Torah has expressively forbidden Jewish men and women from bestiality.
Reference: Tanakh» The Pentateuch>> Vayikra – Leviticus >>Chapter:18 >>Verse 23
And with no animal shall you cohabit, to become defiled by it. And a woman shall not stand in front of an animal to cohabit with it; this is depravity.
Cursed be on zoophile:
Reference: The Torah (Jewish Bible) » The Pentateuch » Devarim – Deuteronomy >>Chapter 27>> Verse 21
Cursed be he who lies with any animal. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
Reference: Torah (Jewish Bible) » The Pentateuch>> Shemot – Exodus >> Chapter 22>> Verse 18
Whoever lies [carnally] with an animal shall surely be put to death.
Death Penalty for both Zoophile and the animal:
Reference: The Torah (Jewish Bible) » The Pentateuch>> Vayikra – Leviticus – Chapter 20>> Verse 15-16
15And a man who lies with an animal, shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.
16And a woman who comes close to any animal so that it will mate with her you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves.
Reference: Mishnah>> Seder: Nezekin>> Sanherdin >> Chapter 1>> Verse 4
Online Source: http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanhedrin.1.4?lang=en
Capital cases, by twenty-three. Bestiality, by twenty-three, as it says (Leviticus 20:16) “and you shall kill the woman and the beast,” and it says, (Leviticus 20:15) “and you shall kill the beast.” An ox to be stoned, by twenty-three, as it is written (Exodus 21:29) “the ox shall be stoned and its owner shall also be put to death,” as is the death of the owner, so is the death of the ox. The wolf and the lion, the bear and the tiger, the leopard and the snake, are put to death by twenty-three. Rabbi Eli’ezer says: Whoever is the first to kill [the animal] has performed a meritorious deed. Rabbi Akiva says: they are put to death by twenty-three.
Reference: Mishnah>> Seder: Nezekin>> Sanherdin>> Chapter: 7>> Verse: 4
Online Source: http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanhedrin.7.4?lang=en
These are [executed by] stoning: [a male] who sleeps with his mother, with the wife of his father, with his daughter-in-law, with a male, [or] with an animal; a woman who causes an animal to sleep with her; the blasphemer; the idolater; one who gives of his children to Molekh [a particular form of idolatry], the ba’al ‘ov [necromancer] and yid’oni [soothsayer]; one who desecrates the Sabbath; one who curses his father or mother; one who sleeps with a betrothed maiden; the mesit [one who entices an individual to commit idolatry]; the mediach [one who entices a city to commit idolatry]; the sorcerer; and the wayward and rebellious son. One who sleeps with his mother – [he] is liable [for violating two prohibitions, for the prohibition of sleeping with his] mother and for [the prohibition of sleeping with] his father’s wife. Rabbi Yehudah says, he is only liable for [sleeping with] his mother. One who sleeps with his father’s wife- [he] is liable for his father’s wife and for a married woman, whether [the act occurs] in his father’s lifetime or after his father’s death, whether [she is his father’s wife] through betrothal or through completed marriage. One who sleeps with his daughter-in-law- [he] is liable for his daughter-in-law and for a married woman, whether in his sons’s lifetime or after his son’s death, whether [she is his son’s wife] through betrothal or through completed marriage. One who sleeps with a male or with an animal, or a woman who causes an animal to sleep with her- [even] if a person has sinned, how has the animal sinned [such that it also receives execution by stoning]? Rather, since [the animal] caused a person to commit an offense, Scripture therefore said, [the animal] should be stoned. Another explanation: [the animal is stoned] so that the animal not be passing through the market-place and [lead people to] say, “This is the one that caused so-and-so to be stoned.”
Reference: Mishnah>> Seder: Nezekin>> Sanherdin >> Chapter 8>> Verse 7
Online Source: http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanhedrin.8.7?lang=en
These may be saved [from transgression] with their lives [i.e. by killing them]: one who pursues his fellow to kill him, and [one who pursues] a male or a betrothed maiden [to rape them]. But one who pursues an animal [to commit bestiality], and one who [intends] to desecrate the Sabbath, and one who [intends] to worship idols, one may not save them with their lives
Reference: Gemara>> Seder: Nezekin>> Sanherdin >> Folio 54>> Part b
Online Source: http://www.halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_54.html#PARTb
Whence do we learn a formal prohibition against bestiality? — Our Rabbis taught: [and if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast].5 A man excludes a minor; [that] lieth with a beast — whether it be young or old; he shall surely be put to death — by stoning. You, by stoning; but perhaps one of the other deaths decreed in the Torah is meant? — It is here said, [and] ye shall kill [the beast]; and it is stated elsewhere, But thou shalt surely kill him. [… And thou shalt stone in him with stones]:6 just as there, stoning is meant, so here too.
We have learnt from this the punishment for him who commits bestiality; whence do we derive punishment for him who allows himself to be thus abused? — The Writ saith: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.7 Since this is redundant in respect of the person committing bestiality,8 you must regard it as applying to the person permitting himself to be thus abused.9 From the Writ we know that there is punishment both for him who commits bestiality and for him who permits himself to be thus abused; whence do we know the formal prohibition? — Scripture saith, neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith.10 From this verse we learn the formal prohibition for him who commits bestiality, whence do we derive the formal prohibition for him who allows himself to be thus abused? Scripture saith: There shall be no Sodomite of the sons of Israel; and it is elsewhere said, And there were also sodomites in the land, etc.11 R. Akiba said: This is unnecessary. The Writ saith, Thou shalt not lie [with any beast], which means, thou shalt not permit thy lying [with any beast, whether actively or passively].
Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty, and also [passively] permits himself to be thus abused — R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael’s view, he is liable to two penalties, one [for the injunction] derived from thou shalt not lie with mankind, and the other for [violating the prohibition,] There shall not be a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. But on R. Akiba’s view, he incurs only one penalty, since thou shalt not lie and thou shalt not be lain with is but one statement.12
He who commits bestiality, and also causes himself to be thus abused — R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael’s view, he incurs two penalties, one for the injunction, thou shalt not lie with any beast, and one for the prohibition, there shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel. But on R. Akiba’s view, he incurs but one penalty, since thy lying [actively] and thy lying [passively] is but one injunction. Abaye said: Even on R. Ishmael’s view he incurs one penalty only, for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with mankind.13 If so, whence does R. Ishmael derive a formal prohibition against permitting oneself to be bestially abused? — From the verse, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.14 Now, this being redundant in respect of him who [actively] lies with a beast,15 apply it to him who [passively] permits himself to be abused this; and the Divine Law designates the passive offender as the active offender:16 this teaches that the punishment for, and the formal prohibition against, active bestiality17 apply to passive submission too.18
He who submits both to pederasty and to bestiality — R. Abbahu said: On R. Akiba’s view, he incurs two penalties; one for thou shalt not lie [with mankind], and the other for thou shalt not lie [with any beast]. But on R. Ishmael’s view, he incurs only one punishment, both offences being derived from the single verse, There shall be no Sodomite.19 Abaye said: Even on R. Ishmael’s view, he incurs two penalties, because it is written, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.20 This being redundant in respect of active bestiality, it must be applied to passive submission, and the Divine Law thus designated passive submission as an active offence: just as for the active offence there is punishment and prohibitions so for the passive offence too.21 But he who commits pederasty and causes himself to be abused thus; and also commits bestiality and causes himself to be abused too — both R. Abbahu and Abaye maintain that on R. Ishmael’s view he is trebly guilty, and on R. Akiba’s view he is doubly guilty.22
Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not regarded as on a par with an old one; but a young beast is treated as an old one
Reference: Halachic Midrash>> Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael >> Perek :22>> Verse 18:1
(Exodus 22:18) “Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death”: What is the intent of this? It is written (Leviticus 20:15) “And a man who cohabits with a beast shall be put to death” — by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps, by one of the other death penalties in Scripture? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) “and the beast shall you kill.” It is written here “kill,” and elsewhere (Devarim 13:10) “kill.” Just as there, stoning (is indicated), so, here, stoning. We have heard the penalty. Whence is the exhortation (derived)? From (Leviticus 18:23) “And you shall not cohabit with any beast.” This tells me only of the punishment and the exhortation for the active agent. Whence do we derive the punishment for the passive agent? From (our verse) “Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death.” Scripture (hereby) equated the passive agent with the active one. Just as the second is to be stoned, so, the first. We have heard the punishment. Whence the exhortation (for the passive agent)? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 23:18) “and there shall not be a (male) harlot among the children of Israel,” and (I Kings 14:24) “And there was also a (male) harlot in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord drove out.”
Reference: Mishneh Torah>> Negative commandments>> 348-349
348 Not to perform a sexual act with an animal, as [Leviticus 18:23] states: “And do not lie carnally with any animal.”
349 For a woman not to perform a sexual act with an animal, as [Leviticus 18:23] continues: “…and a woman should not present herself to an animal for sexual purposes.”
Reference: Targum Jonathan on Leviticus 20:15-16
And a man who lieth with a beast shall be surely put to death with the stoning of stones, and the beast shall be slain with spikes.
16 And if a woman approacheth the side of any beast that it may have to do with her, they shall be slain; the woman by the casting of stones, and the beast by the slaughter of spikes, they shall die; for they are deserving of death.
Adam committed Bestiality with every beast:
Reference: Bablylonian Talmud>> Gemara>> Seder Nashim >> Yevamot>> Chapter 6>> folia 63 >> part b>> verse 18
Rabbi Elazar said: What is meant by the Scriptural text, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh? (Genesis 2:23)’ This teaches that Adam had intercourse with(entered upon) every beast and animal but his disposition was not cooled (satisfied) until he had intercourse with (entered upon) Eve.
Bestiality is not adultery or any sexual intercourse:
Reference: Babylonian Talmud>> Gemara>> Sotah>>CHAPTER IV>> Folio: 26>> Part b
Online Source: http://www.halakhah.com/sotah/sotah_26.html#PARTb
Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal.14 Raba of Parazika15 asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? — Because it is written: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.;16 and it has been taught: The hire of a dog17 and the wages of a harlot18 are permissible, as it is said: Even both these19 — the two [specified in the text are abominations] but not four
Reference: Bablylonian Talmud>> Gemara>> Seder Nashim >> Yevamot>> Chapter 6>> folia 59>> part b
Online Source: http://www.halakhah.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_59.html#PARTb
Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest.17 Likewise it was taught: A woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being,18 though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning,19 is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest.20
When R. Dimi came21 he related: It once happened at Haitalu22 that while a young woman was sweeping the floor23 a village dog24 covered her from the rear,25 and Rabbi permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest. But was there a High Priest in the days of Rabbi?26 — Rather, [Samuel meant]: Fit for a High Priest.
Raba of Parzakaia27 said to R. Ashi: Whence is derived the following statement which the Rabbis made: Harlotry is not applicable to bestial intercourse? — It is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog,28 and yet we learned that the hire of a dog29 and the price of a harlot30 are permitted31 because it is said, Even both these,28 two only but not four.
Non Jews are Zoophiles:
Reference: Mishnah>> Seder Nizikin>> Avodah Zarah>> Chapter 2 >> verse 1
Online Source: http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Avodah_Zarah.2.1?lang=en
One should not leave cattle in the inns of non-Jews, for they are suspect regarding bestiality. A woman should not be alone with them for they are suspect regarding fornication. A man should not be alone with them, for they are suspect regarding the spilling of blood. A Jewess should not be a midwife to a non-Jewish woman, for she is birthing one for [a life of] idolatry. But a non-Jewish woman may be a midwife to a Jewess. A Jewess may not suckle a child of a non-Jewish woman, but a non-Jewish woman may suckle the child of a Jewess, within her domain.
Non Jews like the cattle of Jews more than their wives
Reference: Babylonian Talmud>> Seder Nizikin>> Avodah zarah>> chapter 2>> folio 22>> part b
Online Source: http://www.halakhah.com/zarah/zarah_22.html#PARTb
The following was cited in contradiction: One may buy of them cattle for a sacrifice, and it need not be feared lest it committed, or had been used for, an immoral act, or had been designated as an offering to idols, or had been worshipped.1 Now we are quite right not to fear about its having been designated as an offering to idols or having been made an object of worship, since if it had been so designated or worshipped, its owner would not have sold it; but we surely ought to fear as to committing an immoral act!2 — Said R. Tahlifa in the name of R. Shila b. Abina in the name of Rab: A heathen would have regard for his cattle, lest it becomes barren.3 This would indeed hold good in the case of female cattle but what answer would you give in the case of males? — Said R. Kahana: Because it has a deteriorating effect on their flesh. Then what about that [Baraitha] which has been taught: ‘One may buy cattle of any heathen shepherd’; ought we not to fear lest he used it for an immoral purpose?4 — The heathen shepherd would be afraid of forfeiting his fee. What then about this [other Baraitha] which has been taught: ‘One should not entrust cattle to a heathen shepherd’;5 why not assume that the heathen shepherd would be afraid of forfeiting his fee? — They fear detection by one another since they know a good deal about it, but they are not afraid of us who do not know much about it. Rabbah said: This is what the popular proverb says. ‘As the stylus penetrates the stone so one cunning mind detects another.’ In that case, neither should we buy male cattle from women, for fear of their having used them for immoral practice! — She would be afraid of being followed about by the animal. What then about this which R. Joseph learnt: ‘A widow should not rear dogs, nor accommodate a student as a guest’? Now it is quite right in the case of a student, as she might reckon on his modesty,7 but in the case of a dog why not say that she would be afraid of being followed about by it? — Since it would follow about on being thrown a piece of meat, people will say that it is because of being given such pieces that it follows her. Why then should we not leave female animals alone with female heathens?8 — Said Mar ‘Ukba b. Hama: Because heathens frequent their neighbours’ wives, and should one by chance not find her in, and find the cattle there, he might use it immorally. You may also say that even if he should find her in he might use the animal, as a Master has said:9 Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives, for R. Johanan said: When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her.10 If that be so [the same should apply] also to Israel! — When Israel stood at Sinai that lust was eliminated, but the lust of idolaters, who did not stand at Sinai, did not cease.
The question was asked: How about fowls?11 — Come and hear: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel on behalf of R. Hanina: I saw a heathen buy a goose in the market, use it immorally, and then strangle it, roast, and eat it. Also R. Jeremiah of Difti12 said: I saw an Arab who bought a side [of meat], pierced it for the purpose of an immoral act, after which act he roasted and ate it.
Pedath said: There is no contradiction;6 the one is [according to] R. Eliezer, the other is [according to] the Rabbis. For we have learnt in connection with the Red Heifer:7 R. Eliezer says: It must not be bought of a heathen, but the Sages permit it.8 Is not [the point] on which they differ this: that R. Eliezer holds that we suspect immoral practice whilst the Rabbis hold that we do not suspect immoral practice?9 — Whence [do you know this]? It may well be said that all agree that immoral practice is not to be suspected, the reason for R. Eliezer’s opinion being this: he holds the view presented by Rab Judah in the name of Rab. For Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: [In the case of the Red Heifer]10 even if a bundle of sacks has been laid on her she becomes ritually unfit, but in the case of the calf,11 only if she had been made to draw a burden. [It may thus be that] one master12 is of the opinion that we should suspect,13 and the other that we should not suspect it! — Do not let this enter your mind; for the sake of a small benefit one would not risk a big loss.14 Let us then say likewise that for the sake of a little enjoyment15 one would not risk so big a loss! — In that instance his passion impels him.
