Bestiality and the Jewish Talmud - Another Squashed Like a Bug R_0211

[snip]

Here is what the Talmud really thinks about bestiality:

'The following are executed by stoning: one who has relations with his mother, and [one who has relations] with his father's wife, and [one who has relations] with his daughter in law, and [one who has relations] with a male, and [one who has relations] with a beast, and a woman who causes a beast to have relations with her . . .'

(Sanhedrin 53a in the Mishnah.)

What about the little Hebrew girlie in the Talmud, who was supposedly

washing the floor and a dog performed coitus on her?

Do you seriously believe that scenario, Yitz?

I mean, it's no mean feat to score a hole in one on the first attempt

in a four poster bed, after half an hours foreplay, let alone on the

run while the object of your desire is scrubbing a floor!

It just don't add up, Yitz!

This poodles plaything was not stoned (well perhaps when she was with

the dog she may have been) and was found fit to be the wife of a

Kohein!

Please explain?

Explain what? The reason for the ruling that she is not disqualified from marrying a Kohein? What is it about the ruling that requires explanation exactly, from your perspective? Do you have some opinions that you would like to share about who can and who cannot marry Kohanim? Are you trying to say this case illustrates some sort of tolerance for bestiality? Did you understand the ruling in the Mishnah that you responded to? Or are you so caught up in the business with the dog that the legal aspects don't interest you?

What's to explain here?! Nobody argues that story about the dog is pure fantasy. So, what's your point?

The entire story, or just the part that it was a 'mishap'?

The fact that the girl claimed to have been 'accidentaly' humped by a dog and was believed, is what fascinates me, Yitz.

Has there EVER been further cases of such 'accidents' happening?

As you would no doubt be aware, there is an old addage about fruit from a poisoned tree.

I know you are trying to be obscure, by pretending not to understand what I am proposing, it refelcts poorly on you.

The entire story about the girl having been had by a dog. That doesn't change the fact that there's no condoning of bestiality here.

The commentaries on the Talmud are probably not going to have much to say on this point. The case is discussed in order to clarify a point in Jewish law. So, as I already posted, I am not very knowledgeable about dogs etc. and I am not going to have anything to contribute.

No idea.

Yawn.

Correct, no OFFICIAL condoning, however, if said girl happens to be promised to one of the priests, apparently a blind eye can be turned to her 'mishaps' with animals.

Otherwise it's stoning.

It's a bit like how Slick Willy can stick cuban cigars up an interns ass in the oval office and get away with it. Also how Dubya can go awol on the National Guard, no questions asked.