Kiddushin 2b (ב:) — the Talmud in English

Alternatively –

also,

there is an additional source indicating that acquiring a field with money is called “acquisition.” As it is stated [Jeremiah 32]:

“Fields shall be purchased with money.”

And since the money used for betrothal of a woman is derived from the money used to acquire a field, which is called an “acquisition,” therefore

teach—

the tanna taught in our Mishna—

“A woman is acquired”

“through three ways,” one of which is acquisition with money.

This explains why we state in our Mishna “a woman is acquired,” using the language of acquisition.

But the question still arises: Since our Mishna refers to betrothal using the language of acquisition, why does the Mishna later, at the beginning of the second chapter, change its wording and say, “A man betroths”?

And let it teach there also,

let it teach there as well:

“A man acquires”

[using the language of acquisition]!

And we answer:

Initially, he taught using the language of the Torah.

At first, the tanna taught using the language of acquisition, which is the language of the Torah [as explained above].

And ultimately, he taught using the language of the Sages.

Afterward, the tanna taught using the language of betrothal, which is the language of the Sages.

And what is the language of the Sages,

what is the meaning of the term “betrothal,” which is the language of the Sages?

That through it he prohibits her to everyone else as something consecrated.

For through betrothal, the man prohibits his wife to everyone in the world except himself, just as something consecrated is designated solely for the Most High and is prohibited to everyone else.

The Gemara now explains why our Mishna speaks of the woman’s acquisition by her husband [“A woman is acquired”], rather than of the acquisition that the man effects with regard to the woman [“A man acquires”].

The Gemara asks:

And let it teach here,

why should the tanna not teach here:

“A man acquires”,

just as later, at the beginning of the second chapter, we state “A man betroths” [using the language of the Sages]!

And we answer:

Because he wanted to teach in the latter clause,

because here, in the latter clause [later in the statement], the tanna wanted to teach:

“And she acquires herself”,

with regard to herself,

an expression that relates to the woman—

therefore

he also taught the first clause with regard to herself.

Even in the first clause, the tanna taught “A woman is acquired,” an expression that relates to the woman.

And we challenge this: Why did the tanna need to teach in the latter clause “and she acquires herself,” an expression relating to the woman?

And let him teach,

why should the tanna not teach:

“A man acquires

a woman through three ways,

and releases

her to herself through two ways,” just as later we state “A man betroths,” using an expression that relates to the man!?

And we answer:

Because there is,

since among the two ways mentioned in the latter clause there is also

the death of the husband.

And it is impossible to say that the husband releases the woman to herself through his death, because

it is not he who releases her,

for through his death the husband does not release the woman to herself; rather,

it is from Heaven that she is released to herself!

Through his death, which is from Heaven, the man’s ownership of his wife ceases on its own, as though Heaven had released her to herself.

And since in the latter clause the tanna had to say “and she acquires herself,” he therefore also taught in the first clause “A woman is acquired” [using an expression that relates to the woman].

Alternatively, if you wish, say

that there is another reason explaining why the tanna did not teach in our Mishna “A man acquires,” as he later said “A man betroths”—

Had he taught,

if the tanna had taught in our Mishna “A man

acquires,”

I might have said

that the man has the ability to acquire the woman

even against her will,

contrary to her wishes.

Therefore

he taught

“A woman is acquired,”

the meaning of this expression being

that

only an acquisition performed

with her consent is effective

[yes]. But an acquisition performed with regard to her

without her consent—

is not

effective with regard to her!

The Gemara now explains why we state “three ways,” using the feminine form of the numeral, rather than “three ways” using the masculine form:

The Gemara asks:

Why specifically,

what is the reason

that he taught

that the tanna teaches in our Mishna

“three”

in the feminine form?

Let him teach

“three”!?

The tanna should have taught “three” in the masculine form, since the entire Torah is stated in the masculine form!

And we answer:

Because he wanted to teach

“way.”

The tanna wanted to use the term “way” in our Mishna, for the reason that will be explained below,

and

therefore he had to say “three ways” [in the feminine form], because

“way” \-

is a feminine term.

The proof is

as it is written [Exodus 18]:

in Exodus 18:

“And you shall make known to them the way

that

they shall walk in.”

But the Gemara challenges this answer, because we find “way” used as a masculine term in the language of the Sages—

A man from whom ziva has emerged is impure with the impurity of a zav, which is a more severe impurity than that of one who experienced a seminal emission [a person from whom an ordinary emission of semen emerged].

And it is stated concerning a zav [Leviticus 15:1]: “Any man, when there is a discharge from his flesh.” The Sages expounded from the phrase “a discharge from his flesh”: When is he a zav? When the discharge emerged from him on its own, without an external cause that caused him to see a discharge. But he does not become a zav when the discharge emerged from him involuntarily.

Therefore, if there was an external cause that caused him to see a discharge, he is impure only with the impurity of a seminal emission, which is a less severe impurity.

And we state with regard to this [Zavim 2:2]: “The zav is examined through seven ways” [to determine whether his discharge occurred on its own, or whether he saw a discharge because of one of these seven factors]: through food, drink, carrying a burden, jumping, illness, seeing, and thoughts.

And we challenge this:

But if so,

since we said above that “way” is a feminine term, the following must be challenged:

that which we learned

in tractate Zavim:

“The zav is examined through seven ways”—

why do we state “seven” in the masculine form?

Let him teach

[it would have been appropriate for the tanna to teach]

“seven

ways,” in the feminine form!

And we answer: The tanna taught “seven”

because he wanted

the tanna wanted

to teach

the term

“way”

[“seven ways”],

and we find

that the term

“way”

is called

and used in the

masculine form—

as it is written [Deuteronomy 28]:

“By one way they shall go out against you, and by seven ways they shall flee before you.”

And the Gemara immediately wonders:

The Gemara asks:

If so,

[if so, since the tanna wrote “seven” because he wanted to teach “way,” relying on the language of the verse that “way” is masculine]—

a.

The verses contradict one another.

There is a difficulty in the contradiction between the verses.

For one verse says, “And you shall make known to them the way that they shall walk in,” in the feminine form, whereas the other verse says, “By one way they shall go out against you,” in the masculine form!

b.

And

likewise,

the Mishnayot also contradict one another.

The Mishnayot, too, contradict one another: In our Mishna we state, “A woman is acquired through three ways,” in the feminine form. And in another Mishna we state, “The zav is examined through seven ways,” in the masculine form!

And we answer:

a.

The verses

do not contradict one another.

The verses do not contradict one another, because at times it is appropriate to treat “way” as a masculine term, and at times as a feminine term.

Here,

here [in Exodus 18], where it states, “And you shall make known to them the way that they shall walk in,”

it refers to the Torah,

for the verse speaks of the way of the Torah,

and Torah is called

and is termed in the

feminine form, as it is written [Psalms 19]:

in Psalms 19:

“The Torah of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul,”

therefore

it wrote of it

“way”

in the feminine form [“the way that they shall walk in”].

Whereas

there,

[in Deuteronomy 28], where it states, “By one way they shall go out against you,”

it refers to war,

for the verse speaks of the war that the enemies will wage against the Jewish people [they will go out to war united along one way, and ultimately scatter and flee along seven ways],

for it is the way of a man to wage war, but it is not the way of a woman to wage war,

therefore

it wrote of it

“way” in the masculine form [“by one way, and by seven ways”].

b.

The Mishnayot,

do not contradict one another.

The Mishnayot also do not contradict one another—

Here,

here in our Mishna,

since it concerns a woman,

for it speaks about the woman,

he taught it

and stated “way”

in the feminine form.

Whereas

there,

in tractate Zavim [where we state, “The zav is examined through seven ways”],

since it concerns a man,

for there it speaks only about a man who saw a discharge, and not about a woman who saw a discharge, since

it is

only

the way of a man to be examined

whether he saw a discharge because of an involuntary cause and is therefore not impure with the impurity of a zav,

but

it is not

the way of a woman to be examined—

for a woman, too,

when she sees a discharge of blood

involuntarily, becomes impure.

For if a woman sees a discharge of blood outside the time appropriate for her menstruation days, even if she saw the blood involuntarily, she is impure with the impurity of a zava —

Therefore

he taught,

the tanna there taught “way” in the

masculine form [“The zav is examined through seven ways”].

In summary: The word “way” is used in both the masculine and feminine forms. Therefore, when it concerns a matter referred to in the feminine form, “way” is used in the feminine form. Accordingly, we state in our Mishna, “A woman is acquired through three ways” [that is, in the feminine form], rather than “through three ways” [that is, in the masculine form].

And we challenge this:

For what reason did he teach

“three”?

For what reason did we state in our Mishna “three” [in the feminine form]? It is

because

we state

“ways”

[“through three ways”]! And if so, the difficulty is:

Let him teach

“matters,”

it would have been appropriate for the Mishna to use the term “matters,” which is masculine,

and let him teach three,

so that we would consequently state, “A woman is acquired through three matters” [in the masculine form], since the entire Torah is stated in the masculine form!

And we answer:

Because he wanted to teach “intercourse,”

the tanna wanted to teach intercourse [which is one of the ways through which a woman is acquired],

and intercourse is called “a way.”

as the tanna wanted to teach in our Mishna the method of intercourse, which is one of the methods through which a woman is acquired,

As

it is written [Proverbs 30:19]:

“And the way of a man with a maiden.”

And it is stated [there, verse 20]:

“So is the way of a woman who commits adultery.”

Therefore the tanna taught in our Mishna “through three ways,” rather than “through three matters.”

And we challenge this:

That works well,

the above answer [that intercourse is called a way] resolves the matter only with regard to

intercourse,

which is called a way.

But with regard to

money and a document,

which we do not find called “a way,”

what can be said,

what can be said? Why did our Mishna call them “ways” rather than “matters”?

And we answer:

Because of intercourse,

the tanna had to call them all “ways.”

[For we state “through three ways,” and one of them is intercourse. It is necessarily impossible to teach all of them using anything but one expression.]

And we wonder:

And

if he teaches two because of one?

Did the tanna change the terminology of money and a document [which are two matters] because of intercourse [which is one matter]? Surely he should follow the majority and teach “matters”!

And we answer:

These also,

even money and a document through which the woman is betrothed,

are for the purpose of intercourse [they are].

Alternatively, if you wish, say

there is another reason to explain why we state “ways” rather than “matters”—

Whose opinion is this,

according to whose opinion is our Mishna stated? It is according to the opinion of

Rabbi Shimon.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Why did the Torah say [Deuteronomy 24:1]:

“When a man takes a woman,”

and did not write

“When a woman is taken by a man”?

Because it is the way of a man to pursue a woman, but it is not the way of a woman to pursue a man.

This may be compared to a person who lost an item—

Who pursues

[pursues]

whom?

The owner of the lost item pursues his lost item!

Similarly, the man pursues the woman, who is the rib that was taken from him, and she is like a lost item.

This may be compared to a person who lost an article -

And since with regard to betrothal the proper manner is for the man to pursue the woman, Rabbi Shimon therefore taught our Mishna using the term “way” [“three ways”].

This concludes the Gemara’s explanation of why the tanna taught our Mishna using the term “ways,” rather than “matters.”

And we challenge this:

But that which we learned,

that which we state in tractate Zavim [2:2]:

“The zav is examined through seven ways”— one should ask:

Let him teach

“matters”!

The tanna should have taught “matters”; why, then, do we state “through seven ways”?

And we answer:

There, this is what he teaches us,

there the tanna wished to teach us the following matter:

That an excessive manner of eating can bring one to a discharge.

And an excessive manner of drinking can bring one to a discharge.

It would have been appropriate for the tanna to teach “things”; why, then, do we teach “in seven methods”?

The Gemara answers:

There, this teaches us

the tanna there wished to teach us this:

That excessive eating can bring one to experience a gonorrheal discharge.

And excessive drinking can bring one to experience a gonorrheal discharge.

that abundant eating and abundant drinking [which were enumerated in the Mishna there among the seven ways in which a zav is examined] bring a person to become a zav [and it is advisable for a person to refrain from this].

Therefore, the tanna used the term “ways,” because these truly are the “ways” that bring about ziva.

Now the Gemara cites another Mishna in which we likewise learned the term “ways.” And there too we must ask: Why did we not learn “things”

With regard to mitzvot that are dependent on the Land, there are several differences between the produce of trees and vegetables:

a. The laws of orla and reva'i apply only to the produce of trees and not to vegetables.

b. With regard to the Sabbatical year: tree fruits that reached the stage of budding during the seventh year possess the sanctity of the seventh year, even if they were picked after the seventh year.

But if they reached the stage of budding during the sixth year, they do not have the status of seventh-year produce, even if they grew and were picked during the seventh year.

But with regard to vegetables, for purposes of the sanctity of the seventh year, we follow only the time when they were picked from the field.

c. With regard to tithes [there are years in which the first tithe and the second tithe are separated, and there are years in which the first tithe and the poor tithe are separated]: for a tree, we follow the year in which the fruit reached the stage of budding, whereas for vegetables we follow the year in which they were picked.

For example, if the budding occurred in a year in which the poor tithe applied, whereas the picking occurred in a year in which the second tithe applied, the poor tithe applies to these tree fruits.

But for vegetables, the second tithe applies, based on the year in which they were picked, and not based on the year in which they grew.

And that which we learned

[Bikkurim 2:6]:

an etrog,

although it is tree produce, does not entirely resemble other trees; rather, it is

equal to a tree in three ways:

[a]The law of orla applies to it.

[b]The law of reva'i applies to it.

[c]With regard to the seventh year, we follow the year in which it reached the stage of budding.

And with regard to a vegetable, it is equal to it in one way: its tithing is determined according to the year in which it was picked. The difficulty is:

Let him teach “things,”

as it would have been appropriate for the tanna to teach, “in three things”! And why did we learn, “in three ways”

And we answer:

Because we need to teach in the latter clause

because we had to teach the term “way” in the latter clause—

“and for a vegetable, in one way”

[as will be explained below]; therefore, in the first clause as well, we learned “ways” and not “things.”

And the Gemara immediately challenges this:

In the latter clause too, let him teach

“thing.”

Even in the latter clause itself, it would have been appropriate to teach “thing” and not “way”!