Daf Yomi - Yevamos 76 - Highlights

The Mishna had stated: What is a kerus shafchah? Any man whose member was cut off; however, if a hairsbreadth of the corona remained, he is permitted to marry into the congregation.

The Gemora states: Ravina was sitting and he inquired: Must the hairsbreadth which is remaining extend over the entire circumference of the corona or only over a majority of the corona?

Rava Tosfaah said to Ravina: It would be sufficient if it extended over the majority of the corona, provided that it is along the upper side of the corona. (75b)

Rav Huna ruled: If his member is cut (diagonally) like a reed pen, he is not disqualified; if it is cut like a gutter (deep and wide through the center), he is disqualified. The rationale is: In the latter case, the air penetrates (cooling the area, thus preventing the semen from becoming potent), whereas in the former case, it does not.

R. Chisda, however, ruled: If his member is cut like a gutter, he is not disqualified; if it is cut like a reed pen he is disqualified. The rationale is: In the former case, friction may be produced (since the outer walls of the member remain intact, and the sperm is ejaculated into the womb); whereas in the latter case, it cannot.

Rava said: It is reasonable to adopt the view of Rav Huna, for in the latter case, the air penetrates, whereas in the former case, it does not. And in regard to friction, it is similar to the spigot of a barrel (the contact produced by the back part of the member is sufficient for the generation of the heat required for fertilization).

Ravina said to Mereimar: Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: The halacha is that whether it is cut like a reed pen, or like a gutter, he is qualified to marry into the congregation. However, he inquired whether such a cut must be below the corona (it did not cut through the corona) or may even be above it?

It is obvious that the cut may even be above it; for were it to be below the corona, he would be qualified even if the entire member was severed (since we learned that if a hairsbreadth of the corona remained, he is permitted to marry into the congregation). Ravina, however, only desired to test Mereimar.

There was an incident that occurred in the city of Mechasya, and Mar bar Rav Ashi arranged for the corona to be cut into the shape of a reed pen, and then permitted the man to marry into the congregation.

There was an incident in Pumbedisa that a man had his semen duct blocked, and the discharge of the semen made its way through the urinal duct. Rav Bibi the son of Abaye intended to permit the man fit to marry into the congregation. Rav Pappi said: Because you are because you are descendants of short-lived people (Rav Bibi was a descendant of the house of Eli the Kohen Gadol, who were condemned to die young), you say false statements. When the semen passes through its proper duct, it fertilizes, but when not passing through its proper duct, it does not fertilize. (75b – 76a)

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: If his member had a small perforation which was closed up, he is disqualified if the wound would rip opened when semen is emitted, but if it would not rip open, he would be fit to marry into the congregation.

Rava analyzed this ruling: Where was this perforation? If the perforation is below the corona, he should remain fit even if it were completely severed? Rather, he is referring to a case where the perforation occurred in the corona itself.

The Gemora supports Rava’s conclusion: Rav Mari bar Mar said in the name of Mar Ukvah, who said in the name of Shmuel: If his member had a small perforation in the corona itself which was closed up, he is disqualified if the wound would rip opened when semen is emitted, but if it would not rip open, he would be fit to marry into the congregation.

Rava the son of Rabbah sent to Rav Yosef: Will the master instruct us how to ascertain whether the wound will rip opened when semen is emitted? Rav Yosef said to him: We bring warm barley bread and place it upon the man's anus. This will cause him to discharge semen, and the effect can be observed. Abaye asked: Is everybody like our Patriarch Yaakov, concerning whom it is written [Breishis 49:3]: Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might, and my initial vigor. From here we derive that Yaakov never before experienced the emission of semen. (Why then should the elaborate test described be necessary in ordinary cases?)

Rather, Abaye said: We dangle colored clothing of a woman before him (exciting his passions and thus causing a seminal discharge).

Rava asked him: Is everyone like Barzilai the Gileadite (known for his indulgence in carnal gratification – Dovid had invited Barzilai to move to Yerushalayim with him. Barzilai refused, saying that he was old and therefore was not able to taste food and drink. The Gemara states that he lied, because the maidservant of Rebbe, who was ninety-two years old, would taste the food that was cooking to see if it required more seasoning. Barzilai was eighty years old and claimed that he could not taste, and this woman was ninety-two years old and was still able to taste food. Furthermore, Barzilai said that he was old, and this led to his weakened condition, when in reality, Barzilai was steeped in immorality, and excess immorality leads one to become old suddenly.)? The Gemora concludes that it is obvious that the original answer is to be maintained. (76a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: One whose member is punctured is disqualified from marrying into the congregation because his semen drips (and is not ejaculated, therefore it will not fertilize). If the puncture closed up, he is fit to marry into the congregation because he can father a child. This is a disqualification that returns to its original state of qualification.

The Gemora asks: What is the expression of “this is a disqualification” coming to exclude?

The Gemora answers: It excludes the case where a seal of scar tissue was formed on the lungs in consequence of a wound; since such cannot be regarded as a proper effective tissue seal. (It may easily burst. The lungs are, therefore, regarded as wounded, and the animal from which they were taken is unfit for consumption; it is deemed to be a tereifah.) (76a)

The braisa had stated: If the puncture closed up, he is fit to marry into the congregation because he can father a child.

Rav Idi bar Avin sent to Abaye: What can we do to seal the puncture? He replied: We bring a grain of barley and scratch the spot (near the perforation) so that it bleeds (thus producing connective tissue). Fats are rubbed in, and a big ant, procured for the purpose, is allowed to bite in, causing its head to remain in the cavity, thus assisting in the closing up and healing of the wound. It must be a grain of barley, for an iron instrument would cause inflammation. This procedure, furthermore, applies only to a small perforation; the scar tissue will peel off a large one. (76a)

Rabbah bar Rav Huna said: One who urinates from two places is disqualified from marrying into the congregation.

Rava said that the halacha does not follow the opinion of the son or the father. The Gemora explains: The halacha is not in accordance with the son; this is referring to Rabbah’s ruling regarding one who urinates from two places. The halacha is not in accordance with the father; this is referring to the following ruling issued by Rav Huna: Women who practice lewdness with one another are disqualified from the Kehunah. And even according to Rabbi Elozar who rules that an unmarried man who cohabits with an unmarried woman without intending for marriage has rendered her a zonah, this applies only when she has relations with a man. However, when women have relations with each other, this is regarded merely as lewdness. (76a)

The Mishna states: A petzua daka and a kerus shofchah are permitted to marry a convert and a freed slavewoman. They are only prohibited from marrying into the congregation, as it is written [Devarim 30:2]: One who has wounded or crushed testicles or whose member is severed may not enter the Congregation of Hashem. (76a)

They inquired of Rav Sheishes: Is a Kohen, who is a petzua daka permitted to marry a convert or a freed slavewoman? Do we say that he remains with his sanctity and would therefore be prohibited from marrying them, or do we say that he does not remain with his sanctity and would therefore be permitted to marry them?

Rav Sheishes said to them: It was taught in a braisa: A petzua daka is permitted to marry a Nesinah (a descendant of the Gibeonites who deceived Joshua and when their identity was discovered, they were made into hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and the altar; a Jew is prohibited from intermarrying with them). If you will say that a petzua daka retains his sanctity, why don’t we apply here the verse [Devarim 7:3]: You shall not intermarry with them (anyone from the seven Canaanite nations who inhabited Eretz Yisroel before Yehoshua captured it)? This proves that a petzua daka does not retain his sanctity.

Rava objects to the proof: The prohibition against marrying them is not dependent upon one’s sanctity; the prohibition is because of the concern that they will have a son that will worship idols. This prohibition applies only while they are idolaters, but after they convert, they are permitted to marry a Jew. There was a Rabbinic ordinance against marrying the Nesinim even after they converted. The decree was issued only in regards to Jews who could have children; however, concerning a petzua daka, he would be permitted to marry a Nesinah.

The Gemora asks: If so, a mamzer, who can father children, should be prohibited from marrying a Nesinah; yet, we have learned in a Mishna that mamzeirim and nesinim are permitted to marry one another.

Rather, Rava said: The decree was issued only in regards to Jews that are eligible to marry into the congregation, but not to Jews who are disqualified to marry into the congregation (such as a mamzer or petzua daka).

Rava subsequently retracted from his position. He said: That which I previously said (that the prohibition of “You shall not intermarry with them” is only applicable to a non-converted Canaanite, but not to those that converted) is incorrect, for while they are still idolaters, a marriage with them has no validity. The prohibition against intermarriage must be after they converted. (It emerges that if a petzua daka is permitted to marry a Nesinah, it is indicative that he does not retain his sanctity.) (76a)

Rav Yosef asks on Rava from a following verse [Melachim I, 3:1]: And Shlomo made a marriage alliance with Pharaoh, king of Egypt. (It would seem that a Jew can marry an idolater; this is contrary to Rava’s viewpoint.)

The Gemora answers: Shlomo converted her prior to marrying her.

The Gemora asks: Didn’t we learn in a braisa that no converts were accepted in the days of Dovid, nor in the days of Shlomo?

The Gemora answers: The reason that converts weren’t accepted in those days was because they sought conversion to partake in Israel’s prosperity; Pharaoh’s daughter did not need this, and therefore she could be accepted as a convert.

The Gemora persists: How could Shlomo have married her, she was a first-generation Egyptian?

Rav Pappa answers: Shlomo did not actually marry her. He cites verses which indicate that Shlomo clung to them with love, but not with marriage.

The Gemora asks: But the verse explicitly says that he did indeed marry her?

