יבמות דף עו

ממולאי, אמריתו מילי מוליתא? במקומה — מבשלה, שלא במקומה — לא מבשלה.

from truncated [mimula’ei] people, as Rav Beivai’s family traced their lineage to the house of Eli, all of whose descendants were destined to be short-lived (see I Samuel 2:31), you speak truncated [mulayata] and unsound matters. When the semen passes through its proper place, it fertilizes; but if it does not pass through its proper place, it does not fertilize. Since he cannot father children, he is like one whose testicles have been crushed, and therefore he may not enter into the congregation.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: ניקב ונסתם, כל שאילו נקרי ונקרע — פסול. ואי לאו — כשר. הוי בה רבא: היכא? אילימא למטה מעטרה — אפילו נכרת נמי,

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If a man’s member had been punctured and it later healed and the hole closed up with flesh, in any case where, if he would emit semen, it would tear open again, he is unfit to enter into the congregation; but if not, he is fit. Rava discussed this ruling and raised a question: Where is this perforation? If we say it is below the corona, at the end of the man’s member, why should this perforation render him unfit? Even if the member was entirely severed, he would also be fit. Rather, the hole is in the corona itself, that is, at the point where the corona meets the rest of the member. It was also stated explicitly that this is the case, as Rav Mari bar Mar said that Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: If a man’s member had been punctured in the corona itself, and it later healed and the hole closed up with flesh, in any case where if he would emit semen it would tear open again, he is unfit; but if not, he is fit.

אלא בעטרה עצמה. איתמר נמי, אמר רב מרי בר מר אמר מר עוקבא אמר שמואל: ניקב בעטרה עצמה ונסתם, כל שאילו נקרי ונקרע פסול, ואי לאו — כשר.

שלח ליה רבא בריה דרבה לרב יוסף: ילמדנו רבינו, היכי עבדינן? אמר ליה: מייתינן נהמא חמימא דשערי, ומנחינן ליה אבי פוקרי, ומקרי, וחזינן ליה.

With regard to this issue, Rava, son of Rabba, sent the following question to Rav Yosef: Let our teacher teach us, what should we do to verify whether or not the perforation was adequately closed? Rav Yosef said to him: We bring warm barley bread and place it upon his anus [bei pukrei], and owing to the heat he emits semen, and we observe what happens and see whether or not the perforation remains closed.

אמר אביי: אטו כולי עלמא יעקב אבינו הואי, דכתיב ביה ״כחי וראשית אוני״, שלא ראה קרי מימיו!

Abaye said: Is that to say that everyone is like our Patriarch Jacob, with regard to whom it is written: “Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might and the first fruits of my strength” (Genesis 49:3), implying that Jacob never experienced an emission of semen in all his days, so that his eldest son Reuben was conceived from his first drop of seed, i.e., “the first fruits of my strength.” The implication is that there is certainly no need for such measures in order to bring a man to ejaculate.

אלא, אמר אביי: מעברינן קמיה בגדי צבעונין. אמר רבא: אטו כולי עלמא ברזילי הגלעדי הוא?! אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא.

Rather, Abaye said that a different method is used: We pass before him colorful garments of a woman, and thereby bring him to arousal, so that he will experience an emission. Rava said: Is that to say that everyone is like Barzilai the Gileadite, traditionally known for his licentious character? Not all men are brought to excitement when they merely see such clothes. Rather, the Gemara rejects this proposal and states that it is clear as we initially answered, that we follow the former procedure even though not all men require it.

תנו רבנן: ניקב — פסול, מפני שהוא שותת. נסתם — כשר, מפני שהוא מוליד. וזהו פסול שחוזר להכשירו. ״זהו״ למעוטי מאי?

The Sages taught in a baraita: If a man’s member was punctured, he is unfit to enter into the congregation of Israel because his semen is discharged gently and does not fertilize; if the perforation later closed up with flesh, he is fit, because now he can father children. And this is an instance of one who is unfit who returns to his previous state of fitness. The Gemara asks: What does the word this come to exclude? The Gemara explains that it comes to exclude a case involving an entirely different matter, that of a membrane that formed on the lung of an animal in the wake of a wound, which is not considered a proper membrane, as it is likely to rupture. If a puncture in the lung became covered with such a membrane the animal does not regain its former kosher status.

למעוטי קרום שעלה מחמת מכה בריאה, דאינו קרום.

