Kiddushin 2B

אי נמי, ״שדות בכסף יקנו״, תני ״האשה נקנית״.

Alternatively, it can be proven that purchasing a field with money is called an acquisition from the verse: “They should acquire fields with money” (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 Mishnah.

וניתני התם ״האיש קונה״! מעיקרא תני לישנא דאורייתא, ולבסוף תני לישנא דרבנן, ומאי לישנא דרבנן? דאסר לה אכולי עלמא כהקדש.

The Talmud asks: But let the Mishnah teach there, in the next chapter: A man acquires. The Talmud explains: Initially, the Mishnah 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 rabbis. And what is the reason that betrothal is called kiddushin, literally, consecration, in the language of the rabbis? The reason is that through betrothal the husband renders her forbidden to everyone like consecrated property. Therefore, this act is referred to as consecration.

וניתני הכא ״האיש קונה״! משום דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא: ״וקונה את עצמה״ בדידה, תנא נמי רישא בדידה.

The Talmud 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 Mishnah teach: The woman is acquired, with the woman as the subject of the sentence? The Talmud answers: This is because the tanna wanted to teach in the latter clause of the Mishnah: 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.

וניתני ״האיש קונה ומקנה״! משום דאיכא מיתת הבעל, דלאו איהו קא מקני ⁠– מן שמיא הוא דמקני לה.

The Talmud further asks: But if this is the reason, the Mishnah 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 Talmud answers: The Mishnah could not use the expression: Transfer, because there is the case of the husband’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 Mishnah could not issue a general statement that the man can actively transfer to the woman her release from marriage.