The Gemora answers: On account of his excessive love for her, Scripture regards him as if he had married her. (76a – 76b)

The Mishna states: An Ammonite convert and a Moabite convert are prohibited, and their prohibition is an eternal prohibition. However, their females are permitted immediately. An Egyptian convert and an Edomite convert are prohibited only for three generations, both males and females. Rabbi Shimon permits the females immediately. Rabbi Shimon said: This can be derived by means of a kal vachomer: If in the case where the males are prohibited eternally (an Ammonite convert and a Moabite convert), the females are permitted immediately, in the case where the males are prohibited only for three generations, shouldn’t it stand to reason that the females should be permitted immediately! They said to him: If it is a halacha (a tradition from your teachers), we shall accept, but if you derived it through the kal vachomer, there is a refutation. He said to them: It is not so (there is no refutation), but regardless, I am stating a halacha! (76b)

The Gemora asks: How do we know that a female Ammonite convert and a female Moabite convert are permitted to enter into the congregation?

Rabbi Yochanan said: Scripture states [Shmuel I, 17:55]: And when Shaul saw Dovid go forth against the Philistine, he said to Avner, the captain of the army: “Whose son is this youth, Avner?” And Avner said: “By your life, O King, I do not know.”

The Gemora asks: But did Shaul really not know Dovid? Surely it is written [ibid. 16:21]: And he (Shaul) loved him (Dovid) greatly; and he became his armorbearer!

Perhaps, he was inquiring concerning Dovid’s father. But did he not know his father? Surely it is written [ibid. 17:12]:And the man was an old man in the days of Shaul, and he came with men; and Rav or, other say that Rabbi Abba stated that this referred to the father of David, Yishai, who came in with an army and went out with an army (he was obviously well known since he was chief over six hundred thousand men)!

Rather, this is this that Shaul meant: Go investigate whether Dovid descends from Peretz or from Zerach (the sons of Yehudah). If he descends from Peretz, he will be a king, for a king breaks for himself a way and no one can hinder him. If, however, he descends from Zerach, he would only be an important man.

What did Shaul see in Dovid which compelled him to give instructions that an enquiry be made concerning him?

The Gemora answers: It is because it is written [Shmuel I, 17:38]: And Saul clad David with his apparel. This alludes that Shaul’s clothes fit Dovid perfectly, and about Shaul it is written [ibid. 9:2]: From his shoulders and upward he was taller than any of the people.

Doeg the Edomite then said to Shaul: “Instead of enquiring whether he is fit to be king or not, enquire rather whether he is permitted to enter the congregation or not.” What is the reason that he shouldn’t be permitted to enter into the congregation? It is because he descends from Rus, the Moabite. Avner said to him: “We learned in a braisa: An Ammonite is prohibited, but not a female Ammonite; A Moabite is prohibited, but not a female Moabite.”

Does asked him: “If so, should we say concerning a mamzer that only a mamzer is prohibited, but not a mamzeres?”

Avner responded: “It is written mamzer, which implies any blemish of strangeness.”

Doeg persisted: “If so, should we say concerning an Egyptian that only an Egyptian male is prohibited, but not a female Egyptian?”

Avner replied: “It is different regarding the prohibition against Ammonites and Moabites because the Scriptural text is explicitly stated regarding them [Devarim 23:5]: Because they did not greet you with bread and with water. It is customary for a man to greet travelers with bread and water, but it is not customary for a woman to greet them (the women were, therefore, excluded from the prohibition).”

Doeg asked him: “The men should have greeted the men and the women should have greeted the women?”

Avner remained silent. Thereupon, the King said [Shmuel I, 17:56]: “You inquire whose son this youth is.”

The Gemora analyzes this verse: Elsewhere he calls him a lad, and here he calls him a youth. Why did he change?

It is this that Shaul implied to Avner: “This halacha has become hidden from you; go and ask in the Beis Medrash.”

On enquiry, they told him: “An Ammonite is prohibited, but not a female Ammonite; A Moabite is prohibited, but not a female Moabite.”

Doeg asked them all the questions that he had asked Avner, and they too were silent. Doeg wished to announce that Dovid was prohibited from marrying into the congregation. Immediately, he was interrupted.

Rava relates: Yeser, who was married to Avigayil the daughter of Nachash, girded his sword like an Ishmaelite and said, “Whoever does not accept this halacha, shall be stabbed with this sword. I received a tradition from Shmuel of Ramah: An Ammonite is prohibited, but not a female Ammonite; A Moabite is prohibited, but not a female Moabite.”

The Gemora asks: Why were his words accepted? Didn’t Rabbi Abba say in the name of Rav that if a Torah scholar teaches a new halacha that was unknown to all, if it was reported before an actual incident, he is listened to; but if it was not reported until after the incident, he is not listened to.

The Gemora answers: Here it is different because Shmuel and his Beis Din were still alive.

The Gemora asks: Why are the female Ammonites and Moabites permitted if they should have brought out bread and water to the women?

The Gemora answers: In Bavel, they cited the following verse [Tehillim 45:14]: The very honor of a princess is within. In Eretz Yisroel, they cited the following verse [Breishis 18:9]: And they said to him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” He said: “Behold, she is in the tent.” (76b – 77a)

[END]