Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE EVER AND BEITZIM

(a) Question (Elders): A master castrated his slave through the Beitzim - does the slave go free?
(b) Answer (Rav Chisda): Rebbi and Chachamim argue on this.

1. (Mishnah): A slave goes free for the loss of any of his 24 extremal limbs - the fingers, toes, ears, nose and Ever; by a Shifchah, the Dadim;
2. R. Yehudah says, also a male slave goes free for the loss of his Dadim.
3. (Beraisa): He goes free for any of these; Rebbi says, even if castrated;
4. Ben Azai says, he even goes free for loss of the tongue.

i. Rebbi cannot mean castration of the Ever, since that was already listed!
ii. Rather, he means castration of the Beitzim.

(c) Question: Does Rebbi really hold that he does not go free for loss of the tongue?

1. Contradiction (Beraisa - Rebbi): Reuven needed to be sprinkled with water sanctified by the ashes of the red heifer. The water landed on his mouth - the sprinkling is valid; Chachamim say, it is invalid.

i. Suggestion: When the Beraisa says 'his mouth', it refers to his tongue.

2. Answer: No, it refers to his lips.
3. Question: Obviously, that is valid!
4. Answer: One might have thought, since the lips are sometimes closed, they are not considered exposed, and the sprinkling is invalid - we hear, this is not so.
5. Objection #1: But a Beraisa explicitly says, they argue when the water landed on his tongue!
6. Objection #2 (Beraisa): If most of the tongue was removed, this is a blemish (because it is an external organ); Rebbi says, if most (of the part which is not stuck to the jaw was removed.

(d) Answer: Really, Rebbi says that a slave goes free if he was castrated, all the more so for loss of his tongue; ben Azai says, he goes free for the tongue, not for castration.
(e) Question: If so, ben Azai's words should precede Rebbi's in the Beraisa!
(f) Answer: The Tana first heard Rebbi's opinion, and taught it; when he later heard ben Azai's opinion, he did not want to alter his teaching, so he left Rebbi's words in their place.

(a) (Ula): All agree that the tongue is considered external regarding Tum'ah of a rodent - "That it will touch it", and the tongue can be touched.

1. All agree that it is considered internal regarding immersion - "He will wash his flesh in water";

i. He only need immerse what is external, as his flesh.

2. They only argue regarding sprinkling.

i. Rebbi compares it to Tum'ah; Chachamim compare it to immersion.

(b) The source of the argument is the following verse: "The Tahor will sprinkle on the Tamei...(and make him Tahor)";

1. Rebbi explains, "Sprinkling on (a part of the body from which he could become) Tamei... will make him Tahor";
2. Chachamim expound "he will make him Tahor (by sprinkling on a place that)...he will immerse his clothes and immerse himself".

i. They hold that it is better to learn Taharah (through sprinkling) from Taharah (through immersion), and not from Tum'ah;
ii. Rebbi does not learn as Chachamim, for the Torah interrupted ("he will immersing his clothes") in between.

(c) Question: Does Rebbi really consider the tongue as covered regarding immersion?!

1. (Ravin): A Shifchah of Rebbi's house once found a bone between her teeth after immersing; Rebbi made her immerse again. (We see that we are concerned for inside the mouth!)

(d) Answer: Water need not enter the inside of the mouth, but it must be fitting for immersion, as R. Zeira's law.

1. (R. Zeira): Any (flour-offering) which is small enough that it could be kneaded (with the proscribed amount of oil in the service vessel), if it was not kneaded, it is valid;
2. If it is so large that it could not be kneaded, it is invalid because it was not kneaded.

(e) Tana'im argue regarding the Beitzim (if they are considered exposed or not).

1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Mashed, crushed, uprooted or cut" - these apply to the Beitzim (to make him a Petzu'a Daka);

i. Question: Do they only apply to the Beitzim, not to the Ever?!
ii. Answer: Rather, they even apply to the Beitzim (and surely to the Ever as well).

2. R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, they apply (only to) the Ever;
3. R. Yosi says, "Mashed or crushed" applies even to the Beitzim; "uprooted or cut" applies only to the Ever.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir and R. Eliezer): A large (i.e. work) animal may be acquired through Mesirah (handing over); a small animal is acquired through Hagbahah (lifting);
(b) Chachamim say, a small animal is acquired through Meshichah (pulling to one's domain).
(c) (Gemara - Rav): A large animal is acquired through Meshichah.
(d) Question (Shmuel): But the Mishnah says it is acquired through Mesirah, and Rav also used to say so!
(e) Answer: Rav retracted, and holds as the following Tana:

1. (Beraisa): Chachamim say, either type of animal is acquired through Meshichah;
2. R. Shimon says, both are acquired with Hagbahah.

(f) Question (Rav Yosef): According to R. Shimon, how does one acquire an elephant?!
(g) Answer #1 (Abaye): Through Chalipin.
(h) Answer #2 (Abaye): By renting the place it is standing.
(i) Answer #3 (R. Zeira): He puts vessels under its feet.

1. Inference: He must hold that the vessels of the buyer can acquire for him in the premises of the seller!
2. Rejection: No, he gives this solution in a Simta (a shoulder of the public thoroughfare).

(j) Answer #4 (R. Zeira): He gets the elephant to step on bundles of branches (Rashi; Tosfos - he gets the elephant to jump to catch the bundles).