Sanhedrin 55: The Role of Shame

A challenging daf, with the breakdown of details of activity or homosexual acts, for bestial acts, and so on. The sages tackle the topics with seeming equanimity, until Rav Sheshet reacts in such a way that it opens the question whether they weren't as sanguine about it all. Also, the question of a non-Jew who engages in bestiality - does the animal need to be put to death? What about in the case of a non-Jew and idolatry regarding an animal? That animal isn't put to death (though a tree that is the object of idolatry needed to be destroyed). The shame of bestiality isn't present with regard to idolatry, and the Jewish court doesn't aim to make it an element of the non-Jew's experience either. And that acknowledgement of shame also suggests the difficulty of this daf overall. Then, the Gemara shifts back to the animal with which one committed an act of bestiality -- and the degradation or shame thereof. But Rav Hamnuna asks: What if there were such a case "be-shogeg," without intention. So there would still be shame, but none of the downfall of an intentional sin. The Gemara cites several opinions in different ways (including citing various mishnayot) to attempt to answer Rav Hamnuna. Which is to say that a given sin can include downfall AND degradation or just one of these aspects.