Yevamot 80
שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה שָׁעָה אַחַת בְּכַשְׁרוּתוֹ. מְנָא יָדְעִינַן? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כׇּל הַמֵּטִיל מַיִם וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה כִּיפָּה.
who never saw a single hour of life in a state of fitness, as he was born infertile. The Gemara asks: How do we know that one was born this way and was never capable of having children? Abaye said: Anyone who passes water and does not form an arch with his urine, but rather his urine dribbles out downward, never had sexual capacity.
מִמַּאי הָוֵאי? דְּאָפְיָה אִימֵּיהּ בְּטִיהֲרָא וְשָׁתְיָא שִׁיכְרָא מַרְקָא. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַיְינוּ דְּשָׁמַעְנָא לְאִמִּי דְּאָמַר: ״כֹּל שֶׁמִּמְּעֵי אִמּוֹ לָקוּי״, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי נִיהוּ.
Incidentally, the Gemara inquires: From what does this defect arise? What is its cause? The Gemara answers: It results from his mother baking bread at noon and drinking strong beer [shikhra marka] while pregnant. The excessive heating of the mother’s body causes her child to be born with defective reproductive organs. Rav Yosef said: This is the meaning of that which I heard Rabbi Ami say: Anyone who is impaired from his mother’s womb, and at the time I did not know what he was referring to. Now I understand that he was speaking about a man who was infertile from birth.
וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא הִבְרִיא בֵּינָתַיִם! כֵּיוָן דִּתְחִלָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ לָקוּי — לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.
The Gemara asks: Let us be concerned that perhaps he was cured for some period in the meantime, without our having known about it, in which case he would have had an hour of fitness at some point. The Gemara answers: Since both his beginning and his end are impaired, i.e., he was born with a defect and he presently suffers from the same condition, we are not concerned about such a possibility.
מֵתִיב רַב מָרִי, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בְּתוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם!
Rav Mari raised an objection from the following mishna (Bekhorot 38b): Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One examines a firstborn animal that developed a blemish in its eye three times within eighty days to see whether the defect is permanent. This shows that no presumptions are made in such a case; rather, there is concern that the animal may have been cured in the meantime, even if it had the defect at the beginning and at the end of the period.
לְחַד אֵבֶר חָיְישִׁינַן, לְכוּלֵּיהּ גּוּפָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.
The Gemara answers: With respect to a blemish affecting a single organ, e.g., an eye, we are concerned that the blemish might have passed and then later redeveloped, but with regard to a defect affecting the entire body, we are not concerned about such a possibility. A eunuch is not impaired in a single organ; rather, he has a defect that affects his entire body. Consequently, there is no concern that, though he was born with the defect and presently suffers from it, he might have regained his potency for some time in the middle.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר לֹא כִּי וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ: בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וְלֹא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — יָבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁהוּא בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים, וְהוּא הַסָּרִיס — לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַיבֵּם. בַּת עֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — יָבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁהִיא בַּת עֶשְׂרִים, וְהִיא הָאַיְלוֹנִית — לֹא חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: זֶה וְזֶה בְּנֵי שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה.
§ It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: No; rather, a eunuch by natural causes performs ḥalitza, whereas a eunuch caused by man does not perform ḥalitza. The Gemara raises a contradiction from the following mishna (Nidda 47b): If a twenty-year-old man has not grown two pubic hairs, a sign of sexual maturity, the relatives of the widow who wish to exempt her from ḥalitza and levirate marriage must bring proof that he is twenty years old, and he, having been established as a sexually underdeveloped man, does not perform ḥalitza or levirate marriage with his yevama. If a twenty-year-old woman has not grown two pubic hairs, the relatives of her deceased husband’s brother must bring proof that she is twenty years old, and she, having been established as a sexually underdeveloped woman, does not perform ḥalitza or enter into levirate marriage with her yavam. This is the statement of Beit Hillel. And Beit Shammai say: With regard to both this and that, males and females, the relevant age is eighteen years old, not twenty.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַזָּכָר כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, וּנְקֵבָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה מְמַהֶרֶת לָבֹא לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ!
The mishna continues: Rabbi Eliezer says that for a male the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, and for a female the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, because a woman reaches maturity more quickly than does a man, and therefore, if she fails to develop the signs of maturity by the age of eighteen it is assumed that she is a sexually underdeveloped woman. In any case, it is clear from this mishna that even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that one who lacks sexual capacity from birth may neither perform ḥalitza nor enter into levirate marriage.
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר דִּיקּוּלֵי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חָזַר בּוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מֵהֵי הֲדַר בֵּיהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: סְרִיס חַמָּה — חוֹלֵץ וְחוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, שֶׁכֵּן בְּמִינָן מִתְרַפְּאִין בַּאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם.
