Kiddushin — Daf 3a

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

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

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

מניינא דרישא למעוטי מאי מניינא דסיפא למעוטי מאי

מניינא דרישא למעוטי חופה ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק"ו למעוטי מאי

למעוטי חליפין ס"ד אמינא הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון מה שדה מקניא בחליפין אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין קמ"ל

ואימא הכי נמי חליפין איתנהו בפחות משוה פרוטה ואשה בפחות משוה פרוטה

— 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,1 and its tithing is determined by the time when it is gathered;2 so is it the nature of the citron to grow by means of all waters, and [therefore] its tithing is determined by its gathering.3 Again, when we learnt: A koy4 is, in some ways, similar to beasts of chase;5 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 cattle6 — let it be taught, [in some] ‘things’? Moreover, when we learnt: This is one of the ways wherein women's divorce deeds are similar to slaves’ writs of liberation7 — 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.8 This may be proved too, for the second clause teaches: R. Eliezer maintained: The citron is equal to trees in all things. 9 This proves it. What does the number of the first clause exclude, and what does the number of the second exclude?10 — The number of the first clause excludes huppah.11 But according to R. Huna, who maintained: Huppah [as an act of betrothal] acquires [a woman], by inferring it a minori,12 what does it exclude? — It excludes barter.13 I might have thought, since we learn the meaning of ‘taking’ from Ephron's field:14 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;15 whilst a woman will not cede herself [in marriage] for less than a perutah's worth.16 the nature (way) of its growth. considered of the genus of cattle or a beast of chase. 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. applies to the other passages quoted. But if one thing is entirely like another, we employ ‘things’ (dabar). explicit statement of the number must therefore emphasize that only three ways are valid, not more. word vpuj 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., (Yad, Ishuth, X, 1), who saw in it a symbol of the marital union, copula carnalis, cf. Neubauer J. pp. 57 and 226ff.] Mishnah.