Pt2 Sexual Penetration and Liability: Halachic Aspects of Active and Passive Roles in the Context of Homosexual Sex and Bestiality (Sanhedrin 54a-55a)

This is the second and final part of a two-part series. Part 1 is here; the outline of the series can be found at Part 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

ה

1. בא על הזכור,

2. והביא עליו זכר.

The Talmud discusses cases to which these halakhic expositions are relevant:

What is the halakha one who both

1. unwittingly penetrates (הבא על) a male,

2. and also unwittingly causes himself to be penetrated (הביא עליו) by a male¹

אמר רבי אבהו:

• לדברי רבי ישמעאל

  • חייב שתים,

    • חדא מ״לא תשכב״

    • וחדא מ״לא יהיה קדש״.

• לדברי רבי עקיבא

  • אינו חייב אלא אחת.

  • ״לא תשכב״ ״לא תשכב״ חדא היא.

R’ Abbahu says:

• According to the statement of R’ Yishmael,

  • he is liable for transgressing two different prohibitions:

    • One is derived from the verse: “You shall not lie,”

    • and the other one is derived from the verse: “There shall not be a male prostitute,” which includes one gets penetrated

• But according to the statement of R’ Akiva,

  • he is liable for only one prohibition,

  • as the prohibitions of “you shall not lie [tishkav]” and “you shall not enable your being lain with [tishakhev]” are one statement in the verse.

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

1. הבא על הבהמה

2. והביא בהמה עליו,

אמר רבי אבהו:

• לדברי רבי ישמעאל

  • חייב שתים,

  • חדא מ״לא תתן שכבתך״ וחדא מ״לא יהיה קדש״.

• לדברי רבי עקיבא

  • אינו חייב אלא אחת,

  • ״שכבתך״ ו״שכיבתך״ חדא היא.

Similarly, with regard to one who both

1. unwittingly penetrates an animal,

2. and also unwittingly causes himself to get penetrated by an animal

within one lapse of awareness,

R’ Abbahu says:

• According to the statement of R’ Yishmael

  • he is liable for transgressing two different prohibitions:

    • One is derived from the verse: “You shall not lie,”

    • and the other one is derived from the verse: “There shall not be a male prostitute.”

• But according to the statement of R’ Akiva

  • he is liable for only one prohibition,

  • as the prohibitions of “you shall not lie [shekhovtekha]” and “you shall not enable your being lain with [shekhivatkha]” are one statement in the verse.

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

אביי אמר:

אפילו לדברי רבי ישמעאל נמי --

אינו חייב אלא אחת,

דכי כתיב ״לא יהיה קדש״ –

בגברי כתיב.

[...]

Abaye says:

Even according to the statement of R’ Yishmael --

he is liable for only one prohibition,

as when it is written: “There shall not be a male prostitute,”

it is written only with regard to sex with men,

but not with regard to bestiality.

[...]

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

1. הנרבע לזכר

2. והנרבע לבהמה,

With regard to the case of one who was both

1. unwittingly penetrated² by a male

2. and also unwittingly was penetrated (נרבע) by an animal

within one lapse of awareness,

אמר רבי אבהו:

• לדברי רבי עקיבא

  • חייב שתים,

    • חדא מ״לא תשכב״

    • וחדא מ״לא תתן שכבתך״.

• לדברי רבי ישמעאל

  • אינו חייב אלא אחת,

  • אידי ואידי ״לא יהיה קדש״ הוא.

R’ Abbahu says that

• according to the statement of R’ Akiva

  • he is liable for transgressing two prohibitions:

    • One is derived from the verse: “You shall not lie with a male,”

    • and the other one is derived from the verse: “You shall not lie with any animal.”

• According to the statement of R’ Yishmael

  • he is liable for transgressing only one prohibition,

  • as both this prohibition and that prohibition are derived from the verse: “There shall not be a male prostitute.”

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

אביי אמר:

אפילו לדברי רבי ישמעאל נמי --

חייב שתים,

דכתיב ״כל שכב עם בהמה מות יומת״.

אם אינו ענין לשוכב,

תניהו ענין לנשכב.

Abaye says:

Even according to the statement of R’ Yishmael --

he is liable for transgressing two prohibitions,

as it is written: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death.”

If the verse is not needed for the matter of one who penetrates (שוכב - active), as this prohibition is stated explicitly in the verse: “And you shall not lie with any animal” (Leviticus 18:23),

apply it to the matter of one who is penetrated (נשכב - passive)

ואפקיה רחמנא לנשכב בלשון שוכב:

• מה שוכב –

  • ענש

  • והזהיר,

• אף נשכב –

  • ענש

  • והזהיר.

And it is derived from the fact that God expresses the halakha of one gets penetrated (נשכב) by an animal using the term for one who penetrates (שוכב) an animal:

• Just as with regard to one penetrates (שוכב) an animal

  • the Torah both punishes for this act

  • and prohibits it,

• so too, with regard to one gets penetrated (נשכב) by an animal

  • the Torah both punishes for this act

  • and prohibits it.

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

אבל

1. הבא על הזכור,

2. והביא זכר עליו,

3. הבא על הבהמה,

4. והביא בהמה עליו –

• בין לרבי אבהו

• בין לאביי,

• לרבי ישמעאל

  • חייב שלש,

• לרבי עקיבא

  • חייב שתים.

But with regard to does all of the following:

1. one who unwittingly penetrates a male,

2. and also unwittingly causes himself to be penetrated by a male,

3. who also unwittingly penetrates an animal,

4. and also unwittingly causes himself to be penetrated by an animal

performing all of these actions in one lapse of awareness, in this case, both

• according to R’ Abbahu

• and according to Abaye,

• the halakha according to the opinion of R’ Yishmael

  • is that he is liable for transgressing 3 prohibitions; the ones mentioned above and the prohibition of: “There shall not be a male prostitute,”

• whereas according to the opinion of R’ Akiva

  • he is liable for transgressing only two prohibitions.

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

תנו רבנן:

• זכור –

  • לא עשו בו קטן כגדול,

• בהמה –

  • עשו בה קטנה כגדולה.

§ A baraita states:

• With regard to penetrating a male (זכור),

  • the Torah does not deem a penetrated younger boy to be like an older boy;

• but with regard to penetrating an animal,

  • the Torah does deem a penetrated young animal to be like an old animal.

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

מאי ״לא עשו בו קטן כגדול״?

אמר רב:

לא עשו ביאת פחות מבן תשע שנים

כבן תשע שנים.

The Talmud asks: What does it mean that the Torah does not deem a younger boy to be like an older boy?

Rav says:

It means that the Torah does not deem the penetration (ביאת) of one who is less than 9 years old

to be like the penetration of one who is at least 9 years old,

as for penetration of male to have the legal status of full-fledged sex, the minimum age of the one penetrated is 9 years.

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

ושמואל אמר:

לא עשו ביאת פחות מבן שלש שנים

כבן שלש שנים.

And Shmuel says:

The Torah does not deem the sex of a penetrated child who is less than 3 years old

to be like that of one who is 3 years old and up

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

במאי קמיפלגי?

רב סבר:

• כל דאיתיה בשוכב –

  • איתיה בנשכב,

• וכל דליתיה בשוכב –

  • ליתיה בנשכב.

The Talmud asks: With regard to what principle do Rav and Shmuel disagree?

The Talmud answers:

Rav holds that

• any halakha that applies to one who penetrates (שוכב)

  • applies to one who is penetrated (נשכב)

• and any halakha that does not apply to one who penetrates

  • does not apply to one is penetrated³

ושמואל סבר:

״משכבי אשה״ כתיב.

And Shmuel holds:

It is written:

“And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman”⁴

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

תניא כוותיה דרב:

זכר בן תשע שנים ויום אחד

• הבא על הבהמה,

  • בין כדרכה

  • בין שלא כדרכה,

• והאשה המביאה את הבהמה עליה,

  • בין כדרכה

  • בין שלא כדרכה –

חייב.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav:

One who penetrates a male aged 9 years and one day,

• or one who penetrates an animal,

  • whether in a typical manner (כדרכה, i.e. vaginal penetration)

  • or in an atypical manner,⁵

• and similarly a woman who causes herself to be penetrated by an animal,

  • whether in a typical manner

  • or in an atypical manner --

is liable.

This baraita sets the minimum age for the passive male at 9 years and one day.

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

דרש רב נחמן בר רב חסדא:

• באשה

  • שני משכבות,

• ובבהמה

  • משכב אחד.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught:

• With regard to a man penetrating a woman

  • there are two manners of lying⁶

• But with regard to a man penetrating an animal

  • there is only one manner of lying, i.e., vaginal

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

מתקיף לה רב פפא:

אדרבה,

• אשה

  • דאורחה היא אמשכב

    • מיחייב,

  • אמידעם אחרינא

    • לא מיחייב.

• בהמה

  • דלאו אורחא היא,

  • לחייב עלה על כל נקב ונקב.

Rav Pappa objects to this opinion:

On the contrary,

• a woman,

  • whose typical manner of being penetrated is vaginal,

    • is rendered liable for lying with an animal only in that manner;

• for something (מידעם) else, i.e., for being penetrated anally by an animal

  • she is not rendered liable

• With regard to a man who penetrates an animal, by contrast,

  • since it is not its typical conduct to be penetrated by a man at all,

  • he should be rendered liable for penetrating it through each and every orifice (נקב - i.e. both vaginal and anal)

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

תניא (דלא כתרוייהו):

• זכר בן תשע שנים ויום אחד הבא על הבהמה,

  • בין כדרכה

  • בין שלא כדרכה,

• והאשה המביאה את הבהמה עליה,

  • בין כדרכה

  • בין שלא כדרכה –

חייב.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with neither of their opinions:

• a male aged 9 years and one day who penetrates an animal,

  • whether in a typical manner (=vaginally),

  • or in an atypical manner, i.e., anally,

• and similarly, a woman who causes herself to be penetrated by an animal,

  • whether in a typical manner

  • or in an atypical manner,

are liable.

Evidently, there is no difference between the nature of the transgression of a woman who engages in bestiality and a man who engages in bestiality in this regard.

Ravina asking Rava - partially penetrating a male

אמר ליה רבינא לרבא:

המערה בזכור,

מהו?

Ravina said to Rava:

With regard to a man who partially penetrates⁷ another male

what is the halakha?

Is he liable for engaging in homosexual sex?

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

המערה בזכור –

משכבי אשה כתיב ביה.

The Talmud comments: With regard to one who partially penetrates a male, what is the question?

The expression “as with a woman” (Leviticus 18:22) is written with regard to him,

which indicates that any act that is considered penetrating a woman is also considered penetrating a man.

אלא,

המערה בבהמה,

מהו?

Rather, the question is as follows:

With regard to one partially penetrating an animal,

what is the halakha?

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

אמר ליה:

אם אינו ענין להעראה דכתיבא גבי אחות אביו ואחות אמו,

דלא צריכא, דהא איתקש להעראה דנדה –

תניהו ענין להעראה דבהמה.

[...]

Rava said to him:

In the verse: “And you shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister nor of your father’s sister; for he has made naked [he’era] his relative” (Leviticus 20:19), the word he’era alludes to partial penetration [ha’ara].

If the word he’era is not needed for the matter of partial penetration in the context where it is written, i.e., for the prohibition of sex with one’s father’s sister and one’s mother’s sister,

as it is not necessary in that context since the halakha of the partial penetration with regard to all forbidden sex is compared by the Torah to the halakha of the partial penetration mentioned with regard to a menstruating woman,

apply it instead to the matter of partial penetration of an animal.

The superfluous expression that appears in the verse concerning one’s aunt teaches that the partial penetration is considered sex even with regard to an animal.

[...]

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

בעא מיניה רב אחדבוי בר אמי מרב ששת:

המערה בעצמו,

מהו?

Rav Aḥadevoi bar Ami asked Rav Sheshet:

With regard to one who partially penetrates (מערה) himself,

what is the halakha?

Is he liable for homosexual sex?

Rav Sheshet - Rejects the question as repulsive/impossible

אמר ליה:

קבסתן!

Rav Sheshet said to him:

You disgust me (קבסתן) with your question;

such an act is not possible.

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

אמר רב אשי:

מאי תיבעי לך?

בקושי לא משכחת לה,

כי משכחת לה במשמש מת.

Rav Ashi said:

What is your dilemma?

With regard to doing so with an erect⁸ penis, you cannot find such a case.

You can find it only when one performs this act of penetration with a flaccid⁹ penis.

למאן דאמר משמש מת בעריות פטור,

הכא פטור.

And the halakha is subject to a dispute:

According to the one who says that a man who penetrates with a flaccid penis, with one of those with whom sex are forbidden, is exempt, as that is not considered sex,

here too, when one does so to himself, he is exempt.

ולמאן דאמר חייב,

הכא מיחייב תרתי:

1. מיחייב אשוכב,

2. ומיחייב אנשכב.

And according to the one who says that he is liable,

he is rendered liable here for transgressing two prohibitions according to R’ Yishmael:

1. he is rendered liable for penetration (שוכב)

2. and he is rendered liable for being penetrated (נשכב)

1. Steinsaltz explains:

[What is the halacha if he both penetrates another male, and causes himself to be penetrated by another male] within one lapse of awareness, i.e., without realizing in the interim that these behaviors are forbidden?

Is he considered to have transgressed two separate prohibitions and therefore liable to bring two sin-offerings, or is he considered to have transgressed one prohibition twice and liable to bring only one sin-offering?

For the Talmudic concept of “lapse of awareness” (העלם), see Jastrow (modernized), entry “הֵעָלֵם”:

c. (Infinitive Nif’al: of עָלַם [EB compare Hebrew Wiktionary, entry “נעלם“)

being unknown, especially (with reference to Leviticus 4 to 5) unconsciousness, forgetfulness as the cause of a transgression.

• Shevuot 26a:28 - העלם שבועה - “forgetting that he had sworn”; העלם חפץ - “forgetting the subject of the oath.”

• Shabbat 70b:3 - העלם שבת - “unconsciousness of its being the Sabbath day”;

• העלם מלאכות - “of the sinful nature of those labors”

• Ibid. אם עשאן … בהעלם אחד if he did all the forbidden labors in one state of unconsciousness (without being reminded between);

• Yerushalmi ibid. III, 9b top בה׳ אחת. Ibid. I, 2b בעלם אחד (interch. with בהעלם);

• Bava Batra 55b:5 בה׳ (Manuscript Hamburg: בעלם);

• Mishnah Keritot 4:2 (Keritot 17b:37) בה׳ אחת;

• Mishnah Keritot 3:2 בה׳ אחד.

• Sifra Vayikra, Ḥovah, Parah 1, chapter I;

• and frequently.

Plural: הֵעָלֵימוֹת.

• Yerushalmi Shabbat see above בשני ה׳ - “in two discontinuous states of forgetfulness”

• Yerushalmi Shevuot 1, 32d top - כמה ידיעות וה׳ - “many moments of consciousness and intervening forgetfulness”

• Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 7:5:1

• and elsewhere.

And compare especially the usage of this word in the Talmudic term פר העלם דבר של ציבור -”the communal bull offering for an erroneous sin/ruling (העלם דבר)”, based on the biblical passage in Leviticus 4:13–21; the initial verse of that passage states:

ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו

ונעלם דבר מעיני הקהל

ועשו אחת מכל מצות יהוה

אשר לא תעשינה

ואשמו

And if the whole congregation of Yisra’el sin through ignorance (ישגו),

and the thing be hid (נעלם דבר) from the eyes of the assembly,

and they have done something against any of the commandments of YHWH

concerning things which should not be done,

and have incurred guilt;

2. נרבע.

See the phrase in Leviticus 18:23 cited in the intro in Part 1:

ואשה לא תעמד לפני בהמה לרבעה

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

And see also Leviticus 20:16:

ואשה אשר תקרב אל כל בהמה לרבעה אתה

והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה

מות יומתו

דמיהם בם

And if a woman approach any beast, and lie down before it (לרבעה)

you shall kill the woman, and the beast:

they shall surely be put to death;

their blood shall be upon them.

On this word and construct, see my note in “Appendix 3 - Hebrew Verbs for “Sex”“, section “The verbs ba’al (בעל) and ba al (בא על) in Mishnaic Hebrew“:

In Talmudic Hebrew, the passive verb נרבע (nirva) is typically used to refer specifically to the passive male participant in homosexual sex or bestiality.

On the word in general, see Jastrow (modernized), entry “רָבַע”:

(Biblical Hebrew)

to lie with, copulate with, cover.

• Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 1:6:6 - והלא מביא … והוא רוֹבְעָהּ וכ׳ - “but may he not bring (the crippled sire) to her, and he cover her, and she may give birth?” והיא רוֹבַעַת ממנו וכ׳ - “and she (the crippled mare) may be fecundated [=inseminated] by him”

Especially a) (with referernce to Leviticus 20:16) to have connection [=have sex] with a beast [i.e. bestiality]

• Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:4 הרוֹבֵעַ והנִרְבָּע - “the animal that covered [=penetrated] (a woman), and the animal that was covered [=penetrated] (by a man)”

• Bava Kamma 40b;

• and elsewhere.

b) to commit pederasty [=homosexual sex]

• Sanhedrin 9b:7 פלוני רְבָעוֹ לאונסו וכ׳ - “(if a man says) such and such a man committed sodomy with him [=penetrated him] (euphemism for me) against his will, he himself in connection with another witness can testify etc.”

[…]

Nif’al: - נִרְבַּע to be covered [=penetrated], especially to be copulated in an unnatural way.

• Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:4, see above.

• Avodah Zarah 24a:7 וולד הנִרְבַּעַת אסורה - “the issue of a beast that was used for buggery [=bestiality] while pregnant is disqualified for the altar”

• היא וולדה נִירְבְּעוּ - “for mother and child have been abused [=penetrated]”;

• and frequently.

And see also my “Pt2 Etymologies and Identifications of Biblical Figures in the Talmud: A Literary Analysis“, section “Jeroboam: The Paradigm of Wickedness (Sanhedrin 101b)“:

תנו רבנן:

ירבעם – שריבע עם

A baraita states:

Jeroboam [Yorovam] — [is an abbreviation for one who] assaulted (ריבע) [the Jewish] people [am].

And I note there:

ריבע - riba - literally: “fucked, sexually assaulted”.

While vulgar in English, “fucked” is the closest and most precise translation of this word.

3. Steinsaltz explains:

Therefore, just as one who penetrates is not liable if he is less than 9 years old, as the sex of such a child does not have the halakhic status of sex, so too, if a child who is less than 9 years old is penetrated, the one who penetrates him is not liable.

4. Steinsaltz explains:

indicating that the halakha of a male who has sex passively is like that of a woman; just as the penetration of a woman has the halakhic status of sex from when she is 3 years old, the same is true with regard to a male who is penetrated. Consequently, in Shmuel’s opinion, one is liable if one penetrates a male who is 3 years old and up.

On age 9 as the minimum age to be called “sex” for a male, and age 3 for a girl, see the Talmudic passage is my series “Trending Talmud: Top Queries, Popular Posts, and Plain Readings of Controversial Talmudic Passages“, Pt2 and Pt3, and my intro there: “Intro to Ages of Sexual Maturity and Legal Status in the relevant Talmudic passages”.

5. שלא כדרכה - i.e., anally.

On this form of sex in the Talmudic literature, see my “Passions and Prohibitions: Some Notes on Sex in the Talmud“, section “Anal sex in the Talmud - bi’ah shelo ke-darka - ביאה שלא כדרכה“.

6. משכבות. I.e. a woman who is penetrated by an animal, whether vaginally or anally, is liable, as stated also earlier in the sugya, in Part 1, section “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“.

7. מערה.

Steinsaltz explains:

i.e., insertion of the penis, without completing the sex

For the Talmud’s definition of ma’areh (מערה - “partial penetration”), see my “What Counts as Sex? Defining the Beginning and Completion of Intercourse in the Talmud (Yevamot 55b)”, and see my intro there. The possibilities given there are:

1. a ‘kiss’ (neshika - i.e., external contact of the genitalia)

2. the insertion of the corona (hakhnasat atarah)

8. קושי - literally: “hard”.

9. מת - literally: “dead”.