## Kiddushin Daf 3a

###### Kiddushin 3a:1
[Kiddushin 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3a:1)

הָתָם הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּדַרְכֵּיהּ דְּאֶתְרוֹג כְּיָרָק – מָה יָרָק דַּרְכּוֹ לִיגְדַּל עַל כׇּל מַיִם וּבִשְׁעַת לְקִיטָתוֹ עִישּׂוּרוֹ, אַף אֶתְרוֹג דַּרְכּוֹ לִיגְדַּל עַל כׇּל מַיִם וּבִשְׁעַת לְקִיטָתוֹ עִישּׂוּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **There,** the mishna **teaches us this, that** the **way an *etrog*** grows is **like a vegetable: Just as it is the way of a vegetable to grow by** being watered by **all water,** i.e., in addition to rainwater it requires irrigation, **and its tithing is according to when it is harvested,** i.e., its tithing is based on when it is collected from the field, **so too, it is the way of an *etrog* to grow by** being watered by **all water,** as it requires more water than rain provides, **and its tithing is according to the time when it is harvested.** If, for example, a vegetable is collected during a year when poor man’s tithe is given, that tithe is separated from it, even if it formed a bud during the previous year, when second tithe was separated. The same applies to an *etrog*. Therefore, the mishna specifically uses the term: Way, to allude to this reason.


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

וְהָא דִּתְנַן: ״כּוֹי – יֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַחַיָּה, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַבְּהֵמָה, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַחַיָּה וְלַבְּהֵמָה, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה לֹא לַחַיָּה וְלֹא לַבְּהֵמָה״. נִיתְנֵי ״דְּבָרִים״! וְתוּ, הָא דִּתְנַן: ״זוֹ אַחַת מִן הַדְּרָכִים שֶׁשָּׁווּ גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים לְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים״, נִיתְנֵי ״דְּבָרִים״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **But** concerning **that which we learned** in a mishna (*Bikkurim* 2:8): With regard to **a *koy*,** an animal whose classification was uncertain, as the Sages were unsure whether it is a domesticated or a non-domesticated animal, **there are ways,** i.e., *halakhot*, **in** which its *halakhot* **correspond to** those of **a non-domesticated animal and there are ways in** which its *halakhot* **correspond to** those of **a domesticated animal. And there are ways in** which its *halakhot* **correspond to** those of both **a non-domesticated animal and a domesticated animal, and there are ways in** which its *halakhot* **correspond to** those of **neither a non-domesticated animal nor a domesticated animal. Let** that mishna **teach** the term: **Matters. And furthermore,** with regard to **that which we learned** in a mishna (*Gittin* 9a): **This is one of the ways in which** the *halakhot* of **bills of divorce correspond to** those of bills of **manumission, let** that mishna **teach** the word: **Matters.**


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

אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא פְּלוּגְתָּא תָּנֵי ״דְּרָכִים״, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא פְּלוּגְתָּא תָּנֵי ״דְּבָרִים״. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֶתְרוֹג שָׁוֶה לָאִילָן לְכׇל דָּבָר״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara rejects the previous explanations, as the phraseology is not dependent on the nature of the topic at hand. Instead, **anywhere that there is a distinction** with regard to an issue the mishna **teaches** the term: **Ways,** as there are different ways or possibilities available. **And anywhere that there is no distinction it teaches** the word: **Matters.** The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna **is also precise** in this regard, **as it teaches in the latter clause** of that mishna that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** The *halakhot* of **an *etrog*** tree **correspond to** those of **a tree with regard to every matter.** This indicates that when no distinctions apply, the mishna will use the term matter. The Gemara concludes: **Learn from** this clause in the mishna that this explanation is correct.


###### Kiddushin 3a:4
[Kiddushin 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3a:4)

מִנְיָינָא דְרֵישָׁא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי, מִנְיָינָא דְסֵיפָא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to analyze the language of the mishna: With regard to **the number in the first clause** of the mishna, i.e., a woman is acquired in three ways, this serves **to exclude what?** The fact that the mishna mentions a number indicates that other modes of acquisition do not apply to betrothal. What mode is excluded? Similarly, **the number in the latter clause** of the mishna, that a woman acquires herself in two ways, serves **to exclude what?**


###### Kiddushin 3a:5
[Kiddushin 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3a:5)

מִנְיָינָא דְרֵישָׁא – לְמַעוֹטֵי חוּפָּה. וּלְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר חוּפָּה קוֹנָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר, לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **The number in the first clause** serves **to exclude** a wedding **canopy,** which does not effect betrothal. The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rav Huna, who said:** A wedding **canopy acquires** a woman, and it alone could be a mode of betrothal, as derived **by an *a fortiori*** inference (see 5a), this number serves **to exclude what?**


###### Kiddushin 3a:6
[Kiddushin 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3a:6)

לְמַעוֹטֵי חֲלִיפִין. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וְגָמַר ״קִיחָה״ ״קִיחָה״ מִשְּׂדֵה עֶפְרוֹן – מָה שָׂדֶה מִקַּנְיָא בַּחֲלִיפִין, אַף אִשָּׁה נָמֵי מִקַּנְיָא בַּחֲלִיפִין, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The number serves **to exclude** acquisition through symbolic **exchange,** i.e., a *pro forma* act of acquisition effecting the transfer of ownership of an article. Although a woman can be betrothed by means of money or an item of monetary value, she is not betrothed if she is given an item by symbolic exchange. The Gemara explains why this needs to be excluded: It might **enter your mind to say** that **since** the Sages **derive** the acquisition of a woman by verbal analogy between the term expressing **taking** stated with regard to betrothal **from** the term expressing **taking** with regard to **the field of Ephron,** it can be suggested that **just as a field can be acquired through** symbolic **exchange, so too, a woman can be acquired through** symbolic **exchange.** Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us** that this is not the case.


###### Kiddushin 3a:7
[Kiddushin 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/3a:7)

וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! חֲלִיפִין אִיתַנְהוּ בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, וְאִשָּׁה בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** perhaps one should **say** that **so too,** it is possible to betroth a woman by means of symbolic exchange. The Gemara answers: This cannot be the case, as symbolic **exchange is** effective **using** an item worth **less than the value of one *peruta*, and with** an item worth **less than the value of one *peruta*, a woman**