Returning to your place…

רRambam, Clearly
Aa
Hilchos Issurei Biah · Perek 16Issurei Biah · Ch. 16
13 left0% read13 halachos left

·

Reproductive Injury, Marriage, and the Prohibition of Castration

This chapter distinguishes reproductive injuries that restrict marriage from conditions that arise naturally. It then turns to the separate prohibition of causing reproductive damage, including the differences between direct and indirect acts and between prohibition and punishment. These sensitive laws are presented for learning, not for determining an individual’s medical treatment or personal status.

פרק טז13 halachosWednesday, November 4, 2026כ״ד במרחשון תשפ״ז◷ Estimated study time: 45–60 min

אTap any Hebrew word to see its meaning and how it works in the phrase.

Chapter progress 0 of 13 completed🔎 0 learned in depth
Halachah 10% through
הלכה א

Whom May a Man With These Injuries Marry?

A man with damaged testicles or a severed reproductive organ

-

who marries a woman of native Jewish lineage and has relations with her receives lashes.

These are technical legal categories of reproductive injury, defined below. The marriage restriction does not describe a person’s worth. As in Chapter 15, Halachah 2, the makes marriage together with relations the basis for these lashes; other authorities disagree about requiring for these lashes. Halachah 9 will distinguish an external injury from a condition arising naturally.

For it says: “A man with damaged testicles

or a severed reproductive organ shall not enter ’s congregation” ( 23:2).

“Entering the congregation” here concerns whom he may marry. It does not mean that he ceases to be Jewish or is excluded from communal Jewish life.

They may marry a female convert or a freed maidservant.

-

Even a with damaged testicles

may marry a female convert or a freed maidservant,

because he does not retain his priestly sanctity.

The usual priestly marriage restriction does not apply to him in this situation. This does not mean that every other marriage prohibition disappears; the next expressly retains a restriction.

Even a or a woman of one of the doubtful-lineage categories is permitted to him.

The are the group discussed in Chapter 12, Halachos 22–23. The following explains why these Rabbinic lineage restrictions were not imposed here.

Synopsis

A man in these injury categories may not marry and have relations with a woman of native Jewish lineage, but may marry a convert or freed maidservant. The stated permission also includes a and doubtful-lineage cases, not every prohibited marriage.

הלכה ב

Rabbinic Restrictions and a Definite Prohibition

Since a man with damaged testicles may not enter the congregation,

the Sages did not impose on him their restrictions concerning or doubtful-lineage cases.

Why permit a woman whose lineage is doubtful? If she is a , the forbids him to marry her; if she has ordinary native Jewish lineage, he is also forbidden to marry her. The answer is that these lineage laws distinguish definite status from doubtful status. The additional restriction on doubtful lineage is Rabbinic, and the Sages did not apply it to this man. This is a specific rule of these lineage laws, not a general permission to disregard uncertainty.

However, a man with damaged testicles or a severed reproductive organ

may not marry a woman who is definitely a ,

because her prohibition is from the .

According to the , losing the priestly marriage restriction does not remove the Israelite status relevant to this prohibition. A definite prohibition therefore remains in force.

Synopsis

The Sages did not impose their and doubtful-lineage restrictions in this case, but the retains the prohibition of marrying a definite .

🔎Dig DeeperRabbinic Restrictions and a Definite Prohibition

Rabbinic Restrictions and a Definite Prohibition

Why Does One Permission Not Remove Every Restriction?

The explains that the does not treat every marriage restriction as one indivisible status. The special permission for an injured to marry a convert does not automatically remove the prohibition against a definite . The expressly permits a convert; the Rambam does not extend that permission further.

The disagrees. He argues that a is not included in the congregation from which this man is excluded, and that the ’s permission supports extending the exception. follows the Rambam’s prohibition; the records the permissive opinion. The main ruling here therefore represents the Rambam, not an undisputed conclusion.

Sources: Maggid Mishneh on , Forbidden Intercourse 16:1:2; Hasagot HaRaavad on , Forbidden Intercourse 16:2:1; Shulchan Arukh, 5:1

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ג

The Three Reproductive Structures

Who is called a man with damaged testicles?

Anyone whose testicles have been injured.

And one with a severed reproductive organ? Anyone whose penis has been cut off.

-

Three structures enable the male to father a child:

the penis, the testicles, and the channels

in which the semen matures,

which are called “testicular channels.”

The text names the structures in its own anatomical framework. These terms should not be casually substituted for a modern diagnosis. The following rulings specify which injuries disqualify and which do not.

