Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 5, 2016 | 讻状讜 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Kiddushin 25

There is a discussion relating to which types of blemishes are considered noticeable that a slave would go free if the master caused it. 聽Arguments surround the cases of castrated testicles and the tongue. 聽Sources are brought from other areas of halacha where revealed blemishes are discussed. 聽The mishna discusses how larger and smaller animals are acquired. 聽The gemara raises a question according to a tanna who requires lifting the animal: 聽how can an elephant be acquired?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讬转专转 讜讞转讻讛 注讘讚 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 诇讞讬专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讜讗 砖谞住驻专转 注诇 讙讘 讛讬讚

an extra finger, i.e., six fingers on his hand, and the master severed it, the slave is emancipated by means of this injury. Rav Huna says: And this halakha applies when the finger can be counted along the back of the hand, i.e., the extra finger is on the same line as the others. If it protrudes from another spot, then it is not classified as a finger but a mere growth, and destroying it is not considered the removal of a limb.

住讘讬 讚谞讝讜谞讬讗 诇讗 讗转讜 诇驻讬专拽讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讝讬诇 爪谞注讬谞讛讜 讗讝诇 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗转讜 专讘谞谉 诇驻讬专拽讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 谞讬转讬 讚讘注讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜诇讗 驻砖讟 诇谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讬 讘注讬转讜 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讬讚讬 讜诇讗 驻砖讬讟谞讗 诇讻讜

搂 The Gemara relates: The Elders of the city of Nezonya did not come to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 lecture. Rav 岣sda said to Rav Hamnuna: Go and ostracize them [tzaninhu] because they act disrespectfully toward the Sages. Rav Hamnuna went and said to the Elders of Nezonya: What is the reason that the rabbis did not come to the lecture? They said to him: Why should we come, as we asked him about a matter and he did not resolve it for us. We have nothing to learn from him. Rav Hamnuna said to them: Have you asked me anything that I did not resolve for you? Ask me your question.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 注讘讚 砖住专住讜 专讘讜 讘讘爪讬诐 诪讛讜 讻诪讜诐 砖讘讙诇讜讬 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讛 砖诪讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诇讗 拽专谞讜谞讗

They raised the following dilemma before him: With regard to a slave whose master castrates his testicles, what is the halakha? Is that considered an exposed blemish that is sufficient to emancipate him or not? An answer to their dilemma was not available to Rav Hamnuna. They said to him: What is your name? He said to them: Hamnuna. They said to him in jest: You should not be called Hamnuna, a good hot fish; rather, your name should be Karnuna, a cold fish that is no longer tasty.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讱 讚转谞谉 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 砖讘讗讚诐 讻讜诇诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬讛

After this encounter Rav Hamnuna came before Rav 岣sda and told him what had happened. Rav 岣sda said to him: They raised before you a dilemma that can be resolved from a baraita, which was cited in connection to a mishna, and you did not know how to answer them. As we learned in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 6:7): There are twenty-four extremities in a person, none of which can become ritually impure due to unaffected skin. The Torah states that if a leprous spot contains some healthy flesh, the person is immediately rendered impure (Leviticus 13:14). The halakha of unaffected skin does not apply to the extremities because the priest must be able to see the entirety of the untainted area at once. Due to the shape of the twenty-four extremities, it is impossible to see the entirety of the area from a single vantage point. Consequently, the halakha of unaffected skin does not apply to them.

讜讗诇讜 讛诐 专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讜专讗砖讬 讗讝谞讬诐 讜专讗砖 讛讞讜讟诐 讜专讗砖 讛讙讜讬讬讛 讜专讗砖讬 讚讚讬诐 砖讘讗砖讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 砖讘讗讬砖 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讘讻讜诇诐 注讘讚 讬讜爪讗 讘讛诐 诇讞讬专讜转 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛住讬专讜住 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诇砖讜谉

And these are the twenty-four extremities: The extremities of the fingers and toes, twenty in total, and the extremities of the ears, and the extremity of the nose, and the extremity of the penis, and the extremities of the nipples of a woman. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the nipples of a man are included. And it is taught in that regard in a baraita: A slave is emancipated for injuries to all of them. The body parts listed with regard to leprosy are the same ones that, when injured, lead to the emancipation of a slave. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Also, the castration of a slave by his master entails his freedom. Ben Azzai says: The tongue is also considered an exposed body part, as it is exposed when one speaks. Consequently, if the master severs his slave鈥檚 tongue, the slave goes free.

