Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Heh, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s passage discusses whether cutting off the tongue causes the slave to go free. If yesterday s discussion reminded me of Game of Thrones, today s discussion reminds me of the Handmaid s Tale, a book that made a deep impact on me, but a television show I did not enjoy all that much.

 

רבי אומר אף הסירוס ורבי לשון לא ורמינהו הרי מי שהיה מזה ונתזה הזאה על פיו רבי אומר היזה וחכמים אומרים לא היזה מאי לאו על לשונו

 

Rabbi said: Castration too. And Rabbi, [does] not [include] the tongue? But they raised the following as a contradiction. If he [a priest] is sprinkling, and it sprinkles on to his [the unclean man’s] mouth: Rabbi said: He has [validly] sprinkled him; but the Sages say he has not validly sprinkled him. Does this not mean on his tongue?

 

Rabbi [Yehudah Hanasi] says that the slave goes free if he is castrated, but he does not seem to agree with Ben Azzai that he goes free if his tongue is cut off. But there is a baraita that seems to contradict this. This baraita is about sprinkling a person with the red heifer waters in order to purify him. According to Rabbi, if he is sprinkled in his mouth, which we at first interpret as on his tongue, then the sprinkling is considered valid. This implies that the tongue is an exposed organ and that a slave would go free if the master cut it off.

 

לא על שפתיו על שפתיו פשיטא מהו דתימא זימנא דחלים שפתיה קמ"ל

 

No: upon his lips. Upon his lips! but that is obvious? What might you have said? Sometimes his lips are tightly pressed together. Hence he teaches [that they are still regarded as exposed].

 

The Talmud solves the difficulty by saying that the water fell on his lips, not on his tongue. But if it falls on his lips, then it should be obvious that he is pure after all the lips are an external part of the body. The answer is that sometimes when his lips are tightly closed, the lips are not exposed to the outside. Therefore Rabbi needed to say that if the water falls on the lips, he is pure.

 

והתניא על לשונו

ועוד תניא ושניטל רוב הלשון רבי אומר רוב המדבר שבלשונו

 

But was it not taught: on his tongue? Moreover, it was taught: and if the greater length of the tongue was removed; Rabbi said: [even] the greater length of the speaking part of the tongue!

 

The problem with the above resolution is that there is an explicit baraita in which Rabbi teaches that if the water falls on his tongue he is pure. And there is another baraita about blemishes that disqualify a priest from serving on the altar in which Rabbi agrees that even if only part of his tongue was removed, he cannot serve. Clearly, Rabbi considers the tongue an external part of the body.

 

אלא רבי אומר סירוס ולא מיבעיא לשון בן עזאי אמר לשון אבל סירוס לא

 

Rather Rabbi said: Castration too and the tongue goes without saying.

Ben Azzai said: [The loss of the] tongue, but not castration.

 

The Talmud now offers a different reading of the debate. Both tannaim hold that loss of tongue causes the slave to go free. They just disagree about castration.

 

ומאי אף אקמייתא

אי הכי נקדמה דבן עזאי ברישא

תנא שמעה לדרבי וקבעה ושמעה לדבן עזאי ותני ומשנה לא זזה ממקומה

 

Then to what does too refer? To the first clause.

If so, then why did he not put Ben Azzai s statement first?

The Tanna [first] heard Rabbi’s view and inserted it [in the teaching]; then he learned Ben Azzai’s view and inserted it, while the teaching remained unchanged.

 

If Ben Azzai does not agree with Rabbi then why does he say the tongue too. He should have just said the tongue.

The Talmud answers that Ben Azzai is adding on to the list that appears before Rabbi, and not to Rabbi. But then why didn t the baraita put his words first. The Talmud answers that the author of the baraita listed the opinions in the order in which he heard them. But he did not change the wording of Ben Azzai s statement, even though it could lead to some confusion.