Kiddushin 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: If he had

a slave with

an extra

finger,

and the master cut it off,

the

slave goes free on account of it.

Rav Huna said: And

this ruling

applies

specifically in a case where

the

extra finger was

counted on the back of the hand

together with the other fingers; that is, it was aligned with them. But if the extra finger was separate from the other fingers and the master cut it off, the slave does not go free on account of it.

We learned at the beginning of the sugya above: A slave goes free on account of a tooth, an eye, and extremities that do not grow back—similar to a tooth and an eye: Just as a tooth and an eye are visible and irreversible defects, so too, for any visible and irreversible defect, a slave goes free on account of it.

And visible defects are defects in visible limbs. The sugya before us discusses which limbs are considered “visible.”

For an understanding of the sugya, we will first note that in other places as well we find laws concerning visible limbs:

a. With regard to impurity through contact: If the defiling object [such as the carcass of a creeping creature] touched a person’s body in a visible place, the person becomes impure. But if the defiling object touched a place on the person that is not visible, the person does not become impure.

b. With regard to sprinkling: A person impure through contact with the dead is sprinkled with water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer in order to purify him. The sprinkling is performed on the third and seventh days of his impurity, and the sprinkling must be upon visible limbs.

c. With regard to immersion: The water must reach every visible place on his body.

d. With regard to the law of an animal firstborn and other offerings:

An animal that is an offering and develops a defect is disqualified from being offered. It is slaughtered and eaten anywhere, and all this applies specifically to visible defects. The sugya before us will explain what is considered “visible” in all these laws:

The elders of Nezunia did not come to Rav Ḥisda’s lecture,

the elders of the city of Nezunia did not come to hear Rav Ḥisda’s lesson.

Rav Ḥisda said

to Rav Hamnuna:

Go and make them seclude themselves,

go and instruct them to withdraw and remain confined in their homes, as is the law for people who have been placed under a ban.

He went,

Rav Hamnuna went, and

said to them: Why did the Sages not come to the lecture?

Why did you not come to hear Rav Ḥisda’s lesson?

They said to him: Why should we come?

Why should we come? After all, something happened in the past:

We asked him a matter, and he did not resolve it for us.

We asked him a question, and he did not resolve our uncertainty.

Rav Hamnuna said to them:

Rav Hamnuna said:

Did you ever ask me something and I failed to resolve it for you,

did you ever attempt to ask me something and I failed to resolve your uncertainty?!

That is, try asking me.

They asked him

the following question:

A slave whose master castrated him by severing his testicles —

what

is his status?

The testicles themselves hang within the scrotum and are not actually visible, but they can be discerned externally; therefore, the question is:

Does castration of the testicles

have the status of a visible defect,

because the testicles can be discerned externally,

or not,

because they are not actually visible?

He did not have it in hand

Rav Hamnuna had no answer with which to respond to their question.

They said to him

the elders of Nezunia:

What is your name?

He said to them: Hamnuna.

They said to him: You should not be called Hamnuna

you are worthy of being called

but “

Karnunа,”

for you are a corner-sitter and not a Torah scholar.

He came before Rav Ḥisda,

Rav Hamnuna came before Rav Ḥisda and told him the question posed by the sages of Nezunia.

Rav Ḥisda said to him

Rav Ḥisda said:

They asked you about a Mishna,

what the elders of Nezunia asked you is explicitly stated in a beraita!

As we learned,

as we learned in tractate Negaim [6:7]:

Several types of human afflictions are stated in the Torah in the portion of Tazria. None of them is conclusively declared to be full-fledged leprosy unless one of the signs of impurity explained in that portion appears in it. One of the signs of impurity of leprosy is “living flesh,” which appears like the appearance of living flesh within the affliction, as it is stated [Leviticus 13:10–11]: “And there is living flesh in the swelling, and it is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall declare him impure; he shall not confine him, for he is impure.”

Later in the passage it is stated: “According to all the appearance of the eyes of the koen.” The Sages interpreted this to mean that the entire affliction containing the living flesh must be visible all at once to the koen.

Therefore, we learned in the Mishna [there]:

All twenty-four extremities of a person,

if an affliction was present on any of them,

do not impart impurity on account of living flesh,

because the end of the limb slopes toward the sides, and the koen cannot see the entire affliction on it at once.