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛住讬专讜住 住讬专讜住 讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 住讬专讜住 讚讙讬讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讜讬讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 住讬专讜住 讚讘讬爪讬诐

The Master said above that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Also castration. The Gemara asks: Castration of what? If we say that it is referring to castration of the penis, i.e., that the master severed the slave鈥檚 penis, this is the same as the mishna that already mentioned a penis. What, then, does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi add? Rather, is it not correct to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to castration of the testicles? If so, this baraita resolves the dilemma raised by the Elders of Nezonya.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛住讬专讜住 讜专讘讬 诇砖讜谉 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讬 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诪讝讛 讜谞转讝讛 讛讝讗讛 注诇 驻讬讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬讝讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讛讬讝讛

The Gemara further analyzes the baraita. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Also castration, but he does not include the tongue, unlike ben Azzai. The Gemara inquires: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, is the tongue not considered exposed? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following: In a case where one was sprinkling the purification water of the red heifer on another person in order to purify him from ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and a sprinkling of water landed on his mouth, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has sprinkled, i.e., this is a valid form of sprinkling and the impure person is purified. And the Rabbis say: He has not sprinkled, i.e., this is an invalid form of sprinkling because water of purification must be sprinkled on exposed limbs.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 注诇 诇砖讜谞讜 诇讗 注诇 砖驻转讬讜 注诇 砖驻转讬讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讞诇讬诐 砖驻转讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty from this baraita: What, is it not the case that this is referring to a situation where water was sprinkled on his tongue, which would indicate that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that the tongue is an exposed limb? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is referring to one who had water sprinkled on his lips. The Gemara asks: If it was sprinkled on his lips, isn鈥檛 it obvious that he is ritually pure, as the lips are exposed? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state this, lest you say that at times, he closes his lips tightly, and consequently they should be considered an unexposed part of the body. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi one鈥檚 lips are considered exposed.

讜讛转谞讬讗 注诇 诇砖讜谞讜 讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讜砖谞讬讟诇 专讜讘 讛诇砖讜谉 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 专讜讘 讛诪讚讘专 砖讘诇砖讜谞讜

The Gemara further asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita that if one had water sprinkled on his tongue he is ritually pure according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? And it is further taught in a baraita dealing with the blemishes of priests and offerings that if most of his tongue was removed, this is a blemish; and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This is referring to a case where the part removed was most of the part of his tongue that he uses for speaking and pronouncing words, which is the tip of the tongue, not most of its length. This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that if the tongue is removed, that is considered a blemish.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 住讬专讜住 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇砖讜谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗诪专 诇砖讜谉 讗讘诇 住讬专讜住 诇讗 讜诪讗讬 讗祝 讗拽诪讬讬转讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞拽讚诪讛 讚讘谉 注讝讗讬 讘专讬砖讗

Rather, the baraita should be explained as follows. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Castration is included, and it is not necessary to say that if the slave鈥檚 tongue is removed he is emancipated, as the tongue is exposed. Ben Azzai says: The loss of his tongue emancipates him, but castration does not. And what is the meaning of the term: Also, in the baraita, which indicates that ben Azzai is adding to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement? He is adding to the first statement of the first tanna, not to the immediately preceding ruling of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara asks: If so, the statement of ben Azzai should be first, as he adds one item, i.e., the tongue, to the ruling of the first tanna, while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi further adds the case of castration to ben Azzai鈥檚 opinion.

