We begin today's discussion on the second line of the twenty-fourth leaf, first side, of the tractate. The Gemara opens with a story about the elders of Nizunia who failed to attend the lecture of Rav Hezda. In response, Rav Hezda instructed that they be placed under a ban of excommunication, known as a nidui, for their absence. When asked why they did not attend, the elders explained that they had previously posed questions to Rav Hezda, and he had not answered them. Therefore, they saw no benefit in attending.
Rabbi Menuna, a student of Rav Hezda, then interjected, asking if he, Rabbi Menuna, had ever failed to answer their questions. His implication was that if Rav Hezda did not answer, there must have been a valid reason. The elders then presented Rabbi Menuna with a question: If a master cuts off the testicles of his slave, does the slave go free? The question hinges on whether the testicles are considered an exposed part of the body, even though they are typically concealed in a sack. Rabbi Menuna did not know the answer.
Upon hearing his inability to answer, the elders of Nizunia mockingly questioned his name, Ha'menuna, which means "hot fish," suggesting vitality and knowledge. They said he should instead be called "Kar Nunah," meaning "cold fish," implying he was ignorant, like a street vendor who lacks Torah knowledge. Tosfot explains this comparison, stating that Ha'menuna implies a "hot fish" full of life, while "Kar Nunah" signifies a "cold fish," lifeless and unlearned. This incident led to Rav Hezda also becoming upset with Rabbi Menuna for his lack of knowledge.
The Gemara then delves into the halachic background of the elders' question, referencing a Mishnah that discusses 24 specific limbs of the human body. If a certain type of skin affliction, called a mihya, appears on any of these 24 limbs, it is not considered ritually impure (tameh). This is because these limbs are "sloped" or curved, meaning the affliction cannot be fully seen in a single view. Examples include the tips of the fingers and toes (ten each, totaling 20), the edges of the ears (two), the tip of the nose, and the tip of the male organ (Rosh HaGivya). The Mishnah also mentions the female breasts (dadim) as sloped, and the Gemara adds that even a man's breasts, though less prominent, share this property.
A Beraita then connects this concept to the laws of a slave. It states that if a master injures a slave in any of these 24 areas, the slave goes free. Rabbi expands on this, saying that not only these 24 items, but even if the master causes the slave to become a eunuch (sirus), the slave goes free. Ben Azai further states that even if the master cuts off the slave's tongue, the slave goes free. The original Mishnah, therefore, was not directly discussing slaves, but Rabbi applied its principles to the freeing of a slave. The Gemara notes that common injuries like damage to a tooth (shen) or an eye (ayin) are not debated, as everyone agrees they free a slave, as explicitly stated in the Torah.
The Gemara clarifies that Rabbi's addition of sirus refers specifically to the testicles (betim), as the male organ (Givya) was already included in the 24 limbs. Rabbi's statement, "even sirus," implies that the cutting of the testicles also frees the slave. However, Rabbi does not explicitly mention the tongue (lashon). This leads to a contradiction, as another Beraita states that if holy waters were sprinkled on a ritually impure person and landed on his mouth, Rabbi considers it valid. The Gemara explains that "mouth" here must refer to the tongue, implying that Rabbi considers the tongue an exposed organ. If so, why did he not explicitly include the tongue in his ruling about freeing a slave?
The Gemara initially suggests that "mouth" refers to the lips, which are always exposed. However, a definitive Beraita states that sprinkling on the tongue is valid, confirming Rabbi views the tongue as exposed. Another proof is from the laws of a firstborn animal (bechor) with a blemish (mum). If the majority of an animal's tongue, the part that protrudes when it makes noise, is cut, it is considered a revealed blemish, rendering the animal unfit as an offering. This further supports the idea that the tongue is considered a revealed organ.
The Gemara resolves the contradiction by explaining Rabbi's statement: when Rabbi said "even sirus," he meant that sirus is a novel inclusion because the testicles are typically covered. The tongue, however, is so obviously revealed when one speaks that it goes without saying that cutting it would free the slave. Thus, Rabbi believes that both the tongue and sirus free the slave. Ben Azai, on the other hand, says "even lashon," meaning the tongue, but not sirus, because he considers the testicles to be a hidden organ. This establishes a dispute between Rabbi and Ben Azai: Rabbi holds that both the tongue and sirus free the slave, while Ben Azai holds that only the tongue, in addition to the 24 items, frees the slave.
The Gemara then questions the order in which these opinions are presented, suggesting that Ben Azai's statement should precede Rabbi's for better logical flow. The response is that the Tanna (the sage who taught the Mishnah) heard Rabbi's statement first and recorded it that way, then later added Ben Azai's, choosing not to reorder them to avoid confusing students who had already learned it in that sequence.
Next, the Gemara discusses the status of the tongue regarding ritual impurity (tumah). Everyone agrees that if a dead creeping creature (sheretz) touches a person's tongue, the person becomes ritually impure. This is because the tongue is considered an exposed part of the body for the purpose of receiving tumah. However, when it comes to immersion in a ritual bath (mikveh), one does not need to stick out their tongue for the water to touch it. This is because the Torah states that immersion must cover "flesh in water," referring to revealed flesh. The tongue, in its natural position, is not considered revealed for immersion. The Gemara notes that there is no precedent for an organ where only part needs to be immersed; if half needs immersion, the whole does. Therefore, since the tongue is not fully revealed, it does not require special immersion.
