Introduction, Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Heh, Part 4

 

The Talmud discusses Rabbi s opinion that with regard to immersion, the tongue is considered an external organ and need not be immersed.

 

וסבר רבי לענין טבילה כטמון דמי והאמר רבין אמר רב אדא אמר רבי יצחק מעשה בשפחה של בית רבי שטבלה ועלתה ונמצא עצם בין שיניה והצריכה רבי טבילה אחרת

 

Now, does Rabbi hold that it [the tongue] is considered concealed with regard to immersion? But did not Rabin say in the name of R. Adda in the name of R. Yitzchak: It once happened that a bondmaid of Rabbi’s household immersed, came out [from the water], and a bone was found between her teeth, and Rabbi ordered her [to perform] a second immersion.

 

In this story, Rabbi seems to require that the waters of the mikveh enter one s mouth. So how can we say that he considers the tongue to be concealed such that it need not be immersed?

 

נהי דביאת מים לא בעינן מקום הראוי לבוא בו מים בעינן כדרבי זירא דאמר רבי זירא כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו ושאינו ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת בו

 

Granted that we do not require the water to enter, we do require that there shall be room for it to enter. And it is in accordance with R. Zera, who said: Whatever is fit for mixing, the mixing is not indispensable; whatever is not fit for mixing, the mixing is indispensable.

 

The Talmud answers that we do not require that the water actually enter the mouth and hit all the teeth and the tongue. But there cannot be anything preventing it from doing so, had the person opened his mouth.

This is compared with the case of mixing flour and oil for a grain offering. If the flour is fit to be mixed, then the mixture if valid even if it was not actually mixed. But if the flour is not fit to be mixed, then mixing becomes indispensable. In other words, you don t actually have to mix the flour. You just have to be able to mix the flour. So too the tongue need not be immersed, it just needs to be able to be immersed.

 

כתנאי (ויקרא כב, כד) ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות כולן בביצים דברי רבי יהודה בביצים ולא בגיד אלא כולן אף בביצים דברי רבי יהודה רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר כולם בגיד רבי יוסי אומר מעוך וכתות אף בביצים נתוק וכרות בגיד אין בביצים לא.

 

This is like a tannaitic dispute: And that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut [you shall not offer unto the Lord] (Leviticus 22:24) all these refer to the testicles, the words of R. Judah. To the testicles and not to the penis! Rather all these refer even to the testicles, the words of R. Judah. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: They all refer to the penis. R. Yose said:
Bruised and crushed refer even to the testicles, whereas broken or cut refer only to the penis but not to the testicles.

 

Earlier we saw a dispute over whether a slave whose master cuts off his testicles goes free. This dispute matches the dispute here over whether an animal whose testicles have been removed can be offered as a sacrifice.