= Sanhedrin 54b

Some people claim passages in Sanhedrin 54 justify certain crimes.

ex. "Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old."

The passage does not say anything of the kind (see "rejected opinion," below). First, let us understand what it does say. This passage is about boys, not girls so the idea of marriage, pregnancy and age of consent do not apply in the same way they do in other cases, such as [[Ketubot 11b]] or [[Sanhedrin 55b]]. We begin in 54a.1 reading what Leviticus has to say about homosexuality **regardless of age:**

<blockquote>We have learned the punishment for homosexual intercourse, but from where is the prohibition derived? The verse states: “And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). <cite>Sanhedrin 54a.1</cite></blockquote>

The question is (v.4-5) do we kill the child as well, or is he innocent in this endeavour? The entire discussion is then, over what kinds of passive intercourse are liable for punishment; it is denied in v.3. that the child-victim was an enabler "Read into the verse: You shall not **enable** your being lain with [tishakhev] by a male."

<blockquote>It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: One who **engages in homosexual intercourse** with a male aged nine years and one day,

or one who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in a typical manner or in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and similarly a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in a typical manner or in an atypical manner, is liable. This baraita sets the minimum age **for the passive male** at nine years and one day.<cite>Sanhedrin 54a.23-54b.1</cite></blockquote>

//It is clearly not a justification but merely a statement of when someone is liable for the death penalty (see v.5).//

== Conclusion
Leviticus says that if a man lies with another man, both must be killed. What Sanhedrin 54b says is that if one of the participants is under nine years old, he is not considered a "man" - and so it is not required that the child be put to death.

Do you think the Jews should put a 9 year old victim of homosexual rape to death? Would that be better to your way of thinking?

If YOU were responsible for actually running such a court and you were faced with such a case, would YOU kill the child as well as the rapist?

== A Rejected Opinion
With regards to: "if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively, the one who engages in intercourse with him is not liable." or "one who engages in intercourse with a male who is older than three is liable." the full quote is:

<blockquote>The Gemara asks: **With regard to what principle do Rav and Shmuel disagree?** The Gemara answers: Rav holds that any halakha that applies to one who engages in intercourse actively applies to one who engages in intercourse passively, and any halakha that does not apply to one who engages in intercourse actively does not apply to one who engages in intercourse passively. Therefore, just as one who engages in intercourse actively is not liable if he is less than nine years old, as the intercourse of such a child does not have the halakhic status of intercourse, so too, if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively, the one who engages in intercourse with him is not liable.

... Consequently, **in Shmuel’s opinion,** one who engages in intercourse with a male who is older than three is liable. 
<cite>Sanhedrin 54b.23</cite></blockquote>

//It is clearly not a justification but merely a statement of when someone is liable for the death penalty (see v.5).//

== What is the legal precedent?
What immediately follows is (a) conclusion, stated above: 54a.23-54b.1 states "It is taught in a baraita **in accordance with the opinion of Rav:** One who **engages in homosexual intercourse** with a male aged nine years and one day,

or one who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in a typical manner or in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and similarly a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal, whether in a typical manner or in an atypical manner, **is liable.** This baraita sets the minimum age **for the passive male** at nine years and one day."

Also see 55b.1 which discusses another conclusion of judgement from the mishna; cumulating in 55b.7:
"The Gemara infers: One of any of those with whom relations are forbidden apparently includes even an animal. And here, **there is shame** //but there is no calamity,// as she is not executed due to her status as a minor, and yet the mishna teaches: They are executed for engaging in intercourse with her. Evidently, the animal is killed. "

I repeat: "They are executed for engaging in intercourse with her."

"There is no calamity: SEE quote above "the one who engages in intercourse with him is not liable."

=== Not a valid proof
But we're still not done! v.11 is another inference which is rejected //as proof//. This goes on a number of times with various verses being presented as examples or proof that the child should be killed. By 55b.14 we see "The dilemma is left unresolved. No conclusive answer can be inferred from the mishna for either this dilemma or for the dilemma raised by the students [i.e. the baritas -ed] of Rav Sheshet. " **Therefore the child (victim) should not be killed.**

Therefore all this says is yes, **the rapist is liable,** but no, **the victim (child) is not liable**.

Don't kill the victim.

Is that fair?