Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 18, 2014 | 讻状讜 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 75

Study Guide Yevamot 75


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讛讻转讬讘 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 诇专讘讜转 讛转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 拽专讗 诪讬诇讬 诪讬诇讬 拽讗 讞砖讬讘

But isn鈥檛 it written in that same section dealing with a woman after childbirth: 鈥淪he shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed鈥 (Leviticus 12:4), which comes to include teruma? Rather, the Torah considers several distinct matters separately, and not all the verses refer to teruma.

讜转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讘转专讜诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 诪注讚 讗砖专 讬讟讛专 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注谞讗 讘诪讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘讗 讛砖诪砖 讜讟讛专

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: 鈥淗e shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd when the sun has set he shall be pure, and afterward he may eat from the holy things鈥 (Leviticus 22:7), to teach that he must also wait for sunset.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘讗 讛砖诪砖 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 讚讘专 讻驻专讛 讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 讻驻专讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注讚 诪诇讗转

And had the Merciful One written only: 鈥淎nd when the sun has set,鈥 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: 鈥淪he shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed鈥 (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.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注讚 诪诇讗转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讗 讟讘讬诇讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注讚 讗砖专 讬讟讛专

And had the Merciful One written only: 鈥淯ntil the days of her purification are completed,鈥 I would say that upon the completion of the purification period she is immediately purified even without immersion. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淯ntil he be pure.鈥

讜诇讛讱 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转 讜讘诪爪讜专注 诪讜讞诇讟 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讜讛讗讬 注讚 讗砖专 讬讟讛专 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 讻驻专讛 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: And according to that tanna who disagrees with the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael and says that the verse 鈥淎ny man from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure鈥 (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 鈥渦ntil he be pure鈥 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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 12:8), to teach us that sacrificial food may not be eaten until after the atonement offering has been brought?

爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬讜诇讚转 诪砖讜诐 讚诪专讜讘讛 讟讜诪讗转讛 讗讘诇 讘讝讘 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝讘 讚诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗讘诇 讬讜诇讚转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讘诪讬诐 讬讜讘讗 讜讟诪讗 注讚 讛注专讘 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇谞讙讬注讛

The Gemara asks: As for the verse stated with regard to a vessel that contracted ritual impurity through contact with a creeping animal: 鈥淚t must be put into water, and it shall be impure until the evening; then shall it be pure鈥 (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.

讚转谞讬讗 讜讟诪讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讟讛专 讗讬 讜讟讛专 讬讻讜诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讟诪讗 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 诇诪注砖专 讻讗谉 诇转专讜诪讛

As it is taught in a baraita: Had the verse stated only: 鈥淚t must be put into water, and it shall be impure until the evening,鈥 one might have thought that it remains ritually impure until the evening in all regards. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen shall it be pure,鈥 indicating that it is pure following immersion, even before sunset. And had it stated only: 鈥淭hen shall it be pure,鈥 one might have thought that it is pure following immersion in all regards. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be impure until the evening.鈥 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.

讜讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讞诪讬专讗 讗讻讬诇讛 讚转专讜诪讛 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讚诪注砖专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讞诪讬专讗 谞讙讬注讛 讚转专讜诪讛 诪谞讙讬注讛 讚诪注砖专

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 谞讙讬注讛 讚转专讜诪讛 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇谞讜讙注

And if you wish, say that the prohibition with regard to the touching of teruma is derived from here: 鈥淪he shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed鈥 (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?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讜讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 转讘讗 诪拽讬砖 拽讚砖 诇诪拽讚砖 诪讛 诪拽讚砖 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讗祝 拽讚砖 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讜讘谞讙讬注讛 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 诇讬讻讗

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪he shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed鈥 (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.

讜讛讗讬 讚讗驻拽讬讛 讘诇砖讜谉 谞讙讬注讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞讙讬注讛 讻讗讻讬诇讛

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.

驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讻讜壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 诪砖转诪专转 诇讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讻诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

搂 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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 讜诪转 讘注诇讛 转讗讻诇 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛

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鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛转诐 驻拽注 拽谞讬讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 诇讗 驻拽注 拽谞讬讬谞讬讛

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬讝讛讜 驻爪讜注 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讻诇 砖谞驻爪注讜 讘讬爪讬诐 砖诇讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞讬拽讘讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞诪讜拽讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞住专讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 砖诪注转讬 诪驻讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讻专诐 讘讬讘谞讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 住专讬住 讞诪讛 讜讻砖专

搂 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 Yo岣nan 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.

住专讬住 讞诪讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻住专讬住 讞诪讛 讜讻砖专

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.

讜谞讬拽讘 诇讗 诪讜诇讬讚 讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚住诇讬拽 诇讚讬拽诇讗

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鈥檛 there an incident where a certain man was climbing up a palm tree,

讜讞专讝讬讛 住讬诇讜讗 讘讘讬爪讬诐 讜谞驻拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讻讞讜讟 讚诪讜讙诇讗 讜讗讜诇讬讚 讛讗 砖诇讞 砖诪讜讗诇 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讗 讜讞讝专 注诇 讘谞讬讜 诪讗讬谉 讛诐

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽专讬谞谉 驻爪讜注 讜诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讛驻爪讜注

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: 鈥淎 man wounded with crushed testicles,鈥 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 鈥渁 man wounded鈥 indicates that he was wounded, i.e., his disability is the result of injury.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 驻爪讜注 讜谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐

A similar idea was taught in a baraita. It is stated: 鈥淎 man wounded [petzua] with crushed testicles [dakka] or a severed [kerut] penis shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:2), and it is stated in the very next verse: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻爪讜注 讘讻讜诇谉 讚讱 讘讻讜诇谉 讻专讜转 讘讻讜诇谉 驻爪讜注 讘讻讜诇谉 讘讬谉 砖谞驻爪注 讛讙讬讚 讘讬谉 砖谞驻爪注讜 讘讬爪讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞驻爪注讜 讞讜讟讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讚讱 讘讻讜诇谉 讘讬谉 砖谞讬讚讱 讛讙讬讚 讘讬谉 砖谞讬讚讻讜 讘讬爪讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞讬讚讻讜 讞讜讟讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讻专讜转 [讘讻讜诇谉] 讘讬谉 砖谞讻专转 讛讙讬讚 讘讬谉 砖谞讻专转讜 讘讬爪讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞讻专转讜 讞讜讟讬 讘讬爪讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讗讬诪讗 诪专讗砖讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚诇讗 诪谞讛 讘讬讛 讚讜专讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐

One of the Sages said to Rava: From where is it derived that this phrase petzua dakka,鈥 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.

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 诪谞讛 讘讜 讚讜专讜转 讚讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讘专讬讛 讜讘专 讘专讬讛 讻砖专

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鈥檚 son are fit to do so?

讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 诪讛 讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐

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.

讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讙讜驻讬讛 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诪砖驻转讬讛 砖驻讻讛 讻转讬讘 讘诪拽讜诐 砖砖讜驻讱

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 鈥shofkha,鈥 which indicates that the injury was in a place that pours out [shofekh], whereas spittle is spat out.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讞讜讟诪讜 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘砖驻讜讱 讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讻转讬讘 诪讬 砖注诇 讬讚讬 讻专讬转讛 砖讜驻讱 砖诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讻专讬转讛 讗讬谞讜 砖讜驻讱 讗诇讗 诪拽诇讞 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讗讬 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 砖讜驻讱 讛讜讗

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 鈥kerut shofkha,鈥 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.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐

With regard to this issue, it was taught in a baraita as follows: It is stated: 鈥淎 man wounded with crushed testicles shall not enter into the congregation,鈥 and it is stated: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation.鈥 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.

谞讬拽讘 诇诪讟讛 诪注讟专讛 砖讻谞讙讚讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注讟专讛 住讘专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讗讻砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 注讟专讛 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 诪注讻讘转

搂 The Gemara considers the following case: If a man鈥檚 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 岣yya 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鈥檚 fitness, even if one end of the puncture is below the corona, as any puncture in the corona affects his fertility.

讜讗诐 谞砖转讬讬专 诪注讟专讛 讻讜壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讜拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪诇讗 讛讞讜讟 砖讗诪专讜 注诇 驻谞讬 讻讜诇讛 讗讜 注诇 驻谞讬 专讜讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转讜住驻讗讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪诇讗 讛讞讜讟 注诇 驻谞讬 专讜讘讛 讜讻诇驻讬 专讬砖讗

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鈥檃 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻拽讜诇诪讜住 讻砖专讛 讻诪专讝讘 驻住讜诇讛 讛讗讬 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻诪专讝讘 讻砖专讛 讻拽讜诇诪讜住 驻住讜诇讛 讛讗讬 讙专讬讚 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讙专讬讚

Rav Huna said: If a man鈥檚 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 岣sda said the reverse: If a man鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 讜讛讗讬 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙专讬讚讜转讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘专讝讗 讚讞讘讬转讗

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鈥檚 member.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专讬诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讘讬谉 讻拽讜诇诪讜住 讘讬谉 讻诪专讝讘 讻砖专讛 诪讬讛讜 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇诪讟讛 诪注讟专讛 讗讜 诇诪注诇讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇诪注诇讛 诪注讟专讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇诪讟讛 诪注讟专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻专转 讛讙讬讚 谞诪讬 讜专讘讬谞讗 诇砖讘讜砖讬 诇诪专讬诪专 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬

Ravina said to Mareimar that Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa as follows: The halakha is that whether the man鈥檚 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.

讛讛讜讗 注讜讘讚讗 讚讛讜讛 讘诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 砖驻讬讬讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻拽讜诇诪讜住 讜讗讻砖专讬讛 讛讛讜讗 注讜讘讚讗 讚讛讜讛 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗讬住转转讬诐 讙讜讘转讗 讚砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜讗驻讬拽 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讟谞讬诐 住讘专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗讻砖讜专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讜

The Gemara relates: A certain incident actually occurred in the town of Mata Me岣sya, where a man鈥檚 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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 72-78 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week, we will learn about the laws pertaining to a Jewish male who can鈥檛 be circumcised for health reasons....
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 75: Damage to a Mans Reproductive Organs

Some opening audio issue, but it resolves quickly. Why do we need 3 verses to teach us about terumah? The...

Yevamot 75

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 75

讜讛讻转讬讘 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 诇专讘讜转 讛转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 拽专讗 诪讬诇讬 诪讬诇讬 拽讗 讞砖讬讘

But isn鈥檛 it written in that same section dealing with a woman after childbirth: 鈥淪he shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed鈥 (Leviticus 12:4), which comes to include teruma? Rather, the Torah considers several distinct matters separately, and not all the verses refer to teruma.

讜转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讘转专讜诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 诪注讚 讗砖专 讬讟讛专 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注谞讗 讘诪讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘讗 讛砖诪砖 讜讟讛专

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: 鈥淗e shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd when the sun has set he shall be pure, and afterward he may eat from the holy things鈥 (Leviticus 22:7), to teach that he must also wait for sunset.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘讗 讛砖诪砖 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 讚讘专 讻驻专讛 讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 讻驻专讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注讚 诪诇讗转

And had the Merciful One written only: 鈥淎nd when the sun has set,鈥 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: 鈥淪he shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed鈥 (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.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注讚 诪诇讗转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讗 讟讘讬诇讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注讚 讗砖专 讬讟讛专

And had the Merciful One written only: 鈥淯ntil the days of her purification are completed,鈥 I would say that upon the completion of the purification period she is immediately purified even without immersion. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淯ntil he be pure.鈥

讜诇讛讱 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘讝讘 讘注诇 砖诇砖 专讗讬讜转 讜讘诪爪讜专注 诪讜讞诇讟 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讜讛讗讬 注讚 讗砖专 讬讟讛专 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 讻驻专讛 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: And according to that tanna who disagrees with the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael and says that the verse 鈥淎ny man from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure鈥 (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 鈥渦ntil he be pure鈥 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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 12:8), to teach us that sacrificial food may not be eaten until after the atonement offering has been brought?

爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬讜诇讚转 诪砖讜诐 讚诪专讜讘讛 讟讜诪讗转讛 讗讘诇 讘讝讘 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝讘 讚诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗讘诇 讬讜诇讚转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讘诪讬诐 讬讜讘讗 讜讟诪讗 注讚 讛注专讘 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇谞讙讬注讛

The Gemara asks: As for the verse stated with regard to a vessel that contracted ritual impurity through contact with a creeping animal: 鈥淚t must be put into water, and it shall be impure until the evening; then shall it be pure鈥 (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.

讚转谞讬讗 讜讟诪讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讟讛专 讗讬 讜讟讛专 讬讻讜诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讟诪讗 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 诇诪注砖专 讻讗谉 诇转专讜诪讛

As it is taught in a baraita: Had the verse stated only: 鈥淚t must be put into water, and it shall be impure until the evening,鈥 one might have thought that it remains ritually impure until the evening in all regards. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen shall it be pure,鈥 indicating that it is pure following immersion, even before sunset. And had it stated only: 鈥淭hen shall it be pure,鈥 one might have thought that it is pure following immersion in all regards. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be impure until the evening.鈥 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.

讜讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讞诪讬专讗 讗讻讬诇讛 讚转专讜诪讛 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讚诪注砖专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讞诪讬专讗 谞讙讬注讛 讚转专讜诪讛 诪谞讙讬注讛 讚诪注砖专

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 谞讙讬注讛 讚转专讜诪讛 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇谞讜讙注

And if you wish, say that the prohibition with regard to the touching of teruma is derived from here: 鈥淪he shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed鈥 (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?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讜讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 转讘讗 诪拽讬砖 拽讚砖 诇诪拽讚砖 诪讛 诪拽讚砖 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讗祝 拽讚砖 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讜讘谞讙讬注讛 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 诇讬讻讗

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪he shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed鈥 (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.

讜讛讗讬 讚讗驻拽讬讛 讘诇砖讜谉 谞讙讬注讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞讙讬注讛 讻讗讻讬诇讛

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.

驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜讻讜壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 诪砖转诪专转 诇讘讬讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讻诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞讜讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

搂 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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 讜诪转 讘注诇讛 转讗讻诇 砖讻讘专 讗讻诇讛

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鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛转诐 驻拽注 拽谞讬讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 诇讗 驻拽注 拽谞讬讬谞讬讛

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬讝讛讜 驻爪讜注 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讻诇 砖谞驻爪注讜 讘讬爪讬诐 砖诇讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞讬拽讘讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞诪讜拽讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞住专讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 砖诪注转讬 诪驻讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讻专诐 讘讬讘谞讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讬爪讛 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 住专讬住 讞诪讛 讜讻砖专

搂 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 Yo岣nan 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.

住专讬住 讞诪讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻住专讬住 讞诪讛 讜讻砖专

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.

讜谞讬拽讘 诇讗 诪讜诇讬讚 讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚住诇讬拽 诇讚讬拽诇讗

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鈥檛 there an incident where a certain man was climbing up a palm tree,

讜讞专讝讬讛 住讬诇讜讗 讘讘讬爪讬诐 讜谞驻拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讻讞讜讟 讚诪讜讙诇讗 讜讗讜诇讬讚 讛讗 砖诇讞 砖诪讜讗诇 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讗 讜讞讝专 注诇 讘谞讬讜 诪讗讬谉 讛诐

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽专讬谞谉 驻爪讜注 讜诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讛驻爪讜注

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: 鈥淎 man wounded with crushed testicles,鈥 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 鈥渁 man wounded鈥 indicates that he was wounded, i.e., his disability is the result of injury.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 驻爪讜注 讜谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐

A similar idea was taught in a baraita. It is stated: 鈥淎 man wounded [petzua] with crushed testicles [dakka] or a severed [kerut] penis shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:2), and it is stated in the very next verse: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻爪讜注 讘讻讜诇谉 讚讱 讘讻讜诇谉 讻专讜转 讘讻讜诇谉 驻爪讜注 讘讻讜诇谉 讘讬谉 砖谞驻爪注 讛讙讬讚 讘讬谉 砖谞驻爪注讜 讘讬爪讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞驻爪注讜 讞讜讟讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讚讱 讘讻讜诇谉 讘讬谉 砖谞讬讚讱 讛讙讬讚 讘讬谉 砖谞讬讚讻讜 讘讬爪讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞讬讚讻讜 讞讜讟讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讻专讜转 [讘讻讜诇谉] 讘讬谉 砖谞讻专转 讛讙讬讚 讘讬谉 砖谞讻专转讜 讘讬爪讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞讻专转讜 讞讜讟讬 讘讬爪讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讗讬诪讗 诪专讗砖讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚诇讗 诪谞讛 讘讬讛 讚讜专讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐

One of the Sages said to Rava: From where is it derived that this phrase petzua dakka,鈥 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.

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 诪谞讛 讘讜 讚讜专讜转 讚讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讘专讬讛 讜讘专 讘专讬讛 讻砖专

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鈥檚 son are fit to do so?

讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 诪讛 讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐

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.

讜讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讙讜驻讬讛 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诪砖驻转讬讛 砖驻讻讛 讻转讬讘 讘诪拽讜诐 砖砖讜驻讱

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 鈥shofkha,鈥 which indicates that the injury was in a place that pours out [shofekh], whereas spittle is spat out.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讞讜讟诪讜 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘砖驻讜讱 讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讻转讬讘 诪讬 砖注诇 讬讚讬 讻专讬转讛 砖讜驻讱 砖诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讻专讬转讛 讗讬谞讜 砖讜驻讱 讗诇讗 诪拽诇讞 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讗讬 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 砖讜驻讱 讛讜讗

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 鈥kerut shofkha,鈥 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.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 驻爪讜注 讚讻讗 讜谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐

With regard to this issue, it was taught in a baraita as follows: It is stated: 鈥淎 man wounded with crushed testicles shall not enter into the congregation,鈥 and it is stated: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation.鈥 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.

谞讬拽讘 诇诪讟讛 诪注讟专讛 砖讻谞讙讚讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注讟专讛 住讘专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讗讻砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 注讟专讛 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 诪注讻讘转

搂 The Gemara considers the following case: If a man鈥檚 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 岣yya 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鈥檚 fitness, even if one end of the puncture is below the corona, as any puncture in the corona affects his fertility.

讜讗诐 谞砖转讬讬专 诪注讟专讛 讻讜壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讜拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪诇讗 讛讞讜讟 砖讗诪专讜 注诇 驻谞讬 讻讜诇讛 讗讜 注诇 驻谞讬 专讜讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转讜住驻讗讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪诇讗 讛讞讜讟 注诇 驻谞讬 专讜讘讛 讜讻诇驻讬 专讬砖讗

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鈥檃 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻拽讜诇诪讜住 讻砖专讛 讻诪专讝讘 驻住讜诇讛 讛讗讬 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻诪专讝讘 讻砖专讛 讻拽讜诇诪讜住 驻住讜诇讛 讛讗讬 讙专讬讚 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讙专讬讚

Rav Huna said: If a man鈥檚 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 岣sda said the reverse: If a man鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 讜讛讗讬 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙专讬讚讜转讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘专讝讗 讚讞讘讬转讗

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鈥檚 member.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专讬诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讘讬谉 讻拽讜诇诪讜住 讘讬谉 讻诪专讝讘 讻砖专讛 诪讬讛讜 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇诪讟讛 诪注讟专讛 讗讜 诇诪注诇讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇诪注诇讛 诪注讟专讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇诪讟讛 诪注讟专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻专转 讛讙讬讚 谞诪讬 讜专讘讬谞讗 诇砖讘讜砖讬 诇诪专讬诪专 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬

Ravina said to Mareimar that Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa as follows: The halakha is that whether the man鈥檚 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.

讛讛讜讗 注讜讘讚讗 讚讛讜讛 讘诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 砖驻讬讬讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻拽讜诇诪讜住 讜讗讻砖专讬讛 讛讛讜讗 注讜讘讚讗 讚讛讜讛 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗讬住转转讬诐 讙讜讘转讗 讚砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜讗驻讬拽 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讟谞讬诐 住讘专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗讻砖讜专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讜

The Gemara relates: A certain incident actually occurred in the town of Mata Me岣sya, where a man鈥檚 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

Scroll To Top