Kiddushin 25: Is Castration a Blemish that Emancipates a Slave?

If a master cuts off his slave's extra finger, is the slave emancipated?  We learn that the irreparable damage of any of the twenty-four extremities (fingers, toes, ears, nose, penis, nipples - more than twenty-four) leads to a slave's emancipation.  The rabbis debate about the removal of an extra finger.  It is decided that if the finger was in line with the slave's other fingers, then the slave is emancipated.  If the finger was anywhere else on the hand, its removal is permitted without any benefit to the slave.  

The twenty-four extremities are usually used to exempt a person from the diagnosis of leprosy.  One of the reasons for this is based on the interpretation of a verse that tells priests to evaluate leprosy in one glance; the priest should be able to see all of the affected skin from one angle.  That is not the case in these extremities.   Further, the twenty-four extremities are immersed in water for ritual purification.  Any part of the body that is not covered in water might be exempt from being called an extremity, and thus damage to that body part belonging to a slave might not lead to emancipation.

The Gemara relates a story about Rabbi Chisda and Rabbi Hamnuna.  Rabbi Hamnuna is asked a question by the elders of Nezonya who did not attend Rabbi Chisda's lecture.  They said that Rabbi Chisda could not answer their question.  Rabbi Hamnuna makes an effort to answer - he cannot, and he returns to Rabbi Chisda.  The question: can a slave who has been castrated by his master be emancipated?  Does this constitute an "exposed blemish"?

The Gemara walks through this question methodically over the course of amud (a).  The question whether or not the testicles are extremities, whether they were fully or partially severed, whether they can be compared to the tongue, which must be ready for immersion but is not actually immersed.   The rabbis debate whether or not a priest could see all of the exposed skin at one glance.   

The rabbis also compare the testicles to the tongue, but this time in the context of sprinkling the water of the red heifer for ritual purity.  If the lips or tongue of a person who is ritually impure are sprinkled inadvertently, is the person now ritually pure?  If so, might this indicate that a slave who has his tongue removed by his master should be emancipated, as one of the twenty-four extremities has been damaged by the master?

Before beginning a new Mishna, the rabbis wonder Leviticus 22:24 applies to a slave whose testicles have been removed by his master.  In this verse, we are told that one whose stones are bruised or crushed or torn or cut cannot be sacrificed.  Wouldn't this teach us that testicles are an extremity?  The rabbis ask whether these same injuries are considered to be blemishes both on the penis and on the testicles.

A new Mishna speaks of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eliezer who say that a large domesticated animal can be acquired through passing, a small domesticated animal can be acquired through lifting.  The rabbis say that a small domesticated animal can also be acquired through pulling.

Discussing this Mishna, the rabbis use the example of an elephant.  All seem to agree that an elephant can be acquired by passing, where the bit or leash is passed from one owner to another.  The elephant could also be acquired through its presence in vessels: it could be made to step into four vessels in the pubic domain.  Another option: renting.  The ground upon which the elephant stands could be rented or bought, allowing the elephant's ownership to be transferred to it's new owner.  Finally, the elephant could be led to a section of ground covered by a net of vines.  Pulling the vines while the elephant is there constitutes 'lifting'.

It would seem to me to be obvious: yes, castrating your slave, whether his penis or his testicles, should be enough of a blemish to allow the slave to be freed.  But Talmudic debate is not based on what is 'obviously (to me - and to most of us) the right thing to do'.  Talmudic debate is about finding sources to prove one's opinion, supposedly without the interference of personal bias.  What a morally challenging perek!