Rami bar Dikulei said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Eliezer retracted his opinion. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Which statement did he retract? Did he retract what he said here in the mishna, that a eunuch by natural causes performs ḥalitza with his yevama and his brothers perform ḥalitza with his wife? Alternatively, perhaps the mishna here reflects his final view, after he retracted what he said in the other mishna. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this question, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A eunuch by natural causes performs ḥalitza with his yevama and his brothers perform ḥalitza with his wife, as such type of men are cured in Alexandria of Egypt. This additional source and its reasoning suggest that Rabbi Eliezer did not retract what he said in the mishna here. Rather, he retracted his statement with regard to the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai in the other mishna.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם לָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ. וְכִי תְּנַן הָהִיא — לָעוֹנָשִׁין.
Rabbi Elazar says: Actually, he did not retract anything at all. And when we learned Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling in that mishna with regard to the age of a sexually underdeveloped individual, that ruling was stated with regard to punishments, i.e., the age at which such an individual is considered an adult so that he is liable to receive punishment, and not with regard to ḥalitza or levirate marriage.
אִיתְּמַר: אָכַל חֵלֶב, מִבֶּן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה [וְיוֹם אֶחָד] עַד בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, וְנוֹלְדוּ בּוֹ סִימָנֵי סָרִיס, וּלְאַחַר מִכָּאן הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. רַב אָמַר: נַעֲשֶׂה סָרִיס לְמַפְרֵעַ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: קָטָן הָיָה בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה.
And it was stated that the amora’im disagreed on this issue: With regard to one who ate forbidden fats or performed any other transgression for which one is liable to receive lashes or karet, when he was between the age of twelve years and one day and the age of eighteen years, and he developed the signs of one who was a eunuch by natural causes, as explained below, and afterward he grew two pubic hairs, Rav said: He is retroactively considered a eunuch by natural causes. In other words, these hairs are not viewed as a sign of maturity. Rather, he lacked sexual capacity from the outset, which means he became an adult at the standard age of thirteen and is held liable for his actions from that point in time. And Shmuel said: No, he was a minor at the time he committed his offense, as the two hairs are a sign of his maturity, albeit delayed.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: לְרַב, אַיְלוֹנִית לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר יְהֵא לָהּ קְנָס!
Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: If so, according to Rav, a sexually underdeveloped woman according to Rabbi Meir should be entitled to the fine paid by a rapist. Rabbi Meir maintains that a rapist is liable to be fined only if he raped a young woman between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half, but not if he raped a minor. And furthermore, a sexually underdeveloped woman is not entitled to the fine because she is considered a minor, as she never showed the signs of maturity. But according to Rav she should retroactively be viewed as an adult and would therefore be entitled to the fine.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִקַּטְנוּתָהּ יָצְתָה לְבֶגֶר.
Abaye said to him: A sexually underdeveloped woman passes directly from minority to full adulthood. In other words, she is first considered a minor and then immediately an adult, without passing through the intermediate stage of young womanhood, and an adult woman is not entitled to the rapist’s fine.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל כִּי הָנֵי מִילֵּי מְעַלְּיָיתָא יִתְאַמְּרוּ מִשְּׁמַאי. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין הַסָּרִיס נִידּוֹן כְּבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה — לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה נִידּוֹן אֶלָּא בַּחֲתִימַת זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן. וְאֵין אַיְלוֹנִית נִידּוֹנֶית כְּנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה — שֶׁמִּקַּטְנוּתָהּ יָצְתָה לְבֶגֶר.
Greatly impressed with this answer, Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Would that all such excellent matters be stated in my name. As it is taught in a baraita: A sexually underdeveloped man is not judged as a stubborn and rebellious son, as a boy is judged as a stubborn and rebellious son only when he has the mark of his lower beard, i.e., when his pubic hair begins to grow in. At that point he has reached the age of maturity but is not yet a fully developed man, a stage that parallels young womanhood for women. A sexually underdeveloped man never passes through this intermediate stage between minority and full adulthood. And similarly, a sexually underdeveloped woman who was betrothed and raped is not judged in accordance with the laws governing a betrothed young woman (see Deuteronomy 22:23–27), as she passes directly from minority to full adulthood without the intermediate stage of young womanhood. Therefore, the baraita fully corroborates Abaye’s view.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: סִימָנֵי סָרִיס, וְאַיְלוֹנִית וּבֶן שְׁמֹנֶה אֵין עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה — עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים.
