From the corona and above, toward the body, it is prohibited.

§ Rav says: One who intentionally causes himself an erection shall be ostracized. The Gemara suggests: And let Rav say simply that it is prohibited. The Gemara explains that it is proper to ostracize such a man, as he arouses the evil inclination upon himself. And Rabbi Ami says: He is called a habitual transgressor, as this is the craft of the evil inclination. Today he says to a person: Do this sin, and when the individual obeys his inclination, on the following day the evil inclination says to him: Do that sin, and on the following day he says to him: Go and worship idols, and he goes and worships idols.

Some say that Rabbi Ami says: With regard to anyone who brings himself into a state of arousal, they do not bring him within the boundary of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The proof is that it is written here, with regard to Onan, son of Judah: “And the thing that he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and He slew him also” (Genesis 38:10), and it is written there: “For You are not a God who has pleasure in wickedness; evil shall not sojourn with You. The boasters shall not stand in Your sight…But as for me, in the abundance of Your kindness will I come into Your house; I will bow down toward Your holy Temple in fear of You” (Psalms 5:5–8). This demonstrates that whoever does evil, like Onan, shall not sojourn with God.

And Rabbi Elazar says, with regard to the severity of this transgression: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And when you spread forth your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even when you make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood” (Isaiah 1:15)? These are those men who commit adultery with the hand, by masturbating. Likewise, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: When it is stated in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13), this means that there shall not be adultery among you, whether you masturbate by hand or whether with one’s foot.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Converts and those who play with children delay the coming of the Messiah. The Gemara asks: Granted with regard to converts, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥelbo, as Rabbi Ḥelbo says: Converts are as harmful to the Jewish people as a leprous scab on the skin, as they are not proficient in the performance of the mitzvot and born Jews learn from them. But with regard to the category of those who play with children, to what is it referring?

If we say that this is referring to homosexuality, such men are liable to be executed by stoning, and their behavior is criticized not simply because they delay the Messiah. Rather, one might suggest that this is referring to those who emit semen by way of other limbs, i.e., without engaging in intercourse; if so, they are considered as though they are bringing a flood, and are therefore liable to be punished themselves with a flood.

Rather, the baraita means that they marry minor girls who are not yet capable of bearing children, consequently emitting semen for naught. As Rabbi Yosei said: The Messiah, son of David, will not come until all the souls of the body have been finished, i.e., until all souls that are destined to inhabit physical bodies do so. As it is stated: “For the spirit that enwraps itself is from Me, and the souls that I have made” (Isaiah 57:16). The verse is interpreted as follows: The spirit, i.e., the souls about which it has been decreed by Me that they are to be born, if they are not born, they enwrap the Messiah and prevent him from coming.

§ The mishna teaches that with regard to any hand that is diligent to examine bodily emissions, among men, such a hand should be severed. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do we learn this statement as a practical halakha, i.e., that the court should actually sever his hand, or do we learn it as a mere curse, but not as an actual instruction to punish him in that manner? The Gemara elaborates: Do we learn it as a practical halakha like that prohibition against striking another, in which the same expression is used: With regard to anyone who raises his hand upon another, his hand should be severed, and Rav Huna indeed acted accordingly and severed the hand of an offender? Or perhaps do we learn it as a mere curse?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Tarfon says: If one’s hand goes to his penis, his hand should be severed upon his navel. The Rabbis said to him: If so, in a case where a thorn was stuck in one’s belly, should he not remove it? Rabbi Tarfon said to them: Indeed, he should not remove it, and if he does so his hand should be severed. The Rabbis replied: But if his hand is severed while it is upon his navel, won’t his belly be split open? Rabbi Tarfon said to them: It is preferable that the belly of one who acts in this manner should be split open, and he should not descend into the pit of destruction.

The Gemara analyzes this discussion: Granted, if you say that we learn the statement in the mishna as a practical halakha, this is the meaning of that which the Rabbis said: But if his hand is severed upon his navel, won’t his belly be split open? But if you say that we learn the statement in the mishna as a mere curse, what is the meaning of the phrase: Won’t his belly be split open? The Gemara responds: Rather, what explanation is the alternative? That we learn the mishna as stating a practical halakha? That would not explain the exchange between the Rabbis to Rabbi Tarfon, because is it not sufficient that the hand be severed not upon his navel? In other words, even if the hand must actually be severed, it is not clear why it should be severed while it is upon his navel.

