Yevamot 76a — the Talmud in English

And is it because

you have come ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

from the family of the Mamlai [

whether because you come from a family of misfortune, namely the family of Eli]

that you say unfortunate words [

you say unfortunate things]?!

Certainly, he is disqualified from entering the congregation, for only when the seminal fluid is

in its place,

which exits through the opening designated for it, is it

mature

and fit to produce offspring, whereas

when it is not in its place, it is not mature.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

If it was perforated,

the organ having a small perforation,

and it became sealed

completely, and the perforation is not discernible, one examines it and sees—

if the perforation is large enough that

whenever, if he were to emit semen [

when he sees semen],

it would tear [

the perforation would widen]

he is disqualified.

But if not,

if it does not tear when he emits semen, he is

fit.

Rava examined this ruling [

Rava challenged this]:

Where [

in what place was the organ perforated]?

If we say below the corona,

at the end of the organ, toward the ground, then he is certainly fit, for

even if it was severed

there,

also

he is fit.

Rather,

it is speaking of a perforation

in the corona itself,

in the thick flesh raised above the organ.

It was likewise stated: Rav Mari bar Mar said in the name of Mar Ukva, who said in the name of Shmuel:

If it was perforated in the corona itself, and it became sealed,

the perforation, one sees—

whenever, if he were to emit semen, it would tear,

he is

disqualified, but if not,

he is

fit.

Rava bar Rabba sent to Rav Yosef:

Let our master teach us: how do we act [

how do we cause that man to emit semen in order to examine him]?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef said to Rava bar Rabba:

We bring hot barley bread [

we bring hot barley bread]

and place it on the opening of the anus [

and place it on the opening of the anus]

and cause him to emit semen and examine it [

and thereby he will emit semen and it will be possible to examine him].

Abaye said:

And why do we need all this? Is

everyone Jacob our forefather

who would not see semen unless devices were performed for that purpose,

as it is written of him: “Reuben, you are my firstborn,

my might and the first of my strength,”

the first of my strength,”

to teach you:

he did not see

Jacob our forefather

semen all his days?!

But other people will easily see semen, and it is unnecessary to perform devices of this kind.

Rather, Abaye said,

this is what one should do:

We pass before him garments of various colors [

we pass before his eyes women’s garments of various colors], and through this he will see semen, and we will examine him. [

Concerning the permission to perform this examination despite the fact that it involves wasting semen, the later authorities discussed the matter and proved that an examination to determine a person’s status, whether he is fit to enter the congregation, does not involve the prohibition of wasting semen in vain, because this is not in vain.]

He said

and challenged this

Rava:

Is it so

that

everyone is Barzilai the Gileadite

who was steeped in promiscuity, so that you say that if women’s garments of various colors are passed before every person, he will see semen?!

Rather, it is clear as we answered initially,

to bring him to emit semen through hot bread.

The Sages taught: If the organ was perforated,

he is

disqualified, because it drips,

that is, the seminal fluid exits through the perforation and does not shoot like an arrow in its ordinary manner, when it exits through the place designated for it.

But if

it became sealed,

that perforation, he is

fit, because he can produce offspring.

And this is [

the perforated organ]

a disqualification that returns to fitness.

“This is”—

to exclude what?

To exclude a membrane that grew because of a wound, in the lung

of an animal that was perforated,

which is not a membrane,

and the animal remains a tereifa as it was.

Rav Idi bar Avin sent to Abaye: How do we act

to heal an organ that was perforated?

We bring a barley grain [

barley]

and scratch it [

we scratch the organ around the perforation so that pus and blood will emerge, and through this flesh will grow and seal the perforation],

and we bring fat,

milk fat,

and rub it.

And we bring a large ant [

and bring a large ant]

and make it bite him [

we place the head of a live ant at the site of the perforation, and it bites, and its head becomes attached to the perforation].

And we cut off its head.

And

one scratches only

specifically

with

a barley grain.

But

with

iron [

iron]

it makes a wound [

it causes an injury].

And this applies

to a

small

perforation,

but

for a

large

perforation this remedy is ineffective, because it folds back on itself [

after it has healed, it becomes peeled and opens again]. Rabba bar Rav Huna said:

One who urinates from two places [

from two openings, one designated for urine and the other designated for seminal fluid], he is

disqualified

from entering the congregation.

Rava said:

The halakha is neither like the son [

not like the son, who is Rabba bar Rav Huna]

nor like the father [

and not like his father, Rav Huna]!

The halakha is not like the

son;

that is,

what we said,

that one who urinates from two places is disqualified, and the halakha is not so; rather, he is fit.

And the halakha is not like the

father, who said: Women who rub against one another [

they rub their genital openings against one another in the manner of intercourse]

are disqualified from marrying into the priesthood

because of “a woman of prostitution.”

And the halakha is not so, since

even according to Rabbi Elazar, who said: An unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage makes her a woman of prostitution, this applies to a man, but a woman—

only

mere licentiousness

is involved, and it is not prostitution that would prohibit her from marrying into the priesthood.

Mishna:

One with crushed testicles or a severed organ—

is permitted to a female convert and an emancipated slavewoman.

And they are prohibited only from entering the congregation of

the

as it is stated: “One with crushed testicles or a severed organ shall not enter the congregation of the Lord”,

and a congregation of converts [and likewise emancipated slaves] is not called a congregation.

Gemara:

They asked Rav Sheshet: One with crushed testicles

who is disqualified from the congregation and is prohibited to an Israelite woman, and he is

a priest—

what

is the law: is he permitted

to a female convert and an emancipated slavewoman,

to whom other priests are prohibited?

Does one with crushed testicles

remain in his sanctity [

he remains in his sanctity of lineage],

and is prohibited

to a female convert and an emancipated slavewoman?

Or perhaps he does not remain in his sanctity [

or perhaps he does not remain in his sanctity of lineage],

and is permitted [

he is permitted] to a female convert and an emancipated slavewoman.

Rav Sheshet said to him: You have learned it

we have learned this matter in a beraita:

An Israelite with crushed testicles is permitted to a netina [

the Gibeonites, who were among the seven nations in the Land of Israel and converted through deception in the days of Joshua, and are called netinim because Joshua assigned them to hew wood and draw water], although other Israelites are prohibited to her.

And if it enters your mind

that one with crushed testicles

remains in his sanctity,

how is he permitted to a netina? Surely

it is called here

concerning the seven nations in the Land of Israel:

“You shall not intermarry with them”,

and although the netinim converted, they are included in the prohibition.

Rather, certainly one with crushed testicles does not remain in his sanctity of lineage, and therefore he is permitted to a netina.

Rava said: Is it so

that

there

where the Torah prohibited intermarriage with the seven nations,

was it because of sanctity, and not because of sanctity

that the Torah prohibited them, so that it should be said: even when they are converts, the Torah prohibited them [Rashi]?!

For the reason that the Torah prohibited them is:

Perhaps he will father a son, and he will go and serve idolatry [

perhaps he will father a son who will go and worship idolatry].

And

since this is the reason [and not because of sanctity], certainly

this applies when they are idolaters

that the Torah prohibited them.

But

when they convert into Israelites [

when they converted and became Israelites; and some versions read]:

from Israel

they are permitted

they are permitted

by Torah law—

And

necessarily, the netinim are not prohibited because they are among the seven nations and included in the prohibition “You shall not intermarry with them”; rather,

the Sages [

King David]

it was he

who decreed concerning them

a prohibition of intermarriage for the netinim, resembling the prohibition that the Torah imposed upon all seven nations when they were idolaters.

And

from now on, it will not be difficult for you: if one with crushed testicles remains in his sanctity, why is he permitted to a netina? Because

when the Sages decreed concerning them [

whom the Sages prohibited among the netinim]], only

those who are capable of producing offspring [

who are fit to produce offspring], analogous to the Torah prohibition, whose reason is “perhaps he will father a son.”

But this one,

one with crushed testicles,

who is not capable of producing offspring [

is not fit to produce offspring]—

the Sages did not decree concerning him.

And the Gemara challenges:

But if so,

a mamzer, who is capable of producing offspring [

a mamzer, who is fit to produce offspring], and is commanded regarding all the prohibitions of the Torah, and is prohibited to the seven nations when they are idolaters, is it

also so

that it should be said

that

a mamzer

is prohibited

by rabbinic law to a netina?

And

have we not learned: mamzerim and netinim are permitted to marry one another?!

Rather,

the Gemara explains the reason for permitting one with crushed testicles to a netina in another manner:

when the Sages decreed—

for the fit,

but

for the disqualified,

such as one with crushed testicles and a mamzer,

the Sages did not decree, as we say elsewhere: concerning a matter that is uncommon, the Sages did not decree.

kak my govorim v drugom meste: v veshchi, kotорая vstrechaetsya redko, mudrecy ne ustanovili zapret.

Rava then said: It is not a matter that I have said [

Rava retracted and said: What I said is not correct], for the Torah stated “You shall not intermarry with them” concerning the seven nations only when they are gentiles.

For, on the contrary, it can be said that the Torah’s essential prohibition is when they are converts, since

when they are idolaters they have no intermarriage [

marriages do not take effect with Israelites]. And only when

they converted do they have intermarriage

with Israelites, and concerning this the Torah prohibited: “You shall not intermarry” with them.

And if so, you learn that since one with crushed testicles is permitted to a netina, necessarily one with crushed testicles does not remain in his sanctity.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

to Rava, who said: It is impossible that the Torah prohibits “intermarrying” with the seven nations, since when they are gentiles they have no intermarriage.

But we find:

“And Solomon intermarried” with the daughter of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

Thus Scripture calls it intermarriage even with a gentile woman who is not subject to intermarriage?!

And we answer:

He converted her,

Solomon converted Pharaoh’s daughter, and afterward he intermarried with her.

And we challenge this:

But converts were not accepted either in the days of David or in the days of Solomon?!

And we answer:

Was that the reason

that converts were not accepted?

Rather,

it was because they converted only

for the royal table,

that is, for the sake of the kingship, benefit, and greatness that Israel possessed [Maimonides],