Rabbi Abbahu said: If one has the signs of a sexually underdeveloped man; or the signs of a sexually underdeveloped woman; or the signs of a child born during the eighth month of pregnancy, whose survival is uncertain; no action is taken in their regard, i.e., the sexually underdeveloped male or female is not treated as an adult and the child born during the eighth month is not deemed viable, until they are twenty years old.
וּבֶן שְׁמֹנֶה מִי קָחָיֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאֶבֶן, וְאָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ, אֲבָל אִמּוֹ שׁוֹחָה עָלָיו וּמְנִיקָתוֹ
The Gemara asks: Can a child born during the eighth month of pregnancy survive? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: A child born during the eighth month is like a stone with regard to the halakhot of set-aside [muktze] on Shabbat, and therefore it is prohibited to move him on Shabbat, as it may be presumed that he is not viable at all. However, his mother may bend over him and nurse him,
מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּשֶׁגָּמְרוּ סִימָנָיו. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה? כֹּל שֶׁלֹּא כָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: סִימָנִין מוֹכִיחִין עָלָיו, שְׂעָרוֹ וְצִפׇּרְנָיו שֶׁלֹּא גָּמְרוּ. טַעְמָא דְּלֹא גָּמְרוּ. הָא גָּמְרוּ — אָמְרִינַן הַאי בַּר שִׁבְעָה הוּא, וְאִישְׁתַּהוֹיֵי הוּא דְּאִישְׁתַּהִי.
due to the danger, both to the baby, who might in fact be viable, as well as to the mother, who might suffer fatal complications if she has to retain all her milk. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where his signs of viability are fully developed, and he has the appearance of a viable child. As it is taught in a baraita: Who is a baby born during the eighth month? It is anyone whose months of gestation have not been completed, i.e., a baby that was born prematurely. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The signs that prove that the child falls into this category are that his hair and nails are not fully developed. Now, the reason is that they are not fully developed; but if his hair and nails are fully developed, we say that this fetus was fit to be born after seven months but for some reason was delayed in its mother’s womb.
אֶלָּא הָא דַּעֲבַד רָבָא תּוֹסְפָאָה עוֹבָדָא בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְאִישְׁתַּהִי עַד תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא, וְאַכְשְׁרֵיהּ. כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי, דְּאָמַר מִשְׁתַּהֵא!
But if so, with regard to the action taken by Rava Tosfa’a concerning a woman whose husband went overseas and her baby was delayed in her womb for the twelve months of the year following her husband’s departure, and Rava Tosfa’a rendered the child fit, arguing that the husband is presumed to be the father and the child is not a mamzer, according to whose opinion did he issue this ruling? It must have been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that a baby can be delayed for an extended period of time in its mother’s womb even after it is fully developed and ready to be born. But how could Rava Tosfa’a have ruled in accordance with the minority opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, against the majority opinion of his colleagues?
כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְּאָמַר מִשְׁתַּהֵי, כְּרַבִּים עֲבַד. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁשָּׁהָה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם בָּאָדָם — אֵינוֹ נֵפֶל.
The Gemara answers: Since there is also Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that a baby can be delayed in its mother’s womb, Rava Tosfa’a in fact acted in accordance with the majority, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion is not that of a lone dissenting scholar. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any human child who stays alive for thirty days is not a stillborn. Even if the child was not carried for a full nine months, once he has survived for thirty days he is no longer treated like an infant whose viability is in doubt. The reason is that he is presumed to be a child that was fit to be born after seven months but for some reason was delayed in his mother’s womb and not born immediately upon reaching full development.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ סְרִיס חַמָּה? כׇּל שֶׁהוּא בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים, וְלֹא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. וַאֲפִילּוּ הֵבִיא לְאַחַר מִכָּאן הֲרֵי הוּא כְּסָרִיס לְכׇל דְּבָרָיו. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן סִימָנָיו: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ זָקָן, וּשְׂעָרוֹ לָקוּי, וּבְשָׂרוֹ מַחְלִיק. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן יָאִיר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין מֵימָיו מַעֲלִין רְתִיחוֹת.
§ The Sages taught: Who is considered a eunuch by natural causes? It is anyone who is twenty years old and has not yet grown two pubic hairs. And even if he grows pubic hairs afterward, he is still considered a eunuch by natural causes with regard to all his matters. And his signs are as follows: Whoever does not have a beard, and his hair is defective, unlike that of ordinary individuals, and his skin is smooth, i.e., hairless. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya’ir: It is anyone whose urine does not raise foam.
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הַמֵּטִיל מַיִם וְאֵין עוֹשֶׂה כִּיפָּה. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁשִּׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ דּוֹחָה. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין מֵימֵי רַגְלָיו מַחְמִיצִין. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁרוֹחֵץ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים וְאֵין בְּשָׂרוֹ מַעֲלֶה הֶבֶל. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁקּוֹלוֹ לָקוּי, וְאֵין נִיכָּר בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשָּׁה.