שלח ליה רב אידי בר אבין לאביי: היכי עבדינן? מייתינן שערתא ומסרטינן ליה, ומייתינן תרבא ושייפינן, ומייתינן שומשנא גמלא ומנכתינן ליה, ופסקינן ליה לרישיה. ודוקא שערתא,

With regard to this issue, Rav Idi bar Avin sent the following question to Abaye: What should we do to expedite the healing of such a perforation? Abaye answered: We bring a sharp-edged grain of barley and lacerate the area around the hole with it. We then bring fat and rub it on the spot, and afterward we bring a large ant [shumshena] and let it bite inside the hole. This leads to bleeding and the formation of a scab, which eventually heals as new flesh grows there. We also cut off the ant’s head so that it should remain in place until the wound is fully healed. The Gemara comments: And this procedure must be done specifically with a grain of barley, but an iron tool would cause inflammation [zareif]. The Gemara adds: And this applies only to a small perforation, but a large one will eventually peel off and reopen.

אבל פרזלא — מזרף זריף. והני מילי קטן, אבל גדול — איקפולי מיקפל.

אמר רבה בר רב הונא: המטיל מים משתי מקומות, פסול. אמר רבא: לית הלכתא לא כברא ולא כאבא, ברא — הא דאמרן. אבא — דאמר רב הונא:

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who passes water from two places, so that he appears to have a hole or some other blemish in his member, is unfit to enter into the congregation of Israel, as is a man with crushed testicles. Rava said: With regard to these matters, the halakha is in accordance neither with the opinion of the son nor with that of the father. The son, this refers to that opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, which we just stated. As for the ruling of the father, this is referring to that which Rav Huna said: Women who rub against one another motivated by sexual desire are unfit to marry into the priesthood, as such conduct renders a woman a zona, whom a priest is prohibited from marrying. It was about this that Rava said that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav Huna’s opinion.

נשים המסוללות זו בזו, פסולות לכהונה.

ואפילו לרבי אלעזר, דאמר: פנוי הבא על הפנויה שלא לשם אישות עשאה זונה — הני מילי איש, אבל אשה פריצותא בעלמא.

And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that an unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the sake of marriage renders her a zona, a woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah, this applies only to intercourse with a man, but lewd behavior with another woman is mere licentiousness that does not render her a zona, and therefore she is still permitted to marry into the priesthood.

מתני׳ פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה מותרין בגיורת ומשוחררת, ואינן אסורין אלא מלבא בקהל, שנאמר: ״לא יבא פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה בקהל ה׳״.

MISHNA: A man with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals and one whose penis has been severed are permitted to marry a female convert or an emancipated maidservant, and they are prohibited only from entering into the congregation and marrying a woman who was born Jewish, as it is stated: “A man wounded with crushed testicles or a severed penis shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2).

גמ׳ בעו מיניה מרב ששת: פצוע דכא כהן מהו, בגיורת ומשוחררת? בקדושתיה קאי ואסיר, או דלמא לאו בקדושתיה קאי ושרי?

GEMARA: They raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is the halakha governing a priest with crushed testicles with respect to a female convert or an emancipated maidservant? The Gemara clarifies the two sides of this dilemma: Does he retain his state of sanctity like any other priest and is therefore prohibited from marrying either one of these women, or perhaps he does not retain his state of sanctity and therefore is permitted to marry a convert, like an ordinary Israelite with crushed testicles?

אמר להו רב ששת, תניתוה: פצוע דכא ישראל — מותר בנתינה. ואי סלקא דעתך בקדושתיה קאי, אקרי כאן ״לא תתחתן בם״.

Rav Sheshet said to them: You already learned the answer to this question in the following baraita: It is permitted for an ordinary Israelite with crushed testicles to marry a Gibeonite woman. Now, if it enters your mind that he retains his sanctity as a Jew, one should apply here the prohibition stated with regard to Canaanites: “You shall not marry them” (Deuteronomy 7:3). Apparently, then, one whose testicles have been crushed loses his former sanctity, and the same should apply to a priest.

אמר רבא: אטו התם משום קדושה ולאו קדושה הוא? דלמא מוליד בן, ואזיל פלח לעבודה זרה. והני מילי — בגויותן, כי מגיירי (בישראל) [מישרא] שרו,

Rava said: This is no proof, as is that to say that the prohibition there against marrying Canaanites is due to sanctity or lack of sanctity? Rather, the reason for the prohibition is that perhaps one will father a child from his Canaanite wife and that child will later go off and engage in idolatrous worship. Now, this concern applies only when they are still gentiles, but when they convert, as did the Gibeonites, they are permitted to Jews. And it is the Sages who decreed that Gibeonites are forbidden like mamzerim even after their conversion. And when the Sages decreed that one may not marry them, the decree was limited to those who are capable of having children, but with regard to this one, a man with crushed testicles who is incapable of having children, the Sages did not issue a decree.

