Kiddushin 25b (כה:) — the Talmud in English

And we say: The question posed by the elders of Nezonia is

subject to a dispute between tanna’im,

as the following tanna’im disagreed concerning it:

As we learned in a beraita: All the blemishes mentioned in the Torah concerning castration among sacrificial animals—

“crushed, shattered, severed, and cut off”—

all

render the animal unfit

with regard to the testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Before the Gemara finishes citing the words of the beraita in full, it raises an objection to the words of Rabbi Yehuda:

Is it possible that only when the castration is performed

with regard to the testicles

is it considered a blemish,

but not with regard to the organ?!

The organ is certainly completely exposed, so why should a blemish in it not render the animal unfit?

Rather,

this is how the beraita must be read:

All

render the animal unfit

even with regard to the testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

That is, these blemishes render the animal unfit even when they are in the testicles, although the testicles are not entirely exposed, because the blemishes are recognizable from the outside; and all the more so do they render the animal unfit when they are in the organ, which is completely exposed.

And the beraita continues and says:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: All

render the animal unfit

with regard to the organ

alone, because it is exposed. But with regard to the testicles, they do not render the animal unfit, because they are concealed [and one should not take into consideration the fact that the blemishes are recognizable from the outside].

Rabbi Yosei says:

Some of the blemishes render the animal unfit even when they are in the testicles, whereas some render it unfit only when they are in the organ:

“Crushed and shattered”

render the animal unfit

even with regard to the testicles,

because they are readily recognizable from the outside.

But

“severed and cut off”—with regard to the organ, they do

render the animal unfit. Whereas

with regard to the testicles, they do not

render the animal unfit, because these blemishes are not so readily recognizable from the outside.

This concludes the words of the beraita.

From here one can derive the answer to the question of the elders of Nezonia concerning a slave whose master castrated him with regard to the testicles, as three opinions were stated concerning the matter: [A]

The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: This is an exposed blemish, and he goes free. [B]

The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: This is a concealed blemish, and he does not go free. [C]

The opinion of Rabbi Yosei: A distinction must be made between the different forms of castration.

“Crushed and shattered” are considered exposed blemishes.

Whereas “severed and cut off” are considered concealed blemishes.

Mishna:

The previous mishnayot dealt with the modes of acquisition of a woman and of slaves. Our Mishna, by contrast, deals with the acquisition of animals.

Animals are divided into two groups: a. Large livestock [such as an ox or a donkey]. b. Small livestock [such as a sheep or a goat].

Three modes of acquisition are discussed in our Mishna:

a. “Delivery”—the seller gives the animal into the buyer’s possession by means of its halter or its hair, and the like. , b. “Pulling”—the buyer pulls the animal in a simta, and uproots it from its original place. c. “Lifting”—the buyer lifts the animal three tefachim above the ground. , The Mishna says: The Mishna says:

Large livestock is acquired through delivery.

And all the more so through lifting, which is the most significant of all the modes of acquisition. But it is not acquired through pulling, because it is not customary to lead it before oneself in that manner. ,

And small livestock

is acquired

through lifting

but not through pulling — these are

the words of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say: Small livestock is acquired

also

through pulling,

and all the more so is it acquired through lifting.

Gemara:

Rav taught in Kimchonia: Large livestock is acquired through pulling.

This is contrary to our Mishna, in which we learned that large livestock is acquired through delivery. And the Gemara relates that Shmuel was astonished by Rav’s statement:

He found

them [he encountered them]—

Shmuel found Rav’s students and said to them: Did

he [Rav] really

say that large livestock is acquired through pulling?

But did we not

“learn

through delivery,”

whereas we learned in the Mishna that large livestock is acquired through delivery?!

And Shmuel added his astonishment:

But Rav, too, said, “Through delivery”!

Rav himself was accustomed to say that acquisition is through delivery;

did he retract that statement?

Did Rav retract what he himself had been accustomed to say?! Rav’s students answered Shmuel:

He, who said

[Rav said] his statement,

followed this tanna,

in accordance with the tanna who taught the words of the Sages in our Mishna in a different formulation:

As it was taught in a beraita: And the Sages say: This and this

[both large livestock and small livestock]

are acquired through pulling.

And

Rabbi Shimon says: This and that are acquired through lifting,

but not through pulling and not through delivery.

And Rav holds that the halakha is in accordance with the words of the Sages as they were cited in the beraita.

Rav Yosef objected

to the words of the beraita:

But if that is so,

if Rabbi Shimon indeed said that a large animal is acquired through lifting it, then

an elephant,

which it is impossible to lift,

according to Rabbi Shimon, through what will it be acquired?

The Gemara cites the words of two amoraim who answered Rav Yosef’s objection:

Abaye said:

An elephant can be acquired through one of the following modes of acquisition, which were not taught in our Mishna: a.

Through

an acquisition of

exchange.

b.

Alternatively, through

a case in which the buyer

rents

from the seller

the place

occupied by the elephant, in which case the elephant is acquired by means of the acquisition of a courtyard.

Rabbi Zeira said:

One who wishes to acquire an elephant according to Rabbi Shimon

brings four utensils

belonging to him

and places them beneath its feet.

A person’s utensils acquire for him whatever is within them or whatever stands upon them.

The amoraim disagreed concerning acquisition through a person’s utensils: Some say that they do not acquire what is placed upon them when they are in the seller’s domain, because the utensil is subordinate to the domain. It is therefore as though the object were placed in the seller’s domain itself. Others say that even in the seller’s domain, the buyer’s utensils acquire for him, for it is as though the seller had placed the object in the buyer’s domain. The Gemara assumed that Rabbi Zeira [who said that one who wishes to acquire an elephant brings four utensils and places them beneath its feet] was speaking of an elephant standing in the seller’s domain. Therefore, the Gemara asks:

Can you infer from this,

can we learn from Rabbi Zeira’s words that

the utensils of a

buyer

standing

in the seller’s domain acquire

the object for the

buyer,

so that this would constitute proof against the amoraim who maintain that they do not acquire it?

The Gemara answers: This may be rejected, by saying:

Here, with what are we dealing

? What is being discussed here? An elephant standing

in an alleyway,

that is, in a corner adjacent to the public domain, which is not considered the public domain itself. Everyone agrees that a person’s utensils acquire for him in an alleyway.