Kiddushin 5

Chapter 5

א התם הא קמשמע לן דדרכיה דאתרוג כירק מה ירק דרכו ליגדל על כל מים ובשעת לקיטתו עישורו אף אתרוג דרכו ליגדל על כל מים ובשעת לקיטתו עישורו
1 - There we are informed this: that the nature [way] of a citron is like that of vegetables. Just as it is the nature of vegetables to grow by means of all waters,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., artificial irrigation, which is normally impossible in the case of wheat and the vine.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב והא דתנן כוי יש בו דרכים שוה לחיה ויש בו דרכים שוה לבהמה ויש בו דרכים שוה לחיה ולבהמה ויש בו דרכים שאינו שוה לא לחיה ולא לבהמה ניתני דברים ותו הא דתנן זו אחת מן הדרכים ששוו גיטי נשים לשחרורי עבדים ניתני דברים
2 and its tithing is determined by the time when it is gathered;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. nn. 3 and 4.');"><sup>2</sup></span> so is it the nature of the citron to grow by means of all waters, and [therefore] its tithing is determined by its gathering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus by employing 'way,' the Tanna teaches the reason of its similarity in tithing, viz., because it is also similar in the nature (way) of its growth.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג אלא כל היכא דאיכא פלוגתא תני דרכים וכל היכא דליכא פלוגתא תני דברים דיקא נמי דקתני סיפא ר"א אומר אתרוג שוה לאילן לכל דבר ש"מ
3 Again, when we learnt: A koy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Generally taken as a cross between a goat and some species of gazelle; v. Lewysohn, Zoologie, p. 115.]');"><sup>4</sup></span> is, in some ways, similar to beasts of chase;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. hayyah, beast of chase, opposed to behemah, cattle. The Rabbis were uncertain whether the koy should be considered of the genus of cattle or a beast of chase.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד מניינא דרישא למעוטי מאי מניינא דסיפא למעוטי מאי
4 and in other ways to cattle; and [again], in some ways to both beasts of chase and cattle, and in other ways to neither beasts of chase nor cattle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its heleb (hindquarter fat) is forbidden like that of cattle, its blood must be covered after slaughter, like that of a beast of chase, it must be ritually killed before it is fit for food, like both, it must not be made to copulate with either. - Since its status is undetermined, we impose the stringencies of both beasts of chase and cattle.');"><sup>6</sup></span> - let it be taught, [in some] 'things'?
ה מניינא דרישא למעוטי חופה ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק"ו למעוטי מאי
5 Moreover, when we learnt: This is one of the ways wherein women's divorce deeds are similar to slaves' writs of liberation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., if one is brought from overseas, the messenger must declare, 'It was written and attested in my presence.'');"><sup>7</sup></span> - let him state, [this is one of the] 'things' etc. ? - But [answer thus]: wherever a distinction is drawn, 'ways' is employed: wherever there is no distinction, 'things' [respects] is taught.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., in some respects the citron is similar to trees; in others to vegetables: hence a distinction is drawn. The same applies to the other passages quoted. But if one thing is entirely like another, we employ 'things' (dabar) .');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ו למעוטי חליפין ס"ד אמינא הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון מה שדה מקניא בחליפין אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין קמ"ל
6 This may be proved too, for the second clause teaches: R'Eliezer maintained: The citron is equal to trees in all things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus 'way' is not used here, since no distinction is drawn.');"><sup>9</sup></span> This proves it.
ז ואימא הכי נמי חליפין איתנהו בפחות משוה פרוטה ואשה בפחות משוה פרוטה
7 What does the number of the first clause exclude, and what does the number of the second exclude?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is unnecessary to state, A WOMAN . . THREE WAYS . . TWO, since these are actually enumerated. The explicit statement of the number must therefore emphasize that only three ways are valid, not more. vpuj');"><sup>10</sup></span> - The number of the first clause excludes huppah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a father delivers his daughter to huppah as an act of betrothal (kiddushin) , it is not valid as such. (Rashi) . [The word from the root ;pj , denotes the baldachin or canopy wherein the bridegroom received the bride at the nuptials. A good deal of uncertainty exists as to the signification of this ceremony; (v. Shulhan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, I, XV, 1) . Rashi, it appears, regards huppah as a mere symbol of traditio puellae, a handing over of the maiden by the father to the husband into whose control she now passes, (cf. Keth. 48a) , in contradistinction to Maim.,');"><sup>11</sup></span> But according to R'Huna, who maintained: Huppah [as an act of betrothal] acquires [a woman], by inferring it a minori,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 50.');"><sup>12</sup></span> what does it exclude? - It excludes barter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman cannot be bartered, i.e., become betrothed in exchange for an article. - On 'barter' v. infra 28a, MISHNAH:');"><sup>13</sup></span> I might have thought, since we learn the meaning of 'taking' from Ephron's field:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 2a.');"><sup>14</sup></span> then just as a field may be acquired by barter, so may a woman too be acquired by barter: hence we are informed [otherwise]. And let us say: That indeed is so? - Barter is possible with less than a perutah's worth;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 47a.');"><sup>15</sup></span> whilst a woman will not cede herself [in marriage] for less than a perutah's worth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is derogatory to her dignity.');"><sup>16</sup></span>