Daily Mitzvah (Rambam)

The 348th prohibition is that we are forbidden from having sexual relations with an animal, whether it be male or female.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "do not perform any sexual act with an animal."

One who transgresses this prohibition intentionally is punished by s'kila; if he does not receive stoning,2 he is punished by kares; and if it was done unintentionally, he must bring a sin-offering.

Footnotes

1.

Lev. 18:23.

2.

E.g., there were no witnesses.

The 349th prohibition is that women are forbidden from allowing animals to have sexual relations with them.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "A woman shall not give herself to an animal and allow it to mate with her."

This counts as a separate commandment distinct from the previous one. [The proof of this is that] the prohibition on males from having relations with animals does not itself prohibit women from allowing animals to have relations with them, would it not be for a separate prohibition.

In the first chapter of Kerisus,2 our Sages say, "there are 36 mitzvos in the Torah which are punishable by kares." They enumerate them, and include both a man and a woman committing bestiality. [These are counted separately,] even though the Sages only enumerate general categories, as we explained in our commentary.3 We have therefore proven that this mitzvah counts as a separate prohibition.

One who transgresses this prohibition intentionally is punished by stoning; if it was done intentionally but there was no acceptable testimony, she receives kares; and if it was done unintentionally, she must bring a sin-offering.

Footnotes

1.

Ibid.

2.

Ch.1, Mishneh 1.

3.

In his Commentary to the Mishneh, the Rambam comments on the prohibition of having relations with a woman and her daughter, which is listed as one of the 36. Although relations with a woman and her granddaughter, etc. are also prohibited, the Mishneh just lists the one general idea of "parents" and "offspring" — counting it as just one of the 36 categories. Nevertheless, the two mitzvos mentioned here are listed separately, and count as two of the 36.

The 350th prohibition is that [a male] is forbidden from having relations with another male.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not lie with a man as you would with a woman, since this is a disgusting perversion." The same prohibition is repeated a second time,2 "there shall not be a prostitute among Jewish men."

This is the proper explanation of the repetition — that it was added to give additional stress, not to give a separate prohibition for the passive partner. From the statement, "do not lie," one derives the prohibition for both parties.

In3 tractate Sanhedrin,4 it is explained that Rabbi Yishmael is the one who interprets the verse, "there shall not be a prostitute" as a prohibition to the passive partner. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yishmael, one who both has relations with a male and allows a male to have relations with him in the same helam5 must bring two sin-offerings. But Rabbi Akiva says, "[a separate verse] is not necessary [to make a prohibition on the passive partner]. The Torah says, 'do not lie (lo sishkav) with a man' — it can also be read, 'do not allow another to lie with you (lo sishacheiv).' " Therefore, according to him, one who both has relations with a male and allows a male to have relations with him in the same helam must only bring one sin-offering. The reasoning given is "lo sishkav and lo sishacheiv are one prohibition," and according to him, "there shall not be a prostitute" comes only to add stress. This is similar to the prohibition,6 "do not commit adultery," which is the same prohibition of a married woman,7 "do not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife." We explained many similar cases in the Ninth Introductory Principle.

One who transgresses this prohibition [intentionally] is punished by stoning; if it was done intentionally but he did not receive stoning, he receives kares; and if it was done unintentionally, he must bring a sin-offering.

Footnotes

1.

Lev. 18:22.

2.

Deut. 23:18.

3.

The Rambam now proceeds to prove that this counts as only one prohibition, and not two.

4.

54b.

5.

Literally, a "concealment." One brings a sin-offering only if the transgression was done unintentionally. If one does the same prohibited act many times without realizing that the act was forbidden, only one sin-offering is brought.

This is known as helam echad, one concealment. However, if two different prohibitions are done, even in the same helam, two offerings must be brought.

6.

N347.

7.

Lev. 18:20.

The 351st prohibition is that one is forbidden from having [homosexual] relations with one's father.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "do not commit a sexual offense against your father."

One who transgresses this prohibition also is punished by stoning. One who has relations with his father is therefore guilty of homosexual relations2 and of relations with one's father.

In tractate Sanhedrin,3 the verse "do not commit a sexual offense against your father" is explained as meaning, "literally, your father."4 On this they ask, "but this is already prohibited from the verse, 'do not lie with a man'! They answer, "[this verse comes] to make him guilty of two offenses, like Rav Yehudah said, 'a non-Jew who has relations with his father is guilty of two offenses.' " There they explain, "it is sensible to say that Rav Yehudah was really referring to the law of a Jew who has done the act unintentionally, and who must bring a sacrifice. He used the expression, "non-Jew" as a euphemism."5 Therefore, if he had relations with his father unintentionally, he would bring two sin-offerings just as one who unintentionally committed two types of sexual prohibitions. This is not the case with [homosexual relations with] another male, where only one sin-offering would be brought.

Footnotes

1.

Lev. 18:7.

2.

N350 above.

3.

54a.

4.

Rather than translating "a sexual offense against your father" as incest with one's mother, which would automatically be an offense against one's father.

5.

Rav Yehudah didn't even want to mention a Jew in reference to such an act.