## Kiddushin Daf 2b

###### Kiddushin 2b:1
[Kiddushin 2b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:1)

אִי נָמֵי, ״שָׂדוֹת בַּכֶּסֶף יִקְנוּ״, תָּנֵי ״הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** it can be proven that purchasing a field with money is called an acquisition from the verse: **“They shall acquire fields with money”** (Jeremiah 32:44). Consequently, as the *tanna* wanted to teach that a woman can be betrothed with money, **he taught: A woman is acquired.** This explains why the terminology of acquisition is used in this mishna.


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

וְנִיתְנֵי הָתָם ״הָאִישׁ קוֹנֶה״! מֵעִיקָּרָא תָּנֵי לִישָּׁנָא דְאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּלְבַסּוֹף תָּנֵי לִישָּׁנָא דְרַבָּנַן, וּמַאי לִישָּׁנָא דְרַבָּנַן? – דְּאָסַר לַהּ אַכּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let** the mishna **teach there,** in the next chapter: **A man acquires.** The Gemara explains: **Initially,** the mishna **taught** using **the language of the Torah,** in which betrothal is called taking. **And ultimately,** in the next chapter, **it taught** using **the language of the Sages. And what** is the reason that betrothal is called *kiddushin*, literally, consecration, in the **language of the Sages?** The reason is **that** through betrothal the husband **renders her forbidden to everyone like consecrated** property. Therefore, this act is referred to as consecration.


###### Kiddushin 2b:3
[Kiddushin 2b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:3)

וְנִיתְנֵי הָכָא ״הָאִישׁ קוֹנֶה״! מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנָא סֵיפָא: ״וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ״ בְּדִידַהּ, תְּנָא נָמֵי רֵישָׁא בְּדִידַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks another question with regard to the difference in wording between the two *mishnayot*: **And let it teach here,** as in the following chapter: **A man acquires.** Why does this mishna teach: The woman is acquired, with the woman as the subject of the sentence? The Gemara answers: This is **because** the *tanna* **wanted to teach** in **the latter clause** of the mishna: **And she acquires herself,** which is stated **with regard to her.** Therefore, the *tanna* **also taught** the *halakha* stated **with regard to her** in **the first clause.**


###### Kiddushin 2b:4
[Kiddushin 2b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:4)

וְנִיתְנֵי ״הָאִישׁ קוֹנֶה וּמַקְנֶה״! מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא מִיתַת הַבַּעַל, דְּלָאו אִיהוּ קָא מַקְנֵי – מִן שְׁמַיָּא הוּא דְּמַקְנִי לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **But** if this is the reason, the mishna could have been formulated entirely differently. **Let it teach: The man can acquire** a woman **and transfer** authority, i.e., grant her the release from marriage in the form of a bill of divorce. The Gemara answers: The mishna could not use the expression: Transfer, **because there is** the case of **the husband’s death, in** which **it is not he who transfers** authority. Rather, **it is from Heaven that** her freedom **is transferred to her.** Therefore, the mishna could not issue a general statement that the man can actively transfer to the woman her release from marriage.


###### Kiddushin 2b:5
[Kiddushin 2b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:5)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִי תְּנָא ״קוֹנֶה״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ בְּעַל כׇּרְחָהּ – תְּנָא ״הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית״, דְּמִדַּעְתָּהּ – אִין, שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead another explanation. **If** the mishna had **taught:** The man **acquires** the woman, **I would say** that he can acquire her **even against her will,** as indicated by the expression: He acquires. One might have assumed that the betrothal depends on the husband, without the need for the woman’s consent. Therefore the mishna **taught: The woman is acquired,** from which it may be inferred **that with her consent, yes,** he can acquire her as a wife, but **when** he acts **without her consent, no,** she is not betrothed to him.


###### Kiddushin 2b:6
[Kiddushin 2b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:6)

וּמַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״שָׁלֹשׁ״? לִיתְנֵי ״שְׁלֹשָׁה״! מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי ״דֶּרֶךְ״ וְ״דֶרֶךְ״ לְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהוֹדַעְתָּ לָהֶם אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ יֵלְכוּ בָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to analyze the style of the mishna: **And why does** the *tanna* **specifically teach: Three [*shalosh*]** ways, formulated in the feminine? **Let it teach: Three [*shelosha*]** ways, formulated in the masculine. The Gemara explains: The mishna uses this form **because it wants to teach** the word **way [*derekh*], and *derekh* is formulated** in the **feminine, as it is written: “And you shall show them the way [*derekh*] in which [*bah*] they must walk”** (Exodus 18:20). The term *bah*, which is referring to *derekh*, is formulated in the feminine.


