Sanhedrin 55B

מדסיפא תקלה וקלון, רישא תקלה בלא קלון. והיכי דמי? גוי הבא על הבהמה.

evident from the fact that the latter clause of the Mishnah includes two reasons for the killing of the animal, namely both the calamity and the shame caused by the animal, that the first clause, the first reason stated in the Mishnah, is referring to a case of a calamity without shame? And what are the circumstances of a calamity without shame? It is the case of a non-Jew who has sex with an animal. In that case there is a calamity, as the non-Jew is executed, but his shame is not the concern of the Jewish court.

לא, סיפא תקלה וקלון. רישא הא קא משמע לן: דאפילו קלון בלא תקלה נמי מחייבי. והיכי דמי? ישראל הבא על הבהמה בשוגג, וכדבעי רב המנונא.

The Talmud rejects this proof: No. The latter clause is referring to a case of both a calamity and shame, but this first clause teaches us that even in a case where there is a circumstance of shame alone without the calamity of execution, the court is obligated to kill the animal. Although the Mishnah employs the term: Calamity, it is possible that this is referring to the calamity of the transgression, not the execution of the transgressor. And what are the circumstances of this case? It is a case of a Jew who unwittingly has sex with an animal, and this is just like the case about which Rav Hamnuna raises a dilemma.

דבעי רב המנונא: ישראל הבא על הבהמה בשוגג, מהו? תקלה וקלון בעינן, והכא קלון איכא, תקלה ליכא? או דילמא קלון, אף על פי שאין תקלה?

As Rav Hamnuna raises a dilemma: With regard to a Jew who unwittingly has sex with an animal, what is the halakha? Is the animal stoned to death? Do we need both a calamity and shame in order to put it to death, and therefore here the animal is not killed, as there is shame, but there is no calamity of execution, or perhaps shame is enough, even if there is no calamity?