Question (Mishnah): An Esrog is like a tree in three Derachim.

It should say 'Devarim' (to enable using the masculine form Sheloshah)!

Answer: It says 'Derachim' for parallel structure with the Reisha, which says that it is like vegetables in one Derech.

Question: The Reisha should also say 'Davar"!

Answer: The Reisha teaches that an Esrog has the nature of vegetables;

Just like vegetables grow from all water (we irrigate them), and we take Ma'aser according to the year in which they are picked, also Esrogim.

Question: Why do the following Mishnayos say 'Derachim' rather than 'Devarim'?

(Mishnah): In some Derachim, a Koy (a crossbreed of deer and goats; some say that it is a species unto itself) is like a Chayah (wild animal). In some ways it is like a Beheimah (domestic animal). In some ways it is like both. In some ways it is like as neither.

(Mishnah): This is one of the Derachim in which Gitin of divorce are as Gitin or freedom.

Answer: Wherever there are different ways, the Tana teaches 'Derachim'. When all ways are similar, he says 'Devarim'.

Support (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): An Esrog is like a tree in all Devarim.

(Mishnah): A woman is acquired in any of (only) three ways, and acquires her independence through either of (only) two ways.

Question: What other ways might we have thought also work?

Answer (part 1): She is acquired in any of three ways, but not through Chupah (entering his Reshus for the sake of marriage).

Question: According to Rav Huna, who says that Chupah makes Kidushin, what is excluded?

Answer: It excludes Chalipin (acquisition through exchange);

We learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Kichah-Kichah" from the sale of Efron's field. One might have thought that just like a field may be acquired through Chalipin, also a woman. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Question: Why does Chalipin not work?

Answer: Chalipin works with (a Kli) less than the value of a Perutah. A woman does not acquire herself to a man through such a Kinyan (Rashi. Tosfos - since it works with less than a Perutah, this shows that it is not Kinyan Kesef.)

Answer (part 2): She acquires her independence through either of two ways, but not Chalitzah.

One might have thought that a Kal va'Chomer teaches that Chalitzah works.

A Yevamah is not permitted through a Get, but Chalitzah permits her. A wife is permitted through a Get, and all the more so through Chalitzah! The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: "A Sefer of cutting" - a Sefer cuts her off, and nothing else does.

(Mishnah): A woman is acquired through money...

Question #1: What is the source that money makes Kidushin?

Question #2: A Mishnah teaches that a man may be Mekadesh his daughter (before Bagrus) through money, a document, or Bi'ah. What is the source that money works, and that the father gets the money?

Answer (to both questions - Rav Yehudah): "V'Yatz'ah Chinam Ein Kasef" (when an Amah Ivriyah, i.e. a Yisre'elis slave, becomes a Na'arah (adult, upon bringing two hairs after 12 years), she goes free without money). Her master gets no money, but another 'master' (her father) gets money (when she leaves him through Kidushin).

Question: Perhaps there is no money when an Amah goes free, but there is money when a girl becomes Mekudeshes, and she gets the money!

Answer: We learn that her father can be Mekadesh her from "I gave my daughter to this man." It is unreasonable that he is Mekadesh her, and she gets the money!

Question: Perhaps this is only regarding a minor, who has no Yad (power of acquisition) to receive Kidushin. A Na'arah has a Yad to receive Kidushin, perhaps she can be Mekadesh herself and keep the money!

Answer #1: "Bi'N'ureha Beis Aviha" teaches that all revenue of a Na'arah goes to her father.

Objection - Question (Rav Huna): What is the source that a girl's earnings belong to her father?

Answer: "V'Chi Yimkor Ish Es Bito l'Amah" equates a daughter to a slave. Just like a slave's earnings belong to her master, a girl's earnings belong to her father.

Question: Why don't we learn this from "bi'N'ureha Beis Aviha"?

Answer: We must say that the verse teaches about (her father's ability to annul her) vows, but not to earnings.

Summation of Objection: Likewise, the verse teaches about vows, not about Kidushin!

Answer #2: Even though the verse teaches about vows, we should learn from vows (to money, i.e. Kidushin! Tosfos Rid - we ask why another verse ("Bito l'Amah") must teach about earnings.)

Rejection: We cannot learn monetary laws from Isurim.

Answer #3: A father receives the (50 Shekel) fine that a rapist or enticer pays. We should learn from there!

Rejection: We do not learn standard monetary laws from fines.

Answer #4: A father receives the money that a rapist or enticer pays for the embarrassment and blemish he caused (these vary according to people involved. They are not fines.) We should learn from them!

Rejection: We cannot learn from them. The father receives them because he also suffers from the embarrassment and blemish!

Answer #5: Rather, the verse contrasts similar departures. (When an Amah leaves, one might have thought that the master she leaves would get money, but he does not. When a girl become Mekudeshes, the one she leaves (her father) gets money.)