Rather, this is what Rabbi Tarfon is saying: With regard to anyone who inserts his hand below his navel, his hand should be severed. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Tarfon: If a thorn was stuck in one’s belly, should he not remove it? Rabbi Tarfon said to them: He should not. They responded: But won’t his belly be split open due to the thorn? Rabbi Tarfon said to them: It is preferable that his belly be split open, and he should not descend into the pit of destruction.

MISHNA: In the case of a woman who is deaf [haḥereshet], or an imbecile, or blind, or who went insane, and is therefore unable to examine herself reliably, if such women have competent friends, those friends prepare them by examining them and immersing them in a ritual bath. And on that basis the incompetent women may partake of teruma after the sun sets.

GEMARA: The mishna states that competent women must assist a deaf woman. The Gemara asks: Let her examine herself; as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: There was a deaf woman in our neighborhood who was so proficient in these matters that not only did she examine herself, but when her friends would see stains similar to blood and were unsure whether or not the stains were ritually impure, they would show her the stains.

The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to a woman who can speak but cannot hear. It is possible for such a woman to be an expert in examining blood. But here, the mishna is dealing with a woman who can neither speak nor hear, and she is therefore considered incompetent and incapable of examining herself. As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 1:2): The deaf person of whom the Sages spoke everywhere is one who can neither hear nor speak, i.e., a deaf-mute.

§ The mishna further teaches that competent women must assist a blind woman. The Gemara similarly asks: Let her examine herself and show the cloth to her friend. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The correct version of the mishna does not mention a blind woman.

§ The mishna also states that competent women must assist a woman who went insane. The Gemara asks: With regard to her ability to examine herself, isn’t this the same as an imbecile, who is already mentioned in the mishna? The Gemara answers: Here, the mishna is referring to a woman who went insane due to illness, which is a different category than that of an imbecile.

The Gemara further discusses halakhot pertaining to an imbecile. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an imbecile priest who was ritually impure, competent men deal with his purification: They immerse him, and then enable him to partake of teruma in the evening, like any other priest who was impure. And those taking care of him must watch over him to ensure that he does not sleep before he partakes of teruma, in case he experiences a seminal emission, which would render him impure. If he slept, he is once again impure, and may not partake of teruma; if he did not sleep he is pure.

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says that there is another method of allowing an imbecile priest to partake of teruma: One prepares for him a leather pouch, which is wrapped around his penis, and before giving him teruma to partake of one checks this pouch to see if he has emitted semen. The other Sages said to him: It is improper to do this, as all the more so he will be prevented from partaking of teruma; this pouch warms him and increases the likelihood of a seminal emission. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said to them: According to your statement, an imbecile priest has no remedy that will enable him to partake of teruma.

They said to him: According to our statement there is a way he can partake of teruma, as stated above: If he slept, he is impure; if he did not sleep he is pure. But according to your statement, that one wraps a pouch around his penis, this is not a reliable method, as perhaps he will see, i.e., experience the emission of, a drop of semen as small as a mustard seed, and it will be absorbed in the pouch and will not be noticed, which would mean that he is eating teruma in a state of ritual impurity.

The Gemara continues to discuss the methods by which an imbecile priest can partake of teruma. It was taught in a baraita that the Sages said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: One prepares for him a metal pouch, which is placed on his penis and does not warm it.

In explanation of this statement, Abaye says: And when this tanna speaks of metal, he means that the pouch should be made of copper, which does not absorb liquid, and therefore any drop of semen would be visible. This is as it is taught in a mishna (Para 12:5), with regard to the amount of water of purification that must be sprinkled on an individual who is impure due to impurity imparted by a corpse, that Rabbi Yehuda says: One considers those hyssop stems, with which the waters of purification are sprinkled, as though they are made of copper, which does not absorb any of the water.

Rav Pappa says: One can learn from the statement of the Rabbis that a pouch wrapped around one’s penis can warm it enough to cause a seminal emission, that trousers are prohibited to be worn, as they too warm the penis, by being placed so they are tight against it. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written with regard to the priestly garments: “And you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness, from the loins even to the thighs they shall reach” (Exodus 28:42)?

The Gemara explains: That garment, the trousers worn by priests, was different, as it is taught in a baraita: The trousers of priests, to what are they comparable? They are similar to riding trousers [pamalanya] of horsemen, and this is what they look like: Above, they reach up to the loins; below, they go down to the thighs, and they have straps, and they have no opening, neither at the back nor at the front.

Abaye says: