וְחַרְזֵיהּ סִילְוָא בְּבֵיצִים וּנְפַק מִינֵּיהּ כְּחוּט דְּמוּגְלָא וְאוֹלֵיד הָא שְׁלַח שְׁמוּאֵל לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ צֵא וְחָזַר עַל בָּנָיו מֵאֵין הֵם and a thorn [silva] from the tree punctured him in the testicles, and semen resembling a thread of pus issued from him, as the thorn had perforated his testicle, and yet he later had children. The Gemara answers: Didn’t Shmuel send this case before Rav, who said to him: Go out and inquire about his children where they come from, as he doubted that this man could father children, and therefore his wife must have committed adultery.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם כָּשֵׁר אָמַר רָבָא הַיְינוּ דְּקָרֵינַן פְּצוּעַ וְלָא קָרֵינַן הַפָּצוּעַ Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A man wounded with crushed testicles at the hand of Heaven, e.g., from birth or as the result of an illness, is fit to marry a woman who was born Jewish. Rava said: This is the reason that we read in the Torah: “A man wounded with crushed testicles,” and we do not read: The man wounded with crushed testicles. In the Hebrew text, the latter phrase: The man wounded, can be understood to include one whose testicles have always been crushed, whereas “a man wounded” indicates that he was wounded, i.e., his disability is the result of injury.
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא נֶאֱמַר לֹא יָבֹא פְצוּעַ וְנֶאֱמַר לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר מָה לְהַלָּן בִּידֵי אָדָם אַף כָּאן בִּידֵי אָדָם A similar idea was taught in a baraita. It is stated: “A man wounded [petzua] with crushed testicles [dakka] or a severed [kerut] penis shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2), and it is stated in the very next verse: “A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3). Just as there, with regard to a mamzer, his blemish was created at the hands of man, i.e., by his parents who sinned, so too, here, with regard to one with crushed testicles, the verse must be speaking about one whose mutilation was at the hands of man.
אָמַר רָבָא פָּצוּעַ בְּכוּלָּן דַּךְ בְּכוּלָּן כָּרוּת בְּכוּלָּן פָּצוּעַ בְּכוּלָּן בֵּין שֶׁנִּפְצַע הַגִּיד בֵּין שֶׁנִּפְצְעוּ בֵּיצִים בֵּין שֶׁנִּפְצְעוּ חוּטֵי בֵּיצִים דַּךְ בְּכוּלָּן בֵּין שֶׁנִּידַּךְ הַגִּיד בֵּין שֶׁנִּידַּכּוּ בֵּיצִים בֵּין שֶׁנִּידַּכּוּ חוּטֵי בֵיצִים כְּרוּת [בְּכוּלָּן] בֵּין שֶׁנִּכְרַת הַגִּיד בֵּין שֶׁנִּכְרְתוּ בֵּיצִים בֵּין שֶׁנִּכְרְתוּ חוּטֵי בֵיצִים Rava said: The verse dealing with injured genitals speaks of three types of injury: Wounded [petzua], crushed [dakka], and severed [kerut]. Wounded applies to all of them; crushed applies to all of them; and severed applies to all of them, as will immediately be explained. Wounded applies to all of them, whether the member was wounded, or the testicles were wounded, or the spermatic cords were wounded. Similarly, crushed applies to all of them, whether the member was crushed, or the testicles were crushed, or the spermatic cords were crushed. And severed also applies to all of them, whether the member was severed, or the testicles were severed, or the spermatic cords were severed.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא מִמַּאי דְּהַאי פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם אֵימָא מֵרֹאשׁוֹ אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִדְּלָא מְנָה בֵּיהּ דּוֹרוֹת שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם § One of the Sages said to Rava: From where is it derived that this phrase “petzua dakka,” literally meaning wounded by crushing, is referring to a man who suffered an injury in that place, i.e., his genitals? Say that perhaps it is referring to one who was injured on his head. Rava said to him: From the fact that the verse does not mention the number of generations of his descendants that may not enter into the congregation, as do the verses with regard to a mamzer or an Ammonite or Moabite, learn from this that it is referring to a man who suffered an injury in that place. The blemish is evidently one that prevents him from having children, and therefore he has no generations of descendants.
וְדִלְמָא הַאי דְּלָא מָנָה בּוֹ דּוֹרוֹת דְּאִיהוּ הוּא דְּאָסוּר בְּרֵיהּ וּבַר בְּרֵיהּ כָּשֵׁר The Gemara asks: But perhaps the fact that the Torah does not mention the number of generations of his descendants that may not enter into the congregation is due to a halakhic reason rather than a biological one, i.e. that only he is prohibited from entering into the congregation, whereas his son and his son’s son are fit to do so?
דּוּמְיָא דִּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה מָה כְּרוּת שׇׁפְכָה בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם אַף הַאי נָמֵי בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם The Gemara explains that the identity of a petzua dakka is derived in a different way: The case of a petzua dakka is similar to that of one whose penis has been severed, mentioned immediately afterward: Just as one whose penis has been severed suffered an injury in that place, so too, this man was injured in that place.
וּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה גּוּפֵיהּ מִמַּאי דִּבְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם הוּא אֵימָא מִשִּׂפְתֵּיהּ שׇׁפְכָה כְּתִיב בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁשּׁוֹפֵךְ The Gemara asks: As for the one whose penis has been severed [kerut shofkha] himself, from where is it derived that the phrase kerut shofkha, literally meaning severed emission, is referring to a man who suffered an injury in that place, i.e., his genitals? Say that perhaps it is referring to one who was injured to his lips, from where spittle is discharged. The Gemara answers: It is written “shofkha,” which indicates that the injury was in a place that pours out [shofekh], whereas spittle is spat out.
וְאֵימָא מֵחוֹטְמוֹ מִי כְּתִיב בִּשְׁפוֹךְ כְּרוּת שׇׁפְכָה כְּתִיב מִי שֶׁעַל יְדֵי כְּרִיתָה שׁוֹפֵךְ שֶׁלֹּא עַל יְדֵי כְּרִיתָה אֵינוֹ שׁוֹפֵךְ אֶלָּא מְקַלֵּחַ לְאַפּוֹקֵי הַאי דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי שׁוֹפֵךְ הוּא The Gemara asks further: But say that perhaps it is referring to one who suffered an injury to his nose. The Gemara answers: Is it written bishpokh, which would indicate a place from which there is a discharge even if nothing was severed? Rather, it is written “kerut shofkha,” implying something that pours out as a result of an organ having been severed. But in the absence of an organ having been severed, the semen does not pour out; rather, it is ejected out. This comes to exclude this possibility of the nose, as whether it is in this state or that state, i.e., severed or not, the mucus pours out.
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא נֶאֱמַר לֹא יָבֹא פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וְנֶאֱמַר לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר מָה לְהַלָּן בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם אַף כָּאן בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם With regard to this issue, it was taught in a baraita as follows: It is stated: “A man wounded with crushed testicles shall not enter into the congregation,” and it is stated: “A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation.” Just as there, the blemish of a mamzer comes from that place, through sexual misconduct, so too, here, a man with crushed testicles is one who suffered an injury in that place that is connected to cohabitation.
נִיקַּב לְמַטָּה מֵעֲטָרָה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲטָרָה סָבַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַסִּי הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי עֲטָרָה כׇּל שֶׁהִיא מְעַכֶּבֶת § The Gemara considers the following case: If a man’s member was punctured from one side below the corona, i.e., at the corona itself, and the puncture ended on the opposite side above the corona which is nearer the body, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba thought to render him fit for marriage on the grounds that on one side the puncture was below the corona. Rabbi Asi said to him: This is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A puncture in the corona of any size impedes the man’s fitness, even if one end of the puncture is below the corona, as any puncture in the corona affects his fertility.
וְאִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵעֲטָרָה כּוּ׳ יָתֵיב רָבִינָא וְקָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ מְלֹא הַחוּט שֶׁאָמְרוּ עַל פְּנֵי כּוּלָּהּ אוֹ עַל פְּנֵי רוּבָּהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא תּוֹסְפָאָה לְרָבִינָא מְלֹא הַחוּט עַל פְּנֵי רוּבָּהּ וּכְלַפֵּי רֵישָׁא It is taught in the mishna that if there remains a portion of the corona, even as much as a hairsbreadth, he is still fit. Ravina sat and raised the following dilemma: This hairsbreadth of which they spoke, must it surround the entire member or only a majority of it? Rava Tosfa’a said to Ravina: A hairsbreadth of the corona must surround a majority of the member, and toward its head, that is, in the portion closer to the body.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא כְּקוּלְמוֹס כְּשֵׁרָה כְּמַרְזֵב פְּסוּלָה הַאי שָׁלֵיט בַּהּ אַוֵּירָא וְהַאי לָא שָׁלֵיט בַּהּ אַוֵּירָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר כְּמַרְזֵב כְּשֵׁרָה כְּקוּלְמוֹס פְּסוּלָה הַאי גָּרֵיד וְהַאי לָא גָּרֵיד Rav Huna said: If a man’s member was cut like a quill [kulmus], which is sharp on all sides, he is fit; but if it was cut like a gutter, which is partly open, he is unfit. He explains: In this case, where it was cut like a gutter, he is unfit because the air penetrates and this interferes with the proper flow of his semen; whereas in that case, where it was cut like a quill, he remains fit because the air does not penetrate and the semen is unaffected. And Rav Ḥisda said the reverse: If a man’s member was cut like a gutter, he is fit; but if it was cut like a quill, he is unfit. This is because in this case, where it was cut like a gutter, the member rubs against the woman’s sexual organ and becomes aroused, whereas in that case, where it was cut like a quill, it does not rub against it, as it is too thin and insubstantial.
אָמַר רָבָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא הַאי לָא שָׁלֵיט בַּהּ אַוֵּירָא וְהַאי שָׁלֵיט בַּהּ אַוֵּירָא אִי מִשּׁוּם גְּרִידוּתָא מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַבַּרְזָא דְחָבִיתָא Rava said: It stands to reason in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, that in this case the air penetrates, whereas in that case the air does not penetrate. With respect to the rubbing, this is just as it is in the case of a stopper of a barrel. Although one end of the stopper tapers to a sharp point, the stopper nevertheless closes the hole when it is jammed inside and its other end makes contact with the sides of the hole. Here, too, sufficient contact and friction can be created by the upper end of the man’s member.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְמָרִימָר הָכִי אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא הִלְכְתָא בֵּין כְּקוּלְמוֹס בֵּין כְּמַרְזֵב כְּשֵׁרָה מִיהוּ מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְמַטָּה מֵעֲטָרָה אוֹ לְמַעְלָה פְּשִׁיטָא דִּלְמַעְלָה מֵעֲטָרָה דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לְמַטָּה מֵעֲטָרָה אֲפִילּוּ נִכְרַת הַגִּיד נָמֵי וְרָבִינָא לְשַׁבּוֹשֵׁי לְמָרִימָר הוּא דְּבָעֵי Ravina said to Mareimar that Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa as follows: The halakha is that whether the man’s member was cut like a quill or like a gutter, he is fit. However, he raised a dilemma as to whether this is referring to a cut below the corona, i.e., on the corona itself, or above it, on that part of the penis that is closer to the body. The Gemara answers: It is obvious that this is referring to a cut above the corona, as, if it enters your mind that it is referring to below the corona, i.e., on the corona itself, this would be difficult because even if the end of the member was completely severed, he would also be fit, provided that a hairsbreadth of the corona remained. The Gemara adds: And Ravina asked this question only because he wanted to mislead Mereimar and test his understanding of the issue.
הָהוּא עוֹבָדָא דַּהֲוָה בְּמָתָא מַחְסֵיָא שַׁפְּיֵיהּ מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי כְּקוּלְמוֹס וְאַכְשְׁרֵיהּ הָהוּא עוֹבָדָא דַּהֲוָה בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא אִיסְתְּתִים גּוּבְתָּא דְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְאַפֵּיק בִּמְקוֹם קְטַנִּים סְבַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי מִשּׁוּם דְּאַתּוּ The Gemara relates: A certain incident actually occurred in the town of Mata Meḥasya, where a man’s member was cut like a gutter. Mar bar Rav Ashi cut back the flesh on all sides until it was like a quill and thereby rendered him fit to enter into the congregation. A certain incident occurred in Pumbedita, where the seminal duct of a certain man became blocked, and he emitted semen through the urinary duct. Rav Beivai bar Abaye thought to render him fit, as his genitals were neither crushed nor severed. Rav Pappi said: Because you come