"Alternatively: 'Fields with money are acquired'". And the reason that [the Talmud] did not bring "acquisition" that is written in the Torah from "from money of his acquisition" (Leviticus 25:51) is because it needed to bring acquisition of a field. Problem: If so, it should have brought "The field that Avraham acquired"! Solution: From that [second text] it would not be possible to be precise, for it would be possible to say "The field that Avraham purchased" by presumption or contract, for it didn't write "The field that Avraham acquired with money".

"The it forbids her to everyone like hekdesh". And [the pronouncement] "Behold you are betrothed (מקודשת) to me means "That you should be to me sanctified forever for me", like (Nedarim 48a) "Behold these are sanctified for heaven", that they should be heaven's. And the literal meaning of the word is "You are sanctified to me" = "Special to me", "Designated for me." But if he said "This cloak is sanctified to me" it doesn't appear that this is effective, since regarding a wife that is special to be his she is forbidden to everyone else, but with a loaf of bread or a cloak it is not fitting to say this.

"If [the Mishnah] taught 'he acquires' I would have thought it meant against her will". And even though it teaches "The man betroths", which implies against her will, this is because we already learnt here that it can't be against her will. Problem: it teaches "The yevamah is acquired" and it doesn't teach "the yevamah acquires" which would imply against her will! [Solution:] Since it needed to teach "The wife is acquired" it taught also at the end "The yevamah is acquired", since "is acquired" could imply either with her consent or against her will.

"It should teach 'three' (masc.)". Explanation: Because the whole Torah uses masculine numbers.

"Verses would contradict each other!" [Problem:] Even though we find many items that are in grammatical male and female, as it is written "Hand sent (fem.) to me and there was in it (masc.) a scroll" (Ezekiel 2:9), "The sun sets (fem.)" (Genesis 15:17) "The sun rises (masc.)" (Genesis 19:23), "The one (fem.) camp and he struck it (masc.) (Genesis 32:8); and so too in the language of Hazal we find, "A lamp that goes out (fem.) is not required for it" (Shabbat 21a) "Lamp that goes out (masc.)" (Shabbat 44a), "Your donkey left (fem.) Tarfon" (Sanhedrin 33a) "One who rents a donkey and she breaks off and goes to the mountain" (Baba Metzia 78a) "but before the owner of the cow could pull the donkey, the donkey died (masc.)", and so in many places. Solution: Whenever it is possible to teach [something interesting from the use of grammatical gender], we teach, and also with verses if there is a derashah. Alternatively: Because the mishnayot that teach their terminology after the biblical period, [Hazal] wanted to give them reason and specificity [to the biblical use of grammatical gender].

"Here it is about the Torah and the Torah is grammatically female". [Problem:] But if you say: "War" is also grammatically female, as it is written "The war was heavy (fem.) for Shaul" (1 Shmuel 1:33), "And the way continued (fem.)" (1 Shmuel 19:8). Additional problem: When it said that it is the way of a man to make war, and not of a woman, it is also the way of a man to learn Torah and not of a woman! Solution: These are not similar, because here it is about the Torah itself since Scripture is called "way", and not about those who learn it, while "They went out to you" (Devarim 28:7) is about the warriors, and they are men whose way is to make war.

["Why does the Torah say 'When he purchases'..."? Explanation: This implies against her will since it didn't write "When she is purchased" which would imply with her consent. (Tosafot Yeshanim)]