ורבנן הוא דגזרו בהו. וכי גזרו בהו רבנן — בהנך דבני אולודי, אבל האי דלאו בר אולודי — לא גזרו ביה רבנן.

אלא מעתה, ממזר, דבר אולודי, הכי נמי דאסיר? והא תנן: ממזרים ונתינים מותרים לבא זה בזה! אלא: כי גזור רבנן — בכשרים. בפסולים לא גזור רבנן.

The Gemara raises an objection against Rava: However, if that is so, then with regard to a mamzer, who is capable of having children, so too one would say that he is prohibited from marrying a Gibeonite. But didn’t we learn otherwise in a mishna (Kiddushin 69a): Mamzerim and Gibeonites are permitted to marry one another. Rather, retract this explanation and replace it with the following: When the Sages decreed that one may not marry a Gibeonite, they limited their decree to those who are fit, so as to prevent them from mingling with Gibeonites; but with regard to those who are unfit to enter into the congregation, the Sages did not issue a decree.

הדר אמר רבא: לאו מילתא היא, בגויותן — לית להו חתנות, נתגיירו — אית להו חתנות.

Rava then reconsidered and said that what he had previously argued, that the prohibition against marrying them applies only when they are gentiles, is not correct. The prohibition cannot be referring to gentiles, as when they are gentiles there can be no valid marriage with them at all. It is only after they have converted that there can be valid marriage with them, and therefore the prohibition against entering into marriage with them applies. Nevertheless, it is permitted for a man with crushed testicles to marry a Gibeonite woman.

מתיב רב יוסף: ״ויתחתן שלמה את בת פרעה מלך מצרים״! גייורי גיירה. והא לא קבלו גרים לא בימי דוד ולא בימי שלמה!

Rav Yosef raised an objection from the verse that states: “And Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh, king of Egypt” (I Kings 3:1), which indicates that there can, in fact, be valid marriage even with gentiles. The Gemara answers: Before Solomon took Pharaoh’s daughter as his wife, he converted her. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it so that they did not accept converts, neither in the days of David nor in the days of Solomon? The Gemara answers: But isn’t the reason that they did not accept converts during those periods only due to concern that the converts were not acting for the sake of Heaven but in fact desired the power of the table of kings, David and Solomon?

מידי הוא טעמא — אלא לשולחן מלכים,

הא לא צריכא ליה.

But this one, Pharaoh’s daughter, did not require such things, as she herself was the daughter of royalty, and therefore there would have been no reason to doubt the sincerity of her conversion.

[ותיפוק ליה] דהא מצרית ראשונה היא! וכי תימא: הנך אזלי לעלמא והני אחריני נינהו,

The Gemara asks: But let him derive that Pharaoh’s daughter was forbidden to Solomon for a different reason, as she was a first-generation Egyptian convert. Even if she converted, she would still have been an Egyptian convert of the first generation, and as such neither she nor her children would have been permitted to marry a Jew by birth (Deuteronomy 23:8–9). And if you would say that those whom the Torah rendered forbidden have already left Egypt and are now living elsewhere in the world, and those currently living in Egypt are others, there is a difficulty.

והא תניא, אמר רבי יהודה: מנימין גר מצרי היה לי חבר מתלמידי רבי עקיבא, אמר: אני מצרי ראשון, ונשאתי מצרית ראשונה. אשיא לבני מצרית שניה כדי שיהא בן

As, isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: Minyamin, an Egyptian convert, was a friend of mine from among the students of Rabbi Akiva, and he said: After I converted I was a first-generation Egyptian convert, and so I married another first-generation Egyptian convert. I will marry off my son, who is a second-generation Egyptian convert, to another second-generation Egyptian convert, so that my grandson will be fit to enter into the congregation. This indicates that first- and second-generation converts of Egyptian extraction were prohibited from entering into the congregation even during the period of the Mishna.

בני ראוי לבא בקהל!

אמר רב פפא: אנן משלמה ליקו ונתיב? שלמה לא נסיב מידי, דכתיב ביה: ״מן הגוים אשר אמר ה׳ אל בני ישראל לא תבואו בהם והם לא יבואו

Rav Pappa said: Shall we stand up and raise an objection from Solomon? Solomon did not marry anyone, as it is written in his regard: “Of the nations concerning which the Lord said to the children of Israel, You shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you; for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods; Solomon cleaved to these in love” (I Kings 11:2). Solomon cleaved to these women in love, but was not legally married to them. As Solomon had other forbidden wives, the case of Pharaoh’s daughter presents no special difficulty. In fact, none of these marriages were valid at all. But the phrase “and Solomon married” (I Kings 3:1) that appears in connection with Pharaoh’s daughter is difficult, as it indicates that this marriage was in fact valid.

