Siman 5

The Rambam wrote in the sixteenth chapter of Issurei Biah: A ptzua daka or a kerut shafcha who married a daughter of Israel and had relations—they are lashed, as it is said: "A ptzua daka or a kerut shafcha shall not enter the congregation of Hashem." And they are permitted to marry a female convert or a freed maidservant. Even a kohen who is a ptzua daka is permitted to marry a female convert or a freed maidservant because he is not in his state of sanctity, and even a Netinah or one of the cases of doubt are permitted to him; since a ptzua daka is forbidden from entering the congregation, they did not decree regarding him concerning the Netinim nor concerning the cases of doubt. However, a ptzua daka and a kerut shafcha are forbidden to a certain mamzeret, for she is forbidden by the Torah. Thus far his words.

And behold, that which he wrote that specifically with marriage and intercourse they receive malkot—he follows his reasoning that regarding all those liable for a negative commandment, they do not receive malkot without kiddushin and intercourse, as he wrote in siman 4, section 2, and many disagree with him as he wrote there [the Maggid Mishneh]. And that which they forbade with a mamzeret and permitted with a Netinah—he follows his reasoning that the prohibition of Netinim is not from the Torah, as he wrote there in section 5. And that which he permitted to a kohen who is a petzuah daka a female convert or a freed maidservant—because the sanctity of the priesthood has departed from him, for since the Torah forbade him from entering the congregation, all the more so is he not within the sanctity of the priesthood. And why were they more stringent regarding the negative commandment of a mamzeret than the negative commandment of the priesthood? Because the negative commandment of the priesthood is not equal among all of Israel, only among kohanim, and it is lighter than the negative commandment of a mamzeret which applies to all of Israel. And even though regarding the lineage of the priesthood they made additional stringencies over the lineage of Israel—this is regarding a fit kohen they were more stringent, but not regarding one who is disqualified. And that which they were more stringent regarding the disqualification from the congregation of a petzuah daka than all those disqualified from the congregation who are permitted to a mamzeret—for those disqualified from the congregation due to their family stock are not similar to those disqualified from the congregation due to a blemish in himself, and his family is a complete congregation; and this reasoning is found in the Yerushalmi [Chapter 7 of Yevamot]. And some say that even a kohen who is a petzuah daka is forbidden to a female convert or a freed maidservant just as he is forbidden to a mamzeret, for both are Torah prohibitions, and it was only permitted with a Netinah whose prohibition is not from the Torah. And in truth, in the Yerushalmi there, it compares them to one another [the Ba'al HaMaor Chapter 7 of Yevamot, and he also rules like the first version of Rava there (76a) and the inquiry regarding a kohen who is a petzuah was not resolved; and the Rambam, of blessed memory, even though he also rules like the first version, nevertheless the reason he rules so is because of the sugya there (78b), and in this we do not find that he disagrees with the latter version regarding a kohen who is a petzuah daka, and since according to the latter version of Rava it was certain to him regarding the permission, he ruled so as mentioned above, and look closely].

And some say that just as a kohen who is a petzuah daka is permitted to a female convert and a freedwoman, so too a petzuah daka is permitted to a mamzeret [the Ra'avad and the Rashba and the Tur, who ruled according to the second version of Rava and that the prohibition of Netinim is from the Torah, and so it appears in the Yerushalmi. And the Rambam was not concerned for it, as he holds that this is the second version of Rava, and the anonymous voice of our Shas (78b) is according to the first version, and examine this closely].

However, regarding that which the Rambam permitted him to marry from the doubtful statuses, such as a shetukit or an asufit, there are those who raised a difficulty: since he is forbidden to a mamzeret, then from whichever way you look at it he should be forbidden to a shetukit; for if she is a mamzeret—he is forbidden to her, and if she is of fit status—she is forbidden to him [Sha'ar HaMelekh and Noda BiYehudah]. They were forced to say that when they permitted the doubtful statuses, this is when the doubtful statuses are also not from Israel, but rather a freed bondwoman or the like. But there is no logic at all to say this, for if so, he should have specified. And it appears to me that this which the Rambam forbade him to a mamzeret is not from the Torah. For from the Torah, there is no logic at all to distinguish between a prohibition of the priesthood and a prohibition of the congregation; since the petzuah dakah is not from the congregation and the mamzeret is also not from the congregation, why should they be forbidden to one another? Rather, the sages forbade him to a mamzeret, for so implies explicitly the wording of the Rambam who wrote: "for he is forbidden to a definite mamzeret, as she is forbidden from the Torah." Thus far his words. And if it should enter your mind that he is forbidden from the Torah, what is the meaning of the phrasing "as she is"? Rather, this is what he meant: that he is forbidden to a definite mamzeret because the definite mamzeret is forbidden from the Torah, therefore the sages were stringent regarding her; whereas netinim and the doubtful statuses, whose prohibition is rabbinic, the sages were not stringent regarding them in the matter of a petzuah dakah. And rabbinically, they rightly distinguished between those disqualified from the congregation due to lineage and one whose disqualification is physical, but from the Torah there is no logic to distinguish in this, for ultimately both are disqualified from the congregation. [And even though from all the commentators it appears they understood the Rambam to hold that he is forbidden to a mamzeret from the Torah, nevertheless, it appears to me that the primary view is as I have written, and with this the difficulties of the Chelkat Mechokek subsection 2 and other difficulties are also answered].

One must be in doubt whether a petzua daka is permitted to a shifcha or not. It appears that according to the poskim who hold that her prohibition is from the Torah, as written at the beginning of siman 4 – he is prohibited to her; and according to the Rambam that her prohibition is by rabbinic enactment – he is permitted to her [Beit Shmuel]. However, it is possible to say that according to the poskim that he is permitted to a mamzeret – he is also permitted to a shifcha even though her prohibition is from the Torah, and the law requires further study.

And regarding this, that the Rambam permitted a kohen who is a petzuah daka, some say that he is also permitted in all prohibitions of the priesthood, such as to marry a divorcee, a zonah, or a chalalah, since he has been removed from his sanctity. And even though they are prohibited from marrying him due to the prohibition of his injury, nevertheless, if they are also emancipated slaves who are permitted to him – they were not prohibited to him from the aspect of the priesthood. And some say that he is prohibited in all prohibitions of the priesthood, for only a female convert and an emancipated slave were permitted to him, as they are not like a literal zonah, for in the Gemara there is one who permits them to a complete kohen (Kiddushin 78a), and although we do not rule accordingly, nevertheless their primary prohibition is from the verse in Ezekiel where it is written, "but they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israel for their wives," and their prohibition is not similar to all prohibitions of the priesthood. And there is a practical difference between the two opinions, for according to the first opinion – his status is like a complete non-kohen, and he is permitted to contract tumah from the dead and is prohibited from terumah and consecrated items and does not perform the priestly blessing, and according to the latter opinion – his status is like a blemished kohen, and he is prohibited from contracting tumah from the dead and is permitted in terumah and consecrated items, and so it is implied in the Shas in Bekhorot and in the Rambam in the seventh chapter of Biat Mikdash, where they count petzuah daka and kerut shofkhah among the blemishes, and it is explained there that a blemished kohen is permitted to eat consecrated items. And according to the first opinion, it must be said that there it is dealing with an act of Heaven, for the negative commandment is only when he becomes injured by the hand of man, as will be explained. And that which is written in the Torah, "mruach ashakh," among the blemishes, and it is explicitly stated there, "He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy," it must also be said that it is dealing with an act of Heaven, and furthermore, that this refers to the scrotum as the Rambam wrote there in the eighth chapter and is not included in this.

These terms mentioned in the Torah, "petzuah daka" and "kerut shofkhah"—their matters are three: Petzuah—a term for a wound by a blow of a sword or a knife; and daka—it is a term for crushed, meaning it was crushed by something and a portion of the organ was diminished. And kerut shofkhah—it is a term for cutting, that it was severed, and through the severing something is poured from it; and our sages of blessed memory learned that all of them are in that place, and the pouring is the seed that is poured and does not shoot like an arrow and does not procreate. And the male is disqualified in three organs—in the gid, in the testicles, and in the pathways in which the semen is ripened, and they are those called the cords of the testicles. And once one of these three organs is wounded—or crushed or severed—he is disqualified. And thus our sages of blessed memory said [Yevamot 75b]: Wounded in all of them, crushed in all of them, severed in all of them. Wounded in all of them—whether the gid was wounded, whether the testicles were wounded, or whether the cords of the testicles were wounded; and so too crushed, and so too severed. However, in the gid there are boundaries—a place where he is disqualified and a place where he is not disqualified, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

