A Beraisa corroborates Rava's interpretation of Rebbi Yehudah. The significance of the fact that that Beraisa is in Toras Kohanim is - the fact that the author of Toras Kohanim is Rebbi Yehudah.

First however, the Beraisa explains the Pesukim in Kedoshim (in connection with the punishment). The Tana Darshens "Ish" to preclude a Katan, and "asher Yishkav es Eishes Aviv", irrespective of whether she is his mother or not. He learn from "Ervas Aviv Gilah" - a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that we will cite shortly.

And the Tana learns that "Mos Yumas" means Sekilah - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Demeihem bam", as we have already explained.

After Darshening the Pesukim just like Rava, the Tana learns via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ervas Aviv Gilah" from "Ervas Avicha Lo Segaleh" - that just as by the warning the Torah equates Imo who is not Eishes Aviv with one who is, so too, by the punishment.

According to the Rabbanan, "Ervas Avicha" refers literally to one's father, as we explained. Even though he is already Chayav because of the Pasuk there "ve'es Zachar ... ", the Torah adds an additional La'av, to sentence him to two punishments.

We know this from a statement by Rav Yehudah, who rules that ...

... if a Nochri has relations with his father - he receives two punishments, and the same applies to ...

... someone who has relations with his father's brother.

Rava amends Rav Yehudah's first statement to a Yisrael and (both statements speak about Shogeg) - because otherwise, seeing as a Nochri is not Chayav a Korban (even if he transgresses be'Shogeg), the only punishment Rav Yehudah could be talking about is Misah, and a person can only die once, in which case the statement would be totally irrelevant.

The reason that the transgressor brings two Korbanos is - because the Torah writes two La'avin, irrespective of the fact that it writes only one Kareis between them.

The above-mentioned Rabbanan cannot Darshen "Imcha hi" to preclude 'Eishes Av' from a woman who is also his mother - since, as we just explained, the first part of the Pasuk is talking about Aviv, and not Eishes Aviv.

The proof that Rava's amendment of Rav Yehudah is correct - lies in a Beraisa, which sentences a Yisrael who transgresses either of the two above-mentioned acts to two Korbanos.

Rebbi Yehudah, who Darshens "Ervas Aviv" with regard to Eishes Aviv, nevertheless concedes that the Pasuk "Ervas Achi Aviv Lo Segaleh" must be speaking - literally with regard to Achi Aviv ...

... seeing as the Pasuk continues "el Ishto Lo Sikrav".

In the first Lashon, we establish the above Beraisa like the Chachamim (who explain "Ervas Aviv" literally). Based on what we just said, the second Lashon nevertheless establishes it like Rebbi Yehudah - by means of a 'Kal va'Chomer from Achi Aviv (whose relationship is only through Aviv).

The basis of the Machlokes between the two Leshonos is a Machlokes between Abaye and Rava - whether we hold of the principle 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din' (meaning that one cannot learn a punishment from a 'Kal va'Chomer' [Rava]), or not (Abaye).

The Rabbanan learn the warning for Eishes Aviv from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos (after "Ervas Avicha") in Acharei-Mos "Ervas Eishes Avicha Lo Segaleh". Rebbi Yehudah learns from there - a warning for Eishes Aviv after the death of one's father.

The Rabbanan learn this from the conclusion of this Pasuk "Ervas Avicha hi" (to include after his death, as we learned earlier). Rebbi Yehudah learns from there that - someone who commits incest with one's father's wife, is not Chayav for Eishes Ish ...

... and when our Mishnah sentences every Eishes Av to Eishes Ish as well, and Rebbi Yehudah does not argue, this cannot mean that he agrees with it - since he specifically argues with them in a Beraisa.

The Rabbanan learns the punishment of Eishes Aviv after the death of one's father from "Ervas Aviv Gilah", which Rebbi Yehudah uses for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (that establishes "Ervas Aviv" by Eishes Av). Rebbi Yehudah learns it - from the actual 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (the Onesh from the Azharah).

Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi explains that the Rabbanan learn the punishment for Imo who is not Eishes Aviv from "Imcha hi" - which implies that she is considered your mother, whether she is your father's wife or not.

