Kiddushin 25b — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna The Gemara comments that the first question with regard to castration of the testicles is like a dispute between tanna’i…

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. 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. 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.

▶ 💬 Guemara Rav taught in the town of Kimḥonya: A large domesticated animal is acquired by pulling. Shmuel found Rav’s students and …

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. 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. 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.

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français Rav a enseigné dans la ville de Kimḥonya : Un grand animal domestique est acquis par traction. Shmuel trouva les élèves …

Rav a enseigné dans la ville de Kimḥonya : Un grand animal domestique est acquis par traction. Shmuel trouva les élèves de Rav et leur dit : Est-ce que Rav a réellement dit qu’un grand animal domestique est acquis par traction ? Mais n’avons-nous pas appris dans la mishna qu’il est acquis par transmission ? Et plusieurs fois, j’ai aussi entendu Rav dire qu’il est acquis par transmission. A-t-il rétracté cette décision ? Les élèves de Rav répondirent : En effet, Rav a rétracté cette décision et il énonce son opinion conformément à l’opinion de ce tanna, c’est-à-dire les Rabbins, comme il est enseigné dans une baraita : Et les Rabbins disent : Les deux petits et grands animaux domestiques sont acquis par traction. Rabbi Shimon dit : Les deux sont acquis par soulèvement. Rav Yosef objecte à ceci : S’il en est ainsi, par quel mode d’acquisition un éléphant peut-il être acquis, selon l’opinion de Rabbi Shimon ? Il est impossible de soulever un éléphant. Abaye lui dit : Il est possible de l’acquérir par le mode d’acquisition de l’échange symbolique, un acte juridique d’acquisition formalisant le transfert de propriété d’un article. Alternativement, on peut acquérir un éléphant en louant son emplacement temporairement et en acquérant l’éléphant au moyen du sol sur lequel il se tient. Rabbi Zeira dit qu’il existe une autre méthode : On apporte quatre récipients et on les place sous les pieds de l’éléphant, et on l’acquiert ainsi comme tout autre objet qui se trouve à l’intérieur des récipients de l’acheteur. La Guemara demande : Peut-on apprendre de la déclaration de Rabbi Zeira que si les récipients de l’acheteur, utilisés pour acquérir un objet du vendeur, se trouvent dans le domaine du vendeur, l’acheteur acquiert l’objet ? La Guemara rejette ceci : Ce n’est pas une preuve, car de quoi s’agit-il ici ? Le cas en question est celui où les récipients ne sont pas dans le domaine du vendeur mais dans une ruelle [simta], qui n’est ni un domaine public ni un domaine privé. Dans un lieu de ce genre, les récipients de l’acheteur effectuent certainement l’acquisition pour lui.

📜 Kiddushin — 25b

📋 Références bibliques — Kiddushin 25b

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant