Sefer HaChinuch ספר החינוך

That women not lay with the beasts: That women not lay with the beasts, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:23), “and a woman shall not stand in front of a beast to mate with it.” And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 349) that this is a commandment on its own in the tally of the commandments and it is not subsumed in the commandment before it. As the prohibition of the male to have intercourse with the beast and the prohibition of the woman to not bring the beast upon herself are two distinct prohibitions. And were it not for the negative commandment that came explicitly about [the women], we would not have learned this one from that one. And he brought a proof from that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in the first chapter of Keritot 2a, “There are thirty-six excisions in the Torah,” and they enumerated them. And they counted among them [a man] who has intercourse with a beast as one, and the woman who brings a beast upon herself as another, even as they were [only] counting the main categories of things there.

The root of this commandment is included with the one before it.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 55a) that an adult woman — meaning to say that she has reached the category of punishments, which is twelve years and a day — that brought a beast upon herself, whether large or small; once it has inserted itself in her — whether in her [conventional] way or not in her way — they are both stoned, the beast and her. And if the woman is a minor — meaning, less than twelve years and a day — the animal is stoned and she is exempt, but it is fitting to chastise her. However if she is less than three years and a day, even the animal is not stoned because of her. And the rest of its details [together] with the details of all of the sexual prohibitions that are written in this Order — whether the matter of their prohibitions and their distinctions, or whether the distinctions of the judgments of their transgressors — it is all in Tractate Sanhedrin and Tractate Keritot and in [some] places in Yevamot, Ketuvot and Kiddushin.

And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 352) that excision came from the Torah with a clear language about these sexual prohibitions that we wrote are with excision (karet, literally, cutting off). And it is like the verse stated after their enumeration (Leviticus 18:29), “For all who do from all of these abominations shall be cut off from their people.” And likewise, that which we have written about them that one who transgresses them is liable for the death penalty of the court, is likewise the language of the Torah. However, the variation of the death penalty and our saying about some of them, stoning, about some of them, strangulation, and about some of them, burning — some of them are from Scripture and some are through tradition. And [with] all of the sexual prohibitions, in all of them in which one was an adult and the other a minor, the adult is liable and the child is exempt, as we said above. And likewise, if they were both adults, but one was sleeping, the one sleeping is exempt — even though it is possible that he had a little pleasure when he was still sleeping. And with all of the sexual prohibitions — and so [too,] with all of the sins that a liability of the court comes upon them — there needs to be two or more fit witnesses there, warning the transgressor and seeing him violate the transgression with their [own] eyes. (See Sanhedrin 37a.) And nonetheless regarding the matter of the sexual prohibitions, our Sages have instructed us (Makkot 7a) that there is no need for the witnesses to see the matter of adultery completely — meaning to say that they see the evil act like a brush in a tube. Rather, from when they see them [acting] like adulterers — meaning to say like the way of all those having intercourse — behold, they are killed with this sight. And we do not say, maybe he did not insert [himself] — as the assumption of this position is that he inserted. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Kiddushin 80a) about this matter that anyone who is assumed to be from the same flesh is killed according to [that] assumption — even though there is no clear proof about the relation besides the assumption alone. [This means] that people say x is the son of y or the brother of z or her father. And we lash, burn, stone and strangulate [based] on this assumption.

And this prohibition is in every place and at all times. And one who transgresses it and brings a beast upon herself is liable for stoning for it, as we said. And if there were no witnesses and a warning, she is [punished] with excision; and when inadvertent, she is obligated to bring a fixed sin-offering. And we have already said that in all [cases] of inadvertence, the beast is not stoned. And even though they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 55a) as the reason for stoning the beast, [that it is] so that people not say, “This is [the beast] that x stumbled with”; that is only said when volitional, as that is the big stumbling. But there is a bit of accidentality in inadvertence.

It comes out according to our words that the only prohibition for the [gentiles] on account of sexual prohibition is the mother, the wife of the father, the sister from the mother, a married woman — as we wrote in the Order of Vayishma Yitro (Sefer HaChinukh 35) — a male and a beast. And slaves are not included in the sexual prohibitions of relationship, and are permitted even with their mothers and their sisters — and as we wrote above (Sefer HaChinukh 209) — since they have already left the category of [gentiles] but have not come into the category of Israelites.

And they, may their memory be blessed, said further as a reason for this (Yevamot 62b) that a Canaanite slave does not have relationship — meaning to say that behold, he is like a beast in this matter. And Scripture indicates this, from that which it is written (Genesis 22:5), “Sit here with (eem) the donkey” — and they, may their memory be blessed, expounded, “A people (am, which is spelled the same way as eem) similar to a donkey”; and they were the slaves of Avraham, our father. And nonetheless, they are [included] in the prohibition of males and beasts, according to the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed. And the reason is correct; as about this, it is not applicable to say [that] he has no relationship. And they are also forbidden from having intercourse with the married woman of an Israelite; as also about them is it not applicable to say [that] he has no relationship. And they are likewise forbidden with a menstruant, and even [in the case of] a maidservant — as [the latter] are liable for all of the punishments in the Torah. And explicitly did they, may their memory be blessed, expound (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 5:1), “‘And when a woman discharges’ (Leviticus 15:19) — whether an Israelitess or whether a maidservant; whether a convert or a freed [maidservant].”

And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 22a) that if someone from the [other] nations converts — and likewise, if a slave is freed — behold, they are like a newborn child. And all of the relationship of flesh that they had from the beginning in their being gentiles are no [longer] their flesh relatives at all and they are permitted to marry them — even their mother or their sister. That is from Torah writ. But the Sages forbade the thing, so that [people] not say that they came from a stringent holiness to a light holiness. And they ordained the thing like this: That if he was married to his mother or to his sister when he was a [gentile] or a slave, they would separate them — since these were forbidden even in [being a gentile]. But if he was married to the other sexual prohibitions and they converted, they would not separate them; as there is no concern here that they will say, etc. — as behold the rest of the sexual prohibitions were permitted to them in their being [gentiles]. And from this reason, they, may their memory be blessed, only decreed with the relatives of the mother, but not with the relatives of the father. And therefore, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 97b) that it is permitted for a convert to marry his daughter who converted; and likewise the wife of his brother from his father but not from his mother; and he is likewise permitted with the wife of his son. And it is permitted for him to marry two sisters from the father, but not from the mother. And so [too,] with all the secondary [prohibitions], they did not decree them for converts. And behold, slaves that were freed are like converts, and everything that is permitted to [the latter] is permitted to [the former]. And the same is the law with prohibition.