Kiddushin 25a — the Talmud in English

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: If he had ![](pamud.bmp "

") a supernumerary finger

and

an extra finger,

and the master cut it off,

the

slave goes out to freedom through them.

Rav Huna said: And

this law

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 in one row with them. But in the case of an extra finger that was separate from the other fingers, and the master cut it off, the slave does not go out to freedom through it.

We learned at the beginning of the sugya above: He goes out through a tooth, an eye, and limbs that do not grow back—analogous to a tooth and an eye: Just as a tooth and an eye are visible defects and do not grow back, so too, any visible defects that do not grow back enable a slave to go out through them to freedom.

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

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

a. Concerning impurity through contact: If an object that imparts impurity [such as the carcass of a creeping creature] touched the human body in a visible place, the person becomes impure. But if the impure object touched a place on the person that is not visible, the person does not become impure.

b. Concerning sprinkling: Upon one impure through contact with a corpse, water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer is sprinkled in order to purify him. The sprinkling is performed on the third day and on the seventh day of his impurity, and the sprinkling must be upon visible limbs.

c. Concerning immersion: The water must reach all the visible places on his body.

d. Concerning the firstborn animal and other offerings:

An animal that is an offering and becomes blemished is unfit for sacrifice. 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 Nezonia did not come to Rav Hisda’s lecture,

the elders of the city of Nezonia did not come to hear Rav Hisda’s lesson.

Rav Hisda said to

Rav Hamnuna:

“Go and make them seclude themselves,”

go and order them to seclude themselves and shut themselves up 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 Hisda’s lecture?

They said to him: “Why should we come?”

Why should we come? For previously it happened

that 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 for us.

Rav Hamnuna said to them:

Rav Hamnuna said to them:

“Is it that you tried to ask me something and I did not resolve your uncertainty for you,

and did you try to ask me a matter and I did not resolve your uncertainty for you?!

That is: Try asking me.

They asked him

they asked him:

“A slave whom his master castrated by the testicles” —

what

is his law?

The testicles themselves hang inside the scrotum and are not actually visible, but they can be discerned from outside, and therefore there is a question:

Does castration of the testicles

have the status of a visible defect,

because the testicles can be discerned from outside,

or not

have the status of a visible defect, because they are not actually visible?

He did not have it in his hands

Rav Hamnuna did not have an answer in his hands to their question.

They said to him

the elders of Nezonia:

“What is your name?”

He said to them: “Hamnuna.”

They said to him: “You should not be called Hamnuna

you are fit to be called

but “

Karnuna,”

for you are a corner-sitter and not a master of Torah.

He came before Rav Hisda,

Rav Hamnuna came before Rav Hisda and told him the question of the sages of Nezonia.

He said to him

Rav Hisda said to him:

“They asked you a beraita”—

what the elders of Nezonia asked you is an explicit beraita!

For we learned,

for thus we learned in Tractate Nega’im [6:7]:

Several types of human afflictions are stated in the Torah in the portion of Tazria. An affliction is not declared to be full-fledged tzara’at in any one of them unless one of the signs of impurity explained in that portion is seen in it. One of the signs of impurity of tzara’at 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, it is an old tzara’at in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall declare him impure. He shall not quarantine him, for he is impure.”

And further in the matter it is stated, “according to all the appearance of the eyes of the priest.” And the Sages explained that the entire affliction in which there is living flesh must be visible all at once to the eyes of the priest.

And therefore we learned in the Mishna [there]:

“Twenty-four extremities of limbs in a person, all of them,

if there was an affliction upon them,

do not impart impurity on account of living flesh,”

because the extremity of the limb slopes toward the sides, and the priest cannot see the entire affliction upon it all at once.

And these are

the twenty-four extremities of limbs in a person:

the fingers of the hands and feet, and the extremities of

the

ears.

That is: the rim surrounding the ears.

And the extremity of the nose, and the extremity of the membrum [

the organ],

and the extremities of the breasts of a woman.

But the extremities of the breasts of a man do not protrude so much, and this is not considered a slope.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even

the extremities of the breasts

of a man

do not impart impurity on account of living flesh.