And these are

the twenty-four extremities of a person:

the fingers of the hands and feet, and the tips of

the

ears.

That is, the rim surrounding the ears.

And the tip of the nose, and the tip of the penis

[the organ],

and the nipples of a woman.

But the nipples of a man do not protrude to the same degree, and therefore this is not considered a slope.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even

the nipples

of a man

do not impart impurity on account of living flesh.

This concludes the words of the Mishna in tractate Negaim there.

And a beraita was taught concerning it,

and the beraita added to the words of the Mishna:

In all of them,

in all the extremities listed in the Mishna with regard to the impurity of afflictions,

a slave goes free on account of them,

if his master removed any one of these extremities.

Rabbi says:

In addition to these twenty-four extremities,

castration as well

causes the slave to go free.

Ben Azzai says: The tongue as well

is included among the limbs on account of which a slave goes free, because it is normally visible when a person speaks, and therefore a defect in the tongue is included among “visible defects.”

This concludes the words of the beraita.

Rav Ḥisda explains which form of castration is mentioned in the beraita:

The Master said

in the beraita:

Rabbi says: Castration as well.

There are two types of castration: [a] castration performed on the penis; [b] castration performed on the testicles.

Therefore, it is necessary to clarify Rabbi’s statement:

Which castration?

To which type of castration was Rabbi referring?

If you say

that Rabbi was referring only to

castration of the penis,

which is a visible limb, but castration of the testicles is not included among visible defects, then a difficulty arises:

The penis

is identical to “the penis,”

and the tip of the penis is one of the twenty-four extremities that the first tanna already mentioned. If so, what did Rabbi come to add?

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that Rabbi was referring to

castration of the testicles?

From here Rav Ḥisda proves that the question of the elders of Nezunia [a slave whose master castrated him by severing his testicles—what is his status?] depends on the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi in this beraita:

According to the first tanna, castration of the testicles is not considered a visible defect, because they are covered.

According to Rabbi, castration of the testicles is considered a visible defect, because the testicles can be discerned externally.

The Gemara now continues to discuss the words of the beraita:

We learned in the beraita:

Rabbi says: Castration as well;

Ben Azzai says: The tongue as well.

The wording of the beraita implies that Ben Azzai adds the tongue to Rabbi’s statement, whereas Rabbi maintains that the tongue is not included among visible defects, because it is concealed by the lips.

Therefore, we ask:

And

according to

Rabbi, the tongue is not

considered a visible limb?!

And he raises an objection,

for surely this can be refuted from the following beraita:

The beraita discusses the sprinkling of the waters of the red heifer upon one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. The sprinkling is valid only when performed upon limbs that are exposed, as explained above—and thus we learned in the beraita:

If one was sprinkling

the waters of the ashes of the red heifer upon the impure person in order to purify him,

and the sprinkling

of the water

splashed onto his mouth,

Rabbi and the Sages disagree as to whether his mouth is a place upon which sprinkling is appropriate:

Rabbi says: He sprinkled

the sprinkling is effective.

And the Sages say: He did not sprinkle.

Their reasons will be explained shortly.

Now one must ask about the statement of the beraita:

What

does “onto his mouth,” mentioned here, mean? It certainly does not mean the exterior of his mouth, since there is no difference between his mouth and the other exposed limbs.

Rather,

is it not

necessarily referring

to his tongue?

The sprinkling must be performed upon an exposed limb. Since his tongue is not exposed at all times, Rabbi and the Sages disagree in this regard:

According to Rabbi, the tongue is considered an exposed limb because it is revealed when a person speaks.

According to the Sages, the tongue is considered a concealed limb because ordinarily the lips cover it.

And from here we raise an objection to the statement of the earlier beraita: From the earlier beraita—concerning a slave—we inferred that according to Rabbi, the tongue is not considered an exposed limb. Yet in the second beraita—concerning sprinkling—we learned that according to Rabbi the tongue is indeed considered an exposed limb!

And we reject this:

No!

Do not interpret what we learned, “and the sprinkling splashed ‘onto his mouth,’” as referring to his tongue!

Rather, interpret it as referring

to his lips.

Rabbi said that only in this case is the sprinkling effective, but sprinkling upon his tongue is not effective.

And immediately we are perplexed:

His lips—

it is obvious

that the sprinkling is effective, since they are entirely exposed! What, then, is Rabbi teaching us?

And we answer: There is a novel point here. For

lest you say, at times the lips become firmly adhered

you might have said, had the beraita not taught this, that sometimes a person closes his mouth tightly, so that his lips adhere to one another and are not visible; therefore, they would not be considered an exposed entity.

It teaches us,

therefore, Rabbi teaches us that since ordinarily his lips are exposed, they are included among exposed parts.

And we reject the answer on the basis of two objections: [a

And it was taught

explicitly in another beraita: If one was sprinkling and the sprinkling splashed

onto his tongue—

Rabbi says: He sprinkled.

This proves that according to Rabbi the tongue is considered an exposed limb! [b]

]

And it was further taught

in another beraita, which details the blemishes that permit a firstborn animal to be slaughtered:

And if most of the tongue was removed,

this is a blemish that permits the firstborn to be slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard and eaten anywhere.

Rabbi says:

It is unnecessary for most of the tongue to be removed; it suffices that

most

of the

speaking part of its tongue

be removed—that is, most of the part of the tongue that is detached from the floor of the mouth, can move up and down, and with which a person speaks.

Although an animal does not speak, Rabbi nevertheless calls this part of the tongue “speaking,” since it is the part with which a human speaks.

Now, a firstborn animal is permitted to be slaughtered and eaten only on account of an exposed blemish, as explained above.

Since Rabbi permits the firstborn on account of a blemish in the tongue, it follows from his words that the tongue too is considered an exposed limb. This is contrary to what we said above!

Because of these two objections, the Gemara retracts what we said earlier:

Rather,

this is how the earlier beraita should be interpreted:

Rabbi says: Castration; and it is not necessary to say

that the same applies to the

tongue,

for since castration of the testicles is considered an exposed blemish even though they are always concealed within the scrotum and are never exposed, all the more so the tongue, which is sometimes exposed, is certainly included among exposed blemishes.

Ben Azzai says:

Specifically, the

tongue;

but

castration, no.

You might say:

And what is the meaning of “even”?

How are we to interpret Ben Azzai’s statement, “even the tongue”? Does this not imply that Ben Azzai came to add to Rabbi’s statement rather than to limit it?

The answer is:

It refers to the first statement.

Ben Azzai is referring to what the first tanna taught at the beginning of the beraita: Of the twenty-four bodily extremities listed with regard to leprous afflictions, a slave goes free through all of them. Ben Azzai added the tongue to that list, not to Rabbi’s statement. For Rabbi holds that even castration is included among exposed blemishes, and certainly the tongue is.

And we ask:

If so,

if indeed Ben Azzai is referring to the statement of the first tanna and not to Rabbi’s statement,

Ben Azzai’s statement should have been listed first!

It would have been appropriate to put Ben Azzai’s statement first, before Rabbi’s statement, since Ben Azzai adds the tongue to the first tanna’s statement, while Rabbi agrees with Ben Azzai concerning the tongue and adds castration to it!

And we answer: The

tanna

who taught the beraita

first heard Rabbi’s statement,

that is, he first heard the halakha stated by Rabbi,

and placed it

in the beraita after the statement of the first tanna.

And

only afterward

he heard Ben Azzai’s statement, and taught it,

that is, he heard the halakha stated by Ben Azzai and taught it later in the beraita, after Rabbi’s statement.

Once the tanna heard Ben Azzai’s statement, he should have placed it before Rabbi’s statement and taught it immediately after the first tanna’s statement. For Rabbi too agrees with Ben Azzai’s addition of the tongue, while Rabbi further adds castration to Ben Azzai’s statement.

And

however, since the halakha stated by Rabbi had already been placed after the first tanna’s statement, and the beraita had become established in that form in the mouths of the students, therefore

the established version is not moved from its place.

The tanna did not wish to move Rabbi’s statement and teach it after Ben Azzai’s statement.

For the beraitot were taught orally and were not written in a book. A version transmitted orally is difficult to change and then repeat in different wording.

