Yevamot 75b — the Talmud in English

But

there was the incident involving

that certain man who went up a date-palm

[in the case of a man who went up a date-palm]

and a thorn pierced him

[pierced him, that thorn]

in the testicles, and there issued from him something like a thread of mucus

[and from his testicles issued seminal fluid resembling mucus],

and

nevertheless

he fathered children,

so it is evident that even when his testicles were pierced, he can father children!

And we answer:

This is what Shmuel sent before Rav

[Shmuel sent a message to Rav]

and said to him: Go and investigate his sons, from where they are!

That is to say: They are mamzerim, born from adultery with another man, because her husband cannot father children.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A man with crushed testicles by Heaven's hands

[through a blow or fear from thunder and hail, or because he was born so from his mother's womb]—is

fit.

Rava said: This is why we read

“A crushed”

“injured”

testicles,

and we do not read “the injured”.

Since “the injured” would imply one injured from the outset, such as from his mother's womb.

For indeed, one injured from his mother's womb is fit.

In a beraita it was taught

[In a beraita we learned] another teaching: that a man with crushed testicles is prohibited only if he was injured by human hands, by means of a gzera shava:

It is stated: “A crushed man shall not enter”

injured testicles,

and it is stated: “A mamzer shall not enter.”

Just as there

with regard to a mamzer

he is by human hands

for he was created through an adulterous intercourse,

so here too

a man with crushed testicles who was injured

by human hands

is he.

Rava said:

It is written: “A man with crushed testicles and one whose member is severed shall not enter the assembly of the Lord”:

“Injured”

the one whom the Torah prohibited is one injured

in all of them,

as it will explain below.

“Crushed”

the one whom the Torah prohibited [as it is written “crushed”] is one crushed

in all of them,

as it will explain below.

“Severed”

the one whom the Torah prohibited is one severed

in all of them,

as it will explain below.

Injured in all of them—

Whether the member was injured

he is a man with crushed testicles and is prohibited from entering the assembly,

whether the testicles were injured, whether the cords of the testicles were injured

[the cords by which the testicles hang in the scrotum].

Crushed in all of them—

Whether the member was crushed, whether the testicles were crushed, whether the cords of the testicles were crushed,

in all these cases he is a man with crushed testicles and disqualified from entering the assembly.

Severed in all of them—

Whether the member was severed, whether the testicles were severed, whether the cords of the testicles were severed.

One of the Sages said to

[one of the scholars]

Rava:

From where is it established that this “man with crushed testicles” refers to that place,

how do we know to explain that “a man with crushed testicles” is one whose member or testicles are injured?

Say that it refers to his head,

perhaps “a man with crushed testicles” is one injured in his head?

He said to him,

Rava:

From the fact that it did not count for him—

in the case of the man with crushed testicles—

generations,

since we do not find that the Torah counts the generations of the man with crushed testicles, to teach us whether they are prohibited and for how many generations they are prohibited, as we find with an Ammonite and a Moabite, whom the Torah explicitly prohibited forever, and as we find with an Egyptian and an Edomite, regarding whom the Torah permitted the third generation, you learn from this: a man with crushed testicles cannot father children and has no generations—

Conclude from it,

a man with crushed testicles

refers to that place

and has no generations whatsoever, because he cannot father children.

And the Gemara raises an objection to this proof:

And perhaps the reason it did not count generations for him

is because

only

he

is prohibited,

whereas

his son and his son's son are fit?!

That is to say: Perhaps the man with crushed testicles has the possibility that generations will be born to him afterward, but the Torah did not address them, since they are not prohibited at all; only the man with crushed testicles himself is prohibited.

By force of this objection, the Gemara proves in another way that “a man with crushed testicles” refers to that place, for:

A man with crushed testicles is

analogous to “one whose member is severed and emits.”

Just as one whose member is severed and emits refers to that place

he does,

so this one too -

a man with crushed testicles—

also refers to that place

he does.

And we object:

And “one whose member is severed and emits” itself

[itself]—

from where is it established that it refers to that place?

Say that it refers to his lips

[on his lip], where he emits spittle.

And we answer: “One whose member is severed and

emits” is written.

In the place where he emits

[drips], and that is the member, whereas the spittle on the lips does not drip from it; rather, the person casts it far away.

And we object:

And say

that “one whose member is severed and emits” is one whose member is severed

from his nose,

which is the place from which nasal fluid drips!? And we answer:

Is it written

“one whose member is severed

in emitting,”

which would imply that the place that drips before severing is severed, as with the nose!? But

“one whose member is severed and emits” is written,

which implies:

one who, through severing,

is made into an

“emitter,”

but

without severing, he does not emit but streams,

and that is the member.

To exclude this one—

the nose—

for both this and that

[both before severing and after severing]

it emits.

In a beraita it was taught

another source that a man with crushed testicles refers to that place, for:

It is stated, “A man with crushed testicles shall not enter,” and it is stated, “A mamzer shall not enter”,

and you learn by a gzera shava:

Just as there—

a mamzer—

refers to that place

[the mamzer comes through intercourse in that place],

so here too—

a man with crushed testicles—

refers to that place.

We learned in the Mishna: And one whose member is severed and emits—anyone whose member was severed; but if a thread's breadth of the corona remains, he is fit:

A. If the member was not pierced, but the corona itself was pierced, he is not disqualified from entering the assembly, as we learned at the beginning of the chapter regarding one whose member was severed, that there is no deficiency in severing from the corona, and the same law applies to piercing: he is not called a member except from the corona onward, toward the body.

B. If he was

pierced below the corona,

toward the ground, which is not the place of disqualification, and the piercing proceeded diagonally until the end of the piercing emerged

opposite it, above the corona,

in the member, which is the place disqualified by piercing, but the piercing did not pass completely through the disqualified place.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba considered declaring him fit

to enter the assembly.

Rabbi Asi said to

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

This is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If the piercing passed from side to side through the entire

If the puncture passes from one side to the other through the entire

corona,

then even a piercing of

any size is an impediment

[according to Rashi's version] to his ability to father children, and therefore he is disqualified from entering the assembly.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if a portion of the corona remains,

even a thread's breadth, he is fit:

Ravina was sitting and raising a question for himself:

“A thread's fullness” that they said,

the Sages—that if flesh remains in the corona he is fit—

is it

across all of it,

the corona,

or

even if only

across most of it?

Rava Tosfa'a said to Ravina:

“A thread's fullness”

that they said means that flesh remained

across most of it,

most of the circumference of the corona.

And

specifically if flesh from the corona remained across most of it

toward the beginning,

on the side of the corona adjoining the member; but if the flesh of the corona adjoining the member was cut in such a manner that no flesh of the corona remained there that would encompass the circumference of most of the member, and only farther along the corona, on the side adjoining the ground, flesh from the corona remained sufficient to encompass the head of the member, he is one whose member is severed and emits.

Rav Huna said:

If the member was cut and made

like a pen

[which is cut diagonally in order to write with it],

she is fit.

The member was hollowed

like a gutter,

like an open pipe on its upper side [but it has walls, and the hollow is in the middle]—

she is disqualified.

And the Gemara explains Rav Huna's reasoning:

For

this one

[like a gutter]—

air has sway over it

[air enters between the walls of the member, and the member cools within it, so the seminal fluid does not become cooked within it].

And

whereas

this one

[like a pen]—

air does not have sway over it.

And Rav Hisda said

in the reverse:

Like a gutter, she is fit.

Like a pen, she is disqualified.

And the Gemara explains Rav Hisda's reasoning:

For

this one

[like a pen]

is scraped,

since the member is narrow, the member does not become heated during intercourse at the place of intercourse, and therefore the seminal fluid does not stream but drips, and is not fit for procreation.

And this one

[like a gutter]

is not scraped,

the member becomes heated through its contact with the place of intercourse, for none of its thickness has been diminished.

Rava said:

The reasoning of Rav Huna appears

who said: like a pen she is fit, and like a gutter she is disqualified, because

this one does not have air sway over it, and this one does have air sway over it—

For

if it is because of scraping,

and according to Rav Hisda's reasoning, this is not a valid argument,

as with the stopper of a barrel

[for the matter is comparable to a barrel's stopper], which is narrow at its head, and when it is pressed into the mouth of a barrel, it seals it by the side of its thickness, since at its end it is not narrow.

And likewise the member, although it is narrow at its head because it was severed there, at its end it remains in its natural thickness, and the member becomes heated there, in its thickness behind it.

Ravina said to Marimar: This is what Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: The halakha

not according to the words of Rav Huna and not according to the words of Rav Hisda, but

whether like a pen or like a gutter, she is fit.

However, he raised a question for him:

Is it specifically when the member became like a gutter or like a pen

below the corona

[toward the ground],

or

even

above

the corona, toward the body?

And we object to it: But

is it not obvious that it is above the corona?!

For if it enters your mind that it is below the corona,

then

even if the member was severed, also

he is fit, as we learned in our Mishna that severing the corona does not disqualify if any amount of flesh, like a thread's breadth, remains in it!

And the Gemara explains:

And Ravina,

who asked this question even though the matter is obvious—

he asked it in order to confuse Marimar

[to know whether he was sharp enough to answer his question].

There was a certain incident that occurred in Mata Mehasya

in which the member was hollowed like a gutter, and they came to Mar bar Rav Ashi to ask him whether he was fit to enter the assembly.

He pared it

[he cut and filed the member]

Mar bar Rav Ashi,

and made it

like a pen, and declared him fit

for that man to enter the assembly.

There was a certain incident that occurred in Pumbedita: the channel of seminal fluid was blocked

the channel of seminal fluid

[the opening of the tube through which a person emits seminal fluid]

and he emitted

[that man emitted] seminal fluid

in the place

through the opening through which he customarily emits

small ones

[urine].

Rav Bibi bar Abaye considered declaring him fit.

He said

to him

Rav Pappi: