Yevamot

frail beings you speak frail words;  through its proper duct it fertilizes but when not passing through its proper duct it does not fertilize.' Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: If it had a small perforation which was closed up, the man is deemed to be unfit if the wound re-opens when semen is emitted, but if it does not re-open the man is regarded as fit. In respect of this ruling Raba raised the question: Where? If the perforation is below the corona,  [the man should remain fit] even if it were cut off! — It means, in the corona itself. So it was also stated elsewhere: R. Mari b. Mar said in the name of Mar Ukba in the name of Samuel: If a hole that has been made in the corona itself is closed, the man is disqualified if it re-opens when semen is emitted; but if it does not [re-open the man is deemed to be] fit. Raba the son of Rabbah sent to R. Joseph: Will our Master instruct us how to proceed.  The other replied: Warm barley bread is procured, and placed upon the man's anus. Thereby the flow of semen sets in, and the effect can be observed. Said Abaye: Is everybody like our father Jacob concerning whom it is written, My might, and the first-fruits of my strength,  because he never before experienced the emission of semen!  — No, said Abaye, coloured garments  are dangled before him.  Said Raba: Is everybody then like Barzillai the Gileadite!  — In fact it is obvious that the original answer is to be maintained. Our Rabbis taught: If it  was punctured [the man is regarded as] unfit, because the flow is sluggish.  If it was closed up [he is deemed to be] fit, because he is then capable of production. And this is a case where the unfit may return to his former state of fitness. What does the expression 'this' exclude? — It excludes the case where a membrane was formed on the lungs in consequence of a wound; since such cannot be regarded as a proper membrane. R. Idi b. Abin sent the following question to Abaye: How are we to proceed?  — A grain of barley is to be procured wherewith the spot  is lacerated.  Tallow is rubbed in, and a big ant, procured for the purpose, is allowed to bite in, and its head is severed.  It must be a grain of barley; an iron instrument would cause inflammation. This procedure, furthermore, applies only to a small perforation; a large one would peel off. Rabbah son of R. Huna stated: A man who urinates at two points is an unfit person. Said Raba: The law is in agreement neither with the view of the son nor with that of the father. As to the son, there is the statement just mentioned. As to the father? — Since R. Huna said: Women who practise lewdness with one another are disqualified from marrying a priest.  And even according to R. Eleazar, who stated that an unmarried man who cohabited with an unmarried woman with no matrimonial intention renders her thereby a harlot, this disqualification ensues only in the case of a man;  but when it is that of a woman  the action is regarded as mere obscenity. MISHNAH. A MAN WHO IS WOUNDED IN HIS STONES, AND ONE WHOSE MEMBRUM IS CUT OFF, ARE PERMITTED TO MARRY A PROSELYTE OR AN EMANCIPATED SLAVE. THEY ARE ONLY FORBIDDEN TO ENTER INTO THE ASSEMBLY,  AS IT IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE, HE THAT IS WOUNDED IN HIS STONES OR HATH HIS PRIVY MEMBRUM CUT OFF SHALL NOT ENTER INTO THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LORD. GEMARA. R. Shesheth was asked: May a priest who is wounded in his stones marry a proselyte or an emancipated slave;  does he  remain in his state of holiness and is consequently forbidden  or does he not remain in his state of holiness and is consequently permitted?  — R. Shesheth replied: You have learned this [law in the following]. 'An Israelite who is wounded in his stones is permitted to marry a nethinah'.  Now, were it to be assumed that he  retains his holiness, the text, Neither shalt thou make marriages with them  should be applicable here.  Said Raba: Is the law there  due at all to sanctity or non-sanctity? [It is merely due to] the possibility that he  might beget a child who  would proceed to worship idols. This, then, is applicable only when they  are still idol worshippers. When, however, they are converted, they are undoubtedly permitted,  and it was only the Rabbis who placed them  under a prohibition as a preventive measure.  But such a preventive measure was instituted by the Rabbis in respect of those only who are capable of procreation, not in respect of those who are incapable of procreation. Now, then,  a bastard also, since he is capable of procreation,  should also be forbidden,  while in fact, we have learned, 'Bastards and nethinim may intermarry with one another'!  — In fact [this is the explanation:] the Rabbis instituted a preventive measure only in the case of the fit but not in that of the unfit. Subsequently Raba stated: What I said  is of no consequence. For while they are still idolaters their marriages are invalid; only when they are converted are their marriages valid. R. Joseph raised an objection: And Solomon became allied to Pharaoh King of Egypt by marriage, and took Pharaoh's daughter!  — He caused her to be converted. But, surely, no proselytes were accepted either in the days of David or in the days of Solomon!  — Was there any reason for it  but [that the motive of the proselytes might be the benefits] of the royal table?