Humiliation for Bestiality

According to a recent daf (Sanhedrin 55), if someone commits bestiality, the animal is also executed. The Mishnah gives two reasons, namely takala — that it was the mechanism via which one committed the sin; and kalon, the humiliation after the fact (even if the person has been executed) that people can point to it and say that that was the animal that the person slept with. The gemara grapples with whether both factors are necessary to execute the animal.

One path that they explore is where a non-Jewish person has slept with the animal. There, the first factor is present, but the second factor might not be present. That surely is an “interesting” suggestion. But it may be borne out in certain cultures. Just as an example, while Biblical law condemns (at penalty of death) bestiality with all animals, in the Hittite laws, typically this death penalty can be commuted by the king. And that is only for sheep, cows, and pigs. If someone slept with a horse or mule, they were merely excluded from the priesthood! Herodotus and others following him claimed the ancient Egyptian women slept with goats; and Plutarch and Virgil claims the Greeks did this. I did not explore it, but one could imagine that in some contemporary societies, it was not always this extreme cultural taboo.

This us presumably a misremembering of a “famous” midrash, or a late development of a midrash. When the gemara claimed that the humiliation cause would not be triggered by a non-Jewish person sleeping with an animal, the Bilaam midrash should jump to mind.

To remind us all, the underlying verse is this, in parashat Balak, Bemidbar 22:33, where the angel speaks to Bilaam:

וַתִּרְאַ֙נִי֙ הָֽאָת֔וֹן וַתֵּ֣ט לְפָנַ֔י זֶ֖ה שָׁלֹ֣שׁ רְגָלִ֑ים אוּלַי֙ נָטְתָ֣ה מִפָּנַ֔י כִּ֥י עַתָּ֛ה גַּם־אֹתְכָ֥ה הָרַ֖גְתִּי וְאוֹתָ֥הּ הֶחֱיֵֽיתִי׃

And when the ass saw me, she shied away because of me those three times. If she had not shied away from me, you are the one I should have killed, while sparing her.”

By saying “I would have killed you and spared her [the donkey]”, probably the simple meaning is that despite sparing her, I would have killed you. So she saved your life. But, midrashically, this is taken as stating that the opposite occurred. God, or the angel, now killed the donkey, while sparing Bilaam.

The question is why? Midrash Aggadah states:

כי עתה גם אותכה הרגתי [ואותה החיותי]. אינו אומר הנחתי, אלא החייתי, מכאן שהרגה המלאך, לפי שבאה אל המלאך עם בלעם לדין, והרגה המלאך, ומה בכבוד הרשעים חשש, כדי שלא יאמרו בני אדם, זו שהוכיחה לבלעם הנביא והשתיקתו, על אחת כמה וכמה שהקב"ה חושש בכבודם של צדיקים, הדא הוא דכתיב ואת הבהמה תהרוגו (ויקרא כ טו):

That is, the humiliation is that the donkey reproved Bilaam and shut him up. Earlier, in interpreting the words the donkey used, namely:

וַתֹּ֨אמֶר הָאָת֜וֹן אֶל־בִּלְעָ֗ם הֲלוֹא֩ אָנֹכִ֨י אֲתֹֽנְךָ֜ אֲשֶׁר־רָכַ֣בְתָּ עָלַ֗י מֵעֽוֹדְךָ֙ עַד־הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה הַֽהַסְכֵּ֣ן הִסְכַּ֔נְתִּי לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת לְךָ֖ כֹּ֑ה וַיֹּ֖אמֶר לֹֽא׃

The ass said to Balaam, “Look, I am the ass that you have been riding all along until this day! Have I been in the habit of doing thus to you?” And he answered, “No.”

Midrash Aggadah says:

ותאמר האתון אל בלעם. אמרו לו השרים של מואב לבלעם, כשראו כשרבצה האתון תחתיו, למה אתה רוכב אתון, ואי אתה רוכב סוס, אמר להו ברטיבא שריגא ליה, ולפי שעה לקחתיה, אמרה לו הלא אנכי אתונך, כלומר כי אינך רוכב על סוס אלא עלי, אמר לה בלעם לטעינה בעלמא את אתוני ולא לרכיבה. אמרה לו לאו אלא אשר רכבת עלי, ולא עוד אלא שאני עושה עמך מעשה רכיבה ביום, ומעשה אשה בלילה, לפי שהיה בא על אתונו, ואין הסכן הסכנתי אלא מעשה אשה, כמה דתימר ותהי למלך סוכנת (מ"א א ד), ויאמר לא שלא היה יכול לעמוד על תוכחתה:

So this includes words, spoken in front of the princes of Moav, that Bilaam had slept with the donkey. Earlier midrashic works, like Midrash Tanchuma Balak 9, do not include that charge. Just that he did not ride on a horse, just on an ass, and that was indeed his typical conduct.

Midrash Tanchuma ends like this:

כֵּיוָן שֶׁדִּבְּרָה, מֵתָה, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ הַבְּרִיּוֹת אוֹמְרִים: זוֹ הָאָתוֹן שֶׁדִּבְּרָה, וְעוֹשִׂין אוֹתָהּ יִרְאָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר, חָס הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל כָּבוֹד שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ, זוֹ שֶׁלָּקָה בִּלְעָם עַל יָדֶיהָ. וְאִם כָּךְ חָס הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל כְּבוֹדָן שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים, אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר עַל כְּבוֹד הַצַּדִּיקִים. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר, וְאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרַב אֶל כָּל בְּהֵמָה לְרִבְעָהּ וְגוֹ' (ויקרא כ, טז). אִם אִשָּׁה חָטְאָה, בְּהֵמָה מַה חָטְאָה. אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁבָּאָה לָאִשָּׁה תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדֶיהָ, לְפִיכָךְ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב, תֵּהָרֵג. דָּבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא הַבְּהֵמָה עוֹבֶרֶת בַּשּׁוּק וְיֹאמְרוּ, זוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה, שֶׁנֶּהֶרְגָה אִשָּׁה פְּלוֹנִית עַל יָדָהּ. לְהוֹדִיעַ הֵיאַךְ חָס הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל כְּבוֹדָן שֶׁל בְּרִיּוֹת וְיֹדֵעַ צָרְכָּם, וְסָתַם פִּי הַבְּהֵמָה. שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיְתָה מְדַבֶּרֶת, לֹא יְכוֹלִין לְשַׁעְבְּדָהּ וְלַעֲמֹד בָּהּ, שֶׁזֹּה הַטִּפְּשִׁית שֶׁבַּבְּהֵמוֹת, וְזֶה חָכָם שֶׁבַּחֲכָמִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁדִּבְּרָה, לֹא הָיָה יָכֹל לַעֲמֹד בָּהּ.

As soon as she had spoken, she died, so that the people would not say, “This is the she-ass that spoke,” and make it an object of reverence. Another interpretation (of Numb. 22:30): The Holy One, blessed be He, was concerned for the honor of that wicked man, lest they would say, “This is the very one through which Balaam was struck.” And if the Holy One, blessed be He, has concern for the honor of the wicked, it is not necessary to say [the same] about the honor of the righteous. And so is it stated (in Lev. 20:16), “If a woman approaches any beast to mate with it, [you shall kill the woman and the beast].” If the woman sinned, [how] did the animal sin? It is simply since the calamity came to the woman though it. Hence the verse says, “Kill it.” Another interpretation is that [it is so] that the animal should not pass through the marketplace and [people] say, “This is the animal for which x was killed.” [This is] to show how the Holy One, blessed be He is concerned about the honor of the creatures and knows their needs. And [so] He closed the mouth of the animals. As if it could speak, [people] would not be able to subdue it and master it. As this was the silliest of animals and this was the greatest of the sages. [And yet] once she spoke, he could not master her.

So indeed, the connection is made to our sugya, Sanhedrin 55, and one who has intercourse with an animal. But it does not put 2 and 2 together, to say that Bilaam himself slept with the donkey, and that it was for that that the donkey was killed. It was for the speech and one-upmanship. Thus, there’s nothing in the midrash that contradicts the assumptions make in the sugya.