We learned in the earlier beraita: If one was sprinkling and the sprinkling splashed onto his mouth—that is, onto his tongue—Rabbi says: He sprinkled; and the Sages say: He did not sprinkle.

And we explain the root of the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages:

Ulla said: Everyone agrees

that the tongue has a unique status: sometimes it is considered exposed, and sometimes concealed— [a]

]

With regard to impurity,

where a creeping creature renders a person impure only if it touches exposed places on his body, everyone agrees that the tongue

is exposed with regard to the creeping creature.

If a dead creeping creature touched a person’s tongue, he becomes impure.

And

what is the reason?

What is the reason for this?

Because the source of the law that a creeping creature does not render a person impure through contact with concealed places is as follows:

It is stated with regard to impurity: “And anyone

whom he touches

who has the discharge, and his hands” “he has not washed in water,”

the Merciful One said

[Leviticus 15:1].

And the Sages asked: Does a zav who washed his hands thereby become pure? Surely he becomes pure only through immersion; why, then, is it stated, “and his hands he has not washed in water”?

Rather, this is how the verse should be read: “And anyone whom the zav touches with his hands,” or anything else that is exposed like his hands, “and he has not washed in water”—that is, the zav has not yet immersed his entire body in water—then, “he shall wash his garments and bathe in water and remain impure until evening.”

And since this is the source for the principle that contact with a creeping creature renders one impure only through exposed places, therefore

this too,

the tongue as well,

is capable of being touched

like his hands

are.

For a person extends his tongue, and it can be touched while exposed. Therefore, a creeping creature that touched a person’s tongue renders him impure. [b]

]

With regard to immersion,

where the water must touch all the exposed places on his body, everyone agrees that a person’s tongue

is considered concealed

and it is unnecessary for the water to touch his tongue.

And

what is the reason?

What is the reason for this?

Because the source of the law that the water need reach only the exposed places on the body is:

“And he shall bathe his flesh in water,”

the Merciful One said

with regard to immersion [Leviticus 15:13]. The word “his flesh” is superfluous, and the Sages expounded it to mean that Scripture reveals here that he need bathe his body in water only in the manner of his flesh:

Just as his flesh

is

from the outside,

since the water touches the flesh externally,

so too all

the limbs require bathing in water only

from the outside

[externally] alone.

But it is unnecessary for the impure person to bring water into his mouth, since that is not “from the outside.” Moreover, he cannot extend his entire tongue out of his mouth.

And we have found no immersion of only part of a limb.

And if he wishes to immerse his tongue, he must bring water into his mouth, and this is not “from the outside.” Therefore, his tongue does not require contact with water.

And

Rabbi and the Sages did not disagree

concerning the law of the tongue

except with regard to sprinkling

alone.

According to Rabbi, the tongue is considered an exposed limb for this purpose.

According to the Sages, the tongue is considered concealed, as will be explained immediately:

Rabbi—

he compares it to impurity.

Just as with regard to impurity the tongue is considered exposed, so too with regard to sprinkling.

And the Sages—

they compare it to immersion,

and just as with regard to immersion the tongue is considered concealed, so too with regard to sprinkling.

And both of them—

disagree concerning the interpretation of this verse,

and both disagree about how to expound the following verse:

It is stated with regard to sprinkling [Numbers 19:19]:

“And the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure person”

on the third day and on the seventh day, “and he shall purify him” on the seventh day. And he shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and become pure in the evening.

“And he shall purify him” means that he purifies him by sprinkling upon him.

And the Sages learned the nature of the purification—the sprinkling—mentioned here from what is stated adjacent to it:

Rabbi holds

that we learn the nature of the purification from what was stated earlier:

“And the pure person shall sprinkle upon ‘the impure person’ on the third day and on the seventh day”—

“and he shall purify him.”

That is, the law of purification is juxtaposed to the law of “the impure person,” mentioned earlier. From here it follows that the purification is performed upon a place through which impurity is capable of entering a person.

And since the tongue is considered exposed with regard to impurity, it is therefore also suitable for sprinkling.

And

the Sages hold

that we learn the nature of the purification from what is stated afterward:

“And he shall purify him on the seventh day” \-

“And he shall wash his garments and bathe in water.”

That is, the law of purification is juxtaposed to the law of bathing mentioned afterward, namely, immersion.

From here it follows that the purification is performed upon a place suitable for immersion. And since with regard to immersion it is unnecessary for the water to touch the tongue, sprinkling upon it is likewise ineffective.

And we raise an objection to the opinion of the Sages:

And the Sages too,

why did they choose to compare the law of sprinkling to the law of immersion mentioned afterward?—

Let them compare it to impurity!

And we answer: According to the Sages,

a law of purification should have been derived from another law of purification.

It is appropriate to learn a law concerning purification from another law concerning purification. Therefore, we learn the law of sprinkling from the law of immersion, since both bring a person to a state of purity.

And we raise an objection to Rabbi’s opinion:

And Rabbi,

why did he choose to compare the law of sprinkling to the law of impurity mentioned before it?

Let him compare it to immersion!

And we answer: The law of immersion is not mentioned in the verse immediately after “and he shall purify him”; rather, it states: “And he shall purify him, and he shall wash his garments and bathe in water.” Therefore, Rabbi holds that

“and he shall wash his garments”

interrupts

the

matter.

That is, one should not connect the sprinkling with the immersion, since “and he shall wash his garments” separates them. Therefore, one must necessarily learn the law of sprinkling from the law of impurity.

Thus far are Ulla’s words.

Ulla mentioned in his statement that everyone agrees that with regard to immersion the tongue is considered concealed. It is unnecessary for the waters of the ritual bath to enter the mouth of the person immersing.

And we are perplexed by his statement:

And

does

Rabbi hold

that

with regard to immersion

the tongue

is considered concealed,

and that it is unnecessary for the waters of the ritual bath to enter the mouth?! Surely the following incident proves that according to Rabbi the waters of the ritual bath must enter the mouth of the person immersing!

For Ravin said in the name of Rav Adda,

that this is what

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: An incident occurred involving a maidservant in the household of Rabbi who immersed and emerged, and a bone was found between her teeth, and Rabbi required her to immerse again,

because the bone formed a barrier between her teeth and the waters of the ritual bath.

This proves that according to Rabbi the waters of the ritual bath must enter the mouth!

And we answer:

Although it is true that Ulla said that the entry of water is not required,

meaning that it is not necessary for the water actually to enter the mouth and touch the tongue. However,

it is required that there be a place suitable for the entry of water,

the mouth must be a place suitable for the entry of water. That is, if water were to enter his mouth, it would have to touch everything inside it. Since the maidservant of the house of Rabbi had a bone between her teeth, that place was not suitable for the entry of water; therefore, Rabbi required her to immerse again.

The Gemara brings an example of this principle, for we find something similar elsewhere: Although the actual performance of an act is not required, it must nevertheless be possible for the act to be performed:

As

in the words of

Rabbi Zeira

concerning the law of a meal-offering:

In

tractate Menahot [103b], we learned that a person may vow to bring a meal-offering consisting of sixty esronim of fine flour and bring them in a single vessel. But if he vowed to bring sixty-one esronim, he may not bring them in a single vessel. Rabbi Shimon gave the reason for this: Since the Torah states with regard to a meal-offering, “a meal-offering mingled with oil,” it is impossible to mix more than sixty esronim together properly.

The Gemara there raises an objection: What difference does it make that it is impossible to mix more than sixty esronim together? Did we not learn that when one brings a meal-offering and does not mix the flour and oil, it is valid!

And

said

about this

Rabbi Zeira:

For every

meal-offering

that is suitable for mixing

[for the mixing],

the

mixing

does not invalidate it,

and even if it was not mixed, it is valid.

But

any

that is not suitable for mixing,

such as sixty-one esronim together,

the mixing invalidates it,

and he may not bring them in a single vessel.

And if he brought them in a single vessel, it is invalid.

This concludes the Gemara’s discussion of the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis concerning immersion of the tongue.

This dispute is brought here in the course of the discussion of the question asked by the elders of Nezonia: What is the status of a slave whom his master castrated—is he considered like exposed blemishes, or not?

The Gemara now returns to address the question of the elders of Nezonia: