## Kiddushin Daf 25b

###### Kiddushin 25b:1
[Kiddushin 25b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/25b:1)

כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״וּמָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת וְנָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ – כּוּלָּן בַּבֵּיצִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments that the first question with regard to castration of the testicles is **like** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** It is stated with regard to animals that cannot be used as offerings due to blemishes: **“That whose stones are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut** you shall not sacrifice to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:24). **All** of these blemishes **are** referring **to** the animal’s **testicles;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Kiddushin 25b:2
[Kiddushin 25b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/25b:2)

בַּבֵּיצִים וְלֹא בַּגִּיד? אֶלָּא: כּוּלָּן אַף בַּבֵּיצִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּם בַּגִּיד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״מָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת״ – אַף בַּבֵּיצִים, ״נָתוּק וְכָרוּת״ – בְּגִיד – אִין, בְּבֵיצִים – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Could Rabbi Yehuda possibly mean that these blemishes apply only **to the testicles and not to the penis?** Certainly these should also be considered blemishes if they affect the penis, which is more exposed than the testicles. **Rather,** this is what the *baraita* is saying: **All of** these blemishes apply **to the testicles also;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: All of them** apply only **to the penis. Rabbi Yosei states** the following distinction: **“Bruised or crushed”** applies **to the testicles also.** Conversely, when there are areas that are **“broken or cut” on the penis, yes,** these are considered a blemish, but **on the testicles, no,** they are not a blemish.


###### Kiddushin 25b:3
[Kiddushin 25b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/25b:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה נִקְנֵית בִּמְסִירָה, וְהַדַּקָּה בְּהַגְבָּהָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה נִקְנֵית בִּמְשִׁיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A large domesticated animal is acquired by passing,** when its current owner transfers it to a buyer by giving him the reins or the bit. **And a small** domesticated animal is acquired **by lifting.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: A small domesticated animal can be acquired by pulling** also, and there is no need to lift it.


###### Kiddushin 25b:4
[Kiddushin 25b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/25b:4)

**גְּמָ׳** דָּרֵשׁ רַב בְּקִימְחוֹנְיָא: בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה נִקְנֵית בִּמְשִׁיכָה. אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְתַלְמִידֵי דְּרַב, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִי אָמַר רַב בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה נִקְנֵית בִּמְשִׁיכָה? וְהָאֲנַן בִּמְסִירָה תְּנַן! וְרַב נָמֵי בִּמְסִירָה אָמַר, הֲדַר בֵּיהּ מֵהַהִיא? הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זוֹ וְזוֹ נִקְנֵית בִּמְשִׁיכָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: זוֹ וְזוֹ בְּהַגְבָּהָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav taught in** the town of **Kimḥonya: A large domesticated animal is acquired by pulling. Shmuel found Rav’s students** and **said to them: Did Rav** actually **say that a large domesticated animal is acquired by pulling? But didn’t we learn** in the mishna that it is acquired **by passing? And** several times I **also** heard **Rav say** that it is acquired **by passing.** Did **he retract that** ruling? Rav’s students replied: In fact, Rav retracted that ruling and **he states** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **that *tanna*,** i.e., the Rabbis, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **And the Rabbis say: Both** small and large domesticated animals **are acquired by pulling. Rabbi Shimon says: Both** are acquired **by lifting.**


###### Kiddushin 25b:5
[Kiddushin 25b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/25b:5)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, פִּיל לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּמֶּה יִקָּנֶה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בַּחֲלִיפִין. אִי נָמֵי בְּשׂוֹכֵר אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef objects to** this: **If that is so, by what** mode of acquisition **can an elephant be acquired, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon?** It is impossible to lift an elephant. **Abaye said to him:** It is possible to acquire it **by the** mode of acquisition of symbolic **exchange,** a legal act of acquisition formalizing the transfer of ownership of an article. **Alternatively,** one can acquire an elephant **by renting its place** temporarily and acquiring the elephant by means of the ground upon which it is standing.


###### Kiddushin 25b:6
[Kiddushin 25b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/25b:6)

רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: מֵבִיא אַרְבָּעָה כֵּלִים וּמַנִּיחָן תַּחַת רַגְלָיו. שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ: כִּלְיוֹ שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ בִּרְשׁוּת מוֹכֵר – קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ? הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, בְּסִימְטָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira says** that there is another method: One **brings four vessels and places them under** the elephant’s **feet,** and he thereby acquires it like any other item that is inside the buyer’s vessels. The Gemara asks: Can **you learn from** Rabbi Zeira’s statement that if the **buyer’s vessels,** being used to acquire an item from the seller, **are in the seller’s domain, the buyer acquires** the item? The Gemara rejects this: This is no proof, as **with what are we dealing here?** The case in question is one where the vessels are not in the seller’s domain but **in an alley [*simta*],** which is neither a public nor a private domain. In a place of this kind the buyer’s vessels certainly effect acquisition for him.