1. A man with maimed testicles or a severed member who married a native-born Jewess and engaged in sexual relations¹As explained in Chapter 15, Halachah 2, all of the prohibitions against sexual relations that involve the violation of a negative commandment alone involve a situation where the woman has been consecrated. As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, there are other authorities who differ with the Rambam on this matter. is punished by lashes, as [Deuteronomy 23:2] states: "A person with maimed testicles or a severed member may not enter the congregation of God."

Such a man may marry a female convert or a freed maid-servant. Even a priest with maimed testicles may marry a female convert or a freed maid-servant, because the holiness [of the priesthood] does not rest upon him. He is permitted to marry even a female netin²See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23. or a woman whose status is in doubt.

2. Since a man with a maimed organ is forbidden to marry among the Jewish people, [our Sages] did not decree against his marrying a female netin or a woman whose status is in doubt.³To anyone other than a halachic authority, the Rambam's ruling appears problematic: A woman whose status is in doubt is either a female mamzer or an acceptable native-born Jewess. In either case, this man would be forbidden to marry her. Why then is he permitted when her status is not clarified?

Halachically, however, Kiddushin 73a interprets the phrase "He shall not enter God's congregation," as forbidding one from marrying only a person whose lineage is definite. The Rambam maintains that even the Sages did not enforce a decree in this instance. (See Beit Shmuel 5:2.) A man with maimed testicles or a severed member is, however, forbidden to [marry] a female mamzer⁴The Rambam's position is that although having a maimed organ disqualifies a priest from the holiness of the priesthood, it does not disqualify an Israelite from the holiness with which he is endowed. The Ra'avad differs with this ruling and states that a man with a maimed organ may marry a female mamzer. The Maggid Mishneh mentions other authorities who follow both of these views. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:1) follows the position of the Rambam, while the Rama mentions the other view. whose status is definite, because this prohibition is of Scriptural origin.

3. What is meant by maimed testicles? Anyone whose testicles have been wounded. What is meant by a severed member? Anyone whose shaft has been cut off.

There are three organs to which wounds can disqualify a male: the shaft, the testicles, and the tract in which the semen develops. If one of these three was wounded or crushed, the man is disqualifed.⁵In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yevamot 8:2), the Rambam states that any difficulty which renders a man sterile according to medical knowledge disqualifies him from marriage.

4. What is implied? If the shaft is wounded, crushed, or cut off from the corona or above the corona,⁶I.e., any portion of the shaft between the corona and the body that is cut off disqualifies the person. he is disqualified. If a portion at the top of the corona is cut off, but even a hairsbreadth [of the corona] remains which surrounds the entire shaft, he is acceptable. If the shaft was cut like a pen is sharpened or like a funnel above the corona,⁷I.e., any portion of the shaft between the corona and the body that is cut off disqualifies the person. he is acceptable.⁸Rashi (Yevamot 75b) differs and disqualifies such a person. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:3) quotes both views without stating which should be followed.

5. If the shaft is perforated below the corona, he is acceptable. [The following rules apply if] the corona itself is perforated. If when the person ejaculates, semen emerges from the hole, he is unacceptable. If the hole becomes closed, he returns to acceptable status. If the shaft is perforated below the corona when the portion above is in the midst of corona, he is disqualified. For the entire corona must be intact [for the person to be acceptable].

6. If the seminal tract becomes obstructed and the semen emerges from the urinary tract, he is unacceptable.

7. If both or one of the testicles⁹The Rama (Even HaEzer 5:7) states that there are authorities who do not disqualify a person if one testicle is intact. He states, however, that since a Scriptural prohibition is involved, it is preferable to follow the more stringent view. were severed, wounded, or crushed or one was lacking or pierced by a hole, he is unacceptable. If both or one of the seminal tracts are severed, crushed, or wounded, he is unacceptable.

8. If one of the seminal tracts was perforated into the urinary tract and the person urinates from two sources - the seminal tract and the urinary tract - he is acceptable.¹⁰For this difficulty will not prevent him from conceiving a child.

9. Whenever we have used the term "unacceptable" in this context, the implication is that [the malady] was not caused by the hand of heaven, e.g., [his testicles] were severed by a man or a dog, he was struck by a sharp end, or the like. If, however, he was born with maimed testicles or a severed member, or without testicles, he became ill because of a bodily ailment and these organs ceased to function, or an ulcer arose in them that caused them to waste away or be severed,¹¹Rabbenu Asher differs with regard to the latter two instances and does not consider illness and the like as "by the hand of heaven." Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:10) quotes both views without stating which one should be followed. [See also Rav Kappach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Yevamot 8:2) which discuss whether or not this ruling involved a change of mind for the Rambam.] he is permitted to marry among the Jewish people. For all of these blemishes are caused by the hand of heaven.

10. It is forbidden to destroy a male's reproductive organs. This applies to humans and also to animals, beasts, and fowl, both from a kosher species and from a non-kosher species, in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora. Although [Leviticus 22:24] states: "And you shall not do this in your land,"¹²Which could be understood as implying that the prohibition applies only in Eretz Yisrael. According to the Oral Tradition,¹³Sifra to the above verse. we learned that this [prohibition] is applicable in every place. The verse teaches that one should not act in this manner among the Jewish people, not with their own bodies, nor with the bodies of others.

Whoever castrates [a person or an animal] should be lashed¹⁴The punishment given for the violation of a Scriptural commandment. according to Scriptural Law everywhere. Even a person who castrates a person who has been castrated should be lashed.

11. What is implied? One came and severed a person's member, another cut off or pulled away his testicles and a third cut his seminal tract; all receive lashes. Similarly, if one crushed a person's member, another pulled it away, and a third cut it off, all receive lashes. [This applies] although the last person castrated a person - or an animal, beast, or fowl - who had already been castrated.

A person who castrates a female - whether a human or other species - is not liable.¹⁵The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:11 interpret the Rambam's statements as meaning that although there is a prohibition against doing so, lashes are not given.

12. It is forbidden to have a man or a male of another species drink a potion that causes him to lose his sexual potency. Lashes are not given, however. A woman is permitted to drink a potion to cause her to lose her sexual potency so that she will not conceive.¹⁶This ruling serves as the basis for contemporary Rabbis to permit women to take oral contraceptives.

If a person bound a man and set a dog or other animal upon him until his sexual organs were maimed or he made him sit in water or snow until his sexual organs lost their potency, he is not given lashes unless he castrates him by hand. It is, however, fitting to subject him to stripes for rebellious conduct.¹⁷The punishment given for violating a Rabbinic commandment.

13. It is forbidden to tell a gentile to castrate one of our animals. If the gentile took the animal and castrated it on his own initiative, it is permitted.¹⁸As long as the gentile acted on his own initiative, the Jew is not obligated to suffer a loss. If a Jew acts deceitfully in this context,¹⁹I.e., encouraging a gentile to castrate the animal without actually telling him to do so. he should be punished and required to sell the animal to another Jew. He may [sell it] to his son who is past majority, but not to his son who is below majority, nor may he give it to him.²⁰For a son below majority is not considered as having an independent financial domain. See the Rama (Even HaEzer 5:14) who mentions more particulars concerning this issue.