Once any one of these three structures is injured,

-

cut off, or crushed, he is disqualified.

Disqualified here means restricted from entering the congregation through marriage, not excluded from Jewish life. These rules remain subject to the distinction in Halachah 9 between external injury and a condition arising by the hand of Heaven.

Synopsis

The chapter considers injuries to the penis, testicles, and testicular channels. Their legal effect depends on the particular damage and its cause, as the following explain.

הלכה ד

Cuts and the Remaining Corona

How does this apply? If the penis is injured or crushed,

-

or is cut off at the corona or above it, he is disqualified.

The corona is the rim around the head of the organ. “Above” here is toward the body. The next clauses describe particular forms of cutting that retain permitted status; not every cut has the same result.

If it is cut from the top of the corona,

but even a hairbreadth of it remains

-

encircling the whole organ, he is permitted.

The surviving ring must encircle the entire organ, not merely most of it, as the Maggid Mishneh explains on Halachah 4.

If the organ is cut above the corona

-

in the shape of a pen or a gutter, he is permitted.

describes a pen-shaped cut as a slant, like the sharpened end of a writing pen, and a gutter-shaped cut as an open channel with two sides remaining. These are particular partial cuts, not a complete cut straight across the organ. The permits the specified cases; the disagreement about the gutter-shaped case is explained below. These descriptions are for understanding the text, not for deciding an actual medical case.

Synopsis

A disqualifying cut must be distinguished from the specified cases in which a surrounding remnant or a particular shape of cut leaves the man permitted.

🔎Dig DeeperCuts and the Remaining Corona

Cuts and the Remaining Corona

Two Shapes, Two Readings

The cites the ’s conclusion that both the pen-shaped and gutter-shaped cuts are permitted, explaining the ’s ruling. These descriptions do not mean that the whole organ was simply cut away: describes a pen-like slant and a channel with two remaining sides.

records that Rashi and disqualify the gutter-shaped case, while the Rambam permits it. The disagreement concerns that particular shape; it is not a blanket dispute about every partial cut or every surviving remnant of the corona.

Sources: Maggid Mishneh on , Forbidden Intercourse 16:4:2; 75b:15; Rashi on 75b:13:1–2; Shulchan Arukh, 5:3

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ה

A Perforation and Its Closure

If it is perforated below the corona, he is permitted.

“Below the corona” means toward the tip, away from the body; “above” means toward the body. This first case is an opening wholly below the corona. The final clause considers an opening that reaches the corona on the opposite side.

-

If the corona itself is perforated—

if semen emerges through that opening during an emission,

he is disqualified. If the opening closes, his permitted status returns.

For this perforation, the ruling depends on semen escaping through the opening. Closure can therefore restore the former status; a past injury does not always create a permanent restriction.

If it is perforated below the corona

with the opposite end above, within the corona, he is disqualified,

because the entire corona is necessary.

The final case is a perforation passing from below the corona into its required area on the opposite side. It is not an opening wholly below it.

Synopsis

A perforation outside the corona differs from one affecting it. A disqualifying opening that closes can restore permitted status, but the full required area must be considered.

הלכה ו

An Obstructed Seminal Passage

If the passage for semen became blocked,

and semen then began to emerge

-

through the passage used for urination, he is disqualified.

The Maggid Mishneh on Halachah 6 explains that, in the anatomical account used here, the semen does not develop properly when diverted from its own passage. The issue is therefore not simply whether fluid can emerge, but whether the reproductive passage functions as described. “Disqualified” means subject to the marriage restriction in this chapter. Halachah 9 distinguishes an external injury from a condition that arose naturally.

Synopsis

A blocked seminal passage, with semen emerging through the urinary passage, disqualifies the man under the conditions explained in Halachah 9.

הלכה ז

Damage to a Testicle or Its Channel

If the testicles, or one of them, were cut off,

or one of them was wounded or crushed,

-

or was deficient or punctured, he is disqualified.

According to the , one of the listed injuries to even one testicle is enough; both need not be damaged. This concerns damage from an external cause. Being born without a testicle is a different case, permitted in Halachah 9, which also addresses naturally arising illness. The cause of the condition matters, not only what is missing.

If the testicular channels, or one of them, were cut off,

-

or one was crushed or wounded, he is disqualified.

Synopsis

The listed damage to even one testicle or testicular channel disqualifies the man, subject to the distinction in Halachah 9.

🔎Dig DeeperDamage to a Testicle or Its Channel

Damage to a Testicle or Its Channel

One Remaining Testicle: Which Case?