We learned in our Mishnah that someone who commits incest with his daughter-in-law is also Chayav because of Eishes Ish. The reason that the Tana does not add "Eishes B'no", which the Pasuk mentions independently ("Eishes Bincha hi") is - because these words imply that she is synonymous with Kalaso, and not that it is an independent case.

Our Mishnah explains that the animal with which a woman performs bestiality is stoned a. because it caused the person to sin, and - b. to spare the deceased woman the constant degradation of people pointing at the animal as the one that caused her to be stoned.

In the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Ish asher Yishkav es Zachar Mishkevei Ishah", the Tana Kama of the Beraisa Darshens, "Ish" 'P'rat le'Katan'. He learns from ...

... "asher Yishkav es Zachar" (and not "es Ish") - that one is Chayav for adultery and incest, even if the other party is a Katan (provided the girl is at least three and the boy, nine) who is Patur.

... "Mishk'vei Ishah" - 'she'Shenei Mishkavos be'Ishah' (that one is Chayav for adultery and incest, even for having unnatural relations).

When Rebbi Yishmael says ...

... 'Harei Zeh Ba Lelameid' he means that - although 'Mishk'vei' seems to be teaching us a Halachah regarding homosexuality, this is unnecessary (since every case of homosexuality is unnatural).

... 've'Nimtza Lameid', he means that - it must then be coming to teach us a Halachah regarding unnatural relations with a woman.

Rebbi Yishmael learns that homosexuality is punishable by Sekilah from 'Demeihem Bam' which the Torah writes there, and from the Pasuk ...

... in Acharei-Mos "ve'es Zachar Lo Sichkav ... " he learns - the warning.

... in Ki Seitzei "Lo Yih'yeh Kadeish mi'Benei Yisrael" that - not only the active partner is Chayav, but so is the passive one.

... in Melachim "ve'Gam Kadeish Hayah ba'Aretz Asu ke'Chol To'avoseihem" - that the "To'evah" there applies also to the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei, enabling the Tana to make the previous D'rashah (otherwise, there would be nothing in "Lo Yih'yeh Kadeish" to connect with "ve'es Zachar ... ").

When Rebbi Akiva, who disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael (and supports the Tana Kama) says "Lo Tzarich", he means that - "Lo Sichkav" (which can be read 'Lo Sishachev" [or "Lo Sashkiv", see Rashash]) already incorporates the passive partner in the warning, in which case we do not need a special D'rashah for it.

We learn from the Pasuk "Ish Ki Yiten Shechovto bi'Veheimah" that a Katan is Patur from bestiality, though a Gadol is Chayav irrespective of the age of the animal. And from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Taharogu" from "Ki Harog Tahargenu" (written in Re'ei in connection with a Meisis) we learn that - bestiality is subject to Sekilah (the sole case that is not learnt from "Demeihem bam").

We now know the punishment of the man who performs bestiality with an animal. From the Pasuk ...

... in Mishpatim "Kol Shochev im Beheimah Mos Yumas" - we learn the punishment for a passive partner in bestiality.

... in Acharei-Mos "u've'Chol Beheimah Lo Siten Shechovt'cha ... " we learn the warning.

Rebbi Yishmael learns the warning for the passive partner in bestiality from the same combination as he learned it by incest ("Lo Yiheyeh Kadeish ... " and ve'Gam Kadeish hayah ba'Aretz"). He derives both incest and bestiality from the same source - because both are included in "ki Kol ha'To'evos Asu Anshei ha'Aretz ... ".

Rebbi Akiva learns the same thing from " ... Lo Siten Shechovt'cha ... " - by Darshening "Lo Siten Shechovt'cha" - by Darshening 'Lo Siten Shechivascha'.

Rebbi Avahu maintains that, according to Rebbi Yishmael, someone who is both an active and a passive partner in ...

... homosexuality in one He'elam (in a period of time during which he is unaware that either of the two things that he is doing is forbidden) has to bring two Korbanos, one for "Lo Sishkav" and one for "Lo Yih'yeh Kadeish". According to Rebbi Akiva however - he only brings one (because "Lo Sishkav" and "Lo Sishachev" are one and the same source).

... bestiality in one He'elam has to bring two Korbanos, one for "Lo Siten Shechovt'cha" and one for Lo Yih'yeh Kadeish". Here too, according to Rebbi Akiva however - he only brings one (because "Shechovt'cha" and "Shechivascha" are one and the same source).

Abaye disagrees with Rebbi Avahu in the latter case - because, he says, there is no such thing as 'Z'nus' in connection with an animal. Consequently, "Lo Yih'yeh Kadesh" is confined to Z'nus with humans.

He learns the warning for the passive partner in bestiality from the Pasuk "Kol Shochev im Beheimah Mos Yumas", which is not needed for Shochev. Despite the fact that this Pasuk is speaking about the punishment, he nevertheless learns the warning from there - from the fact that the Torah uses the expression "Shochev" (and not 'Nishkav'), thereby comparing Nishkav to Shochev, which contains both a warning and a punishment (as we learned earlier).

Consequently, even according to Rebbi Yishmael - an active and a passive partner in bestiality in one He'elam will only have to bring one Korban.

According to Rebbi Avahu, Rebbi Akiva holds that someone who is a passive partner in both homosexuality and bestiality in one He'elam, has to bring two Korbanos, one for "Lo Sishkav" and one for "Lo Siten Shechovt'cha". Rebbi Yishmael holds that - he only brings one, for "Lo Yih'yeh Kadeish" (which incorporates both).

According to Abaye however, he brings two Korbanos, even according to Rebbi Yishmael - one for "Lo Sishkav" and one for "Kol Shochev im Beheimah Mos Yumas" (which is written by Shochev, but applies to Nishkav because of 'im Eino Inyan le'Shochev ... '. Consequently, both Shochev and Nishkav share the same La'av "Lo Siten Shechovt'cha").

Someone who is both an active and a passive partner in both homosexuality and bestiality in one He'elam, according to ...

... Rebbi Yishmael - has to bring three Korbanos: "Lo Sishkav" (Ba al ha'Zachur); "Lo Yih'yeh Kadeish" (Heivi Zachar Alav); "Lo Siten Shechovtecha" (Ba al ha'Beheimah), according to Rebbi Avahu; according to Abaye, he is Chayav for the same three La'vin, only according to him, "Lo Siten Shechovt'cha" incorporates Heivi Beheimah Alav (which, according to Rebbi Avahu, shares the same Pasuk as Heivi Zachar Alav).

... Rebbi Akiva - has to bring two ("Lo Sishkav" and "Lo Siten Shechovt'cha").

Abaye only disagrees in one detail, as we explained, but in principle, he agrees with Rebbi Avahu in this issue.

The Beraisa - precludes someone who performs homosexuality with a Katan but not someone who performs bestiality with a baby animal.

We ask what this means. The Tana cannot be referring to a Katan in the regular sense - because the Torah writes simply "es Zachar" (which includes a Katan).

Rav therefore interprets Katan to mean one who is under nine. According to Shmuel - the Tana means one who is under three.

Rav learns this from the Hekesh of Nishkav to Shochev (like Rebbi Akiva) - meaning that just as the Bi'ah of a Katan under nine is not considered Bi'ah, so too, is the Bi'ah of a Gadol with such a Katan not considered a Bi'ah.

Shmuel's source is - the Pasuk "Mishkevei Ishah", comparing the Bi'ah of a man (who is Nishkav) to that of a woman, which is not considered a Bi'ah if she is under three.

Rav's opinion has the support of a Beraisa - which specifically includes someone who commits homosexuality with a boy of over nine in the Chiyuv.

We know that the Tana is speaking about a case where the Rasha raped the Katan and not vice-versa a. because then he would not refer to the Katan as 'Zachur' and - b. because it would be like any other case of Arayos, where the Bi'ah of a boy under nine is not considered a Bi'ah.

The Beraisa adds that - a man or a woman is Chayav for bestiality irrespective of whether the act is performed naturally or unnaturally.