טו והא דתנן אתרוג שווה לאילן בג' דרכים ליתני דברים משום דבעינן מתני סיפא ולירק בדרך אחד סיפא נמי ניתני דבר
15 on account of derakim [ways]! Then let him teach debarim [things] and sheloshah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman is acquired by three things; debarim is masc.');"><sup>18</sup></span> - Because he wishes to mention INTERCOURSE, which is designated 'way', as it is written, and the way of a man with a maid. Such is the way of an adulterous woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXX, 19 f.');"><sup>19</sup></span> Now, that answers for intercourse; but what can you say of MONEY AND DEED? - [They are] on account of INTERCOURSE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since derek is required for cohabitation, it is also used for the others.');"><sup>20</sup></span> And are two taught on account of one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely the idiom should be primarily adapted to the majority?');"><sup>21</sup></span> - These too are adjuncts of intercourse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are not separate and complete acts, but preliminaries to cohabitation.');"><sup>22</sup></span> Alternatively I can say: The author of this [Mishnah] is R'Simeon, For it was taught: R'Simeon said: Why did the Torah state, If any man take a wife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 13.');"><sup>23</sup></span> and not 'if a woman be taken to a man'? Because it is the way of a man to go in search of a woman, but it is not the way of a woman to go in search of a man. This may be compared to a man who lost an article: who goes in search of whom? The loser goes in search of the lost article.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the lost article does not seek the loser. Thus, man having lost his rib, he seeks to recover it. - Since R. Simeon says 'It is the way of a man, etc.' he also teaches: 'A WOMAN IS ACQUIRED IN THREE WAYS. 'Derek' (way) is applicable to something that happens in conformity with nature or normal practice.');"><sup>24</sup></span> Now, as to what we learnt: 'a zab is examined in seven ways': let it state [seven] 'things'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because generally speaking the masculine is preferable.');"><sup>25</sup></span> - There we are informed this: it is the nature [way] of excessive eating to cause gonorrhoea, and it is the nature [way] of excessive drinking to cause gonorrhoea. Further, as to what we learnt: 'The citron is comparable to a tree in three ways'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., in respect of 'orlah (q.v. Glos.) , fourth year fruits, and the year of release. The fruit gathered in the fourth year of a tree's planting was to be eaten in Jerusalem, like the second tithe (v. note 4) . Special laws governed the produce of every seventh year (v. Lev, XXV, 1-7) , but the definitions of 'seventh year' varied. In respect to trees it meant the fruit that grew in the seventh year, even if not harvested until the eighth; while in speaking of vegetables it applies to the time of gathering: the citron is assimilated to trees in this matter.');"><sup>26</sup></span> - let him state [in three] things? - Because he wishes to teach the second clause: and to vegetables in one way.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., in respect of tithing. In the first, second, fourth, and fifth years after the 'year of release', the first and second tithe were separated, the first being given to the Levite and the second eaten by its owners in Jerusalem; in the third and sixth years the first and third tithes were due, the latter being given to the poor. Here too, trees were determined by the time when their fruit grew; vegetables by their gathering; the citron was assimilated to vegetables in this matter.');"><sup>27</sup></span> Then in the second clause too' let him state, [and to vegetables in one] 'thing'?