Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 13, 2016 | ื’ืณ ื‘ืื“ืจ ื‘ืณ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Kiddushin 2

A woman is acquired in 3 ways and gets herself out of it in 2 ways. ย What kind of acquiring is going on here? ย Is it like buying an object? Or is there something more than that? ย Why is the subject the woman is acquired and not the man acquires? Why is the root kinyanย (acquiring) used and not the root kodesh kiddushin used as appears in the second chapterย where it says the man is mekadesh. Why does the word 3 appear in feminine where is a similarly structured mishna is appears in masculine form.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืœืฉ ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื•ืงื•ื ื” ืืช ืขืฆืžื” ื‘ืฉืชื™ ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ื“ื™ื ืจ ื•ื‘ืฉื•ื” ื“ื™ื ืจ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื•ื‘ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื•ื›ืžื” ื”ื™ื ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืื—ื“ ืžืฉืžื ื” ื‘ืื™ืกืจ ื”ืื™ื˜ืœืงื™

MISHNA: A woman is acquired by, i.e., becomes betrothed to, a man to be his wife in three ways, and she acquires herself, i.e., she terminates her marriage, in two ways. The mishna elaborates: She is acquired through money, through a document, and through sexual intercourse. With regard to a betrothal through money, there is a dispute between tannaโ€™im: Beit Shammai say that she can be acquired with one dinar or with anything that is worth one dinar. And Beit Hillel say: She can be acquired with one peruta, a small copper coin, or with anything that is worth one peruta. The mishna further clarifies: And how much is the value of one peruta, by the fixed value of silver? The mishna explains that it is one-eighth of the Italian issar, which is a small silver coin.

ื•ืงื•ื ื” ืืช ืขืฆืžื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื™ื‘ืžื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ื•ืงื•ื ื” ืืช ืขืฆืžื” ื‘ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื™ื‘ื

And a woman acquires herself through a bill of divorce or through the death of the husband. A woman whose husband, who had a brother, died childless [yevama], can be acquired by the deceased husbandโ€™s brother, the yavam, only through intercourse. And she acquires herself, i.e., she is released from her levirate bond, through แธฅalitza or through the death of the yavam.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ื›ื ื“ืชื ื™ ื”ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ืชื ื“ืชื ื™ ื”ืื™ืฉ ืžืงื“ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื›ืกืฃ

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a woman can be acquired in three ways. The Gemara asks: What is different here that this mishna teaches: A woman is acquired, using the language of acquisition, and what is different there, in the beginning of the next chapter (42a), which teaches: A man betroths, using the language of betrothal? The Gemara explains: In this mishna the tanna utilized the language of acquisition because he wanted to teach about betrothal through money, which is the standard means of exchange in an act of acquisition.

ื•ื›ืกืฃ ืžื ื ืœืŸ ื’ืžืจ ืงื™ื—ื” ืงื™ื—ื” ืžืฉื“ื” ืขืคืจื•ืŸ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ื›ื™ ื™ืงื— ืื™ืฉ ืืฉื” ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืชื ื ืชืชื™ ื›ืกืฃ ื”ืฉื“ื” ืงื— ืžืžื ื™

The Gemara continues its explanation: And from where do we derive that betrothal is accomplished by means of giving money? It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term expressing taking stated with regard to betrothal and from the term expressing taking with regard to the field of Ephron. How so? It is written here, with regard to marriage: โ€œWhen a man takes a womanโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:1), and it is written there, concerning Abrahamโ€™s purchase of the field of the Cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite: โ€œI will give money for the field; take it from meโ€ (Genesis 23:13). This verbal analogy teaches that just as Ephronโ€™s field was acquired with money, so too, a woman can be acquired with money.

ื•ืงื™ื—ื” ืื™ืงืจื™ ืงื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืฉื“ื” ืืฉืจ ืงื ื” ืื‘ืจื”ื

The Gemara continues: And the taking of Ephronโ€™s field is called an acquisition in the Torah, as it is written with regard to the same issue: โ€œThe field which Abraham acquiredโ€ (Genesis 25:10).

ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืฉื“ื•ืช ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื™ืงื ื• ืชื ื™ ื”ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช

Alternatively, it can be proven that purchasing a field with money is called an acquisition from the verse: โ€œThey shall acquire fields with moneyโ€ (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.

ื•ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื”ืชื ื”ืื™ืฉ ืงื•ื ื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืชื ื™ ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืชื ื™ ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืžืื™ ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืกืจ ืœื” ืื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื›ื”ืงื“ืฉ

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.

ื•ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื”ืื™ืฉ ืงื•ื ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื ืกื™ืคื ื•ืงื•ื ื” ืืช ืขืฆืžื” ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื” ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื”

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.

