Rav Chisda told Rav Hamnuna to rebuke (Rashi - excommunicate) the elders of Nizunya for not coming to his Derashah.

Rav Hamnuna: Why don't you come?

The elders: He does not answer our questions!

Rav Hamnuna: Did you ask me something that I could not answer?

Question (the elders): If a master castrated his slave through the Beitzim (testicles), does the slave go free?

Rav Hamnuna could not answer.

Answer (Rav Chisda): Rebbi and Chachamim argue about this:

(Mishnah): There are 24 extremal limbs on which one cannot contract Tzara'as (because they are not flat, the Kohen cannot see the entire afflicted area at once): the ends of the fingers, toes, ears, nose and Ever, and a women's breasts;

Rebbi Yehudah includes also a man's nipples.

(Beraisa): If a master destroyed any of these (of his slave), the slave goes free;

Rebbi says, even if he castrated him, the slave goes free.

Ben Azai says, he even goes free for loss of the tongue.

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

Inference: This Beraisa implies that Rebbi holds that he does not go free for loss of his tongue;

Contradiction (Beraisa - Rebbi): If one needed to be sprinkled with water sanctified with ashes of the red heifer, and the water landed on his mouth, the sprinkling is valid;

Chachamim say, it is invalid.

Suggestion: 'His mouth' refers to his tongue. (This shows that it is considered external. If so, a slave should go free for it!)

Answer: No, it refers to his lips.

Question: Obviously, sprinkling on the lips is valid!

Answer: One might have thought that since the lips are sometimes closed, they are not considered exposed, and the sprinkling is invalid. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

Objection #1: A Beraisa explicitly (says that Rebbi) is Machshir sprinkling on the tongue!

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 Medaber (the part that is not stuck down) was removed (it is a Mum).

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 that he goes free for the tongue, but not for castration.

Question: If so, Ben Azai's words should precede Rebbi's in the Beraisa!

Answer: The Tana first heard Rebbi's opinion, and taught it. Later, he heard Ben Azai's opinion, but he did not want to alter his teaching, so he left Rebbi's words in their place.

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

All agree that it is considered internal regarding immersion. It says "he will wash his flesh in water." He must immerse only what is external, like his flesh.

They only argue about sprinkling;

Rebbi equates it to Tum'ah, and Chachamim equate it to immersion.

They argue about "the Tahor will sprinkle on the Tamei... (and be Metaher him)";

Rebbi explains that "sprinkling on (a part of the body from which he could become) Tamei... will be Metaher him";

Chachamim expound "he will be Metaher him (by sprinkling on a place that)... he will immerse his clothes and immerse himself".

Chachamim hold that it is better to learn Taharah (through sprinkling) from Taharah (through immersion), and not from Tum'ah;

Rebbi does not learn like Chachamim, for the Torah interrupted ("he will immersing his clothes") in between.

Question: Does Rebbi really hold that the tongue need not be immersed (because it is internal)?!

(Ravin): A Shifchah of Rebbi's house once found a bone between her teeth after immersing. Rebbi made her immerse again. (He is concerned for inside the mouth!)

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

(R. Zeira): Any (flour-offering) that is small enough that it could be mixed (with the proscribed amount of oil in the Kli), even if it was not kneaded, it is Kosher;

If it is so large that it could not be kneaded, it is invalid because it was not kneaded.

Tana'im argue about the Beitzim (whether or not they are considered exposed).

(Beraisa - Rebbi Yehudah): "Mashed, crushed, uprooted or cut" applies to the Beitzim (such a man is a Petzu'a Daka);

Question: Do they apply only to the Beitzim, but not to the Ever?!

Answer: Rather, they apply even to the Beitzim (and surely to the Ever as well).

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, they apply (only) to the Ever;

Rebbi Yosi says, "mashed or crushed" applies even to the Beitzim. "Uprooted or cut" applies only to the Ever.

(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);

Chachamim say, a small animal is acquired through Meshichah (taking to one's premises).

(Gemara - Rav): A large animal is acquired through Meshichah.

Question (Shmuel): The Mishnah says that it is acquired through Mesirah. Also Rav used to say so!

Answer: Rav retracted, and holds like the following Tana:

(Beraisa): Chachamim say, either type of animal is acquired through Meshichah;

R. Shimon says, both are acquired (only) through Hagbahah.

Question (Rav Yosef): According to R. Shimon, how does one acquire an elephant?!

Answer #1 (Abaye): One acquires through Chalipin.

Answer #2 (Abaye): He rents the place it is standing.

Answer #3 (R. Zeira): He puts Kelim under its feet.

Inference: He holds that the Kelim of the buyer can acquire for him in the premises of the seller!

Rejection: No, his answer applies to a Simta (a shoulder of the public thoroughfare).

Answer #4 (R. Zeira): He lifts gets the elephant using bundles of branches. (Rashi - it steps on them; Tosfos - he throws them, and the elephant jumps to catch them.)