But [still] it may be that all agree that immoral practice is not to be suspected, but that the reason for R. Eliezer’s ruling is the one given in the teaching of Shila? For Shila learned: ‘What is the reason for R. Eliezer’s ruling? [It is the scriptural words:] Speak unto the Children of Israel that they bring unto thee,16 [which imply that] Israelites shall bring, but it should not be brought by heathens’!17 — Do not let this enter your mind; for it is stated in the second clause: ‘R. Eliezer applied this disqualification to all other kinds of sacrifices.’ Now were you to adduce the reason as taught by Shila, it would hold good in the case of the [red] heifer, in connection with which Scripture mentions ‘bringing’, but does Scripture ever mention ‘bringing’ in connection with other sacrifices? But [still] might we not say, then, that the Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer
only in the case of the [red] heifer which commands a high price,1 but that in the case of other sacrifices they agree with him? — In that case, whose opinion would the [Baraitha] taught [above, viz.]: ‘We may purchase from heathen cattle for [ordinary] sacrifices’ represent? Neither that of R. Eliezer nor that of the Rabbis! Moreover, it is distinctly taught as follows:2 What was cited as a refutation to R. Eliezer by his colleagues is, All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee … they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar.3
The difference of opinions4 is only in regard to suspicion, so that where the immoral use is certain, the heifer is unfit. From here then you can deduce that the degree of sanctity of the red heifer is that of animals sacrificed on the altar; for if it had only the sanctity of those [dedicated] to repairs of the temple,5 immoral use should not render it unfit! — The red heifer may be different [in this respect alone], because it is designated by Divine law as a sin-offering.6 If that be so, it ought to be unfit if it be a Yoze Dofan:7 and were you to say that it is so indeed, why then are we taught: If one dedicates a Yoze Dofan as a red heifer, it is unfit, but R. Simeon declares it as fit?8 Again, were you to say that R. Simeon follows here the opinion he expressed elsewhere that a Yoze Dofan is to be regarded as a properly born child,9 has not R. Johanan said that R. Simeon admitted, in regard to sacred things, that it is not valid for such sanctity?10 — But the case of the red heifer is different; since a blemish renders it unfit, immoral use or idolatrous worship also render it unfit;11 for Scripture says, for their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted,12 and the School of R. Ishmael taught:13 Wherever ‘corruption’ is mentioned it only means lewdness and idolatry: ‘lewdness’, as it is said, for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth;14 and ‘idolatry’, for Scripture says, lest ye deal corruptly, to make ye a graven image,15 and since a blemish renders the red heifer unfit, immoral use and idolatrous worship also render it unfit.
Does R. Eliezer then hold that immoral use is not to be suspected?9 Has it not been taught: When the incident was mentioned to R. Eliezer of [a Red Heifer] having been bought of a heathen named Dama — or, as some say, named Ramaz — R. Eliezer replied: What does that prove, seeing that Israelites watched the heifer from the hour of its birth?10 — R. Eliezer indeed admits both reasons, that of its having to be brought [by an Israelite] as well as the suspicion of immoral use.
The Master said: ‘Israelites watched the heifer from the hour of its birth.’ But is there not the suspicion that its mother may have been ill-used when she bore her, seeing that Raba said: The young of a goring cow is unfit11 for it was both the cow and her young that did the goring. Likewise the young of an ill-used animal is unfit, since the animal and the young were ill-used together? — What is evidently meant is that it was watched by Israelites from the time it was first formed. Still, is there not the suspicion of the mother having been ill-used previously, for we have learnt: As to all those which are forbidden to be offered on the altar — their young12 are permitted.13 And thereon it was learnt that R. Eliezer forbade. Now, this is all right according to [the exposition of] Raba, for Raba said in the name of R. Nahman: The dispute only applies to a case of an animal being ill-used when already dedicated as a sacrifice; but if when still in an ordinary state, all agree that [the young] is permitted. But how will you explain it according to R. Huna b. Hinena who said in the name of R. Nahman that the dispute applies only to a case of an animal being ill-used while still undedicated, but if when already dedicated all agree that [the young] is forbidden?14 — Then we must say that the mother, too, was watched by Israelites since the time it was first formed. And why not raise the suspicion of the mother’s mother having been ill-used? — We should not let suspicion go so far as all that.
The Master said: ‘It was watched by Israelites from the time it was first formed.’ How did they know it?15 — Said R. Kahana: A red cup is being passed before [the mother] when the male is mating with her.16 If that is so, why should [a red heifer] be so costly? — Because even two hairs [of another colour] render her unfit. Then why [use this means] on their [animals]?17 — Said R. Kahana: Only with specified breeds [is it effective].