转谞讗 砖诪注讛 诇讚专讘讬 讜拽讘注讛 讜砖诪注讛 诇讚讘谉 注讝讗讬 讜转谞讬 讜诪砖谞讛 诇讗 讝讝讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛

The Gemara answers: The baraita should have been formulated in this manner, but the tanna first heard the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and set it in his version of the baraita, and afterward he heard the opinion of ben Azzai and taught it at the end. And although it would be appropriate to change the order of the statements, he did not do so because a mishna does not move from its place. Once it has been taught in a certain manner, the tanna will not change the text of a mishna, in order to avoid confusion.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘诇砖讜谉 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讙诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 讛砖专抓 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘专 谞讙讬注讛 讛讜讗

Ulla says: All concede with regard to a tongue that in the matter of ritual impurity it is considered exposed with respect to a dead creeping animal and other items that impart impurity. In other words, if an individual comes into contact with a source of ritual impurity with his tongue, he is rendered impure. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states: 鈥淲hom he touches鈥 (Leviticus 15:11), and this tongue can also touch. It is possible for one to touch objects with his tongue.

诇注谞讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讻讟诪讜谉 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜专讞抓 讘砖专讜 讘诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讛 讘砖专讜 诪讗讘专讗讬 讗祝 讻诇 诪讗讘专讗讬

Similarly, all agree about a tongue with regard to the matter of immersion that the tongue is considered concealed, and therefore one need not open his mouth so that the water touches his tongue. For an immersion to be valid, the water must come into contact with the entire outside of one鈥檚 body. Ulla teaches that this does not include the tongue. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd he shall immerse his flesh in water鈥 (Leviticus 15:13). Just as his flesh is on the outside, so too everything that requires immersion is on the outside, and this does not include what is ordinarily on the inside.

诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讛讝讗讛 专讘讬 诪讚诪讬 诇讛 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜专讘谞谉 诪讚诪讜 诇讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛

They disagreed only with regard to whether the tongue is considered exposed or concealed in the matter of sprinkling. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi compares sprinkling to impurity, where the tongue is considered exposed, and the Rabbis compare it to immersion, where the tongue is considered concealed.

讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛专 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讜讙讜壮 专讘讬 住讘专 讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛专 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讜讞讟讗讜

The Gemara comments: And the two of them disagree with regard to the meaning of this verse: 鈥淎nd the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure person on the third day and on the seventh day, and he shall purify him on the seventh day and he shall wash his clothes and immerse in water and he shall become pure in the evening鈥 (Numbers 19:19). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that the verse should be read as: 鈥淎nd the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure person on the third day and on the seventh day, and he shall purify him.鈥 This indicates that sprinkling is compared to ritual impurity, which means that it is effective if the water lands on any part of the body that can become impure.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讜讞讟讗讜 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讜讻讘住 讘讙讚讬讜 讜专讞抓 讘诪讬诐

Conversely, the Rabbis maintain that one should read the phrase 鈥渁nd he shall purify him鈥 with the last part of the verse, as follows: 鈥淎nd he shall purify him on the seventh day and he shall wash his clothes and immerse in water.鈥 According to this reading, sprinkling is compared to immersion, which means that the water must be sprinkled on part of the body that requires immersion.

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 谞讚诪讬讬讛 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讟讛专讛 诪讟讛专讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 讜专讘讬 谞讚诪讬讬讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛 讜讻讘住 讘讙讚讬讜 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis as well, let us compare sprinkling to impurity. The Gemara answers: One should derive purification from purification. Just as immersion is a method of purification, so too sprinkling is a method of purification, and therefore it is appropriate to compare these two cases. The Gemara asks from the other perspective: And with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, let us compare sprinkling to immersion. The Gemara answers that the phrase 鈥渁nd he shall wash his clothes鈥 concludes the discussion of that matter, i.e., this expression indicates that a new clause begins from here, and therefore sprinkling should not be compared to immersion but to impurity, which is mentioned prior to it.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 诇注谞讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讻讟诪讜谉 讚诪讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘砖驻讞讛 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 砖讟讘诇讛 讜注诇转讛 讜谞诪爪讗 注爪诐 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 讜讛爪专讬讻讛 专讘讬 讟讘讬诇讛 讗讞专转

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintain with regard to the matter of immersion that the tongue is considered concealed? But doesn鈥檛 Ravin say that Rav Adda says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: There was an incident involving a maidservant of the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who immersed herself, and she ascended from her immersion and a bone was found between her teeth, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi required her to perform another immersion? This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi one may not have a foreign object even inside one鈥檚 mouth during immersion. If so, the tongue should require immersion as well.

