Yevamot 75
וְהָכְתִיב: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״ — לְרַבּוֹת [אֶת] הַתְּרוּמָה! אֶלָּא, קְרָא מִילֵּי מִילֵּי קָא חָשֵׁיב.
But isn’t it written in that same section dealing with a woman after childbirth: “She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed” (Leviticus 12:4), which comes to include teruma? Rather, the Torah considers several distinct matters separately, and not all the verses refer to teruma.
וּתְלָתָא קְרָאֵי בִּתְרוּמָה לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי מֵ״עַד אֲשֶׁר יִטְהָר״, לָא הֲוָה יָדַעְנָא בְּמַאי — כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְטָהֵר״.
The Gemara asks: And why do I need three verses with regard to teruma? The Gemara answers: They are all necessary, as, had teruma been derived solely from the verse: “He shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure” (Leviticus 22:4), I would not have known by what means ritual purity is achieved, whether by immersion alone or in some other way. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And when the sun has set he shall be pure, and afterward he may eat from the holy things” (Leviticus 22:7), to teach that he must also wait for sunset.
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״, הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּלָאו בַּר כַּפָּרָה, אֲבָל דְּבַר כַּפָּרָה אֵימָא עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי כַּפָּרָה — כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״עַד מְלֹאת״.
And had the Merciful One written only: “And when the sun has set,” I might have said that this applies only to one who does not require an atonement offering, but as for one who requires an atonement offering, one might say that he may not eat teruma until he brings his atonement offering. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed” (Leviticus 12:4), which indicates that she may eat teruma as soon as her days of purification are completed, and she need not wait until after she has brought her atonement offering.
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עַד מְלֹאת״ — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ בְּלֹא טְבִילָה — כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״עַד אֲשֶׁר יִטְהָר״.
And had the Merciful One written only: “Until the days of her purification are completed,” I would say that upon the completion of the purification period she is immediately purified even without immersion. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Until he be pure.”
וּלְהָךְ תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר בְּזָב בַּעַל שָׁלֹשׁ רְאִיּוֹת וּבִמְצוֹרָע מוּחְלָט הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, וְהַאי ״עַד אֲשֶׁר יִטְהָר״ — עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי כַּפָּרָה, תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי בְּקָדָשִׁים לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara asks: And according to that tanna who disagrees with the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael and says that the verse “Any man from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure” (Leviticus 22:4) is speaking of a zav who already experienced three sightings of an emission, and of a confirmed leper, both of whom must bring an offering as part of their purification process; and, this being the case, that phrase “until he be pure” must mean until he brings his atonement offering; then why do I need two verses with regard to sacrificial food, this verse and the verse with regard to a woman after childbirth: “And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure” (Leviticus 12:8), to teach us that sacrificial food may not be eaten until after the atonement offering has been brought?
צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּיוֹלֶדֶת — מִשּׁוּם דִּמְרוּבָּה טוּמְאָתָהּ, אֲבָל בְּזָב — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּזָב — דְּלֹא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ, אֲבָל יוֹלֶדֶת — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara answers: They are both necessary, as had the Merciful One written this halakha only with regard to a woman after childbirth, one might have said that it applies only to her because her period of ritual impurity is so long, as she may not return to eating teruma or sacrificial food for either forty days, in the case of a male child, or eighty days, in the case of a female. But with regard to a zav, say that this is not the case. And had the Merciful One written this halakha only with regard to a zav, one might have said that it applies only to him, as no exemption is ever made from its general prohibition and he is always impure. But as for a woman after childbirth, who is permitted to her husband for thirty-three or sixty-six days of that period, say that this is not the case. Both verses are therefore necessary.
״בַּמַּיִם יוּבָא וְטָמֵא עַד הָעֶרֶב״ לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לִנְגִיעָה.
The Gemara asks: As for the verse stated with regard to a vessel that contracted ritual impurity through contact with a creeping animal: “It must be put into water, and it shall be impure until the evening; then shall it be pure” (Leviticus 11:32), why do I need it? Rabbi Zeira said: It is necessary in order to teach about touching. An impure vessel, even after it has been immersed, still imparts ritual impurity to the teruma that it touches until nightfall. The same applies to an impure individual who has already undergone immersion; not only is it prohibited for him to eat teruma, but also he renders it impure if he touches it.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְטָמֵא״ — יָכוֹל לַכֹּל, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְטָהֵר״. אִי ״וְטָהֵר״ — יָכוֹל לַכֹּל, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְטָמֵא״. הָא כֵּיצַד? כָּאן לְמַעֲשֵׂר, כָּאן לִתְרוּמָה.
As it is taught in a baraita: Had the verse stated only: “It must be put into water, and it shall be impure until the evening,” one might have thought that it remains ritually impure until the evening in all regards. Therefore, the verse states: “Then shall it be pure,” indicating that it is pure following immersion, even before sunset. And had it stated only: “Then shall it be pure,” one might have thought that it is pure following immersion in all regards. Therefore, the verse states: “And it shall be impure until the evening.” How so; how can the apparent contradiction between the two parts of the verse be resolved? Here, the verse is referring to second tithe, for which immersion alone suffices; and there it is referring to teruma, for which sunset is required.
וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִסְתַּבְּרָא כִּי הֵיכִי דַּחֲמִירָא אֲכִילָה דִתְרוּמָה מֵאֲכִילָה דְמַעֲשֵׂר — הָכִי נָמֵי חֲמִירָא נְגִיעָה דִתְרוּמָה מִנְּגִיעָה דְמַעֲשֵׂר.