This concludes the words of the Mishna in Tractate Nega’im there.

And it was taught concerning it,

and in the beraita they added to the words of the Mishna:

“With all of them,”

with all the extremities of the limbs taught in the Mishna concerning the impurity of afflictions,

a slave goes out through them to freedom,

if his master removed one of all these extremities of the limbs.

Rabbi says:

Besides these twenty-four limbs,

castration also

causes the slave to go out to freedom.

Ben Azzai says: Even the tongue

is included among the limbs through which a slave goes out to freedom. For it is its way to be seen when a person speaks, and therefore a defect in the tongue is included among “visible defects.”

This concludes the words of the beraita.

Rav Hisda explains what type of castration is mentioned in the beraita:

The Master said

in the beraita:

“Rabbi says: Even castration.”

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

Therefore, it is necessary to be uncertain about the explanation of Rabbi’s words:

“Castration of what?”

Of which castration did Rabbi speak?

If you say,

if it is said that Rabbi spoke only of

castration of the organ,

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

Behold, the organ

is “the body,”

and the extremity of the membrum is one of the twenty-four extremities of limbs that the First tanna already mentioned. If so, what did Rabbi come to add through this?

Rather, is it not

necessarily necessary to say that Rabbi spoke of

castration of the testicles.

From here Rav Hisda proves that the question of the elders of Nezonia [a slave whom his master castrated by the testicles—what is his law?] depends upon 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 from outside.

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

We learned in the beraita:

“Rabbi says: Even castration;”

Ben Azzai says: Even the tongue.

From the wording of the beraita it is implied that Ben Azzai adds the tongue to Rabbi’s words, whereas Rabbi holds that the tongue is not included among visible defects, because it is concealed by the lips.

Therefore we raise an objection:

“And

according to

Rabbi, the tongue—not

is it considered a visible limb?!”

And he raises an objection,

but surely this may be refuted from the words of the following beraita:

The beraita discusses the sprinkling of the water of the red heifer upon one impure through contact with a corpse, and the sprinkling is valid only when it is performed upon limbs that are exposed, as explained above—and thus we learned in the beraita:

If one was sprinkling

the ashes of the red heifer’s water upon the impure person in order to purify him,

and the sprinkling splashed

upon

his mouth,

Rabbi and the Sages disagreed whether his mouth is a place fit for sprinkling:

Rabbi says: He sprinkled

his sprinkling is effective.

And the Sages say: He did not sprinkle.

Their reasons will be explained shortly.

Now one must ask concerning the words of the beraita:

What

is the meaning of “upon his mouth” mentioned here? It certainly does not mean his external mouth, for there is no difference between his mouth and the other exposed limbs.

Rather,

is it not

necessarily referring

to his tongue.

And the sprinkling must be performed upon a limb that is exposed. Since his tongue is not exposed all the time, Rabbi and the Sages disagreed about this:

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 against the words 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 ‘upon his mouth,’” as meaning upon his tongue!

Rather, interpret it as follows:

Upon his lips.

And only in this case did Rabbi say that the sprinkling is effective; but sprinkling upon his tongue is not effective.

And immediately we wonder:

Upon his lips

is obvious

that the sprinkling is effective, for they are completely exposed! What does Rabbi teach us by stating this?

And we answer: There is a novelty in the matter. For

what might you have said: Sometimes the lips adhere

Without the words of the beraita, you might have said that sometimes a person closes his mouth forcefully, until his lips adhere to one another and are not visible; therefore they would not be considered something exposed.

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

But it was taught

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

upon his tongue—

Rabbi says: He sprinkled.

And from here there is proof that according to Rabbi the tongue is considered an exposed limb! [b

]

And it was further taught

in another beraita that 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 not necessary that most of the tongue be removed; rather, it is sufficient that

most

of the part

that speaks, which is in its tongue,

be removed—that is, most of the portion of the tongue that is detached from the floor of the mouth and can move upward and downward, and a person speaks with its aid.

And although an animal does not speak, Rabbi nevertheless calls this part of the tongue “that speaks,” since it is the part that speaks in a human tongue.