谞讛讬 讚讘讬讗转 诪讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪拽讜诐 讛专讗讜讬 诇讘讜讗 讘讜 诪讬诐 讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: That is no proof, as it is granted that we do not require immersion in water, i.e., the water need not actually enter one鈥檚 mouth. But we require that the mouth be a place that is fit for water to enter. If there is a foreign object, the water cannot enter that spot.

讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜 讜砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜

This is in accordance with that statement of Rabbi Zeira. As Rabbi Zeira says with regard to meal-offerings: For any amount of flour suitable for mingling with oil in a meal-offering, mingling is not indispensable for it. Although it is a mitzva to mingle the flour and oil ab initio, if they were not mingled the meal-offering is still valid. But for any amount of flour not suitable for mingling, mingling is indispensable for it, and such a meal-offering is invalid. The principle is: Ab initio requirements prevent the fulfillment of a mitzva in situations where they are not merely absent but impossible. Here too, although there is no need for the water to actually enter the concealed spaces of the body, it is still necessary that these places be fit for immersion without the interposition of a foreign object.

讻转谞讗讬 讜诪注讜讱 讜讻转讜转 讜谞转讜拽 讜讻专讜转 讻讜诇谉 讘讘讬爪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara comments that the first question with regard to castration of the testicles is like a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. It is stated with regard to animals that cannot be used as offerings due to blemishes: 鈥淭hat whose stones are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut you shall not sacrifice to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:24). All of these blemishes are referring to the animal鈥檚 testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讘讘讬爪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讙讬讚 讗诇讗 讻讜诇谉 讗祝 讘讘讬爪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讻讜诇诐 讘讙讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪注讜讱 讜讻转讜转 讗祝 讘讘讬爪讬诐 谞转讜拽 讜讻专讜转 讘讙讬讚 讗讬谉 讘讘讬爪讬诐 诇讗

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鈥檃kov says: All of them apply only to the penis. Rabbi Yosei states the following distinction: 鈥淏ruised or crushed鈥 applies to the testicles also. Conversely, when there are areas that are 鈥渂roken or cut鈥 on the penis, yes, these are considered a blemish, but on the testicles, no, they are not a blemish.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪住讬专讛 讜讛讚拽讛 讘讛讙讘讛讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪砖讬讻讛

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.

讙诪壮 讚专砖 专讘 讘拽讬诪讞讜谞讬讗 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 诇转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讜讛讗谞谉 讘诪住讬专讛 转谞谉 讜专讘 谞诪讬 讘诪住讬专讛 讗诪专 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讜 讜讝讜 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪砖讬讻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讝讜 讜讝讜 讘讛讙讘讛讛

GEMARA: Rav taught in the town of Kim岣nya: A large domesticated animal is acquired by pulling. Shmuel found Rav鈥檚 students and said to them: Did Rav actually say that a large domesticated animal is acquired by pulling? But didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 驻讬诇 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讛 讬拽谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘砖讜讻专 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜

Rav Yosef objects to this: If that is so, by what mode of acqui-sition 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.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 诪讘讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讻诇讬诐 讜诪谞讬讞谉 转讞转 专讙诇讬讜 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 拽谞讛 诇讜拽讞 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘住讬诪讟讗

Rabbi Zeira says that there is another method: One brings four vessels and places them under the elephant鈥檚 feet, and he thereby acquires it like any other item that is inside the buyer鈥檚 vessels. The Gemara asks: Can you learn from Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement that if the buyer鈥檚 vessels, being used to acquire an item from the seller, are in the seller鈥檚 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鈥檚 domain but in an alley [simta], which is neither a public nor a private domain. In a place of this kind the buyer鈥檚 vessels certainly effect acquisition for him.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 25

