Kiddushin 25b — the Talmud in English

And we say: the question that the elders of Nezonia asked is

as the dispute between tannaim,

the following tannaim disputed concerning this:

For thus we learned in a beraita: All the blemishes mentioned in the Torah concerning castration among sacrifices,

“crushed, smashed, torn out, and cut off”

—all

disqualify

in the testicles, the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And before the Gemara finishes bringing the words of the beraita in full, it raises an objection to Rabbi Yehuda’s words:

Is it possible that only if the castration was performed

in the testicles

is it considered a blemish

but not in the membrum?!

But surely the membrum is entirely exposed, and why should a blemish in it not disqualify?

Rather,

this is how the beraita must be read:

All

disqualify

even in the testicles, the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

That is, these blemishes disqualify even in the testicles, although they are not entirely exposed, because they are discernible from the outside; and all the more so they disqualify in the membrum, which is entirely exposed.

And the beraita continues and says:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: All

disqualify

in the membrum

alone, because it is exposed. But in the testicles they do not disqualify, because they are hidden [and one should not take into account that they are discernible from the outside].

Rabbi Yosei says:

Some of the blemishes disqualify even in the testicles, and some disqualify only in the membrum:

“Crushed and smashed”

disqualify

even in the testicles,

because they are readily discernible from the outside.

But

“torn out and cut off,” in the membrum, do not

[disqualify]. Whereas

in the testicles they do not

disqualify, because these blemishes are not so discernible from the outside.

Thus far are the words of the beraita.

And from here one may learn concerning the question of the elders of Nezonia about a slave whose master castrated him in the testicles, concerning which three opinions were stated:

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

b. The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: This is a hidden blemish, and he does not go free.

c. The opinion of Rabbi Yosei: There is a distinction between the types of castration.

“Crushed and smashed” are considered exposed blemishes.

Whereas “torn out and cut off” are considered hidden blemishes.

Mishna:

The preceding mishnayot dealt with the acquisitions of a woman and of slaves. Our Mishna, however, 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 types of acquisition are discussed in our Mishna:

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

Large livestock is acquired through delivery.

And all the more so through lifting, which is the most significant acquisition of all. But it is not acquired through pulling, because it is not its manner to lead it before him. ,

And small livestock

is acquired

through lifting

and 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 it is acquired through lifting.

Gemara:

Rav expounded in Kimhunia: Large livestock is acquired through pulling.

Contrary to the words of our Mishna, in which we learned that large livestock is acquired through delivery. And the Gemara relates that Shmuel raised an objection to Rav’s words:

He found [

he encountered ]

Shmuel the students of Rav and said to them: Did [

is it possible that ]

Rav say, “Large livestock is acquired through pulling?”

But did we not

“through delivery”

learn,

have we not learned in the Mishna that large livestock is acquired through delivery?!

And Shmuel further raised an objection:

But Rav too said, “through delivery!”

Rav too was accustomed to say “through delivery”;

did he retract from that statement?

Did Rav retract from what he himself was accustomed to say?! And Rav’s students answered Shmuel:

It was he who said [

Rav said ] his words

according to this tanna,

according to the tanna who taught the words of the Sages in our Mishna in a different manner:

For it was taught in a beraita: And the Sages say: This one and this one [

both large livestock and small livestock ]

are acquired through pulling.

And

Rabbi Shimon says: This one and this one are acquired through lifting,

and 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 mentioned in the baraita.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

to the words of the baraita:

But if that is so,

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

an elephant,

which is impossible to lift,

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

And the Gemara brings the words of two amoraim who answered Rav Yosef’s objection:

Abaye said to him:

An elephant is acquired through one of the acquisitions listed below, which were not taught in our Mishna: a.

through

acquisition of

exchange.

b.

Alternatively, through

such that the buyer

rents

from the seller

its place

of the elephant, and then the elephant is acquired by him through acquisition of a courtyard.

Rabbi Zeira said:

One who wishes to acquire an elephant according to Rabbi Shimon

brings four vessels

belonging to him

and places them beneath its feet

of the elephant. And a person’s vessels acquire for him what is within them or what stands upon them.

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

you can infer from it,

can we learn from Rabbi Zeira’s words that

the vessels of the

buyer

that are standing

in the seller’s domain acquire

through them the

buyer,

and would this therefore be proof against the amoraim who hold that they do not acquire?

And the Gemara answers: this may be rejected, and it may be said:

Here, with what are we dealing,

what is being discussed here is an elephant that is standing

in an alley,

that is, a corner adjacent to the public domain, but it is not considered the public domain itself, and all agree that a person’s vessels acquire for him in an alley.