בכם אכן יטו את לבבכם אחרי אלהיהם, בהם דבק שלמה לאהבה״. אלא קשיא ״ויתחתן״!

מתוך אהבה יתירה שאהבה, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו נתחתן בה.

The Gemara answers: Due to the extraordinary love that he had for her, the verse relates to him as if he had married her through a legally valid marriage, even though this was not the case.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי, והא אנן תנן: פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה מותרים בגיורת ומשוחררת. הא בנתינה — אסירי!

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that a man with crushed testicles and one whose penis has been severed are permitted to marry a female convert and an emancipated maidservant? That indicates that it is only these women whom they are permitted to marry, but they are prohibited from marrying a Gibeonite woman. This appears to contradict the baraita that permits a man with crushed testicles to marry a Gibeonite.

אמר ליה: וליטעמיך, אימא סיפא: ואינן אסורין אלא מלבא בקהל. הא בנתינה שרו! אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה.

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: And according to your line of reasoning, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: And they are prohibited only from entering into the congregation, and infer just the opposite, that it is only a woman who was born Jewish whom they are prohibited from marrying, but they are permitted to marry a Gibeonite woman, as she is not part of the congregation of the Lord. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna, as the possible inferences are contradictory, and one must therefore rely on the halakha that was expressly taught.

מתני׳ עמוני ומואבי — אסורים, ואיסורן איסור עולם. אבל נקבותיהם — מותרות מיד.

MISHNA: Ammonite and Moabite converts are prohibited from entering into the congregation and marrying a woman who was born Jewish, and their prohibition is eternal, for all generations. However, their female counterparts, even the convert herself, are permitted immediately.

מצרי ואדומי אינם אסורים אלא עד שלשה דורות, אחד זכרים ואחד נקבות. רבי שמעון מתיר את הנקבות מיד. אמר רבי שמעון, קל וחומר הדברים:

Egyptian and Edomite converts are prohibited from entering into the congregation only for three generations, both males and females. Rabbi Shimon renders permitted Egyptian and Edomite females immediately. Rabbi Shimon said: The matter may be derived by way of an a fortiori inference: If in a place where the Torah rendered prohibited the males with an eternal prohibition, i.e., Ammonites and Moabites, it rendered permitted the females immediately, then in a place where it rendered prohibited the males for only three generations, i.e., Egyptians and Edomites, is it not right that we should render permitted the females immediately?

ומה אם במקום שאסר את הזכרים איסור עולם — התיר את הנקבות מיד, מקום שלא אסר את הזכרים אלא עד

שלשה דורות — אינו דין שנתיר את הנקבות מיד?

אמרו לו: אם הלכה — נקבל, ואם לדין — יש תשובה. אמר להם: לא כי, הלכה אני אומר.

Rabbi Shimon’s colleagues said to him: If you are reporting a halakha that you received from your teachers, we will accept it from you. But if you merely wish to prove your case with an a fortiori inference based on your own reasoning, there is a refutation of your argument. Rabbi Shimon said to them: That is not so. I disagree with your claim that the a fortiori inference can be refuted, but in any case I am stating a halakha handed down to me by my teachers.

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי? אמר רבי יוחנן, דאמר קרא: ״וכראות שאול את דוד יוצא לקראת הפלשתי אמר אל אבנר שר הצבא בן מי

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived that female Ammonites and Moabites are permitted immediately? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: As the verse states: “And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the captain of the host: Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said: As your soul lives, O king, I cannot tell” (I Samuel 17:55). This verse is puzzling: Did Saul really not recognize him? But isn’t it previously written: “And David came to Saul, and stood before him; and he loved him greatly; and he became his armor-bearer” (I Samuel 16:21)? Rather, it must be that he was asking about David’s father.

זה הנער אבנר ויאמר אבנר חי נפשך המלך אם ידעתי״. ולא ידע ליה? והכתיב: ״ויאהבהו מאד ויהי לו נושא כלים״! אלא אאבוה קא משאיל.

ואביו לא ידע ליה? והכתיב: ״והאיש בימי שאול זקן בא באנשים״, ואמר רב, ואיתימא רבי אבא: זה ישי אבי דוד, שנכנס באוכלוסא ויצא באוכלוסא!