讬转专转 讜讞转讻讛 注讘讚 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 诇讞讬专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讜讗 砖谞住驻专转 注诇 讙讘 讛讬讚

an extra finger, i.e., six fingers on his hand, and the master severed it, the slave is emancipated by means of this injury. Rav Huna says: And this halakha applies when the finger can be counted along the back of the hand, i.e., the extra finger is on the same line as the others. If it protrudes from another spot, then it is not classified as a finger but a mere growth, and destroying it is not considered the removal of a limb.

住讘讬 讚谞讝讜谞讬讗 诇讗 讗转讜 诇驻讬专拽讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讝讬诇 爪谞注讬谞讛讜 讗讝诇 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗转讜 专讘谞谉 诇驻讬专拽讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 谞讬转讬 讚讘注讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜诇讗 驻砖讟 诇谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讬 讘注讬转讜 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讬讚讬 讜诇讗 驻砖讬讟谞讗 诇讻讜

搂 The Gemara relates: The Elders of the city of Nezonya did not come to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 lecture. Rav 岣sda said to Rav Hamnuna: Go and ostracize them [tzaninhu] because they act disrespectfully toward the Sages. Rav Hamnuna went and said to the Elders of Nezonya: What is the reason that the rabbis did not come to the lecture? They said to him: Why should we come, as we asked him about a matter and he did not resolve it for us. We have nothing to learn from him. Rav Hamnuna said to them: Have you asked me anything that I did not resolve for you? Ask me your question.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 注讘讚 砖住专住讜 专讘讜 讘讘爪讬诐 诪讛讜 讻诪讜诐 砖讘讙诇讜讬 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讛 砖诪讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诇讗 拽专谞讜谞讗

They raised the following dilemma before him: With regard to a slave whose master castrates his testicles, what is the halakha? Is that considered an exposed blemish that is sufficient to emancipate him or not? An answer to their dilemma was not available to Rav Hamnuna. They said to him: What is your name? He said to them: Hamnuna. They said to him in jest: You should not be called Hamnuna, a good hot fish; rather, your name should be Karnuna, a cold fish that is no longer tasty.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讱 讚转谞谉 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 砖讘讗讚诐 讻讜诇诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬讛

After this encounter Rav Hamnuna came before Rav 岣sda and told him what had happened. Rav 岣sda said to him: They raised before you a dilemma that can be resolved from a baraita, which was cited in connection to a mishna, and you did not know how to answer them. As we learned in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 6:7): There are twenty-four extremities in a person, none of which can become ritually impure due to unaffected skin. The Torah states that if a leprous spot contains some healthy flesh, the person is immediately rendered impure (Leviticus 13:14). The halakha of unaffected skin does not apply to the extremities because the priest must be able to see the entirety of the untainted area at once. Due to the shape of the twenty-four extremities, it is impossible to see the entirety of the area from a single vantage point. Consequently, the halakha of unaffected skin does not apply to them.

讜讗诇讜 讛诐 专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 讜专讗砖讬 讗讝谞讬诐 讜专讗砖 讛讞讜讟诐 讜专讗砖 讛讙讜讬讬讛 讜专讗砖讬 讚讚讬诐 砖讘讗砖讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 砖讘讗讬砖 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讘讻讜诇诐 注讘讚 讬讜爪讗 讘讛诐 诇讞讬专讜转 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛住讬专讜住 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诇砖讜谉

And these are the twenty-four extremities: The extremities of the fingers and toes, twenty in total, and the extremities of the ears, and the extremity of the nose, and the extremity of the penis, and the extremities of the nipples of a woman. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the nipples of a man are included. And it is taught in that regard in a baraita: A slave is emancipated for injuries to all of them. The body parts listed with regard to leprosy are the same ones that, when injured, lead to the emancipation of a slave. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Also, the castration of a slave by his master entails his freedom. Ben Azzai says: The tongue is also considered an exposed body part, as it is exposed when one speaks. Consequently, if the master severs his slave鈥檚 tongue, the slave goes free.

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛住讬专讜住 住讬专讜住 讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 住讬专讜住 讚讙讬讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讜讬讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 住讬专讜住 讚讘讬爪讬诐

The Master said above that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Also castration. The Gemara asks: Castration of what? If we say that it is referring to castration of the penis, i.e., that the master severed the slave鈥檚 penis, this is the same as the mishna that already mentioned a penis. What, then, does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi add? Rather, is it not correct to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to castration of the testicles? If so, this baraita resolves the dilemma raised by the Elders of Nezonya.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛住讬专讜住 讜专讘讬 诇砖讜谉 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讬 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诪讝讛 讜谞转讝讛 讛讝讗讛 注诇 驻讬讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬讝讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讛讬讝讛

The Gemara further analyzes the baraita. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Also castration, but he does not include the tongue, unlike ben Azzai. The Gemara inquires: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, is the tongue not considered exposed? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following: In a case where one was sprinkling the purification water of the red heifer on another person in order to purify him from ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and a sprinkling of water landed on his mouth, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has sprinkled, i.e., this is a valid form of sprinkling and the impure person is purified. And the Rabbis say: He has not sprinkled, i.e., this is an invalid form of sprinkling because water of purification must be sprinkled on exposed limbs.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 注诇 诇砖讜谞讜 诇讗 注诇 砖驻转讬讜 注诇 砖驻转讬讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讞诇讬诐 砖驻转讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty from this baraita: What, is it not the case that this is referring to a situation where water was sprinkled on his tongue, which would indicate that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that the tongue is an exposed limb? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is referring to one who had water sprinkled on his lips. The Gemara asks: If it was sprinkled on his lips, isn鈥檛 it obvious that he is ritually pure, as the lips are exposed? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state this, lest you say that at times, he closes his lips tightly, and consequently they should be considered an unexposed part of the body. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi one鈥檚 lips are considered exposed.

讜讛转谞讬讗 注诇 诇砖讜谞讜 讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讜砖谞讬讟诇 专讜讘 讛诇砖讜谉 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 专讜讘 讛诪讚讘专 砖讘诇砖讜谞讜

The Gemara further asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita that if one had water sprinkled on his tongue he is ritually pure according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? And it is further taught in a baraita dealing with the blemishes of priests and offerings that if most of his tongue was removed, this is a blemish; and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This is referring to a case where the part removed was most of the part of his tongue that he uses for speaking and pronouncing words, which is the tip of the tongue, not most of its length. This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that if the tongue is removed, that is considered a blemish.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 住讬专讜住 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇砖讜谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗诪专 诇砖讜谉 讗讘诇 住讬专讜住 诇讗 讜诪讗讬 讗祝 讗拽诪讬讬转讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞拽讚诪讛 讚讘谉 注讝讗讬 讘专讬砖讗

Rather, the baraita should be explained as follows. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Castration is included, and it is not necessary to say that if the slave鈥檚 tongue is removed he is emancipated, as the tongue is exposed. Ben Azzai says: The loss of his tongue emancipates him, but castration does not. And what is the meaning of the term: Also, in the baraita, which indicates that ben Azzai is adding to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement? He is adding to the first statement of the first tanna, not to the immediately preceding ruling of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara asks: If so, the statement of ben Azzai should be first, as he adds one item, i.e., the tongue, to the ruling of the first tanna, while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi further adds the case of castration to ben Azzai鈥檚 opinion.

转谞讗 砖诪注讛 诇讚专讘讬 讜拽讘注讛 讜砖诪注讛 诇讚讘谉 注讝讗讬 讜转谞讬 讜诪砖谞讛 诇讗 讝讝讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛

The Gemara answers: The baraita should have been formulated in this manner, but the tanna first heard the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and set it in his version of the baraita, and afterward he heard the opinion of ben Azzai and taught it at the end. And although it would be appropriate to change the order of the statements, he did not do so because a mishna does not move from its place. Once it has been taught in a certain manner, the tanna will not change the text of a mishna, in order to avoid confusion.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘诇砖讜谉 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讙诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 讛砖专抓 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘专 谞讙讬注讛 讛讜讗

Ulla says: All concede with regard to a tongue that in the matter of ritual impurity it is considered exposed with respect to a dead creeping animal and other items that impart impurity. In other words, if an individual comes into contact with a source of ritual impurity with his tongue, he is rendered impure. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states: 鈥淲hom he touches鈥 (Leviticus 15:11), and this tongue can also touch. It is possible for one to touch objects with his tongue.

诇注谞讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讻讟诪讜谉 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜专讞抓 讘砖专讜 讘诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讛 讘砖专讜 诪讗讘专讗讬 讗祝 讻诇 诪讗讘专讗讬

Similarly, all agree about a tongue with regard to the matter of immersion that the tongue is considered concealed, and therefore one need not open his mouth so that the water touches his tongue. For an immersion to be valid, the water must come into contact with the entire outside of one鈥檚 body. Ulla teaches that this does not include the tongue. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd he shall immerse his flesh in water鈥 (Leviticus 15:13). Just as his flesh is on the outside, so too everything that requires immersion is on the outside, and this does not include what is ordinarily on the inside.

诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讛讝讗讛 专讘讬 诪讚诪讬 诇讛 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜专讘谞谉 诪讚诪讜 诇讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛

They disagreed only with regard to whether the tongue is considered exposed or concealed in the matter of sprinkling. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi compares sprinkling to impurity, where the tongue is considered exposed, and the Rabbis compare it to immersion, where the tongue is considered concealed.

讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛专 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讜讙讜壮 专讘讬 住讘专 讜讛讝讛 讛讟讛专 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讜讞讟讗讜

The Gemara comments: And the two of them disagree with regard to the meaning of this verse: 鈥淎nd the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure person on the third day and on the seventh day, and he shall purify him on the seventh day and he shall wash his clothes and immerse in water and he shall become pure in the evening鈥 (Numbers 19:19). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that the verse should be read as: 鈥淎nd the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure person on the third day and on the seventh day, and he shall purify him.鈥 This indicates that sprinkling is compared to ritual impurity, which means that it is effective if the water lands on any part of the body that can become impure.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讜讞讟讗讜 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讜讻讘住 讘讙讚讬讜 讜专讞抓 讘诪讬诐

Conversely, the Rabbis maintain that one should read the phrase 鈥渁nd he shall purify him鈥 with the last part of the verse, as follows: 鈥淎nd he shall purify him on the seventh day and he shall wash his clothes and immerse in water.鈥 According to this reading, sprinkling is compared to immersion, which means that the water must be sprinkled on part of the body that requires immersion.

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 谞讚诪讬讬讛 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讟讛专讛 诪讟讛专讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 讜专讘讬 谞讚诪讬讬讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛 讜讻讘住 讘讙讚讬讜 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis as well, let us compare sprinkling to impurity. The Gemara answers: One should derive purification from purification. Just as immersion is a method of purification, so too sprinkling is a method of purification, and therefore it is appropriate to compare these two cases. The Gemara asks from the other perspective: And with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, let us compare sprinkling to immersion. The Gemara answers that the phrase 鈥渁nd he shall wash his clothes鈥 concludes the discussion of that matter, i.e., this expression indicates that a new clause begins from here, and therefore sprinkling should not be compared to immersion but to impurity, which is mentioned prior to it.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 诇注谞讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讻讟诪讜谉 讚诪讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘砖驻讞讛 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 砖讟讘诇讛 讜注诇转讛 讜谞诪爪讗 注爪诐 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 讜讛爪专讬讻讛 专讘讬 讟讘讬诇讛 讗讞专转

The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintain with regard to the matter of immersion that the tongue is considered concealed? But doesn鈥檛 Ravin say that Rav Adda says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: There was an incident involving a maidservant of the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who immersed herself, and she ascended from her immersion and a bone was found between her teeth, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi required her to perform another immersion? This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi one may not have a foreign object even inside one鈥檚 mouth during immersion. If so, the tongue should require immersion as well.

谞讛讬 讚讘讬讗转 诪讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪拽讜诐 讛专讗讜讬 诇讘讜讗 讘讜 诪讬诐 讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: That is no proof, as it is granted that we do not require immersion in water, i.e., the water need not actually enter one鈥檚 mouth. But we require that the mouth be a place that is fit for water to enter. If there is a foreign object, the water cannot enter that spot.

讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜 讜砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜

This is in accordance with that statement of Rabbi Zeira. As Rabbi Zeira says with regard to meal-offerings: For any amount of flour suitable for mingling with oil in a meal-offering, mingling is not indispensable for it. Although it is a mitzva to mingle the flour and oil ab initio, if they were not mingled the meal-offering is still valid. But for any amount of flour not suitable for mingling, mingling is indispensable for it, and such a meal-offering is invalid. The principle is: Ab initio requirements prevent the fulfillment of a mitzva in situations where they are not merely absent but impossible. Here too, although there is no need for the water to actually enter the concealed spaces of the body, it is still necessary that these places be fit for immersion without the interposition of a foreign object.

讻转谞讗讬 讜诪注讜讱 讜讻转讜转 讜谞转讜拽 讜讻专讜转 讻讜诇谉 讘讘讬爪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara comments that the first question with regard to castration of the testicles is like a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. It is stated with regard to animals that cannot be used as offerings due to blemishes: 鈥淭hat whose stones are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut you shall not sacrifice to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:24). All of these blemishes are referring to the animal鈥檚 testicles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讘讘讬爪讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讙讬讚 讗诇讗 讻讜诇谉 讗祝 讘讘讬爪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讻讜诇诐 讘讙讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪注讜讱 讜讻转讜转 讗祝 讘讘讬爪讬诐 谞转讜拽 讜讻专讜转 讘讙讬讚 讗讬谉 讘讘讬爪讬诐 诇讗

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鈥檃kov says: All of them apply only to the penis. Rabbi Yosei states the following distinction: 鈥淏ruised or crushed鈥 applies to the testicles also. Conversely, when there are areas that are 鈥渂roken or cut鈥 on the penis, yes, these are considered a blemish, but on the testicles, no, they are not a blemish.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪住讬专讛 讜讛讚拽讛 讘讛讙讘讛讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪砖讬讻讛

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.

讙诪壮 讚专砖 专讘 讘拽讬诪讞讜谞讬讗 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 诇转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讜讛讗谞谉 讘诪住讬专讛 转谞谉 讜专讘 谞诪讬 讘诪住讬专讛 讗诪专 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讜 讜讝讜 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪砖讬讻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讝讜 讜讝讜 讘讛讙讘讛讛

GEMARA: Rav taught in the town of Kim岣nya: A large domesticated animal is acquired by pulling. Shmuel found Rav鈥檚 students and said to them: Did Rav actually say that a large domesticated animal is acquired by pulling? But didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 驻讬诇 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诪讛 讬拽谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘砖讜讻专 讗转 诪拽讜诪讜

Rav Yosef objects to this: If that is so, by what mode of acqui-sition 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.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 诪讘讬讗 讗专讘注讛 讻诇讬诐 讜诪谞讬讞谉 转讞转 专讙诇讬讜 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 拽谞讛 诇讜拽讞 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘住讬诪讟讗

Rabbi Zeira says that there is another method: One brings four vessels and places them under the elephant鈥檚 feet, and he thereby acquires it like any other item that is inside the buyer鈥檚 vessels. The Gemara asks: Can you learn from Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement that if the buyer鈥檚 vessels, being used to acquire an item from the seller, are in the seller鈥檚 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鈥檚 domain but in an alley [simta], which is neither a public nor a private domain. In a place of this kind the buyer鈥檚 vessels certainly effect acquisition for him.

Scroll To Top