ื•ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื”ืื™ืฉ ืงื•ื ื” ื•ืžืงื ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื“ืœืื• ืื™ื”ื• ืงื ืžืงื ื™ ืžืŸ ืฉืžื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืงื ื™ ืœื”

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 husbandโ€™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.

ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืื™ ืชื ื ืงื•ื ื” ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื” ืชื ื ื”ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื“ืžื“ืขืชื” ืื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืžื“ืขืชื” ืœื

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 womanโ€™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.

ื•ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ ืฉืœืฉ ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื“ืจืš ื•ื“ืจืš ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื“ืขืช ืœื”ื ืืช ื”ื“ืจืš ื™ืœื›ื• ื‘ื”

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: โ€œAnd you shall show them the way [derekh] in which [bah] they must walkโ€ (Exodus 18:20). The term bah, which is referring to derekh, is formulated in the feminine.

ื•ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ืขื” ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื–ื‘ ื ื™ืชื ื™ ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื“ืจืš ื•ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื“ืื™ืงืจื™ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื–ื›ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื“ืจืš ืื—ื“ ื™ืฆืื• ืืœื™ืš ื•ื‘ืฉื‘ืขื” ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื™ื ื•ืกื• ืœืคื ื™ืš ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืฉื• ืงืจืื™ ืื”ื“ื“ื™ ื•ืงืฉื™ื ื ืžื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืื”ื“ื“ื™

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: โ€œThey shall come out against you one way [derekh], and shall flee before you seven [shiva] waysโ€ (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.

ืงืจืื™ ืื”ื“ื“ื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื“ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืงืื™ ื•ืชื•ืจื” ืื™ืงืจื™ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืณ ืชืžื™ืžื” ืžืฉื™ื‘ืช ื ืคืฉ ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ืชื ื“ื‘ืžืœื—ืžื” ืงืื™ ื“ื“ืจื›ื• ืฉืœ ืื™ืฉ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžืœื—ืžื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื” ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžืœื—ืžื” ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื–ื›ืจ

The Gemara answers: The verses do not contradict each other. Here, that verse: โ€œThe way in which they must walkโ€ (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: โ€œThe Torah of the Lord is perfect [temima], restoring the soulโ€ (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: โ€œShall flee before you seven waysโ€ (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.

ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืื”ื“ื“ื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื“ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืืฉื” ืงืื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ืชื ื“ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืื™ืฉ ืงืื™ ื“ื“ืจื›ื• ืฉืœ ืื™ืฉ ืœื™ื‘ื“ืง ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื” ืœื™ื‘ื“ืง ื“ื”ื ืืฉื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ืื•ื ืก ืžื™ื˜ืžืื” ืชื ื™ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื–ื›ืจ

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.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืชื ื™ ืฉืœืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื•ื ื™ืชื ื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื™ืื” ื•ื‘ื™ืื” ืื™ืงืจื™ ื“ืจืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื“ืจืš ื’ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขืœืžื” ื›ืŸ ื“ืจืš ืืฉื” ืžื ืืคืช

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: โ€œAnd the way of a man with a young woman, so is the way of an adulterous womanโ€ (Proverbs 30:19โ€“20). For this reason the mishna used the term ways rather than matters.

ื”ื ืชื™ื ื— ื‘ื™ืื” ื›ืกืฃ ื•ืฉื˜ืจ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ื™ืื”

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.

ื•ืชื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ ืื˜ื• ื—ื“ื ื”ื ืš ื ืžื™ ืฆื•ืจืš ื‘ื™ืื” ื ื™ื ื”ื•

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 didnโ€™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.

ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื™ ื™ืงื— ืื™ืฉ ืืฉื” ื•ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ื›ื™ ืชืœืงื— ืืฉื” ืœืื™ืฉ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื“ืจื›ื• ืฉืœ ืื™ืฉ ืœื—ื–ืจ ืขืœ ืืฉื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื” ืœื—ื–ืจ ืขืœ ืื™ืฉ ืžืฉืœ ืœืื“ื ืฉืื‘ื“ื” ืœื• ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ืžื™ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืขืœ ืžื™ ื‘ืขืœ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ืžื—ื–ืจ ืขืœ ืื‘ื™ื“ืชื•

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: โ€œWhen a man takes a womanโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:13) and did not write: โ€œWhen 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 manโ€™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.

ื•ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืฉื‘ืขื” ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื–ื‘ ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืชื ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื“ืจื›ื ื“ืžื™ื›ืœื ื™ืชื™ืจื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ ื–ื™ื‘ื” ื•ื“ืจื›ื ื“ืžื™ืฉืชื™ื ื™ืชื™ืจื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ ื–ื™ื‘ื”

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.

ื•ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืชืจื•ื’ ืฉื•ื” ืœืื™ืœืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ืจื›ื™ื ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืžืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื•ืœื™ืจืง ื‘ื“ืจืš ืื—ื“ ืกื™ืคื ื ืžื™ ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจ

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 2

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืœืฉ ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื•ืงื•ื ื” ืืช ืขืฆืžื” ื‘ืฉืชื™ ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ื“ื™ื ืจ ื•ื‘ืฉื•ื” ื“ื™ื ืจ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื•ื‘ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื•ื›ืžื” ื”ื™ื ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืื—ื“ ืžืฉืžื ื” ื‘ืื™ืกืจ ื”ืื™ื˜ืœืงื™

MISHNA: A woman is acquired by, i.e., becomes betrothed to, a man to be his wife in three ways, and she acquires herself, i.e., she terminates her marriage, in two ways. The mishna elaborates: She is acquired through money, through a document, and through sexual intercourse. With regard to a betrothal through money, there is a dispute between tannaโ€™im: Beit Shammai say that she can be acquired with one dinar or with anything that is worth one dinar. And Beit Hillel say: She can be acquired with one peruta, a small copper coin, or with anything that is worth one peruta. The mishna further clarifies: And how much is the value of one peruta, by the fixed value of silver? The mishna explains that it is one-eighth of the Italian issar, which is a small silver coin.

ื•ืงื•ื ื” ืืช ืขืฆืžื” ื‘ื’ื˜ ื•ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื™ื‘ืžื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ื•ืงื•ื ื” ืืช ืขืฆืžื” ื‘ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื™ื‘ื

And a woman acquires herself through a bill of divorce or through the death of the husband. A woman whose husband, who had a brother, died childless [yevama], can be acquired by the deceased husbandโ€™s brother, the yavam, only through intercourse. And she acquires herself, i.e., she is released from her levirate bond, through แธฅalitza or through the death of the yavam.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ื›ื ื“ืชื ื™ ื”ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ืชื ื“ืชื ื™ ื”ืื™ืฉ ืžืงื“ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื›ืกืฃ

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a woman can be acquired in three ways. The Gemara asks: What is different here that this mishna teaches: A woman is acquired, using the language of acquisition, and what is different there, in the beginning of the next chapter (42a), which teaches: A man betroths, using the language of betrothal? The Gemara explains: In this mishna the tanna utilized the language of acquisition because he wanted to teach about betrothal through money, which is the standard means of exchange in an act of acquisition.

ื•ื›ืกืฃ ืžื ื ืœืŸ ื’ืžืจ ืงื™ื—ื” ืงื™ื—ื” ืžืฉื“ื” ืขืคืจื•ืŸ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ื›ื™ ื™ืงื— ืื™ืฉ ืืฉื” ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืชื ื ืชืชื™ ื›ืกืฃ ื”ืฉื“ื” ืงื— ืžืžื ื™

The Gemara continues its explanation: And from where do we derive that betrothal is accomplished by means of giving money? It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term expressing taking stated with regard to betrothal and from the term expressing taking with regard to the field of Ephron. How so? It is written here, with regard to marriage: โ€œWhen a man takes a womanโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:1), and it is written there, concerning Abrahamโ€™s purchase of the field of the Cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite: โ€œI will give money for the field; take it from meโ€ (Genesis 23:13). This verbal analogy teaches that just as Ephronโ€™s field was acquired with money, so too, a woman can be acquired with money.

ื•ืงื™ื—ื” ืื™ืงืจื™ ืงื ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืฉื“ื” ืืฉืจ ืงื ื” ืื‘ืจื”ื

The Gemara continues: And the taking of Ephronโ€™s field is called an acquisition in the Torah, as it is written with regard to the same issue: โ€œThe field which Abraham acquiredโ€ (Genesis 25:10).

ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืฉื“ื•ืช ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื™ืงื ื• ืชื ื™ ื”ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช

Alternatively, it can be proven that purchasing a field with money is called an acquisition from the verse: โ€œThey shall acquire fields with moneyโ€ (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.

ื•ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื”ืชื ื”ืื™ืฉ ืงื•ื ื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืชื ื™ ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืชื ื™ ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืžืื™ ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืกืจ ืœื” ืื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื›ื”ืงื“ืฉ

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.

ื•ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื”ืื™ืฉ ืงื•ื ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื ืกื™ืคื ื•ืงื•ื ื” ืืช ืขืฆืžื” ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื” ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื”

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.

ื•ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื”ืื™ืฉ ืงื•ื ื” ื•ืžืงื ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ืชืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื“ืœืื• ืื™ื”ื• ืงื ืžืงื ื™ ืžืŸ ืฉืžื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืงื ื™ ืœื”

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 husbandโ€™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.

ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืื™ ืชื ื ืงื•ื ื” ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื” ืชื ื ื”ืืฉื” ื ืงื ื™ืช ื“ืžื“ืขืชื” ืื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืžื“ืขืชื” ืœื

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 womanโ€™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.

ื•ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ ืฉืœืฉ ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื“ืจืš ื•ื“ืจืš ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื“ืขืช ืœื”ื ืืช ื”ื“ืจืš ื™ืœื›ื• ื‘ื”

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: โ€œAnd you shall show them the way [derekh] in which [bah] they must walkโ€ (Exodus 18:20). The term bah, which is referring to derekh, is formulated in the feminine.

ื•ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ืขื” ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื–ื‘ ื ื™ืชื ื™ ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื“ืจืš ื•ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื“ืื™ืงืจื™ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื–ื›ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื“ืจืš ืื—ื“ ื™ืฆืื• ืืœื™ืš ื•ื‘ืฉื‘ืขื” ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื™ื ื•ืกื• ืœืคื ื™ืš ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืฉื• ืงืจืื™ ืื”ื“ื“ื™ ื•ืงืฉื™ื ื ืžื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืื”ื“ื“ื™

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: โ€œThey shall come out against you one way [derekh], and shall flee before you seven [shiva] waysโ€ (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.

ืงืจืื™ ืื”ื“ื“ื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื“ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืงืื™ ื•ืชื•ืจื” ืื™ืงืจื™ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืณ ืชืžื™ืžื” ืžืฉื™ื‘ืช ื ืคืฉ ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ืชื ื“ื‘ืžืœื—ืžื” ืงืื™ ื“ื“ืจื›ื• ืฉืœ ืื™ืฉ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžืœื—ืžื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื” ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžืœื—ืžื” ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื–ื›ืจ

The Gemara answers: The verses do not contradict each other. Here, that verse: โ€œThe way in which they must walkโ€ (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: โ€œThe Torah of the Lord is perfect [temima], restoring the soulโ€ (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: โ€œShall flee before you seven waysโ€ (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.

ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืื”ื“ื“ื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื“ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืืฉื” ืงืื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ืชื ื“ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืื™ืฉ ืงืื™ ื“ื“ืจื›ื• ืฉืœ ืื™ืฉ ืœื™ื‘ื“ืง ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื” ืœื™ื‘ื“ืง ื“ื”ื ืืฉื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ืื•ื ืก ืžื™ื˜ืžืื” ืชื ื™ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื–ื›ืจ

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.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืชื ื™ ืฉืœืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื•ื ื™ืชื ื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื™ืื” ื•ื‘ื™ืื” ืื™ืงืจื™ ื“ืจืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื“ืจืš ื’ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขืœืžื” ื›ืŸ ื“ืจืš ืืฉื” ืžื ืืคืช

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: โ€œAnd the way of a man with a young woman, so is the way of an adulterous womanโ€ (Proverbs 30:19โ€“20). For this reason the mishna used the term ways rather than matters.

ื”ื ืชื™ื ื— ื‘ื™ืื” ื›ืกืฃ ื•ืฉื˜ืจ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ื™ืื”

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.

ื•ืชื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ ืื˜ื• ื—ื“ื ื”ื ืš ื ืžื™ ืฆื•ืจืš ื‘ื™ืื” ื ื™ื ื”ื•

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 didnโ€™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.

ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื™ ื™ืงื— ืื™ืฉ ืืฉื” ื•ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ื›ื™ ืชืœืงื— ืืฉื” ืœืื™ืฉ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื“ืจื›ื• ืฉืœ ืื™ืฉ ืœื—ื–ืจ ืขืœ ืืฉื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื” ืœื—ื–ืจ ืขืœ ืื™ืฉ ืžืฉืœ ืœืื“ื ืฉืื‘ื“ื” ืœื• ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ืžื™ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืขืœ ืžื™ ื‘ืขืœ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ืžื—ื–ืจ ืขืœ ืื‘ื™ื“ืชื•

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: โ€œWhen a man takes a womanโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:13) and did not write: โ€œWhen 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 manโ€™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.

ื•ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืฉื‘ืขื” ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื–ื‘ ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืชื ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื“ืจื›ื ื“ืžื™ื›ืœื ื™ืชื™ืจื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ ื–ื™ื‘ื” ื•ื“ืจื›ื ื“ืžื™ืฉืชื™ื ื™ืชื™ืจื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ ื–ื™ื‘ื”

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.

ื•ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืชืจื•ื’ ืฉื•ื” ืœืื™ืœืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ืจื›ื™ื ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืžืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื•ืœื™ืจืง ื‘ื“ืจืš ืื—ื“ ืกื™ืคื ื ืžื™ ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจ

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.

Scroll To Top