The Gemara is still puzzled by this verse: And did Saul not recognize David’s father? But isn’t it written with regard to Jesse, David’s father: “And the man in the days of Saul was old, and came among men” (I Samuel 17:12), and Rav, and some say Rabbi Abba, said: This is referring to Jesse, father of David, who always entered with multitudes [ukhlusa] and left with multitudes. As he was clearly a man of importance, everyone must have known who he was.

הכי קאמר שאול: אי מפרץ אתי, אי מזרח אתי? אי מפרץ אתי — מלכא הוי, שהמלך פורץ לעשות דרך ואין ממחין בידו.

Rather, this is what Saul was saying, in his attempt to clarify David’s lineage: Does he come from the descendants of Perez, or does he come from the descendants of Zerah? What is the significance of this question? If he comes from Perez he will be king, as a king may breach [poretz] a way for himself and no one can stop him. And if he comes from Zerah he will be merely a man of importance, but not a king.

אי מזרח אתי — חשיבא בעלמא הוי.

מאי טעמא אמר ליה שאל עליה, דכתיב: ״וילבש שאול את דוד מדיו״, כמדתו. וכתיב ביה בשאול: ״משכמו ומעלה גבוה מכל העם״. אמר ליה דואג האדומי:

The Gemara continues with its explanation: For what reason did Saul say to Abner that he should inquire about David? As it is written: “And Saul clad David with his apparel [maddav]” (I Samuel 17:38), which indicates that the clothes were of David’s size [kemiddato]. And it is written with regard to Saul: “From his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people” (I Samuel 9:2). Upon seeing that his clothes fit David, Saul began to fear that it might be David who was destined for the throne, and he therefore inquired into his background. At that point, Doeg the Edomite said to Saul: Before you inquire as to whether or not he is fit for kingship, inquire as to whether or not he is even fit to enter into the congregation. What is the reason for such doubts? It is that he descends from Ruth the Moabite, and Moabites are permanently barred from entering the congregation.

עד שאתה משאיל עליו אם הגון הוא למלכות אם לאו, שאל עליו אם ראוי לבא בקהל אם לאו. מאי טעמא? דקאתי מרות המואביה.

אמר ליה אבנר, תנינא: ״עמוני״, ולא עמונית. ״מואבי״, ולא מואבית. אלא מעתה: ״ממזר״, ולא ממזרת? ״ממזר״ כתיב — מום זר.

Abner said to him: We already learned that there is no room for such concern. As the verse states: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:4), teaching that an Ammonite man is barred from entering into the congregation, but not an Ammonite woman; and similarly, a Moabite man is barred from entering into the congregation, but not a Moabite woman. Doeg said to him: However, if that is so, say that the verse that renders it prohibited for a mamzer to enter the congregation renders prohibited only a male mamzer, but not a female mamzer. Abner replied: It is written: “A mamzer,” which should be understood not as a noun but as an adjective, denoting a strange blemish [mum zar], one who is defective due to a forbidden relationship, and this applies to males and females alike.

״מצרי״, ולא מצרית! שאני הכא, דמפרש טעמא דקרא: ״על אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים״ — דרכו של איש לקדם, ולא דרכה של אשה לקדם.

Doeg retorted: If so, say that it is prohibited for only an Egyptian man to enter into the congregation, but not an Egyptian woman. Abner answered: Here it is different, as the reason for the prohibition recorded in this verse with regard to Ammonites is explicit: “Because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came forth out of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 23:5). Since it is the way of a man to go forth to meet guests but it is not the way of a woman to go forth, females were not included in this prohibition. Doeg countered: Still, the men should have gone forth to meet the men, and the women to meet the women. Abner was silent, as he did not know how to respond to this objection.

היה להם לקדם אנשים לקראת אנשים ונשים לקראת נשים! אישתיק.

מיד: ״ויאמר המלך שאל אתה בן מי זה העלם״. התם קרי ליה ״נער״, הכא קרי ליה ״עלם״? הכי קא אמר ליה:

Immediately: “And the king said, inquire you whose son is this lad” (I Samuel 17:56). The Gemara comments: There, in the previous verse, Saul calls him youth [na’ar], and here he calls him lad [elem]. This change in the wording hints at the following discussion. Saul said to Doeg as follows: The halakha is hidden [nitalma] from you, and you are ignorant of the law. Go and inquire about the matter in the study hall. He went to the study hall and asked. They said to him: The halakha is: An Ammonite man is forbidden, but not an Ammonite woman; a Moabite man is forbidden, but not a Moabite woman.

הלכה נתעלמה ממך — צא ושאל בבית המדרש. שאל, אמרו ליה: ״עמוני״, ולא עמונית. ״מואבי״, ולא מואבית.