###### Kiddushin 2b:7
[Kiddushin 2b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:7)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: ״בְּשִׁבְעָה דְּרָכִים בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הַזָּב״, נִיתְנֵי ״שֶׁבַע״! מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי ״דֶּרֶךְ״, וְאַשְׁכְּחַן ״דֶּרֶךְ״ דְּאִיקְּרִי לְשׁוֹן זָכָר, דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶחָד יֵצְאוּ אֵלֶיךָ וּבְשִׁבְעָה דְרָכִים יָנוּסוּ לְפָנֶיךָ״. אִי הָכִי, קָשׁוּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי! וְקַשְׁיָא נָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין אַהֲדָדֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** with regard to **that which is taught** in a mishna (*Nazir* 65b): **One examines a *zav* in seven [*shiva*] ways [*derakhim*],** where *shiva* is formulated in the masculine, **let it teach: Seven [*sheva*]** ways, formulated in the feminine. The Gemara answers: The mishna uses the masculine formulation of the term seven **because it wanted to teach: *Derekh*, and we find** that the word ***derekh* is referred to** in the **masculine form, as it is written: “They shall come out against you one way [*derekh*], and shall flee before you seven [*shiva*] ways”** (Deuteronomy 28:7). The Gemara asks: **If so, the verses contradict each other,** as in one verse the term *derekh* is masculine, and in the other verse it is feminine. **And** furthermore, **the *mishnayot* contradict each other,** as in one mishna *derekh* is masculine while in the other it is feminine.


###### Kiddushin 2b:8
[Kiddushin 2b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:8)

קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי לָא קַשְׁיָין: הָכָא, דִּבְתוֹרָה קָאֵי, וְתוֹרָה אִיקְּרִי לְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״תּוֹרַת ה׳ תְּמִימָה מְשִׁיבַת נָפֶשׁ״ – כָּתַב לָהּ בִּלְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה. הָתָם, דִּבְמִלְחָמָה קָאֵי, דְּדַרְכּוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה וְאֵין דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה לַעֲשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה – כָּתַב לָהּ בִּלְשׁוֹן זָכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The verses do not contradict each other. Here,** that verse: “The way in which they must walk” (Exodus 18:20), **is referring to the Torah,** i.e., the way mentioned here is referring to the path of the Torah, **and Torah is referred to** in the **feminine form, as it is written: “The Torah of the Lord is perfect [*temima*], restoring the soul”** (Psalms 19:8). The word *temima* is in the feminine. Consequently, in reference to the Torah the verse **writes:** *Derekh*, **formulated** in the **feminine. There, that** verse: “Shall flee before you seven ways” (Deuteronomy 28:7), **is referring to war,** and **as it is the way of a man to wage war and it is not the way of a woman to wage war,** it is appropriate to speak in the masculine. Therefore, the verse **writes** the word *derekh* **formulated** in the **masculine.**


###### Kiddushin 2b:9
[Kiddushin 2b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:9)

מַתְנִיתִין אַהֲדָדֵי לָא קַשְׁיָין: הָכָא, דִּלְגַבֵּי אִשָּׁה קָאֵי – קָתָנֵי לַהּ בִּלְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה. הָתָם, דִּלְגַבֵּי אִישׁ קָאֵי, דְּדַרְכּוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ לִיבָּדֵק וְאֵין דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה לִיבָּדֵק, דְּהָא אִשָּׁה נָמֵי בְּאוֹנֶס מִיטַּמְּאָהּ – תָּנֵי לְשׁוֹן זָכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, the ***mishnayot* do not contradict each other: Here, where it is referring to a woman, the mishna teaches** *derekh* **formulated** in the **feminine. There,** with regard to the examination of a *zav*, **where it is referring to a man, as** it is **common for a man to undergo an examination** to determine if his emission has a cause other than a gonorrhea-like discharge [*ziva*] **but it is not common for a woman to undergo an examination, since,** unlike a man, **a woman is rendered impure even by circumstances beyond** her **control, it taught** and used the word *derekh* **formulated** in the **masculine.** Even if a woman has an emission of blood for a reason other than illness, she is still impure. Consequently, in her case there is no reason for an examination to see what might have caused her discharge.


###### Kiddushin 2b:10
[Kiddushin 2b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:10)

מַאי טַעְמָא תָּנֵי ״שָׁלֹשׁ״ – מִשּׁוּם ״דְּרָכִים״? נִיתְנֵי ״דְּבָרִים״ וְנִיתְנֵי ״שְׁלֹשָׁה״! מִשּׁוּם דְּקָבָעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי ״בִּיאָה״, וּבִיאָה אִיקְּרִי ״דֶּרֶךְ״, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְדֶרֶךְ גֶּבֶר בְּעַלְמָה כֵּן דֶּרֶךְ אִשָּׁה מְנָאָפֶת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks another question with regard to the language of the mishna: **What is the reason** that the mishna **teaches: Three [*shalosh*],** formulated in the feminine? This is **because** it wanted to teach: **Ways. But** if so, **let it teach** instead the word: **Matters,** i.e., a woman can be acquired through three matters, **and** as this term is masculine, **let it teach three [*shelosha*],** in the masculine. The Gemara answers: The mishna did do so **because it wanted to teach intercourse** as one of these ways, **and intercourse is called a way** in the Torah, **as it is written: “And the way of a man with a young woman, so is the way of an adulterous woman”** (Proverbs 30:19-20). For this reason the mishna used the term ways rather than matters.