And some say: It is anyone who urinates without forming an arch. And some say: It is anyone whose semen dissipates and fails to congeal in the proper manner. And some say: Anyone whose urine does not ferment. Others say: It is anyone who bathes in the rainy season and his flesh does not give off steam. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: It is anyone whose voice is defective, so that it is not evident from it whether he is a man or a woman.
וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא אַיְלוֹנִית? כֹּל שֶׁהִיא בַּת עֶשְׂרִים וְלֹא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ הֵבִיאָה לְאַחַר מִכָּאן — הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאַיְלוֹנִית לְכׇל דְּבָרֶיהָ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן סִימָנֶיהָ: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ דַּדִּים, וּמִתְקַשָּׁה בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שִׁיפּוּלֵי מֵעַיִם כְּנָשִׁים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁקּוֹלָה עָבֶה, וְאֵינָהּ נִיכֶּרֶת בֵּין אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ.
And who is a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit]? It is anyone who is twenty years old and has not yet grown two pubic hairs. And even if she grows pubic hairs afterward, she is still considered a sexually underdeveloped woman with regard to all her matters. And her signs are as follows: A sexually underdeveloped woman is anyone who does not have breasts and experiences pain during intercourse. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is anyone whose lower abdomen is not formed like that of other women, as she lacks the cushion of flesh that is usually situated above a woman’s genitals. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: It is anyone whose voice is deep, so that it is not evident from it whether she is a woman or a man.
אִיתְּמַר: סִימָנֵי סָרִיס, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ כּוּלָּם. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן. הֵיכָא דְּהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בַּזָּקָן — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּעַד שֶׁיְּהוּ כּוּלָּן. כִּי פְּלִיגִי — בְּשֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא.
It was stated that amora’im disagreed over the signs of a eunuch. Rav Huna said that one is not categorized as a eunuch unless all these signs are present; Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is categorized as such even if only one of them is present. The Gemara comments: In a case when he has grown two hairs in his beard, everyone agrees that he is not considered sexually impotent unless all the signs are present. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case when he has not grown two hairs.
אֶלָּא הָא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ לְרַבָּנַן: עַיִּינוּ בֵּיהּ בְּרַב נַחְמָן, אִי בְּשָׂרוֹ מַעֲלֶה הֶבֶל אִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ בְּרַת. כְּמַאן, כְּרַב הוּנָא! לָא, רַב נַחְמָן סִיכֵּי דִיקְנָא הַוְיָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to that which Rabba bar Avuh said to the Sages: Examine Rav Naḥman when he bathes and if his flesh gives off steam I will give him my daughter for a wife, in accordance with whose opinion did he issue these instructions? Is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, who maintains that all the signs must be present, as presumably he could see that Rav Naḥman did not have a beard? The Gemara answers: No, Rav Naḥman had wisps of a beard, and therefore Rabba bar Avuh wanted to know whether he displayed the other signs of sexual incapacity.
הַסָּרִיס לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַיבֵּם, וְכֵן אַיְלוֹנִית וְכוּ׳. קָתָנֵי סָרִיס דּוּמְיָא דְּאַיְלוֹנִית: מָה אַיְלוֹנִית בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, אַף סָרִיס בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. וּסְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: בִּידֵי אָדָם — אִין, בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם — לָא.
§ It is taught in the mishna that a sexually underdeveloped man does not perform ḥalitza or enter into levirate marriage with his yevama, and similarly, a sexually underdeveloped woman does not perform ḥalitza or enter into levirate marriage with her yavam. The Gemara comments that the tanna teaches the case of a sexually underdeveloped man similarly to that of a sexually underdeveloped woman, from which it can be inferred: Just as in the case of a sexually underdeveloped woman, her disability is by the hand of Heaven, so too, in the case of a sexually underdeveloped man, his disability must be by the hand of Heaven. And this unattributed view in the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: With regard to one whose incapacity was brought about by the hands of man, yes, he is considered like any other man and performs ḥalitza, whereas one who suffers his condition by the hand of Heaven does not do so.
הַסָּרִיס שֶׁחָלַץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ לֹא פְּסָלָהּ כּוּ׳. טַעְמָא דִּבְעָלָהּ הוּא, הָא אַחֵר — לָא,
§ It is further taught in the mishna that if a eunuch performed ḥalitza with his yevama, he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, but if he had intercourse with her, he has disqualified her. The Gemara infers from this wording that the reason for her disqualification is that he, the yavam, had intercourse with her, as she had intercourse with her yavam outside the framework of permitted levirate marriage. But if a different individual had relations with her she would not be disqualified.
