learned the punishment for homosexual sex,

but from where is the prohibition derived?

The verse states:

“And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman;

it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

R’ Yishmael - The passive prohibition (getting penetrated) in homosexual sex comes from “there shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh),” clarified by the verse about male prostitute (kadesh) in the land - Deuteronomy 23:18; I Kings 14:24

למדנו אזהרה לשוכב.

אזהרה לנשכב מניין?

We have learned from here the prohibition for the one who penetrates (שוכב)

From where do we derive the prohibition for one who gets penetrated (נשכב)?

• תלמוד לומר:

  • ״לא יהיה קדש מבני ישראל״.

• ואומר:

  • ״וגם קדש היה בארץ, עשו ככל התועבת הגוים אשר הוריש וגו׳״.

דברי רבי ישמעאל.

• The verse states:

  • “There shall not be a male prostitute [kadesh] among the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 23:18).

• And another verse, cited to clarify the meaning of the term kadesh, states:

  • “And there were also male prostitutes [kadesh] in the land, they did according to all the abominations of the nations which YHWH drove out before the children of Israel” (I Kings 14:24).

This is the statement of R’ Yishmael.

R’ Akiva - No separate verse is needed for the passive role (getting penetrated) in homosexual sex; read “lo tishkav” as also implying “lo tishakhev” - Leviticus 18:22

רבי עקיבא אומר:

אינו צריך,

הרי הוא אומר:

״ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה״.

קרי ביה: ״לא תשכב״.

R’ Akiva says:

It is not necessary to derive this halakha from the verse: “There shall not be a male prostitute.”

Rather, it says: “And you shall not penetrate [tishkav - active] as with a woman.”

Read into the verse: You shall not get penetrated [tishakhev - passive] by a male.

Baraita - “Man” excludes a minor; “with an animal” includes old or young animals - Leviticus 20:15

בהמה מנא לן?

דתנו רבנן:

• ״איש״ –

  • פרט לקטן,

• ״אשר יתן שכבתו בבהמה״ –

  • בין גדולה בין קטנה.

§ The Talmud asks: From where do we derive that one who has sex with an animal is liable to receive capital punishment?

It is as a baraita states:

“And if a man lies with an animal, he shall be put to death, and you shall kill the animal” (Leviticus 20:15).

• The word “man”

  • excludes a penetrating minor boy.

• The phrase “lies with an animal”

  • is referring to penetrating any animal, whether old or young.

Bestality is punished by stoning - Leviticus 20:15

״מות יומת״ –

בסקילה.

The phrase “shall be put to death”

refers to execution by stoning.

אתה אומר בסקילה,

או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה?

Do you say that they are executed by stoning,

or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty that are stated in the Torah?

Derived from “you shall kill” by comparison to the inciter - Deuteronomy 13:10-11

• נאמר כאן

  • ״תהרגו״,

• ונאמר להלן

  • ״כי הרג תהרגנו״.

• מה להלן

  • בסקילה,

• אף כאן

  • בסקילה.

• It is stated here:

  • “You shall kill,”

• and it is stated there,

  • with regard to an inciter (maisit): “But you shall kill him…and you shall stone him with stones and he shall die” (Deuteronomy 13:10–11).

• Just as there

  • the verse states that an inciter is executed by stoning,

• so too here,

  • one who engages in bestiality is executed by stoning.

The punishment for passive bestiality (=getting penetrated) is derived by applying “whoever lies with an animal” to the passive case - Exodus 22:18

למדנו עונש לשוכב.

עונש לנשכב מנלן?

תלמוד לומר:

״כל שכב עם בהמה מות יומת״.

אם אינו ענין לשוכב,

תניהו ענין לנשכב.

We have learned the punishment for penetrating (שוכב) an animal,

but from where do we derive the punishment for one gets penetrated (נשכב) by an animal?

The verse states:

“Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death” (Exodus 22:18).

If this verse is not needed for the matter of the one who penetrates (שוכב) an animal

apply it to the matter of the one who gets penetrated (נשכב)

The active prohibition (=penetrating) of bestiality comes from “do not give your lying with any animal” - Leviticus 18:23

למדנו עונש בין לשוכב בין לנשכב.

אזהרה מניין?

תלמוד לומר:

״ובכל בהמה לא תתן שכבתך

לטמאה בה״.

We have therefore learned the punishment for both one who penetrates (שוכב) an animal and one gets penetrated (נשכב) by an animal

but from where is the prohibition derived?

The verse states:

“And you shall not lie with any animal

to defile yourself with it” (Leviticus 18:23).

R’ Yishmael - The passive prohibition (=getting penetrated) of bestiality comes from “there shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh)” (as with homosexual sex) - Deuteronomy 23:18; I Kings 14:24

למדנו אזהרה לשוכב.

לנשכב מניין?

• תלמוד לומר:

  • ״לא יהיה קדש מבני ישראל״,

• ואומר:

  • ״וגם קדש היה בארץ וגו׳״.

דברי רבי ישמעאל.

We have learned the prohibition for one who penetrates (שוכב) an animal

From where do we derive the prohibition for one who gets penetrated (נשכב) by an animal?

• The verse states:

  • “There shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh) among the children of Israel,”

• and another verse states:

  • “And there were also male prostitute (kadesh) in the land,”

which shows that anyone who has sex in a way that is like the abominations of the nations is called a kadesh.

This is the statement of R’ Yishmael.

R’ Akiva - No separate verse is needed for passive bestiality; “shekhovtekha” can be read as “shekhivatkha,” forbidding being acted upon - Leviticus 18:23

רבי עקיבא אומר:

אינו צריך,

הרי הוא אומר ״לא תתן שכבתך״

לא תתן שכיבתך.

R’ Akiva says:

It is not necessary to derive from this verse the halakha prohibiting getting penetrated by animal

Rather, it says: “You shall not lie [shekhovtekha],”

which can be read as follows: “You shall not enable your being lain with” [shekhivatkha].

1. This is one of the most popular pages in the Talmud, as measured by ChavrutAI’s Google Search Console report. On this in general, see my discussion in the intro to the three-part series: “Pt1 Trending Talmud: Top Queries, Popular Posts, and Plain Readings of Controversial Talmudic Passages“.

A major “value-add” of mine here is using the more precise clinical/legal terms (“penetration”), as opposed to the vague/imprecise/bowdlerized terms used by Steinsaltz (“intercourse”; ”passive” vs “active”). This allows me to more precisely translate the Hebrew terms, which more clearly differentiate by active and passive roles in sex, which are the crux of the discussion in the sugya.

On this, see my extended note in ““Today is Yom Kippur, and several virgins had sex in Neharde’a”: Anecdotes of Sinning on Yom Kippur (Yoma 19b-20a)”, on section “Pt2”, where I discuss transitive vs. intransitive Hebrew words for sex, and the lack of non-vulgar English equivalents.

And see my previous appendix on Talmudic terms for sex: “Hebrew Verbs for “Sex”.

And see my “What Counts as Sex? Defining the Beginning and Completion of Intercourse in the Talmud (Yevamot 55b)”.

2. קָדֵשׁ - kadesh (grammatical masculine; on the grammatical feminine form of the word, see later in this note).

This word is traditionally, and archaically, translated as “sodomizer”.

On this word, see Wikipedia, “Sodomy“:

Sodomy, also called buggery in British English, principally refers to either anal sex (but occasionally also oral sex) between people, or any sexual activity between a human and another animal (bestiality).

It may also mean any non-procreative sexual activity (including manual sex).

Originally the term sodomy, which is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Book of Genesis, was commonly restricted to homosexual anal sex.

Sodomy laws in many countries criminalized the behavior.

In the Western world, many of these laws have been overturned or are routinely not enforced.

A person who practices sodomy is sometimes referred to as a sodomite, a pejorative term.

On the biblical Hebrew term kadesh (grammatical masculine), see Wikipedia, “Q-D-Š“, section “Hebrew“ (on the grammatical feminine form of the word):

Qedeshah (קדשה‎) is a word derived from the Q-D-Š root, which is used in the Hebrew Bible to describe a particular sort of woman. Historically this has been understood to be a sacred prostitute in a temple fertility cult. However modern scholarship has revealed that the evidence for this is extremely tenuous. Modern scholars have provided significant criticism of the common belief that any culture in the Mediterranean and Ancient Near East ever practised sacred prostitution.

Mayer Gruber (1986) suggested the word’s usage reflected a more primitive base-meaning in the Q-D-Š root of “set apart”, hence “she who is set apart for sexual services, a prostitute”.

But this interpretation of the root has not generally been taken up.

The question of how a word with a root meaning of “consecrated one” evidently came to be associated with common prostitution continues to be a topic of ongoing discussion.

3. Bottom line: The difference reflects the number of independent biblical prohibitions each opinion recognizes, not the number of physical acts. The sugya is therefore organized around a technical principle of criminal liability: multiple acts do not automatically produce multiple offerings unless they correspond to distinct prohibitory categories.

4. Rav’s principle is that the rules for the active party and passive party correspond: whoever is not legally capable as a penetrator is also not legally treated as a penetrated party. Shmuel instead emphasizes the phrase “as with a woman,” aligning the passive male with the female threshold for legally recognized penetration.

5. For a general contemporary popular discussion of flaccid penile self-penetration, see here and the subreddit here.

6. תֶּבֶל.

See the Talmud’s homiletic interpretation of this word in my “Wine, Wordplay, and Wedding Tensions: Bar Kappara’s Queries Regarding Biblical Denunciations and R’ Yehuda HaNasi’s Unwilling Dance (Nedarim 51a)“, section “ “Tevel” (perversion)“.

7. המביאה - literally: “[a woman] who brings” (grammatical feminine); i.e. a woman who “brings” a male animal upon herself, for the purpose of being sexually penetrated by it.

Note that the Hebrew word “bring” (מביא - pi’el, transitive) is the same root (‘B-A’) as “come” (בא - qal; intransitive), which is used for the active form for sex (בא על). So this verbal phrase can also possibly be parsed as “[a woman] who causes an animal to have sex with her”.

8. I.e. two forms of sexual penetration.