###### Kiddushin 2b:11
[Kiddushin 2b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:11)

הָא תִּינַח ״בִּיאָה״, ״כֶּסֶף״ וּ״שְׁטָר״ מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? מִשּׁוּם ״בִּיאָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **This works out well** with regard to **intercourse,** which is referred to as a way. But **what is there to say** concerning **money and a document?** The mishna could have used the word matters with regard to these modes of betrothal. The Gemara answers: **Because** it was necessary to mention **intercourse,** which is called a way, the mishna used the word way in reference to the other two modes as well.


###### Kiddushin 2b:12
[Kiddushin 2b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:12)

וְתָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי אַטּוּ חֲדָא? הָנָךְ נָמֵי צוֹרֶךְ בִּיאָה נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** would the mishna **teach two** cases in a particular manner **due to one?** Since the word way suits only one of the three modes of betrothal, why didn’t the mishna use the term: Matters, on account of the other two? The Gemara answers: **These, too, are for the sake of sexual intercourse.** Since the marital relationship, in which intercourse is paramount, is the ultimate purpose of betrothal, the mishna considers this clause as the most important part of the *halakha*.


###### Kiddushin 2b:13
[Kiddushin 2b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:13)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה״, וְלֹא כָּתַב ״כִּי תִּלָּקַח אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ״? – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ לְחַזֵּר עַל אִשָּׁה וְאֵין דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה לְחַזֵּר עַל אִישׁ. מָשָׁל לְאָדָם שֶׁאָבְדָה לוֹ אֲבֵידָה – מִי חוֹזֵר עַל מִי? בַּעַל אֲבֵידָה מְחַזֵּר עַל אֲבֵידָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna, which teaches *derekh*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon says: For what** reason **did the Torah say: “When a man takes a woman”** (Deuteronomy 22:13) **and did not write: “When a woman is taken by a man? Because it is the way [*derekh*] of a man to pursue a woman, and it is not the way of a woman to pursue a man.** The Gemara cites **a parable of a man who lost an item. Who searches for what?** Certainly **the owner of the lost item searches for his lost item,** not the other way around. Since woman was created from man’s lost side, the man seeks that which he has lost. To allude to this statement of Rabbi Shimon, the mishna employs the term *derekh* in this context.


###### Kiddushin 2b:14
[Kiddushin 2b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:14)

וְהָא דִּתְנַן: ״בְּשִׁבְעָה דְּרָכִים בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הַזָּב״, לִיתְנֵי ״דְּבָרִים״! הָתָם הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּדַרְכָּא דְּמֵיכְלָא יַתִּירָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי לִידֵי זִיבָה, וְדַרְכָּא דְּמִישְׁתְּיָא יַתִּירָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי לִידֵי זִיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** with regard to **that which we learned** in a mishna: **One examines a *zav* in seven ways,** why does it use this phraseology? **Let it teach** the word: **Matters.** The Gemara answers that the mishna **there teaches us this** *halakha*, **that it is the way of excessive eating to lead to *ziva*, and** likewise **it is the way of excessive drinking to lead to *ziva*.** Therefore, the mishna uses the phrase: Seven ways, to emphasize that there are ways of behavior that can cause the emission of a *zav*.


###### Kiddushin 2b:15
[Kiddushin 2b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/2b:15)

וְהָא דִּתְנַן: ״אֶתְרוֹג שָׁוֶה לָאִילָן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּרָכִים״, לִיתְנֵי ״דְּבָרִים״! מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵינַן מִתְנֵי סֵיפָא: ״וְלַיָּרָק בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶחָד״. סֵיפָא נָמֵי, נִיתְנֵי ״דָּבָר״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further challenges: **And** with regard to **that which we learned** in a mishna (*Bikkurim* 2:6): The *halakhot* of **an *etrog*** tree **correspond to** those of **a tree in three ways. Let it teach** instead: Three **matters.** The Gemara answers: **Because it wants to teach in** the **latter clause: And** the *halakhot* of an *etrog* tree correspond **to** those of **a vegetable in one way,** therefore the mishna uses the term: Ways, in the first clause as well. The Gemara asks: In the **latter clause too, let** the mishna **teach: Matter,** rather than: Way.