The Gemara returns to the dispute between Rabbi and Ben Azai regarding sprinkling holy waters (haza'ah) on the tongue. Rabbi compares haza'ah to the laws of tumah, where the tongue is considered exposed. Since the verse states, "and you shall purify him," next to the word "impure," Rabbi infers that purification applies to any part of the body that can receive tumah, including the tongue. Ben Azai, however, compares haza'ah to the laws of ritual washing (tevilah), where the tongue is considered internal. He connects "and you shall purify him" to the end of the verse, which refers to purification through washing, implying that just as the tongue is internal for washing, it is internal for sprinkling.
The Gemara asks why Rabbi does not compare haza'ah to tevilah. It answers that the verse about washing clothes (kibus begadim) separates the words "purify" and "wash," making the comparison less direct. The words "purify" and "impure" are, however, juxtaposed, making Rabbi's comparison more compelling.
A challenge is raised against Rabbi's view that the tongue is internal for immersion. A story is told about a maidservant of Rabbi's household who immersed in a mikveh and emerged with a piece of meat stuck between her teeth. Rabbi ruled that she had to re-immerse. This seems to contradict his view that the inside of the mouth is internal and does not require water to enter. The Gemara resolves this by explaining a concept called bilah, which means "mixed" or "able to be mixed." In the context of the mikveh, the water does not actually need to enter every crevice, but it must be "able to enter" (ra'uy l'vo ba'im). The piece of meat prevented the water from being able to enter that specific area, thus invalidating the immersion. This is analogous to the law of a meal offering (minchah) where flour and oil must be in a specific ratio to be "mixable." Even if not actually mixed, it must be capable of being mixed to be kosher.
The Gemara provides the source for the principle that tumah applies only to revealed parts of the body, deriving it from a verse about a zav (a man with a seminal discharge) touching a person. The verse mentions "hands," implying that the contact must be with a part of the body similar to the hands, i.e., an exposed part. The tongue, being "touchable," is considered revealed in this context.
The discussion shifts back to the question of whether cutting a slave's testicles frees him, noting that this is a dispute among Tannaim. The verse lists blemishes that disqualify an animal from being an offering: "crushed (maukh), bruised (chatut), torn (natuk), or severed (charut)." These apply to the testicles (betzim) of an animal. Rabbi Yehudah holds that these blemishes, even in the testicles, disqualify the animal, implying the testicles are considered revealed. Rabbi Yishmael ben Yaakov, however, considers the testicles hidden, and thus these blemishes would not disqualify the animal unless they were on the male organ (gid) itself. Rabbi Yosef offers a distinction: maukh and chatut (squashed or crushed) are noticeable even in the testicles, but natuk and charut (torn or severed cords) are not noticeable in the testicles but only in the male organ itself. This highlights the underlying disagreement about whether the testicles are considered a revealed or hidden organ, a debate that directly applies to the freeing of a slave.
We now turn to a new Mishnah concerning the acquisition of animals. Large animals (behemah gasah), such as an ox or a horse, which cannot be lifted, are acquired through mesirah, which involves handing over the reins, a leash, or even a tuft of hair. Small animals (behemah dakah), like sheep or goats, are acquired through hagbahah, meaning lifting them off the ground. The Mishnah states that for a large animal, mesirah is sufficient because hagbahah is impractical. For a small animal, however, hagbahah is required because it is possible.
The Mishnah states the view of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eliezer for small animals, requiring hagbahah. However, the Sages (Chachamim) hold that small animals can also be acquired through meshichah, which means drawing the animal, causing it to walk a few steps. Rav once taught in Kimchunya that large animals are acquired through meshichah. This puzzled his students, as the Mishnah states mesirah for large animals, and Rav himself had previously taught mesirah. The Gemara explains that Rav's teaching was based on a Beraita where the Sages state that both large and small animals can be acquired through meshichah. Rabbi Shimon, in that same Beraita, states that both are acquired through hagbahah.
The Gemara then asks how Rabbi Shimon could possibly require hagbahah for a large animal like an elephant. Several solutions are offered: one is through halipin, a symbolic exchange where the seller gives an item to the buyer, and the buyer lifts it, thereby transferring ownership of the animal. Another method is by renting the space where the animal is located, thus transferring ownership of the domain and whatever is within it. Rabbi Zera suggests placing four vessels on the ground and having the elephant stand with its feet in them, thereby acquiring the animal through the vessels, which are the buyer's property. The Gemara clarifies that these vessels must be in a public domain (simta), not the seller's private domain, to be effective.
Rabbi Zeira offers another creative solution for hagbahah of an elephant: one can make a pile of twigs three handbreadths high. When the elephant walks onto the pile, it is considered lifted three handbreadths off the ground, fulfilling the requirement of hagbahah. Tosfot explains that less than three handbreadths is considered connected to the ground (lavud). The Gemara questions why twigs are specified, suggesting rocks or other items could also elevate the animal. The answer is that twigs are elephant food, so the animal can be lured onto the pile. Furthermore, twigs are not fixed (muktzeh) on Shabbat because they are animal food, allowing them to be moved.
In summary, the Mishnah, according to Rashi, reflects the view of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eliezer: large animals are acquired by mesirah, and small animals by hagbahah. The Sages in a Beraita agree that hagbahah is ideal but allow meshichah for both. Rabbi Shimon, however, maintains that all animals, large or small, are acquired through hagbahah, with the Gemara providing various methods to achieve this for large animals, such as halipin, renting space, using vessels in a public domain, or elevating the animal on a pile of twigs.