מִמּוּלָאֵי אָמְרִיתוּ מִילֵּי מוּלְיָתָא בִּמְקוֹמָהּ מְבַשְּׁלָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָהּ לָא מְבַשְּׁלָה from truncated [mimula’ei] people, as Rav Beivai’s family traced their lineage to the house of Eli, all of whose descendants were destined to be short-lived (see I Samuel 2:31), you speak truncated [mulayata] and unsound matters. When the semen passes through its proper place, it fertilizes; but if it does not pass through its proper place, it does not fertilize. Since he cannot father children, he is like one whose testicles have been crushed, and therefore he may not enter into the congregation.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל נִיקַּב וְנִסְתַּם כֹּל שֶׁאִילּוּ נִקְרֵי וְנִקְרָע פְּסוּל וְאִי לָאו כָּשֵׁר הָוֵי בֵּהּ רָבָא הֵיכָא אִילֵּימָא לְמַטָּה מֵעֲטָרָה אֲפִילּוּ נִכְרַת נָמֵי אֶלָּא בַּעֲטָרָה עַצְמָהּ אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי אָמַר רַב מָרִי בַּר מָר אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל נִיקַּב בַּעֲטָרָה עַצְמָהּ וְנִסְתַּם כֹּל שֶׁאִילּוּ נִקְרֵי וְנִקְרָע פָּסוּל וְאִי לָאו כָּשֵׁר Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If a man’s member had been punctured and it later healed and the hole closed up with flesh, in any case where, if he would emit semen, it would tear open again, he is unfit to enter into the congregation; but if not, he is fit. Rava discussed this ruling and raised a question: Where is this perforation? If we say it is below the corona, at the end of the man’s member, why should this perforation render him unfit? Even if the member was entirely severed, he would also be fit. Rather, the hole is in the corona itself, that is, at the point where the corona meets the rest of the member. It was also stated explicitly that this is the case, as Rav Mari bar Mar said that Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: If a man’s member had been punctured in the corona itself, and it later healed and the hole closed up with flesh, in any case where if he would emit semen it would tear open again, he is unfit; but if not, he is fit.
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה לְרַב יוֹסֵף יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ הֵיכִי עָבְדִינַן אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַיְיתִינַן נַהֲמָא חַמִּימָא דִּשְׂעָרֵי וּמַנְּחִינַן לֵיהּ אַבֵּי פוֹקְרֵי וּמִקְּרֵי וְחָזֵינַן לֵיהּ With regard to this issue, Rava, son of Rabba, sent the following question to Rav Yosef: Let our teacher teach us, what should we do to verify whether or not the perforation was adequately closed? Rav Yosef said to him: We bring warm barley bread and place it upon his anus [bei pukrei], and owing to the heat he emits semen, and we observe what happens and see whether or not the perforation remains closed.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי אַטּוּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ הֲוַאי דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ כֹּחִי וְרֵאשִׁית אוֹנִי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה קֶרִי מִיָּמָיו Abaye said: Is that to say that everyone is like our Patriarch Jacob, with regard to whom it is written: “Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might and the first fruits of my strength” (Genesis 49:3), implying that Jacob never experienced an emission of semen in all his days, so that his eldest son Reuben was conceived from his first drop of seed, i.e., “the first fruits of my strength.” The implication is that there is certainly no need for such measures in order to bring a man to ejaculate.
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי מְעַבְּרִינַן קַמֵּיהּ בִּגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִין אָמַר רָבָא אַטּוּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בַּרְזִילַּי הַגִּלְעָדִי הוּא אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְשַׁנִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא Rather, Abaye said that a different method is used: We pass before him colorful garments of a woman, and thereby bring him to arousal, so that he will experience an emission. Rava said: Is that to say that everyone is like Barzilai the Gileadite, traditionally known for his licentious character? Not all men are brought to excitement when they merely see such clothes. Rather, the Gemara rejects this proposal and states that it is clear as we initially answered, that we follow the former procedure even though not all men require it.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן נִיקַּב פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹתֵת נִסְתַּם כָּשֵׁר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוֹלִיד וְזֶהוּ פְּסוּל שֶׁחוֹזֵר לְהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ זֶהוּ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי לְמַעוֹטֵי קְרוּם שֶׁעָלָה מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה בָּרֵיאָה דְּאֵינוֹ קְרוּם The Sages taught in a baraita: If a man’s member was punctured, he is unfit to enter into the congregation of Israel because his semen is discharged gently and does not fertilize; if the perforation later closed up with flesh, he is fit, because now he can father children. And this is an instance of one who is unfit who returns to his previous state of fitness. The Gemara asks: What does the word this come to exclude? The Gemara explains that it comes to exclude a case involving an entirely different matter, that of a membrane that formed on the lung of an animal in the wake of a wound, which is not considered a proper membrane, as it is likely to rupture. If a puncture in the lung became covered with such a membrane the animal does not regain its former kosher status.
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין לְאַבָּיֵי הֵיכִי עָבְדִינַן מַיְיתִינַן שְׂעָרְתָּא וּמְסָרְטִינַן לֵיהּ וּמַיְיתִינַן תַּרְבָּא וְשָׁיְיפִינַן וּמַיְיתִינַן שׁוּמְשָׁנָא גַּמְלָא וּמְנַכְּתִינַן לֵיהּ וּפָסְקִינַן לֵיהּ לְרֵישֵׁיהּ וְדַוְקָא שְׂעָרְתָּא אֲבָל פַּרְזְלָא מִזְרָף זָרֵיף וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי קָטָן אֲבָל גָּדוֹל אִיקַּפּוֹלֵי מִיקַּפַּל With regard to this issue, Rav Idi bar Avin sent the following question to Abaye: What should we do to expedite the healing of such a perforation? Abaye answered: We bring a sharp-edged grain of barley and lacerate the area around the hole with it. We then bring fat and rub it on the spot, and afterward we bring a large ant [shumshena] and let it bite inside the hole. This leads to bleeding and the formation of a scab, which eventually heals as new flesh grows there. We also cut off the ant’s head so that it should remain in place until the wound is fully healed. The Gemara comments: And this procedure must be done specifically with a grain of barley, but an iron tool would cause inflammation [zareif ]. The Gemara adds: And this applies only to a small perforation, but a large one will eventually peel off and reopen.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא הַמֵּטִיל מַיִם מִשְּׁתֵּי מְקוֹמוֹת פָּסוּל אָמַר רָבָא לֵית הִלְכְתָא לָא כִּבְרָא וְלָא כְּאַבָּא בְּרָא הָא דַּאֲמַרַן אַבָּא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא נָשִׁים הַמְסוֹלְלוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ פְּסוּלוֹת לַכְּהוּנָּה Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who passes water from two places, so that he appears to have a hole or some other blemish in his member, is unfit to enter into the congregation of Israel, as is a man with crushed testicles. Rava said: With regard to these matters, the halakha is in accordance neither with the opinion of the son nor with that of the father. The son, this refers to that opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, which we just stated. As for the ruling of the father, this is referring to that which Rav Huna said: Women who rub against one another motivated by sexual desire are unfit to marry into the priesthood, as such conduct renders a woman a zona, whom a priest is prohibited from marrying. It was about this that Rava said that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav Huna’s opinion.
וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמַר פָּנוּי הַבָּא עַל הַפְּנוּיָה שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִישׁוּת עֲשָׂאָהּ זוֹנָה הָנֵי מִילֵּי אִישׁ אֲבָל אִשָּׁה פְּרִיצוּתָא בְּעָלְמָא And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that an unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the sake of marriage renders her a zona, a woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah, this applies only to intercourse with a man, but lewd behavior with another woman is mere licentiousness that does not render her a zona, and therefore she is still permitted to marry into the priesthood.
מַתְנִי׳ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה מוּתָּרִין בְּגִיּוֹרֶת וּמְשׁוּחְרֶרֶת וְאֵינָן אֲסוּרִין אֶלָּא מִלָּבֹא בַּקָּהָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא יָבֹא פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה בִּקְהַל ה׳ MISHNA: A man with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals and one whose penis has been severed are permitted to marry a female convert or an emancipated maidservant, and they are prohibited only from entering into the congregation and marrying a woman who was born Jewish, as it is stated: “A man wounded with crushed testicles or a severed penis shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2).
גְּמָ׳ בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא כֹּהֵן מַהוּ בְּגִיּוֹרֶת וּמְשׁוּחְרֶרֶת בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי וַאֲסִיר אוֹ דִלְמָא לָאו בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי וּשְׁרֵי GEMARA: They raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is the halakha governing a priest with crushed testicles with respect to a female convert or an emancipated maidservant? The Gemara clarifies the two sides of this dilemma: Does he retain his state of sanctity like any other priest and is therefore prohibited from marrying either one of these women, or perhaps he does not retain his state of sanctity and therefore is permitted to marry a convert, like an ordinary Israelite with crushed testicles?
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת תְּנֵיתוּהָ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּתָּר בִּנְתִינָה וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בִּקְדוּשְׁתֵּיהּ קָאֵי אִקְרִי כָּאן לֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם Rav Sheshet said to them: You already learned the answer to this question in the following baraita: It is permitted for an ordinary Israelite with crushed testicles to marry a Gibeonite woman. Now, if it enters your mind that he retains his sanctity as a Jew, one should apply here the prohibition stated with regard to Canaanites: “You shall not marry them” (Deuteronomy 7:3). Apparently, then, one whose testicles have been crushed loses his former sanctity, and the same should apply to a priest.
אָמַר רָבָא אַטּוּ הָתָם מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשָּׁה וְלָאו קְדוּשָּׁה הוּא דִּלְמָא מוֹלֵיד בֵּן וְאָזֵיל פָּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּגוֹיוּתָן כִּי מִגַּיְירִי (בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל) [מִישְׁרָא] שְׁרוּ וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזַרוּ בְּהוּ וְכִי גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן בְּהָנָךְ דִּבְנֵי אוֹלוֹדֵי אֲבָל הַאי דְּלָאו בַּר אוֹלוֹדֵי לָא גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן Rava said: This is no proof, as is that to say that the prohibition there against marrying Canaanites is due to sanctity or lack of sanctity? Rather, the reason for the prohibition is that perhaps one will father a child from his Canaanite wife and that child will later go off and engage in idolatrous worship. Now, this concern applies only when they are still gentiles, but when they convert, as did the Gibeonites, they are permitted to Jews. And it is the Sages who decreed that Gibeonites are forbidden like mamzerim even after their conversion. And when the Sages decreed that one may not marry them, the decree was limited to those who are capable of having children, but with regard to this one, a man with crushed testicles who is incapable of having children, the Sages did not issue a decree.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה מַמְזֵר דְּבַר אוֹלוֹדֵי הָכִי נָמֵי דַּאֲסִיר וְהָא תְּנַן מַמְזֵרִים וּנְתִינִים מוּתָּרִים לָבֹא זֶה בָּזֶה אֶלָּא כִּי גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן בִּכְשֵׁרִים בִּפְסוּלִים לָא גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן The Gemara raises an objection against Rava: However, if that is so, then with regard to a mamzer, who is capable of having children, so too one would say that he is prohibited from marrying a Gibeonite. But didn’t we learn otherwise in a mishna (Kiddushin 69a): Mamzerim and Gibeonites are permitted to marry one another. Rather, retract this explanation and replace it with the following: When the Sages decreed that one may not marry a Gibeonite, they limited their decree to those who are fit, so as to prevent them from mingling with Gibeonites; but with regard to those who are unfit to enter into the congregation, the Sages did not issue a decree.
הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא בְּגוֹיוּתָן לֵית לְהוּ חַתְנוּת נִתְגַּיְּירוּ אִית לְהוּ חַתְנוּת Rava then reconsidered and said that what he had previously argued, that the prohibition against marrying them applies only when they are gentiles, is not correct. The prohibition cannot be referring to gentiles, as when they are gentiles there can be no valid marriage with them at all. It is only after they have converted that there can be valid marriage with them, and therefore the prohibition against entering into marriage with them applies. Nevertheless, it is permitted for a man with crushed testicles to marry a Gibeonite woman.
מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף וַיִּתְחַתֵּן שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת בַּת פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם גַּיּיוֹרֵי גַּיְּירַהּ וְהָא לֹא קִבְּלוּ גֵּרִים לֹא בִּימֵי דָוִד וְלֹא בִּימֵי שְׁלֹמֹה מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא אֶלָּא לְשׁוּלְחַן מְלָכִים Rav Yosef raised an objection from the verse that states: “And Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh, king of Egypt” (I Kings 3:1), which indicates that there can, in fact, be valid marriage even with gentiles. The Gemara answers: Before Solomon took Pharaoh’s daughter as his wife, he converted her. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it so that they did not accept converts, neither in the days of David nor in the days of Solomon? The Gemara answers: But isn’t the reason that they did not accept converts during those periods only due to concern that the converts were not acting for the sake of Heaven but in fact desired the power of the table of kings, David and Solomon?