BEASTIALITY OKAY IN THE TALMUD

by **Dr Mengele Admin** Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:33 pm

Jewish widows, dogs & bestiality

Widows
are forbidden by the Talmud from owning dogs,
as
people will suspect they have sex with them.

"A widow may not breed dogs, (For fear of
malicious slander, but not because she is actually suspected of bestiality) nor
permit a scholar to live with her as a boarder? Now, [the prohibition] of a
scholar is intelligible, since she deems him self-respecting; but as for a dog
since it will follow her [if she commits bestiality], she will surely be afraid!
(Why is she then forbidden to breed dogs) — I will tell you: since it follows
her even if she merely throws it a piece of meat, that will be assumed the cause
of its attachment. (the mere fact that she can indulge without fear of discovery
gives tongue to slander.)"

Baba Mezi'a 71a

"The Talmud (Baba
Metzia 71a) urges a widow not to own a dog because she will be suspected of
committing bestiality (presumably, this rule is limited to a widow who lives
alone). Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 22:18) codifies this rule but Taz (ad. Loc.
10) approvingly cites the opinion of Tosafot (Baba Metzia 71a s.v. lo) who state
that this law is a "mere stringency" and that it is essentially permissible for
a widow to own a dog "since the people of Israel are not suspected of committing
bestiality" (see Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer 24:1)."
Halachic
Perspectives On Pets
Rabbi Howard Jachter

Previous Folio / Baba Mezi'a Contents / Tractate List
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a

Baba Mezi'a 71a

the [minimum] requirements of a livelihood.¹
Rabina said: Here [in the Mishnah] the reference is to scholars. For why did the
Rabbis enact this precautionary measure?² Lest
he learn of his ways.³ But being a scholar, he
will [certainly] not learn of his ways.

Others referred this statement of R. Huna to [the teaching] which R. Joseph
learnt: If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee:⁴ [this teaches, if the choice lies between] my
people and a heathen, 'my people' has preference; the poor or the rich —
the 'poor' takes precedence; thy poor [sc. thy relatives] and the [general] poor
of thy town — thy poor come first; the poor of thy city and the poor of another
town — the poor of thine own town have prior rights. The Master said: '[If the
choice lies between] my people and a heathen — "my people" has preference.' But
is it not obvious? — R. Nahman answered: Huna told me it means that even if
[money is lent] to the heathen on interest, and to the Israelite without [the
latter should take precedence].

It has been taught: R. Jose said: Come and see the blindness of usurers. If a
man calls his neighbour wicked, he cherishes a deep-seated animosity against
him;⁵ whilst they bring witnesses, a notary,
pen and ink, and record and attest, 'So-and-so has denied the God of Israel.'⁶

It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: He who has money and lends it
without interest, of him Scripture writes. He that putteth not out his money
to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things
shall never be moved;⁷ thus you learn that
he who does lend on interest, his wealth⁸
dissolves.⁹ But do we not see [people] who do
not lend on interest, yet their wealth dissolves? — R. Eleazar said: The latter
sink [into poverty] but re-ascend, whereas the former sink but do not
re-ascend.¹⁰

Wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy
tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?¹¹ R. Huna said: 'the man that is [merely] more
righteous than he,' he devoureth: but the man that is completely righteous, he
cannot devour.

It has been taught: Rabbi said: The righteous proselyte¹² who is mentioned in connection with the sale
[of oneself for a slave], and the resident alien who is mentioned with reference
to usury — I know not their purpose. 'The righteous proselyte who is mentioned
in connection with a sale' — as it is written, And if thy brother that
dwelleth with thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee;¹³ and not only 'unto thee' [a Hebrew],
but even to a proselyte, as it is written, [and sell himself] unto a
proselyte;¹⁴ and not alone to a righteous
proselyte, but even to a resident alien, as it is written, to a proselyte
[and] a settler;¹⁵ or to a family of
the proselyte — i.e., to a heathen; hence, when it is said, or to the
stock etc. it must refer to one who sells himself to the service of the idol
itself.¹⁶

Now,¹⁷ the Master said: 'And not only
unto thee, but even unto a proselyte,' as it is written, [and sell
himself] unto a proselyte.' Are we to say that a proselyte may acquire a
Hebrew slave? But the following contradicts it: A proselyte cannot be acquired
as a Hebrew slave, nor may a woman or a proselyte acquire a Hebrew slave. 'A
proselyte cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave', for the verse, and he shall
return unto his own family, must be applicable. which it is not [in the case
of a proselyte];¹⁸ 'nor may a woman or a
proselyte acquire a Hebrew slave' — a woman, because it is not seemly;¹⁹ a proselyte, because it is a tradition that he
who can be acquired can himself acquire, but he who cannot be acquired, cannot
himself acquire! — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He cannot acquire [him] under the
provisions of an Israelite [owner], but may acquire [him] as a non-Israelite
[master]. For it has been taught: He [sc. a Hebrew slave] whose ear is bored,²⁰ and he who is sold to a heathen, serve neither
the son nor the daughter.²¹

The Master said: 'Nor may a woman or a proselyte acquire a Hebrew slave.'
Must we assume that this disagrees with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? For it has been
taught: A woman may acquire female but not male slaves. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel
ruled: She may acquire even male slaves! — It may agree even with R. Simeon b.
Gamaliel, yet there is no difficulty: the former applies to a Hebrew slave, the
latter to a Canaanite slave. A Hebrew slave she deems to be self-respecting;²² whereas a Canaanite slave she deems
unreservedly dissolute.²³ But what of that
which R. Joseph learned: A widow may not breed dogs,²⁴ nor permit a scholar to live with her as a
boarder? Now, [the prohibition] of a scholar is intelligible, since she deems
him self-respecting; but as for a dog since it will follow her [if she commits
bestiality], she will surely be afraid!²⁵ — I
will tell you: since it follows her even if she merely throws it a piece of
meat, that will be assumed the cause of its attachment.²⁶

'The resident alien who is mentioned with reference to usury:' — What is it?
— For it is written, And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay
with thee; then thou shalt relieve him; yea, though he be a proselyte or a
settler, that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him nor increase: but
fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.²⁷ But the following opposes it: ONE MAY BORROW
FROM AND LEND TO THEM ON INTEREST; THE SAME APPLIES TO A RESIDENT ALIEN! — R.
Nahman b. Isaac replied: Is it then written, 'Take thou no usury of them'?²⁸ 'of him' is written, [meaning] of an
Israelite.²⁹

Our Rabbis taught: Take thou no usury of him, or increase, but thou
mayest become a surety for him.³⁰

To Part b

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31