The explains that the statement permitting a man with only one testicle can be understood as a condition present from birth. On that reading, it does not contradict the ’s ruling about a testicle removed by an external cause. The cause of the condition matters, not only how many remain.

The records a different, qualified lenient view: the removed testicle was whole when removed, and the right testicle remained. He notes that some acted leniently, but recommends following the stringent authorities because a prohibition is involved. This is not a blanket permission whenever one testicle remains.

Sources: Maggid Mishneh on , Forbidden Intercourse 16:7:1; Shulchan Arukh, 5:7

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ח

Urine Passing Through Two Routes

If a testicular channel developed an opening into the urinary passage,

so that he urinates through two routes—

-

the urinary passage and the seminal passage—

he remains eligible.

This differs from Halachah 6: here urine passes through an additional route, rather than semen being diverted because its own passage is blocked. The condition described here does not prevent him from fathering a child.

Synopsis

The described opening that causes urine to pass through both passages does not disqualify the man.

Visual guideUrine Passing Through Two Routes

Two passages, different problems

Compare the precise conditions, not merely the fact that two passages are involved.

Passage describedWhat changesMarriage status here
Halachah 6The seminal passage is blocked; semen emerges through the urinary passage.Disqualified, subject to Halachah 9.
Halachah 8An opening into the urinary passage allows urine to pass through both routes.Eligible in the case described.

This is a comparison of the ’s cases, not a diagnostic guide. Halachah 9 limits the disqualifications according to their cause.

הלכה ט

External Injury and Naturally Arising Conditions

Every disqualification we have discussed in this matter applies

-

when the conditions were not caused by Heaven—

for example, when a person or a dog severed the organ,

or a thorn injured it, or something similar occurred.

“Caused by Heaven” is a legal category here. The contrast is not simply between deliberate and accidental harm: an animal attack or accidental thorn injury is also an external cause.

But if he was born with a severed member or damaged testicles,

or was born without testicles,

or developed an illness within his body

and these organs ceased to function,

or an ulcer developed in them

-

and dissolved or severed them—

he is eligible to marry into the congregation,

because all these conditions are caused by Heaven.

The includes both conditions present at birth and the naturally arising illnesses described here. This permission concerns the particular marriage restriction under discussion; it does not mean that every condition with a similar medical description automatically has the same legal status.

Synopsis

The distinguishes external injury from congenital conditions and the naturally arising illnesses he lists: the latter do not create this marriage disqualification.

Visual guideExternal Injury and Naturally Arising Conditions

The cause matters—not only the damage

These categories describe the ’s ruling in Halachah 9.

Cause in the stated examplesExamplesEffect of this distinction
External injuryA person or dog severs the organ; a thorn injures it.The earlier disqualifications can apply.
A condition present at birthThe listed congenital damage or absence of testicles.Does not create this marriage disqualification.
Naturally arising illnessThe listed bodily illness or ulcer destroys the organs.The includes these in “caused by Heaven.”

An accidental external injury is not automatically “caused by Heaven” in this legal classification. Other authorities dispute the illness category; see Dig Deeper below. These distinctions do not settle an individual’s status without competent evaluation.

🔎Dig DeeperExternal Injury and Naturally Arising Conditions

External Injury and Naturally Arising Conditions

Does Illness Count as Caused by Heaven?

The includes the illnesses listed here within the category caused by Heaven. The permission is thus not limited to a condition present at birth.

records a disagreement: according to and , a condition resulting from illness is not included in that exception. Their category includes being born with the condition and certain heavenly events, while illness is treated differently. This is a dispute about the legal classification of the cause, not about whether the person intentionally injured himself. The Rambam’s rule should be learned clearly without treating it as an automatic decision for a contemporary medical case.

Sources: , Forbidden Intercourse 16:9; Shulchan Arukh, 5:10; Rashi on 75b:2:1

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה י

The Prohibition Against Castration Applies Everywhere

-

It is forbidden to damage the reproductive organs—

whether of a human, a domestic animal, a wild animal, or a bird,

whether of a non- or a species,

whether in the Land of Israel or outside it.

The chapter now turns from eligibility for marriage to the separate prohibition against causing reproductive damage. The following rulings distinguish male and female subjects, and direct action from indirect means.

Although the verse says, “You shall not do this in your land” (Leviticus 22:24),

the received oral teaching explains

that this law applies everywhere.

The verse means that this must not be done among Israel,

whether to their own bodies or to the bodies of others.

The words “in your land” do not limit the prohibition to a particular territory. They do not permit the same act outside the Land of Israel.

-

Anyone who castrates is liable to -prescribed lashes, wherever the act occurs.

Even one who castrates after an earlier castration is liable to lashes.

The prohibition is not limited to the first act that makes reproduction impossible. Halachah 11 explains how a later act of reproductive damage can carry its own liability.

Synopsis

Castration is prohibited everywhere, for humans and the listed animals, and an additional act can remain punishable even after an earlier castration.

הלכה יא

Further Castration and the Rule for Females

How so? One person came and cut off the member,

and another came and cut off the testicles or detached them,

and another came and cut the testicular channels;

or one person came and crushed the member,

-

another came and detached it, and another came and cut it off—

all are liable to lashes,

even though the last person castrated someone who was already castrated.

This applies to a human, a domestic animal, a wild animal, or a bird.

The first sequence concerns damage to different organs; the second concerns successive kinds of damage to the same organ. In both, the later person cannot claim that the act is exempt merely because an earlier injury had already caused castration.

One who castrates a female,

-

whether human or of another species, is exempt.

“Exempt” here means exempt from -prescribed lashes, not permitted. Directly causing this damage to a female is still prohibited. This is distinct from the woman’s drinking a preparation discussed in Halachah 12.

Synopsis

Successive acts of castration can each carry liability. Castrating a female is prohibited, though it does not carry -prescribed lashes.

הלכה יב

Preparations and Indirect Means

One who gives a person or an animal an herbal preparation to drink

-

in order to cause castration acts in a forbidden way,

but is not liable to lashes for this.

This clause concerns a male. The prohibition remains even though the reproductive damage is caused by a preparation rather than by directly injuring an organ.

A woman, however, may drink preparations

that make her infertile so that she will not bear children.

This permission concerns a woman drinking the preparation; it does not undo the prohibition against directly damaging female reproductive organs. The does not state the same permission here for female animals. Applying these laws to contemporary contraception requires a separate decision, not an automatic inference from this passage.

Suppose someone restrained a man

and set a dog or other animals upon him

until his member was severed,

or seated him in water or snow

-

until his sexual organs ceased to function—

he is not liable to lashes unless he performs the castration directly.

He should, however, receive disciplinary lashes.

These indirect acts are not permitted. The distinction concerns the type of judicial punishment: -prescribed lashes require the direct act described here, while the indirect acts warrant Rabbinic disciplinary punishment.

Synopsis

A sterilizing preparation for a male and the described indirect injuries are prohibited without -prescribed lashes. The separately permits a woman to drink a preparation that prevents childbearing.

Visual guidePreparations and Indirect Means

Prohibition and punishment are separate questions

Read the exact conditions in Halachos 10–12. Exemption from -prescribed lashes does not by itself mean permission.

Case describedIs it permitted?Punishment stated here
Direct castration of a male; including the further acts in Halachah 11Forbidden.-prescribed lashes.
Direct castration of a female, human or animal (Halachah 11)Forbidden.Exempt from -prescribed lashes.
Giving a male a preparation to cause castrationForbidden.No -prescribed lashes.
A woman drinking the preparation described in Halachah 12Permitted in this stated ruling.No punishment stated.
The indirect injuries described in Halachah 12Forbidden.Rabbinic disciplinary lashes, not -prescribed lashes.

The woman’s preparation ruling is not permission for direct injury, and the text does not state the same permission for female animals. Contemporary treatment or contraception requires a separate decision. This table does not determine individual liability or replace the full laws.

הלכה יג

A Non-Jew’s Initiative and a Disguised Arrangement

One may not tell a non-Jew to castrate an animal belonging to us.

But if the non-Jew took it on his own initiative to castrate it, it is permitted.

The permission is for the Jewish owner to retain and benefit from the animal after the non-Jew acted independently. It is not permission to request the act. Where the owner did not arrange it, he is not required to suffer the loss of the animal.

If a Jew used a deceptive arrangement in this matter,

he is penalized and must sell it to another Jew.

Avoiding an explicit request is not enough when the owner has in fact encouraged or arranged the castration. The penalty requires the animal to leave his ownership; it does not make the animal forbidden to every Jewish owner.

He may even sell it to his adult son.

But he may neither sell it nor give it to his minor son.

An adult son has an independent financial domain. A transfer to the minor son does not create the separation required for this penalty.

Synopsis

An independently initiated act does not require the owner to lose his animal. If he arranged the castration deceptively, he must sell it, and transferring it to his minor son does not satisfy the penalty.