Now, a firstborn animal is permitted for slaughter and eating only by means of a blemish that is exposed, as explained above.

Since Rabbi permits the firstborn by means of a blemish in the tongue, it is proven from his words that the tongue too is considered an exposed limb. And this is not as we said above!

And on account of these two objections, the Gemara retracts what we said above:

Rather,

this is how the earlier beraita must be interpreted:

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

and there is no need to say

the tongue,

for since castration of the testicles is considered an exposed blemish even though they are always concealed in the scrotum and are not revealed, kal va-chomer the tongue, which is sometimes revealed, is certainly included among exposed blemishes.

Ben Azzai says:

Specifically

the tongue.

But

castration, no.

Should you say:

And what is the meaning of “also”?

How are we to interpret what Ben Azzai said, “also the tongue”? Does this not imply that Ben Azzai came to add to Rabbi’s words rather than to reduce them!

The answer is:

To the first one.

Ben Azzai is referring to what the first tanna taught at the beginning of the beraita: that with regard to all twenty-four extremities listed concerning lesions, a slave goes free through them. And concerning this Ben Azzai added the tongue, and not concerning Rabbi’s words. For Rabbi holds that even castration is included among exposed blemishes, and kal va-chomer the tongue.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

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

let Ben Azzai’s statement be placed first!

It would have been appropriate to place Ben Azzai’s words first and teach them before Rabbi’s words. For Ben Azzai adds the tongue to the words of the first tanna, and Rabbi agrees with Ben Azzai in this and adds castration to it!

And we answer: The

tanna

who taught the beraita

heard Rabbi’s ruling,

he first heard the halakha that Rabbi stated,

and established it

within the beraita, after the words of the first tanna.

And

only afterward

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

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

And after the tanna heard Ben Azzai’s words, he should have placed his words before Rabbi’s words and taught them immediately after the words of the first tanna. For Rabbi too agrees with Ben Azzai’s words, who added the tongue. And Rabbi adds castration as well to Ben Azzai’s words.

And

however, since the halakha that Rabbi stated had already been established after the words of the first tanna, and the beraita was familiar to the students in this form, therefore

the teaching does not move from its place.

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

For the beraitot were taught orally, and were not written in a book. And a version taught orally is difficult to change and to repeat in another wording.

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

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

Ulla said: Everyone agrees

that the tongue has a special 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 touched exposed places on his body, everyone agrees in this that the tongue

is exposed with regard to the creeping creature.

And a person whose tongue was touched by a dead creeping creature is impure.

And

what is the reason?

What is the reason for this matter?

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

It is stated concerning impurity, “And everything

that he touches,

and his hands he has not washed in water,”

the Merciful One said

[Leviticus 15:11].

And the Sages asked: Does a zav who washed his hand 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 is to be read: “And everything that the zav touches with his hands,” or anything that is exposed like his hands, “and he has not washed in water.” That is, the zav has still not washed [immersed] his entire body in water. Then, “he shall wash his garments and immerse in water, and he shall be impure until evening.”

Since this is the source that contact with a creeping creature renders impure only through exposed places, therefore

this too,

the tongue as well,

is capable of being touched

like his hands

it is.

For a person brings out his tongue, and it can be touched while exposed; therefore, a creeping creature that touched a person’s tongue rendered 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

[is considered concealed], and it is not necessary that the water touch his tongue.

And

what is the reason?

[What is the reason for this matter?]

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

“And he shall immerse his flesh in water,”

the Merciful One said

concerning immersion [Leviticus 15:13]. And the word “his flesh” is superfluous, and the Sages expounded from it that Scripture reveals here that he need immerse his body in water only like his flesh:

Just as his flesh

is

from the outside,

for the water touches the flesh from the outside—

so too all

the limbs require immersion in water only

from the outside

[from the outside] alone.

But it is not necessary for the impure person to bring water into his mouth, for this is not “from the outside.” And he cannot bring his entire tongue out of his mouth.

And immersion of part of a limb we have not found.

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 matter.

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

Rabbi

compares it to impurity.

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

And the Sages

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 this verse,

and both disagree about how to expound the following verse:

It is stated concerning 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, and immerse 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 is 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 compared to the law of “the impure person” mentioned earlier. From here, the purification is performed upon a place upon which it is fit to bring impurity upon the person.

Since the tongue is considered exposed with regard to impurity, it is therefore also fit for sprinkling.

And

the Sages hold

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

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

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

That is, the law of purification is compared to the law of washing mentioned after it, namely, immersion.

From here, the purification is performed upon a place fit for immersion. Since with regard to immersion it is not necessary for the water to touch his tongue, sprinkling is therefore not effective upon it.

And we raise an objection against the view of the Sages:

And the Sages too,

why did they choose to compare the law of sprinkling to the law of immersion mentioned after it—

let us compare it to impurity!

And we answer: According to the Sages,

purity should have been derived from purity.

It is proper to learn a law concerning purity from another law concerning purity; therefore we learn the law of sprinkling from the law of immersion, for both bring a person to a state of purity.

And we raise an objection against Rabbi’s view:

And Rabbi,

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

Let us 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 is stated, “and he shall purify him, and he shall wash his garments, and immerse in water.” Therefore Rabbi holds that

“and he shall wash his garments”

interrupts

the

matter.

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

Thus far are Ulla’s words.

And Ulla mentioned in his words that everyone agrees that with regard to immersion the tongue is considered concealed. It is not necessary for the water of the immersion pool to enter the mouth of the person immersing.

And we are astonished at his words:

And

because

Rabbi holds

that

with regard to immersion

the tongue

is considered concealed,

and it is not necessary for the water of the immersion pool to enter the mouth?! Surely the following incident proves that according to Rabbi the water of the immersion pool must enter the mouth of the person immersing!

But Ravin said, Rav Adda said,

thus

Rabbi Yitzhak said: There was an incident involving a maidservant of Rabbi’s household who immersed and emerged, and a bone was found between her teeth, and Rabbi required her to immerse again,

because the bone formed a separation between her teeth and the water of the immersion pool.

And from here it is proven that according to Rabbi the water of the immersion pool must enter the mouth!

And we answer:

Although we do not require the entry of water,

it is indeed true that Ulla said that it is not necessary for the water to enter ממש into the mouth and touch the tongue. But

we do require a place fit for the entry of water,

the mouth must be a place fit for the entry of water. That is, if water enters his mouth, it will touch everything inside it. And since the maidservant of Rabbi had a bone between her teeth, it turns out that that place was not fit for the entry of water; therefore Rabbi required another immersion.

And the Gemara brings an example of this matter, that we find something similar elsewhere: although there is no need for the thing itself to be performed, it must be fit for its performance:

As

the words of

Rabbi Zeira

concerning the law of a meal-offering sacrifice:

in

Tractate Menahot [103b] we learned that a person may vow to bring a meal-offering sacrifice of sixty isaron of fine flour and bring them in one vessel. But if he vowed to bring sixty-one isaron, he may not bring them in one vessel. And Rabbi Shimon gave a reason for the matter: because concerning a meal-offering it is stated in the Torah, “a meal-offering mixed with oil,” and it is impossible to mix well more than sixty isaron together.

And the Gemara there objects: What difference does it make to me that it is impossible to mix more than sixty isaron together? Did we not learn that one who brings a meal-offering sacrifice and did not mix the flour and the oil, it is valid!

And

said

concerning this

Rabbi Zeira:

Any

meal-offering sacrifice

fit for mixing [

for mixing ],

the

mixing

does not invalidate it,

and even if he did not mix it, it is valid.

But

every one that

is not fit for mixing,

such as sixty-one isaron together,

the mixing invalidates it,

and he may not bring them in one vessel.

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

Up to here the Gemara discusses the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages concerning sprinkling on the tongue.

And this dispute is brought here in the course of the discussion of the question asked by the elders of Nezonia: A slave whose master castrated him—what is his law? Is he like exposed blemishes, or not?

And now the Gemara returns and addresses the question of the elders of Nezonia: