Kiddushin 2b — the Talmud in English

Or -

alternatively,

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

Fields shall be bought with money.”

And since the money of a woman’s kiddushin is learned from the money of acquiring a field, which is called “acquisition,” therefore

teach—

the tanna taught in our Mishna—“

the woman is acquired

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

Thus far it has been explained why we state in our Mishna “the woman is acquired,” in the language of acquisition.

But it is still necessary to ask: since our Mishna calls betrothal by the language of acquisition, why did the Mishna below, at the beginning of the second chapter, change its language and say “the man betroths”?

And let it teach there also,

let it teach there as well, “

the man acquires”

in the language of acquisition!

And we answer:

At first, he taught the language of the Torah.

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

And ultimately, he taught the language of the Sages.

And afterward the tanna taught the language of kiddushin, which is the language of the Sages.

And what is the language of the Sages,

what is the explanation of the expression “kiddushin,” which is the language of the Sages?

That he prohibits her to everyone as something consecrated.

For through the kiddushin, the man prohibits his wife to everyone in the world other than himself, just as something consecrated is designated only for the Most High and is forbidden to everyone.

And now the Gemara explains why our Mishna speaks of the woman’s being acquired by her husband [“the woman is acquired”], and not of the acquisition that the man performs with the woman [“the man acquires”].

And the Gemara asks:

And let it teach here,

why should the tanna not teach here

“the man acquires,”

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

And we answer:

Because he wanted to teach in the latter clause

because the tanna wanted to teach here in the latter clause [in the continuation of his words] “

and she acquires herself,”

with regard to herself,

for this expression concerns the woman—

therefore

he also taught the first clause with regard to herself.

Even in the first clause the tanna taught “the woman is acquired,” for this expression concerns the woman.

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

And let it teach,

why should the tanna not teach

“the man acquires

the woman in three ways,

and transfers

her to herself in two ways,” just as below we state “the man betroths,” in an expression that concerns 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 transfers the woman to herself through his death, because

it is not he who transfers her,

for through his death the husband does not transfer the woman to herself, but

it is from Heaven that he transfers her to her!

Through his death, which is from Heaven, the man’s ownership of his wife lapses by itself, as though Heaven had transferred herself to her.

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

And if you wish, say,

and if you wish, you may give another reason explaining why the tanna did not teach in our Mishna “the man acquires,” as he said below “the man betroths”—

If he taught,

if the tanna had taught in our Mishna “the man

acquires,”

I would have thought,

I would have said that the man has the ability to acquire the woman

even against her will,

against her desire.

Therefore

he taught “

the woman is acquired,”

the meaning of this expression being

that

only an acquisition performed

with her consent is not, [indeed]. But an acquisition performed with her

but an acquisition carried out

without her consent—

does not

take effect with regard to her!

And now the Gemara explains why we state “three ways,” with “three” in the feminine form, and do not state “three ways” in the masculine form:

And the Gemara asks:

And 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”!?

It would be fitting for the tanna to teach “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 teach in our Mishna the expression “way,” 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 expression.

And the proof is:

as it is written [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 in the masculine form in the language of the Sages—

A person from whom ziva issued is impure with the impurity of a zav, which is a more severe impurity than the impurity of one who experienced an ordinary seminal emission.

And it is stated concerning a zav [Leviticus 15:1]: “When any man has a discharge issuing from his flesh.” And the Sages expounded from “a discharge issuing from his flesh”: when is he a zav? When the discharge issued from him by itself, without there having been an external cause because of which he saw a discharge. But he does not become a zav when the discharge issued from him under coercion.

Therefore, if there was an external cause because of which he saw a discharge, he is impure only with the impurity of an ordinary emission, which is a lesser impurity.

And we state concerning this [Zavim 2:2]: The zav is examined in seven ways [to determine whether his discharge is something that came by itself, or whether he saw a discharge because of one of these seven things]: through food, through drink, through a burden, through jumping, through illness, through a sight, and through a thought.

And we challenge:

But if so,

since we said above that “way” is a feminine expression, one may challenge

that which we state

in tractate Zavim, “

The zav is examined in seven ways”—

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

Let it teach

it would be fitting 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

to teach “

way” [“seven ways”],

“seven methods,” and

and we find

and we find the expression

“way”

that is called,

which is called in the

masculine form—

as it is written [Deuteronomy 28]: “

in Deuteronomy 28:

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

And immediately the Gemara is astonished:

If so

if so, the tanna wrote “seven” because he wanted to teach “way,” and relied on the language of Scripture that “way” is masculine—

a.

The verses contradict one another.

There is a difficulty in the verses contradicting one another.

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

b.

And

likewise,

the Mishnayot also contradict one another.

For in our Mishna we state, “the woman is acquired in three ways,” in the feminine form. And in another Mishna we state, “the zav is examined in seven ways,” in the masculine form!

And we answer:

a.

The verses concerning one another—

do not contradict one another.

The verses do not contradict one another, because sometimes it is appropriate to relate to “way” as masculine and sometimes as feminine.

Here,

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

it refers to the Torah,

for the verse speaks of the way of the Torah,

and Torah is called

called in the

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

in Psalms 19:

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

therefore

he wrote it “

way”

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

“the way they shall walk in.”

Whereas

there,

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

it refers to war,

for the verse speaks about the war that the enemies will wage against Israel [they will go out to war united by one way, and in the end they will scatter and flee by 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

he wrote it “way”

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

b.

The Mishnayot concerning one another—

do not contradict one another.

The Mishnayot also do not contradict one another—

Here,

here in our Mishna,

since it concerns a woman,

since it speaks about the matter of a woman,

he taught it,

we state “way”

in the feminine form.

Whereas

there,

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

since it concerns a man,

since it speaks there 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 coercion and is not impure with the impurity of a zav,

and

however

it is not the way of a woman to be examined—

for a woman also,

when seeing a discharge of blood

becomes impure through coercion.

For a woman who saw a discharge of blood not at the proper time for her menstrual days, even if she saw the blood under coercion, is impure with the impurity of a menstruant.

Therefore

he taught,

there the tanna taught “way” in the

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

“A man with a gonorrheal discharge is examined in seven methods.”

In summary: the word “way” is used in the masculine and feminine forms. Therefore, when it concerns a matter that is called in the feminine form, “way” is used in the feminine form. And therefore we state in our Mishna “the woman is acquired in three ways” [that is, in the feminine form], and we do not state “in three ways” [that is, in the masculine form].

And we challenge:

For what reason did he teach “

three”?

For what reason do we state in our Mishna “three” [in the feminine form]? Is it

because

we state

ways [“in three ways”]! If so, there is a difficulty:

“matters,”

Let him teach “

things,”

it would have been fitting to teach our Mishna with the expression “things,” which is masculine,

and let him teach three,

and consequently we would state “the woman is acquired through three things” [in the masculine form], since the entire Torah was stated in the masculine form! And we answer:

Because he wanted to teach “

intercourse,”

for the tanna wanted to teach in our Mishna intercourse [which is one of the ways through which the woman is acquired],

and intercourse is called “way.”

it is written [Proverbs 30:19]:

As

it is written [Proverbs 30:19]:

in Proverbs 30:

“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 “in three ways,” and did not teach “in three things.”

And we challenge:

That works well,

the above answer [that intercourse is called “way”] resolves only with regard to

intercourse,

which is called “way.”

But concerning

money and a document,

which we have not found called “way,”

what is there to say,

what is there to say? Why did our Mishna call them “ways” and not “things”?

And we answer:

Because of intercourse

the tanna had to call all of them “ways.”

For we state “in three ways,” and one of them is intercourse. And necessarily it is impossible to teach all of them except with one expression.

And we wonder:

And

if

he teaches two because of one?

Did the tanna change the expression for money and a document [which are two things] because of intercourse [which is one thing]? Surely it would be appropriate to follow the majority and teach “things”!

And we answer:

These also,

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

are for the need of intercourse

[they are].

And if you wish, say,

there is another reason to explain why we state “ways” and not “things”—

Whose opinion is this,

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

Rabbi Shimon.

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: Why did the Torah say [Deuteronomy 22:13],

in Deuteronomy 22,

“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 seek out a woman, but it is not the way of a woman to seek out a man.

This may be compared to a person who lost a lost object—

Who seeks

the one who seeks

whom?—

The owner of the lost object seeks his lost object!

And similarly, the man seeks the woman, who is the rib that was taken from him, and she is like a lost object.

And since in kiddushin the proper conduct is that the man seeks the woman, therefore Rabbi Shimon taught our Mishna in the language of “way” [“three ways”].

Thus far the Gemara has explained why the tanna taught our Mishna with the expression “ways,” and not with the expression “things.”

And we challenge:

And that which we state,

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

The zav is examined in seven ways—

there is a question:

let him teach “

things”!

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

And we answer:

There, this teaches us

there the tanna wanted to teach us this matter:

That the way of excessive eating leads to discharge.

And the way of excessive drinking leads to discharge.

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

And therefore the tannai adopted the wording “ways,” because these are indeed the “ways” that bring about becoming a zav.

And now the Gemara brings another Mishna in which we taught “ways.” And concerning it too one must ask: why did we not teach “things”?"

With regard to mitzvot that depend on the Land, there are several differences between the fruits of a tree and vegetables:

A. The laws of orla and revai apply only to the fruits of a tree and not to vegetables.

B. With regard to the Sabbatical year: the fruits of a tree whose fruit formed in the seventh year possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, even if they were picked after the Sabbatical year.

And if their fruit formed in the sixth year, they do not have the status of produce of the Sabbatical year, even if they grew and were picked in the seventh year.

But with vegetables, with regard to the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, one follows only their picking 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 tithe for the poor are separated]: with a tree, one follows the year of the fruit’s formation, whereas with vegetables one follows the year of their picking.

For example, if the fruit formed in a year in which the tithe for the poor applies, whereas it was picked in a year in which the second tithe applies, the tithe for the poor applies to these fruits of the tree.

Whereas with vegetables, the second tithe applies, according to the year of their picking and not according to the year of their growth.

And this that we taught

Bikkurim 2:6:

an etrog,

although it is among the fruits of a tree, it does not entirely resemble the other trees; rather, it is

equal to a tree in three ways:

A. The law of orla applies to it.

B. The law of revai applies to it.

C. With regard to the Sabbatical year: with it one follows the year of the fruit’s formation.

And to a vegetable it is equal in one way: according to the year of its picking is its tithing. And it is difficult:

let him teach “things”,

it would have been fitting for the tannai to teach “in three things”! And why did we teach “in three ways"?”

And we answer:

because we need to teach in the latter clause,

because we needed to teach in the latter clause the wording “way” —

“and to a vegetable in one way” [as will be explained below],

and as will be explained below], therefore even in the first clause we taught “ways” and not “things.”

And immediately the Gemara objects:

in the latter clause too, let him teach

“thing.”

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