🔎Dig DeeperA Non-Jew’s Initiative and a Disguised Arrangement

A Non-Jew’s Initiative and a Disguised Arrangement

The Restriction on Asking Is Not Only for

The explains that the prohibits asking a non-Jew to perform this act even though the Rambam does not adopt the view that a non-Jew is himself commanded against castration. The restriction is not dependent only on causing the other person to violate his own obligation.

Instead, the Maggid Mishneh identifies a Rabbinic restriction on asking a non-Jew to perform a prohibited act that applies beyond the laws of . That explains why an explicit request is prohibited here, while the Rambam separately discusses a genuinely independent act and a concealed arrangement. The categories must remain separate.

Sources: Maggid Mishneh on , Forbidden Intercourse 16:13:1; 90b:1–4

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
Sources & editorial method

Hebrew text: Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Issurei Biah, Chapter 16. The Hebrew is preserved as the primary text and divided into short learning units.

Translation and elucidation: Independently prepared for Rambam, Clearly in contemporary English. Translation follows the Rambam’s words; elucidation supplies only the context needed to understand them.

Word cards and glossary: Hebrew word cards distinguish a word’s basic meaning from its meaning in the particular phrase. Shared glossary entries explain recurring terms; biography entries identify the cited authorities.

Explain and Background: Explain provides context needed for the ruling. Optional Background panels provide additional context that can be skipped without losing the essential explanation.

Synopsis: A short summary follows each halachah. It is a guide to the central ruling, not a replacement for the full text and its qualifications.

Dig Deeper: Based on the classic commentaries named inside each panel. Editorial explanations are not presented as quotations.

Live It: Where present, these panels connect a particular halachah to a suggested personal reflection and an action to try. Original applications are labeled as suggested reflections. They are distinct from the ruling and are not attributed to the Rebbe merely because his guidance supports seeking a practical lesson.

Measurements: Modern equivalents draw on Chabad.org’s measurement glossary and cited halachic calculations. They show a range when major accepted calculations differ. Monetary equivalents fluctuate with the price of silver.

The Rebbe’s teachings and guidance: Source links accompany the completion teachings and the guidance inside Dig Deeper and Live It. Quotations, translations, and adaptations are identified; the general guidance is separate from the sources for a panel’s particular discussion.

Editorial responsibility: Created and prepared for this project by Levi Gelb. Corrections and suggestions can be submitted below. This presentation supports learning; practical halachic questions should be brought to a qualified rav.

Chapter 16 at a glance

Chapter Synopsis

The first part defines particular reproductive injuries and their effect on eligibility for marriage. The cause matters: the distinguishes external injury from congenital conditions and the naturally arising illnesses he lists. The second part forbids castration and distinguishes direct acts, later acts after an earlier castration, preparations, indirect injury, and arranging an act through a non-Jew. Throughout, an exemption from -prescribed lashes does not necessarily mean permission, and the precise case and qualifications must be retained.

  • A man in these injury categories may not marry and have relations with a woman of native Jewish lineage, but may marry a convert or freed maidservant. The stated permission also includes a and doubtful-lineage cases, not every prohibited marriage.
  • The Sages did not impose their and doubtful-lineage restrictions in this case, but the retains the prohibition of marrying a definite .
  • The chapter considers injuries to the penis, testicles, and testicular channels. Their legal effect depends on the particular damage and its cause, as the following explain.
  • A disqualifying cut must be distinguished from the specified cases in which a surrounding remnant or a particular shape of cut leaves the man permitted.
  • A perforation outside the corona differs from one affecting it. A disqualifying opening that closes can restore permitted status, but the full required area must be considered.
  • A blocked seminal passage, with semen emerging through the urinary passage, disqualifies the man under the conditions explained in Halachah 9.
  • The listed damage to even one testicle or testicular channel disqualifies the man, subject to the distinction in Halachah 9.
  • The described opening that causes urine to pass through both passages does not disqualify the man.
  • The distinguishes external injury from congenital conditions and the naturally arising illnesses he lists: the latter do not create this marriage disqualification.
  • Castration is prohibited everywhere, for humans and the listed animals, and an additional act can remain punishable even after an earlier castration.
  • Successive acts of castration can each carry liability. Castrating a female is prohibited, though it does not carry -prescribed lashes.
  • A sterilizing preparation for a male and the described indirect injuries are prohibited without -prescribed lashes. The separately permits a woman to drink a preparation that prevents childbearing.
  • An independently initiated act does not require the owner to lose his animal. If he arranged the castration deceptively, he must sell it, and transferring it to his minor son does not satisfy the penalty.
פרק טז

End of chapter.

You have reached the end of all thirteen halachos.