Kiddushin

an additional [freak] finger and he [his master] cut if off, the slave goes out free. Said R. Huna: Provided that it is counted upon the hand.1 [Some] scholars of Nizunia2 absented themselves from R. Hisda's session.3 Thereupon he instructed R. Hamnuna, ‘Go put them under the ban.’4 He went and said to them, ‘Why did you5 not attend the session?’ ‘Why should we attend?’ replied they, ‘when we ask him questions which he cannot answer?’ ‘Have you ever asked me anything,’ he retorted: ‘which I could not solve?’ [Thereupon] they asked him: What if a slave's stones are castrated by his master, is it an open blemish or not? As he was unable to answer it,6 they said to him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘Hamnuna,’ he replied. ‘You are not Hamnuna, but Karnuna,’ jeered they.7 When he came before R. Hisda, he said to him: They asked you a Mishnah. For we learnt: As to the twenty-four tips of limbs of a man, none of these become unclean on account of raw flesh.8 And these are they: the tips of the fingers of the hands and [the toes of] the feet, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the tip of the membrum, and the nipples of a woman;9 R. Judah said: Also those of a man. Now, it was taught thereon: For [the loss of] all these a slave obtains his freedom. Rabbi said: For castration too; Ben ‘Azzai said: [For] the [loss of the] tongue too.10 The master said: ‘Rabbi said: For castration too.’ Castration of what: shall we say: Castration of the membrum? But that is identical with the [loss of the] membrum. Hence it surely means castration of the stones.11 ‘Rabbi said: Castration too’. And Rabbi, [does he] not [include] the tongue? But the following contradicts it. If he [a priest] is sprinkling,12 and the sprinkling[-water] spurts on to his [the unclean man's] mouth, — Rabbi said: He has [validly] besprinkled him;13 but the Sages maintain: He has not [validly] besprinkled him. Surely that means upon his tongue?14 — No: upon his lips. ‘Upon his lips!’ but that is obvious? — I might have thought, sometimes his lips are tightly pressed together.15 Hence we are informed [that they are still regarded as exposed]. But it was taught: on his tongue? Moreover, it was taught: and if the greater length of the tongue was removed;16 Rabbi said: [even] the greater length of the speaking part of the tongue!17 — But [answer thus:] Rabbi said: Castration too,18 and the tongue goes without saying. Ben ‘Azzai said: [The loss of the] tongue, but not castration. Then to what does ‘too’ refer?19 — To the first clause.20 If so, Ben ‘Azzai's statement should have been given priority? — The Tanna [first] heard Rabbi's view and inserted it21 [in the teaching]; then he learnt Ben ‘Azzai's view and inserted it, while the teaching remained unchanged. 22 ‘Ulla said: All agree in the matter of uncleanliness that the tongue is [considered] exposed as far as reptiles are concerned. What is the reason? The Divine Law said: And whomsoever [he that hath the issue] toucheth,23 and this too can be touched. With respect to tebilah24 it is as hidden.25 What is the reason? Scripture saith, then he shall bathe his flesh in water:26 just as the flesh is exposed, so must all [which requires contact with the water] be exposed. They differ in respect to sprinkling: Rabbi compares it to uncleanliness, whereas the Rabbis compare it to tebillah. And both differ on this verse: And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean [etc.].27 Rabbi holds, [the verse reads thus:] And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day and purify him.28 Whereas the Rabbis maintain, [the verse is read thus:] and on the seventh day he shall purify him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water.29 And the Rabbis too: let it be compared with uncleanliness? — purification should be learned from purification.30 And Rabbi: let it be compared to tebillah? — ‘And he shall wash his clothes’ disconnects the subject.31 Now, does Rabbi hold that it [the tongue] is as concealed in respect of tebillah? But Rabin said in the name of R. Adda in R. Isaac's name: It once happened that a bondmaid of Rabbi's household performed tebillah, ascended [from the water], and a bone was found between her teeth, whereupon Rabbi ordered her [to perform] a second tebillah.32 — Granted that we do not require the water to enter, we insist that there shall be room for it to enter.33 And it is in accordance with R. Zera, who said: Whatever is fit for [perfect] mixing, the mixing is not indispensable; whatever is not fit for [perfect] mixing, the mixing is indispensable.34 [ their absence was due to dissatisfaction with his teaching methods. otherwise you could have answered us.’ Tosaf. Ham-nuna = a hot fish; Kar-nuna = a cold fish. ‘you are a cold fish, not hot’ — your knowledge is lifeless. case of a slave. cannot be. logically requires. shews that it must touch an exposed part of the person. it is regarded as concealed. sprinkled; hence the tongue is included. part which needs tebillah, thus excluding the tongue. bone rendered it impossible. cannot be offered in one utensil, because it cannot be perfectly mixed with the oil. Hence if sixty-one ‘esronim are vowed, sixty are brought in one vessel, and one in another. Now the Talmud objects, But we learnt that the offering is valid even if not mixed at all? R. Zera's dictum is the answer, and the same principle applies here.