The Gemara asks: But I can reverse this construct and say that the greater stringency should be applied to second tithe. The Gemara answers: It is reasonable to say that teruma is subject to the greater stringency; just as the eating of teruma is subject to greater stringency than the eating of second tithe, so too, the touching of teruma should be subject to greater stringency than the touching of second tithe.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא נְגִיעָה דִתְרוּמָה מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״ — אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לַנּוֹגֵעַ?
And if you wish, say that the prohibition with regard to the touching of teruma is derived from here: “She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed” (Leviticus 12:4); this is a warning with respect to one who eats teruma after having immersed but before sunset. Or, perhaps, it is nothing other than a warning with respect to one who touches teruma before sunset, as is implied by the plain reading of the verse?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע וְאֶל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא תָבֹא״, מַקִּישׁ קֹדֶשׁ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ: מָה מִקְדָּשׁ — דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה, אַף קֹדֶשׁ — דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה. וּבִנְגִיעָה, נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה לֵיכָּא,
Therefore, the verse states: “She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed” (Leviticus 12:4), thereby juxtaposing consecrated food to the Sanctuary. Just as the prohibition against entering the Sanctuary is a matter that involves the taking of life, as one who enters the Sanctuary while impure is liable to receive karet, so too, the prohibition against touching consecrated food must be a matter that involves the taking of life, e.g., eating teruma in a state of ritual impurity; but the prohibition against touching teruma in a state of impurity does not involve the taking of life, as there is no punishment of karet for mere touching.
וְהַאי דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ בִּלְשׁוֹן נְגִיעָה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: נְגִיעָה כַּאֲכִילָה.
And as for the fact that the verse expressed this halakha in terms of touching, this is what it is saying: The halakha governing touching is like that of eating, as they are both prohibited to an impure person, even after immersion, until sunset. But the verse is actually speaking of the prohibition against eating teruma in a state of impurity.
פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וְכוּ׳. מַאן תַּנָּא מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָה, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אָכְלָה? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת שְׁנוּיָה, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא.
§ It is taught in the mishna that the wife of a priest with crushed testicles or a severed penis may eat teruma on his account, provided that they have not engaged in sexual relations since his injury. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught with regard to a woman awaiting intercourse that would disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood by Torah law, as in this case, where the woman would become disqualified from marrying into the priesthood if she had relations with her injured husband, that such a woman may eat teruma? Rabbi Elazar said: This halakha is subject to dispute, and it is taught in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who similarly stated that a widow betrothed to a High Priest may eat teruma on his account, provided that he has not engaged in sexual relations with her.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שָׁאנֵי הָכָא שֶׁכְּבָר אָכְלָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mishna can be understood even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that a widow betrothed to a High Priest may not eat teruma on his account, as it is different here, as she had already eaten teruma on her husband’s account before his injury. Since she has done nothing to disqualify herself, she retains her presumptive status as one for whom it is permitted to eat teruma.
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, שֶׁכְּבָר אָכְלָה לָא אָמְרִינַן. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן וּמֵת בַּעְלָהּ — תֹּאכַל, שֶׁכְּבָר אָכְלָה.
And how does Rabbi Elazar counter this argument? He maintains that we do not say that since she had already eaten teruma on her husband’s account she continues to do so, as, if you do not say that this argument must be rejected, then it should be permitted for an Israelite woman who married a priest and her husband died without children to continue eating teruma on his account, as she had already eaten teruma because of him during his lifetime. However, such a conclusion is clearly incorrect. This halakha indicates that the fact that she had already eaten teruma is irrelevant.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָתָם — פָּקַע קִנְיָינֵיהּ, הָכָא — לָא פָּקַע קִנְיָינֵיהּ.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the two cases are not comparable, as there, where the husband died, his acquisition of his wife has lapsed, i.e., they are no longer married, and therefore she cannot continue to eat teruma on his account, whereas here, where his genitals were injured, his acquisition has not lapsed. While sexual relations between them are forbidden, their marriage remains intact.
אֵיזֶהוּ פְּצוּעַ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא — כׇּל שֶׁנִּפְצְעוּ בֵּיצִים שֶׁלּוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ אַחַת מֵהֶן, וַאֲפִילּוּ נִיקְּבוּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ נִמּוֹקוּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ חָסְרוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה: שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפִּי חֲכָמִים בַּכֶּרֶם בְּיַבְנֶה: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּיצָה אַחַת — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא סְרִיס חַמָּה, וְכָשֵׁר.
§ It is taught in the mishna: Who is deemed a man with crushed testicles? The Sages taught in a baraita: Who is deemed a man with crushed testicles? It is anyone whose testicles have been wounded, even if only one of them. Furthermore, a man is considered to have crushed testicles not only if they have been wounded, but even if they have been punctured, or have decayed as the result of an injury, or are partly deficient for some other reason. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, said: I heard from the Sages in the vineyard in Yavne that anyone who has only one testicle is nothing other than a eunuch by natural causes, and he is fit.
סְרִיס חַמָּה סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא: הֲרֵי הוּא כִּסְרִיס חַמָּה, וְכָשֵׁר.
The Gemara is puzzled by the wording of this last teaching: Can it enter your mind that he is a eunuch by natural causes, i.e., from birth? That designation refers to one who was born without testicles, whereas the reference here is to one who lost a testicle as the result of an injury. Rather, say that he resembles a eunuch by natural causes, and he is fit.
וְנִיקַּב לָא מוֹלֵיד? וְהָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּסְלֵיק לְדִיקְלָא
The Gemara asks: As for one whose testicles were punctured, is he incapable of having children, so that he should have the status of one whose testicles were crushed? Wasn’t there an incident where a certain man was climbing up a palm tree,
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
