Sanhedrin Daf 55 סַנהֶדרִין דַף 55

Rav Sheishess was asked: עובד כוכבים הבא על הבהמה – if an idolator had relations with an animal, is the animal stoned? תקלה וקלון בעינן – Do we require both the stumbling and the disgrace to stone the animal, and here there is only תקלה, (since such relations are also prohibited to an idolator), but no disgrace (since such activity is common to idolators), so the animal would not be killed, or,תקלה אף על פי שאין קלון – stumbling is sufficient to kill it even though there is no disgrace? Rav Sheishess quoted a Baraisa, which states that trees served as avodah zarah are completely destroyed, הואיל ובא לאדם תקלה על ידן – because a person came to stumbling through them, proving that תקלה alone suffices for destruction (since an idolator is not disgraced by idolatry). The Gemara asks that if so, an animal worshipped by an idolator, or a Jew, should be killed!? Abaye answers: זה קלונו מרובה – the disgrace of [משכב בהמה] is great, and even an idolator has תקלה וקלון, but the disgrace of idolatry is relatively small, so the animal is not killed for it. Rava answers that an animal which derived pleasure from relations is killed; a worshipped animal is not. [Although worshipped trees are destroyed, Hashem spared living creatures which were worshipped.]

The Gemara quotes our Mishnah, which explains that alternatively, the animal is killed “so it should not walk in the street and people will say, ‘This is [the animal] through which Ploni was stoned.’” This second clause includes both תקלה and קלון (“this is the animal” implies the disgraceful act, and the stoning mentions the תקלה). The Mishnah’s first clause, which only mentions תקלה, is superfluous, indicating that תקלה alone suffices to stone the animal (i.e., for an idolator’s משכב בהמה)!? The Gemara answers that the first clause may refer to קלון without תקלה (and should be interpreted as the “stumbling of disgrace”). Rav Hamnuna asked about this case: ישראל הבא על הבהמה בשוגג – if a Yisroel mistakenly had relations with an animal, is the animal stoned? תקלה וקלון בעינן – Do we require both the stumbling and the disgrace for it to be killed, and since here, there is only disgrace of the act, but no תקלה (since it was unintentional), the animal would not be killed? Or, קלון אף על פי שאין תקלה – is disgrace sufficient to stone the animal, even though there is no stumbling?

The Gemara attempts to resolve Rav Hamnuna’s question from a Mishnah, which teaches that a three-year-old girl’s relations are legally relations for all halachos (e.g., her kiddushin or יבום take effect through relations). If any of the עריות have relations with her, מומתין על ידה – they are killed because of her, but she is exempt (as a minor). This indicates that an animal is killed for having relations with her, and since she is not culpable, and is considered a שוגג, it is a case of קלון without תקלה, yet the animal is killed!? The Gemara answers: כיון דמזידה היא תקלה נמי איכא – since she is an intentional sinner, there is also stumbling for which she should have been executed, ורחמנא הוא דחס עלה – but the Merciful One had mercy on her and spared her; עלה דידה חס – only on her did He have mercy, אבהמה לא חס – but on the animal He did not have mercy. Another Mishnah teaches that a nine-year-old קטן’s relations are legally relations, including killing an animal on his account, and the same explanation is given.