Support (for Rav - Beraisa): The following are liable: (one who is Shochev with) a boy (above) nine years, or a man or woman who has Bi'ah with an animal, normally or abnormally. (This is based on Rashi DH Tanya and DH ha'Ba. The Ya'avetz explains that it discusses only bestiality.)

Version #1 (Rashi) (Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda): Bestiality applies to either opening of a woman (we learn from "Mishkevei Ishah"), but it applies only to normal Shechivah of a man with an animal.

Question (Rav Papa): Just the contrary! It is normal for a woman to have normal Bi'ah (with a man), so only this is Bi'ah (even with an animal), but all Shechivah with an animal is abnormal, so one is liable for either kind!

Rejection (of both of them - Beraisa): The following are liable: (one who is Shochev with) a boy (above) nine years, or a man or woman who has Bi'ah with an animal, normally or abnormally.

Version #2 (Tosfos) (Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda): Both kinds of Bi'ah (of a man) with a woman are considered Bi'ah, but only normal Shechivah with an animal is bestiality.

Question (Rav Papa): It would be more reasonable to say the contrary! It is normal for a woman to have Bi'ah, so only normal Bi'ah with her is Bi'ah, but all bestiality is abnormal, so one is liable for either kind! (Tosfos - Rav Papa agrees that one is liable for either Bi'ah with a woman. He just teaches that if one would distinguish, we would exempt abnormal Bi'ah with a woman.)

Rejection (of Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda - Beraisa): If a nine-year old boy, or a woman commits bestiality, naturally or unnaturally, he or she is liable. (end of Version #2)

Question (Ravina): If a man does Ha'ara'ah (the first stage of Bi'ah. Some say that it is initial penetration, and some say that it is touching the gentials) with a man, what is the law?

Objection: This is obvious! Regarding Mishkav Zachar it says "Mishkevei Ishah." Since Ha'ara'ah with a woman is like full Bi'ah, also with a man!

Correction: Rather, if a man does Ha'ara'ah with an animal, what is the law?

Answer (Rava): The Torah says "Ha'ara'ah" regarding Bi'ah with a paternal or maternal aunt;

Since we do not need this to teach about aunts (we already know that Ha'ara'ah with Arayos is like full Bi'ah, for they are equated to Nidah, regarding which it says Ha'ara'ah), we use it to teach about Ha'ara'ah with an animal.

Question: One is Chayav Misah for bestiality. Why did the Torah write Ha'ara'ah regarding Chayavei Kerisus (aunts)? It should have written it by something else that is Chayav Misah!

Answer: It wrote it regarding aunts, for the entire verse is extra to be expounded. (Other verses already forbid aunts.)

Question (Rav Achdeboy bar Ami): If one did Ha'ara'ah to himself, what is the law?

Rav Sheshes: Do not bother me with questions about impossible things!

Rav Ashi: Granted, it is impossible when the Ever is Chai (in erection), but it is possible when it is Mes!

According to the opinion that Bi'ah with an Ever Mes is exempt, he is exempt. According to the opinion that Bi'ah with an Ever Mes is liable, he is liable twice, like a Shochev and a Nishkav.

Question: If a Nochri had Bi'ah with an animal, do we kill it?

If an animal is killed (when a Yisrael had Bi'ah with it) due to Takalah (a great transgression came about through it) and disgrace (people will remember his sin when they see the animal), here there is only Takalah, there is not disgrace (Nochrim often do this), we do not kill it;

If an animal is killed due to Takalah alone, we kill it.

Answer (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): Trees do not eat, drink or smell, yet we destroy an Asheirah because a Takalah resulted from it. If an enticer veers someone from the path of life (Mitzvos) to the path of death, and all the more so the enticer should be destroyed!

Question: If so (it depends only on Takalah), if a Nochri bowed to an animal, it should become forbidden and we should kill it!

Answer: We never find something permitted to a Yisrael (if a Yisrael bowed to an animal, it is invalid for a Korban, but he may eat it or benefit from it) and forbidden to a Nochri!

Question: If a Yisrael bowed to it, it should be forbidden, just like an animal that a Yisrael slept with!

Answer #1 (Abaye): Bestiality is a greater disgrace than idolatry.

Question: We destroy Asheiros, even though the disgrace is not so great!

Answer: The Torah is more concerned for animals than for trees.

Answer #2 (Rava): Because the animal enjoyed the transgression, it is killed.

Question: We destroy Asheiros, even though they did not enjoy the transgression!

Answer: The Torah is more concerned for animals than for trees.

Support (for Rav Sheshes - Mishnah): Also, (the animal is killed because) the Torah does not want that people will see the animal and mention that Ploni was stoned due to it.

Suggestion: This second answer mentions both Takalah and disgrace. This implies that the first answer (because the animal was a Takalah for a person), is enough to stone it (if not, the first answer could have been omitted)!

The first answer refers to a Nochri that committed bestiality (there is only Takalah), the second refers to a Yisrael that committed bestiality.

Rejection: No, we kill it only when there is disgrace;

This second answer mentions both Takalah and disgrace. The first answer is when there is only disgrace.

Question: When is there only disgrace?

Answer: A Yisrael committed bestiality b'Shogeg.

Rav Hamnuna was unsure about this.

Question (Rav Hamnuna): If a Yisrael committed bestiality b'Shogeg, do we kill the animal?

If we kill an animal only when there is only Takalah and disgrace, here there is only disgrace;

If we kill an animal when there is only disgrace, we kill it.

Answer #1 (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): A three year-old girl can become Mekudeshes through Bi'ah;

If she fell to Yibum and did Yibum, it takes effect (she is married to the Yavam);

Anyone (except her husband) is liable for (Bi'ah with) a married woman,

One who has Bi'ah with her (when she is Nidah becomes Tamei like a Nidah. He) is Metamei a mattress under him (even if other mattresses are in between) like a Keli above (and touching a Zav);

If she has Nisu'in with a Kohen, she may eat Terumah;

If a Pasul (e.g. Mamzer) had Bi'ah with her, she is disqualified from Kehunah;

If any of the Arayos had Bi'ah with her, he is killed, and she is exempt.

Suggestion: 'Any of the Arayos' includes an animal. It is killed, even though there is only disgrace, and not Takalah!

Rejection: Since she was Mezidah, there is also Takalah. The Torah had mercy on her (since she is a minor) and does not kill her;

The Torah had mercy on her, but not on the animal.

Answer #2 (Rava - Mishnah): If a nine-year old boy did Yibum, it takes effect. He cannot divorce her until he becomes an adult;

(If he has Bi'ah with a Nidah) he becomes Tamei like a Nidah, and he is Metamei a mattress under him like a Keli above (a Zav);

If he is Pasul and has Bi'ah with a woman, she is disqualified from Kehunah;

If he is a Kohen, his 'wife' may not eat Terumah (because he cannot be Mekadesh);

If he had Bi'ah with an animal, it is Pasul for a Korban. (If witnesses saw this,) it is stoned.

If he had Bi'ah with any of the Arayos, she is killed.

The animal is killed, even though there is only disgrace, and not Takalah!

Rejection: Since he was Mezid, there is also Takalah. The Torah had mercy on him, and not on the animal.

Answer #3 (Seifa): Also, the Torah does not want that people will see the animal and mention that Ploni was stoned due to it.

Suggestion: Since the Seifa mentions both disgrace and Takalah, the Reisha (the animal led to the downfall of a person) must come to include disgrace without Takalah, i.e. a Yisrael who had Bi'ah with an animal b'Shogeg!

Rejection: No, the Seifa mentions disgrace and Takalah, and the Reisha includes Takalah without disgrace, i.e. a Nochri who had Bi'ah with an animal!