How so? At the head of the organ there is flesh, and at its connection to the organ it is high and surrounds the organ and is called the atarah. That circumference is not a straight circle; rather, on the upper side of the organ the atarah lengthens toward the body and progressively shortens on its underside until near the head of the organ. That flesh does not have the same law as the rest of the organ, for even if it was entirely severed and there only remained the full thickness of a thread across the majority of the atarah on the side of the body—it is kosher [Tur]. However, if it was severed toward the body and there remained the full thickness of a thread of the atarah across the circumference of the entire organ toward the ground—it is pasul [Rashi]. And let it not be difficult for you—since it was severed above, how could it remain below? For the truth is that it is not necessary for the entire thickness of the limb to be severed, but only the flesh of the atarah. Therefore, you find that above, the flesh surrounding the atarah was severed, while below it remained [it appears to me]. According to this approach, everything depends on the thread that surrounds, which is on the upper side of the atarah that is toward the body. But the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: If it was severed from the top of the atarah and there remained of it even like a hair's breadth surrounding the entire organ—it is kosher. Thus far his words. According to this, there is no concern even when it is severed close to the body if there remains a thread surrounding the entire organ that is not close to the body [Beit Shmuel]. And some say that it must surround the entire organ adjacent to the body [ibid. in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham], and according to this opinion it is explicitly stated in the Tosefta Yevamot chapter 10, see there. And in the Yerushalmi [chapter 8] there is a dispute regarding this, and it implies there that the halacha is like the Rambam, see there. In our Talmud there, there are variant versions, and according to the text before us, it is explained like the first opinion, see there [75b]. And know, that even though regarding milah it is called the atarah from the very head of the limb as is proven in Yoreh Deah siman 264, nevertheless, regarding the matter of a kerut shofkhah there is no concern except for one thread alone, for in this state he is able to procreate [and all that the later authorities stammered about this is well-settled, see Taz and Bach and it is simple]. And according to what has been explained, if it was severed below the atarah, even entirely—it is kosher. And if the atarah was severed according to the opinions that were explained, or if it was severed above the atarah—it is pasul, as the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch wrote, see there.

If it was cut from the gid above the atarah like a quill, in a slant like the cutting of a quill where its point is cut diagonally for writing—it is kosher, because the air does not rule within the gid and the seed is cooked properly [Rashi], and the entire atarah remains, but the flesh was scraped away until the tube of the semen was revealed while the atarah remains [Beit Shmuel]. And if it was cut like a gutter, where the hollow of the gid was removed and the walls remained on both sides with the groove in the middle like a pipe—according to Rashi and the Rosh it is pasul, because the wind enters within the walls and the gid is cooled within it and the seed is not cooked [ibid.]. But according to the Rambam it is kosher, for the gid was not diminished from its thickness and it touches the sides of the womb and is warmed and emits and shoots like an arrow. And like a quill—even though it does not touch the sides of the womb and is not warmed so much, nevertheless, because above it touches the sides of the womb and the air does not rule over it, it certainly shoots like an arrow [it appears to me]. And even according to Rashi and the Rosh, when it is made like a gutter and they cut the flesh from every side and removed the walls of the gutter and made it like a quill—it is kosher [Gemara]. And according to the Rambam, if it was neither like a gutter nor like a quill and they cut into it and made it like a gutter—it is kosher [Beit Yosef].

If the gid was perforated – if it was perforated below the atarah, even if the perforation is through-and-through from one side to the other – it is kosher, for even if it was entirely severed there it is kosher, as I have written. But if the atarah itself was perforated, or above the atarah – it is pasul, because the seed trickles through the perforation and does not shoot like an arrow and does not procreate; therefore, the measure of the perforation is when semen is capable of exiting from it. And if the perforation was closed – it is kosher, for this is a disqualification that returns to its fitness, and they can perform a medical treatment for him so that the perforation is closed. And even after the closing, they must test it, which is to observe at the time he sees a seminal emission whether the closure will break and the seed exits through the perforation – it is pasul, and if the closure is strong such that the flow of the seed does not break it – it is kosher. And some say that when the perforation is large in a manner that it is known that the seed exits from it and it was closed – it does not require an examination to see if the closure will break, and only when the perforation is very small and was closed with any amount and is not discernible – we see if it is so large that when this man sees a seminal emission the perforation expands due to the pressure of the seed that gathers – it is pasul. And likewise, if it was closed due to a medical treatment they performed for him – we do not fear a breaking even in a small perforation. But in one that closed on its own – one certainly must fear in all cases. And it appears to me that one may rely in this upon the words of the physicians when they say that the perforation was closed and will not come apart, for even regarding a prohibition of karet we rely upon them in the case of an expert physician. And all this is regarding the atarah itself, but above the atarah, when it was perforated and closed – we no longer fear the breaking of the closure, because the seed does not push in its gathering except near the perforation of its exit. And some say that above the atarah a closure is not effective, but it does not appear so from all the poskim, and also from the Shas it does not appear so. Thus far his words.