"An etrog is equal to a tree in 3 ways". Rashi's explanation: For orlah, 4th year and 7th year; for regarding 7th year, their fruit are considered to be complete from their fruiting like a tree, and not from their gathering like a vegetable. [Problem:] But if you say: But this implies that 4th year is practised etrog—if so this here is difficult for the one who says that [the Mishnah] teaches "4th year vineyard" at the beginning of Ketzad Mevarkhin (Berakhot 35a) "that this implies 4th year is not practised with other trees"! Solution: This is what he meant to say: [the Mishnah says] "4th year vineyard" anywhere where it is possible to teach this, but if it is not possible to teach this they don't disagree about it. For they do not disagree there to say that there isn't any Tanna that thinks "4th year planting" except for perhaps this, for regarding etrog there is an explicit Tannaitic disagreement, they do not disagree except to contradict the mishnayot at the end of Maaser Sheni. But in all other places it doesn't matter if it is according to the one who thinks "4th year vineyard" or "4th year planting" except to know whom the halakhah follows. Solution: Even according to the one who teaches "4th year vineyard" would agree with regard to other trees that [one has to] practise [4th year produce laws] rabbinically, and here the Talmud meant it rabbinically. [New topic:] And there is a practical halakhic difference for us in this matter, for if they disagree [about the status of 4th year non-vine trees], the one who says "4th year vineyard" specifically but for planting there is no 4th year at all even rabbinically, and they say (Shabbat 139a): Anything that is lenient in the Land [of Israel], the halakhah is like it outside the Land—if so, today, outside the Land, there is no law of 4th year practised with trees! But if, rabbinically everyone agrees that it is practised with other trees, this would also be true outside the Land that 4th year is practised outside the Land. [New topic:] As for what Rashi explained "We go after the fruiting like a tree and not the collecting like vegetables"—this implies that, embedded in his commentary is that vegetables go after the collection regarding 7th year, but this is not precise for in Shevi'it we teach "All aftergrowths are permitted except for cabbage aftergrowths". Rabbenu Nissim raised a problem: In the chapter Makom She-Nehegu (Pesahim 51b) it teaches the opposite! [R"N's solution:] This in Shevi'it that teaches "All aftergrowths are permitted except for cabbage aftergrowths" is dealing with aftergrowths of the 6th year that entered the 7th, for, since most of them grew in the 6th year, they are as if they are of the 6th year [i.e. as if they grew totally in the 6th year] and are permitted even for business, except for cabbage aftergrowths which are forbidden for business like the law for 7th year [produce]. Or: After the end time of eating [produce in the 7th year], as we explain in the Yerushalmi, that "every vegetable you are able to rely on its leaves whether new or old, but for cabbage aftergrowths whose way it is to grow in layers, and some of the leaves grew in the 7th year and perhaps he buys one of the leaves that are forbidden and he will say, 'From the inner layers I bought it'". And that in Makom She-Nehegu that teaches "All aftergrowths are forbidden" is dealing with aftergrowths that grew in the 7th year and it is according to Rabbi Akiva's opinion who explains: "Since they were not planted, from where did they gather!? Rather to teach about aftergrowths that are forbidden even for eating", all the more so for business, and he thinks that aftergrowths are forbidden from the Torah, even before the end time of eating, and when they go into the 8th year they are forbidden rabbinically since what they make is like them. And he thinks that all other aftergrowths are forbidden in the 8th year, but cabbage aftergrowths that are not like field vegetables, we do not decree about them because [we're worried about people confusing this permission with the prohibition on] other aftergrowths, for they [cabbages] are recognisable: anything that grew in the inner layers will be of the 7th year and be forbidden, but anything that hasn't arrived yet will be of the 8th and be permitted, and one that saw a person eating cabbage aftergrowths in the 8th year will not come to eat other aftergrowths since they are different from the other aftergrowths, and we do not decree on a permission because of a prohibition. [Problem:] Nevertheless, learn from the fact that 6th year aftergrowths that enter the 7th year are permitted. that we do not go at all regarding vegetables after their collection but rather after [in which year] most of their growth [took place]! Solution: Granted that we do not go after collection, but regardless we also do not go after fruiting, but rather if it grew in a forbidden time it is forbidden; in a permitted time, it is permitted—which is not true regarding etrog and other trees where we go completely after fruiting, that if it fruited in a forbidden time, even that which grew in a permitted time after that is forbidden, and thus with regard to Shevi'it [the etrog] is equal to the tree, for if it were equal to a vegetable we would go after most of its growth.