The disqualification of a puncture is when it reaches the cavity of the gid, similar to the punctures of treifot in an animal or a bird, for we require either a puncture from one side to the other or until the cavity of the organ; for when it does not reach the cavity, it is nothing. However, when it reaches the cavity, the puncture interferes with the flow of the seed in the cavity and it drips from the puncture and he does not father children. And some say that specifically in the atarah itself is it disqualified by a puncture until the cavity, but if it was punctured above the atarah it does not disqualify unless the puncture is perforated from one side to the other, for there even if it is like a quill it is kosher, all the more so if it was punctured until the cavity. And some say that there too it is disqualified by a puncture until the cavity, and in practice one should be stringent in this. And see what we will explain further on regarding the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory.

We say in the Shas ibid.: If it was perforated below the atarah such that its opposite side is above the atarah – it is pasul. Rashi explained: If it was perforated below the atarah – at the end of the gid toward the ground, and the perforation goes diagonally and exits opposite it above the atarah toward the body. Thus far his words. And there are some of our teachers who explained that this is found even if it does not go diagonally, but rather according to what was explained in section 5, the circumference of the atarah does not go in a straight circle, but rather on the upper part of the gid the atarah extends toward the body and at its bottom it shortens until near the head of the gid; and according to this it is possible that the perforation is straight, but on the upper part of the gid it is below the atarah and at its bottom it is above the atarah [Tosafot], and there is no practical halachic difference between the two explanations. And the general rule is that since the perforation is perforated through from side to side, even though on one side it is below the atarah, nevertheless since on the second side it is above the atarah – it is pasul, for the seed goes through there. And there are those who are even more stringent, that even if the perforation is not perforated through but only on the upper part of the gid until the cavity and below the atarah, yet since opposite the bottom of the gid it is above the atarah – it is pasul [Mordechai], and this is an excessive stringency and there is no correct reason to disqualify in this, and we do not rule like this opinion [Beit Shmuel]. And the Rambam wrote: If it was perforated below the atarah in a manner that its opposite side is above within the atarah – it is pasul, for any amount of the atarah is an impediment. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Shulchan Aruch, and he follows his reasoning that the circumference of the entire atarah is required [ibid.], and it implies that above the atarah as well, the Rambam agrees with all the poskim that it is pasul, and all this is according to what all the great authorities understood of his words.

But it seems to me from the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory, that above the atarah a perforation does not disqualify at all, since he wrote regarding one that was severed that when the atarah or above the atarah was cut off it is disqualified, yet regarding a perforation he did not mention above the atarah, only the atarah itself; and also in the previous law where they said in the Gemara "above the atarah," he turned to explain "above" as being within the atarah itself. One may conclude from this that he holds that a perforation does not disqualify at all above the atarah. And this is a logical reason, for the disqualification of a perforation is because the seed flows through there, and this matter is understood: that when the seed travels in its heat like the shooting of an arrow, it does not sense in the middle of its travel—when it is in its full strength—a perforation in its side such that it would go through there; rather, when it reaches near its end, which is in the atarah, and needs to exit, it will then exit through a perforation upon encountering it, just as we wrote such a reasoning regarding a blockage at the end of section 10. And there are tangible proofs for this from several incidents brought in the responsa of the great Acharonim that happened to youths when they played with one another: they tied a thread for one around the gid above the atarah and the youth did not sense it, and the gid swelled until the doctors cut the thread and a perforation was found in the gid, and afterwards they married women and fathered sons and testified about themselves that their seed shoots like an arrow and travels in its way as with every man. And the great authorities did not find an opening to permit them according to the law, but according to our words this is not a disqualification at all [see Responsa Shev Yaakov siman 4, and Shevut Yaakov part 3 siman 107, and Chemdat Shlomo siman 45, and Chatam Sofer siman 12. And see Pitchei Teshuvah]. And in all the words of our teachers, the Rishonim, I did not find explicitly that they say the opposite of this, for in the law explained previously, it can be said that the disqualification is not because of the perforation that is above the atarah, but rather since it begins below the atarah and continues until above the atarah—it perforce also passed through the atarah itself. And that which we wrote in section 10 regarding the blockage—the same applies regarding the essence of the perforation [see Rashi (76a) s.v. Heicha etc., "and above the atarah it cannot be established, for there certainly it does not 'mikra' etc.," it should say 'mikri'—meaning that it will not see keri from there because the seed does not push there, see there and examine carefully].

In the Gemara there, a remedy was brought to close the hole: to take a barley grain and scratch around the hole so that blood comes out and it becomes a wound around the hole, and through this it heals; and he should bring a large ant and place its head there, and it bites and its head adheres there, and we cut off its head, and as long as it goes on and wears away, the flesh rises and connects. The poskim did not bring this for the reason that we are not experts in all the remedies in the Shas, and furthermore, no hole is similar to another hole and no flesh to other flesh. However, in the Gemara there it is stated: And these words apply to a small one, but a large one peels away, meaning: after it heals, it returns and peels and is undone [Rashi]. And it was explained in the She'iltot, Parshat Tetze, that these words apply to a minor, but for a grown man—since he sets his mind upon marital relations and it bursts, it does not close; and so wrote the Ba'al HaHalakhot Gedolot. And according to this, it is to be wondered—for if so, that for a large one closing does not avail, why did not one of the poskim mention this? And since they wrote plainly that closing avails, it implies that for every person closing avails. And it appears to me that they explained this "small" and "large" in the Shas as not referring to the person but rather to the hole, meaning that specifically for a small hole does such a closing avail, but not for a large hole, for a large hole requires a better closing; and since the poskim did not write the remedy, they did not need to write this distinction either. And it is possible that even according to the explanation of the She'iltot, only a light closing such as this does not avail for a large one, but a closing better than this avails even for a large one, for the fact that his mind is upon marital relations would not have the power to undo a superior closing; and according to this, it is possible that all the poskim would explain it so. And for the law, it appears that it depends on the understanding of expert physicians, as I have written.

There are two ducts in the penis, through one it emits semen and through one urine, and there is a thin partition between them like a garlic peel [Bekhorot 44b], and if the path through which the semen travels is blocked and the semen travels through the path of the urine – the sages disqualified him. And even though this is not "crushed," "bruised," or "severed," nevertheless it was established by our sages, of blessed memory, that the semen does not ripen when it travels outside of its place and he cannot father children. And there are some of our teachers who hold that if it was perforated he is fit to enter the congregation but only that he cannot father children, and likewise if the path of the semen was blocked he is fit to enter the congregation [see Be'er Sheva at the end of subsection 9] for they hold that a perforation is not included in "severed member," but from the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch it does not imply so, and also the essence of the matter is puzzling – for if so, for what purpose did they mention this in the Gemara, since according to their words he is merely like a typical sterile person? And they answer that what was brought regarding the laws of perforations in the Gemara was to teach that if he stayed with his wife and she gave birth – the child is a mamzer, for it is impossible for him to father children and she committed adultery with another. And the primary proof of the holder of this opinion is from that which is taught in the Sifrei, that a "crushed" person returns and a "severed member" does not return, and in the case of a perforation, it indeed returns to its fitness by means of closing it. And it is not decisive, for this is its explanation: that a "crushed" person returns on his own and a "severed member" does not return on his own, but when they close it, he certainly returns to his fitness. And even if we do not say so, nevertheless what is the connection between them, is fitness and disqualification dependent on this? For behold, the Sifrei itself concludes that this is from the laws of the physicians, and if so, even though a "severed member" does not return, a perforation does return. And furthermore, this is the explanation: that a "crushed" person returns exactly as it was sometimes, and a "severed member" does not return exactly to how it was, but rather they close the perforation or scrape within it until they render him fit.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote: If the testicles or one of them were severed, or if one of them was wounded, or if one of them was crushed, or if it was missing, or if it was perforated – behold, this one is disqualified. Thus far his words. And specifically when it was perforated with a perforated hole. And there are some of our teachers who permit if one testicle was severed, the left one, and the right one remains, and also the severed one was whole before it was removed; but if it was wounded and afterwards removed – it is disqualified, and they have a proof from the Yerushalmi. And most of the poskim hold like the Rambam, and they reject the Yerushalmi as dealing with an act of Heaven which is fit, as will be explained. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that this is the primary view, and I have seen those who are lenient like the latter opinion, but it is good to be concerned regarding a Torah prohibition for the words of those who are stringent, and they are the majority in number and the majority in stature. Thus far his words. And nevertheless, there are some of the great authorities who relied on this opinion if he says that his strength is like a man's and he is able to procreate, and also he does not have the signs of a saris. And the proof for this opinion is strong from what we see from several people from whom the doctors cut one testicle and nevertheless they procreate, and Heaven forbid to say that the wives of all these are committing adultery and attributing it to their husbands. However, according to the words of the Rambam that will be explained, that through illness it is like an act of Heaven, there is no proof from this, for even without this they are fit, and this will be explained before us with the help of Heaven.

If the cords of the testicles or one of them were severed, or if it was crushed or wounded—behold, this one is disqualified. And according to the words of those who are lenient regarding the left testicle, the same law applies if the cord of the left testicle is missing. And if a cord from the cords of the testicles was perforated into the urinary tract, and he emits urine from the urinary tract and from the seminal tract—behold, this one is fit.

Our Sages, of blessed memory, said that regarding all these disqualifications that the Torah disqualified from entering the congregation—this is only when done by the hand of man, but if it occurred by the hand of Heaven, he is fit. And what is called "by the hand of Heaven," the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote, and this is his wording: Every disqualification we mentioned in this matter applies when they were not by the hand of Heaven, such as if a person or a dog severed it, or a thorn struck it, and similar to these things. But if he was born with a severed duct or crushed testicles, or if he was born without testicles, or if he became ill due to his body and these organs ceased to function, or if boils developed in them and dissolved them or severed them—behold, he is fit to enter the congregation, for all these are by the hand of Heaven. Thus far his words. And there are some of our teachers who hold that it is not called "by the hand of Heaven" except through thunder and hail or from his mother's womb, but through illness, it is considered "by the hand of man" and he is disqualified. The Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that this is the implication of the Yerushalmi. Many rule like the Rambam, and the Rambam explains the Yerushalmi such that in this very matter there is a dispute whether through illness it is called "by the hand of Heaven" or "by the hand of man," and he ruled like the one who holds that it is "by the hand of Heaven," and many of the great Acharonim agreed to rule like the Rambam. Not only that, but even if the testicles were ruined through illness and the doctor severed them—it is like "by the hand of Heaven," for since they were dissolved or ceased their function, it is as if they are not there, and the severing is nothing, and so they ruled the law in practice, even though there are those who have doubts about this—nevertheless, the actual practice is the authority. However, one must doubt regarding one who had a stone in the bladder and the doctors cut one testicle or both of them whether this is like "by the hand of Heaven," and it is close to saying that this is called "by the hand of man," since the testicles themselves were not ruined, and so it appears primary. However, if they cut his left testicle—one may rely on the previous opinion that with the left one, even by the hand of man, he is fit. And there are those who are even more lenient to say that according to that opinion, even if the right one was cut he is fit, for this opinion holds that as long as one testicle remains whole and healthy—he is fit. And it requires further study for the law whether one may rely on this opinion—for it is a great leniency, and nevertheless, if such a case occurred, it is difficult to compel him to divorce his wife.

Regarding all the certain disqualifications that have been explained, if he married a woman and she bore children—they are mamzerim, for he is unable to procreate [Beit Shmuel, subsection 3], except that there are those who say that in the case of punctured testicles, they are doubtful mamzerim. And according to the opinion of several poskim, there is no cure for a kerut shofkhah, and even regarding that which has a cure, we do not assume that he was cured unless it is known that he was cured [ibid.]. Nevertheless, it appears to me that if the woman is established as modest and God-fearing, we assume that he was cured. And even regarding a kerut shofkhah, according to what I wrote in section 15, it is possible that he may be cured through medicines, see there, and the matter depends on the assessment of the sages of the place.

In all these disqualifications, if there is a doubt whether he is disqualified or not—for example, where it is impossible to discern if he is wounded or not, and the like—it appears that he is permitted to enter the congregation. For just as we expound regarding a mamzer that a certain one shall not enter, but a doubtful mamzer may enter, so too should we expound regarding a ptzua daka. And the proof for this is that in the Gemara they learned that a ptzua must be by the hand of man from a mamzer [75b]. And even though regarding a mamzer the sages forbade even the doubt, nevertheless, regarding a ptzua we have not found that they forbade him due to the doubt; and a disqualification of lineage is not similar to a disqualification of the body, as I wrote in section 2. Furthermore, here it is superior to a mamzer, for we establish him on the chazaka that he was not born a ptzua daka. And if there is a doubt whether perhaps it is from birth, in any case he is kosher; for if it is from birth, behold this is by the hand of Heaven and he is kosher, and if this thing is not from birth, establish him on the chazaka. However, one must inquire of doctors and experts, and then if to all of them it is a doubt, it is properly called a doubt; for otherwise, a doubt of a lack of knowledge is not called a doubt, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 110 in the rules of sefek sefeka, see there [it appears to me].

It is written: "That which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut, you shall not offer to Hashem; and in your land you shall not do." And the tradition has come that "all that is in your land – you shall not do." That is to say, not only for the sacrifice of the altar did the Torah forbid castration, but regarding every species found in the land that is not offered upon the altar, the Torah warned not to castrate them. For it is impossible to say that this prohibition applies only in the Land of Israel – for it is an obligation of the person and not an obligation of the land, and every obligation of the person applies both in the Land and outside the Land. And since the Torah forbade castrating any species of the species of living creatures – all the more so is it forbidden to castrate the human species. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said [Shabbat 110b]: From where do we know that castration in a human is forbidden? The verse says, "and in your land you shall not do" – read it as "you shall not be done" [Rashi], that is to say, the Tav with a tzeirei and the Ayin with a kamatz, that you yourselves shall not do so. And the reason for this prohibition: for we have already explained in siman 1 that even one who is not commanded in procreation, nevertheless it is the will of Hashem that all created beings shall all be fruitful and multiply abundantly, and anyone who destroys the reproductive organs, whether of man or of domestic animal, wild beast, or bird – violates a negative commandment, for he destroys the intention of the Holy One, Blessed be He, in the creation of His world, which He formed to be inhabited.

Therefore, it is forbidden to destroy the reproductive organs, whether in a human or in a domestic animal, a wild animal, or a bird, whether they are impure or pure, whether in the Land of Israel or outside the Land of Israel, and likewise in all species of creatures in the world—it is forbidden to destroy the reproductive organs, except for damaging pests which it is a mitzvah to kill. And a dog—it is forbidden to castrate. And anyone who castrates—is lashed according to the Torah in every place, and even one who castrates after another has castrated—is lashed. How so? If one came and severed the organ, and another came and severed the testicles or detached them, and another came and severed the cords of the testicles, or if one came and crushed the organ and another came and detached it and another came and severed it—all of them are lashed, even though the last one did not castrate except one who was already castrated, whether in a human or in a domestic animal, a wild animal, or a bird. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, expounded: if for "severed" one is liable, for "detached" is it not all the more so? For "detached" means that it is detached entirely from the scrotum, and "severed" is when they are still in the scrotum and somewhat attached, but rather it is to include one who detaches after one who severs, that he is liable. And likewise, one who was born a eunuch is also forbidden to have his reproductive organs destroyed. And it is the same for a man and for a woman, and likewise in a domestic animal, a wild animal, or a bird, whether in males or in females—it is forbidden to destroy their reproductive organs. Nevertheless, one is not liable for lashes except for the males and not for the females, for just as the males were commanded in the positive mitzvah of procreation and not the females, so too regarding the matter of castration, the males are more stringent than the females. And thus the sages taught in the Torat Kohanim: From where do we know that even females are included in castration? The verse states "for their corruption is in them," see there. And since they were not included in the negative commandment of "you shall not do," therefore there are no lashes for them, but regarding the prohibition they are equal. And there are those from whose words it is implied that in females the prohibition is only rabbinic, and so it appears from the wording of the Rambam, and in Tosafot Makkot chapter 4 it is implied that there are lashes even for females, see there, and it requires further study.

And it is not only forbidden to perform an action upon the reproductive organs, but even to drink a cup of roots through which one will become sterile by means of this drink is forbidden, for behold it is written, "for their corruption is in them"—anything that corrupts the reproductive organs the Torah forbade. Therefore, one who gives a cup of roots to a person or to other animals to drink in order to castrate them—this is forbidden, and even if he drinks for medicinal purposes since through this he will become sterile. And even though an unintended act is permitted, nevertheless, since this is a pesik reisha—it is forbidden, and he should strive for such a medicine from which he will not become sterile, unless there is a matter of pikuach nefesh in this medicine such that it is impossible to heal him with another thing, just as it is permitted for a doctor to cut the testicles for medicine if it is not possible without this [it appears to me]. And in all of this there is no difference whether he has fulfilled the mitzvah of procreation or not.

It is taught in the Tosefta of Yevamot: A man is not permitted to drink a cup of roots so that he will not beget, and a woman is permitted to drink a cup of roots so that she will not give birth. And in the Gemara it is also explained that for medical purposes she is permitted to drink a cup of roots, and so wrote the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, that a woman is permitted to drink a cup of roots in order that she will not give birth; and from their wording it implies that even not for medical purposes she is permitted to do so. However, there are some of the poskim who hold that only for medical purposes or because of the pain of childbirth—such as if she always has difficult labor—is she permitted, and not in any other manner. And so it appears primary for the halacha, and the poskim did not need to mention this, for certainly in any other manner it is forbidden to change the will of the Holy One, Blessed be He. And so too one may not give a male animal a cup of roots to drink. And by means of a gentile when it is needed for medical purposes—it is possible that it is permitted. And know that drinking a cup of roots is not related to the prohibition of "he shall not enter the congregation of Hashem," unlike one who wishes to create a dispute regarding this.

Behold, if one bound a person and incited a dog or other animals against him until they made him a kerut shofkhah, or if he placed him in water or in snow until he nullified his reproductive organs—he does not receive lashes until he castrates with his own hand, for anyone who does not himself touch the reproductive organs does not receive lashes, and it is proper to strike him with makkat mardut. And it is permitted to tie the comb of a rooster even though it will not engage in mating because of this, for this is not a matter of castration; rather, the rooster is saddened by this, that its glory was taken, and it does not engage in mating because of its sadness. Therefore, there is no prohibition in this, and so too anything similar to this, since he does nothing to the reproductive organs. And so too it is permitted to tie the female so that a male will not mount her, but once a male has mounted her—it is forbidden to drive him away, whether with an impure animal or a pure one, and so too with a beast and so too with a bird [it appears to me], and besides this there is in this a prohibition of tza'ar ba'alei chayim.

Just as on Shabbat speaking to star-worshippers is a shevut, so too regarding all prohibitions in the Torah, for anything that is forbidden for an Israelite to do—it is forbidden for him to tell a Cuthean to do on his behalf. Therefore, it is forbidden to tell a Cuthean to castrate his domestic animal, wild animal, or bird, and even those belonging to another Israelite—it is forbidden. However, to sell his animal to a Cuthean so that he may castrate it, according to the opinion of most poskim that Bnei Noach are not commanded regarding castration—it is permitted, just as it is permitted to sell him an animal so that he may eat it without shechitah. However, there are poskim who hold that a Ben Noach is also commanded regarding castration [like Rabbi Chidka, Sanhedrin 56b]. And for the halachah—the primary view is like the opinion of most poskim, and such is the opinion of the Rambam in the ninth chapter of Melachim; nevertheless, there are those who were concerned for this opinion [see Beit Shmuel].

And even according to this opinion, if this gentile buyer does not castrate it himself, but only gives it to another gentile to castrate—it is permitted, for the prohibition according to this opinion is due to "do not place a stumbling block before the blind," and since he does not do it himself but only gives it to another gentile, it is a "stumbling block before a stumbling block," and we are not commanded regarding a "stumbling block before a stumbling block." And even if the second one is his agent—there is no agency for a gentile, as is written in Choshen Mishpat siman 182, unlike the one who says there that a gentile has agency for another gentile; see there. And according to the first opinion, it is also permitted to give an animal to a gentile for half the profit, even though he will certainly castrate it, and we do not say that he is acting for the sake of the Israelite, for since he has a portion, he acts for his own sake and not for the sake of the Israelite, as it is no more stringent than Shabbat, where it is permitted in such a case even though the Israelite benefits from it.

If a Cuthite took the animal of an Israelite without the Israelite's knowledge and castrated it—it is permitted. But if the Israelite performed some artifice in this, that the Cuthite should take it and castrate it—we penalize him so that he may not use it, because the prohibition is evident to all, and he must sell it to another Israelite; and it is even permitted to sell it to his adult son, for they were not so stringent in this. And to his minor son—the Rambam prohibits, for this is like to himself, and the Tur permits; and there is no prohibition of benefit in this, for since the Torah prohibited it for the altar, we learn from this that for a commoner it is permitted. And so too, even if he did not use artifice, but the Cuthite knows him and intended for his benefit—he also may not use it, and he must sell it to another as has been written. And if the Israelite transgressed and castrated, or if he told a Cuthite and he castrated—there is one who says that it becomes for him like a complete prohibition and it is forbidden to eat from it, but it does not appear so from the Shas, and also the poskim who are stringent regarding "it and its offspring" not to eat the second—this is only for that day as has been written in Yoreh Deah siman 16, and also this is merely a stringency and most poskim do not hold so. [And what the Chelkat Mechokek wrote from siman 99 is not relevant to this, for there he increases the permitted over the prohibited and makes from a prohibition a permission].

One must deliberate whether it is permitted to perform a grama for castration, for since regarding castration it is written "you shall not do," and in every place where it is stated "you shall not do" it is the act that is forbidden but a grama is permitted, or perhaps just as they forbade grama on Shabbat because a person is anxious over his property and might come to perform an act, so too regarding castration. And know that in castration there is only the prohibition of castration and not on account of tza'ar ba'alei chayim, for in all the needs of man there is no concern of tza'ar ba'alei chayim; therefore, if one needs something for healing or for another permitted necessity—there is no concern of tza'ar ba'alei chayim. Therefore, it is permitted to pluck feathers from live geese, and nevertheless the world refrains as this is cruelty and it is not fitting for the seed of Abraham to do so, and one who does so testifies to his unfavorable character traits.