Rujukan Talmud untuk Keluaran 18:20: Kiddushin & Bava Metzia

and what is the reason it(the mishna) teaches three(in the feminine)? Let it teach three (in the masculine)! Because they wanted to teach the word derech (way) and derech is a feminine word, as is written (in the torah): "and you shall inform them the way(derech) they shall go upon (literally "they shall go on her"). (Exodus 18:20).

Between one verse and the other, there is no difficulty. (For) here ( in the verse that was previously used to prove that derech is feminine), where torah is being referred to [and torah is a feminine word, as it says (in tanach): "the teaching (torah) of Hash-m is perfect, restoring the soul" (Tehillim 19:8).], (the word derech) is written as a feminine word. (However,) there (in the verse used in the beraisa to prove that derech is masculine), where war is being referred to [because it is the way of men to make war and not the way of women to make war], (derech is) written as a masculine word.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... Rava said, “In any situation where he would return his own [livestock], he must return those which belong to his friend. In any case where who would load and unload his own property, he must also load and unload that which belongs to someone else.” R. Ishmael, son of R. Yossi, was walking on the road when he came upon a man who was carrying bundles of sticks. The man put them down, and rested. Then he said to R. Ishmael, “Help me pick them up.” He asked him, “How much are they worth?” He said to him, “Half a zuz.” So R. Ishamel gave him half a zuz, and declared the bundle of sticks ownerless. But the man took them back for himself. So R. Ishmael again paid him half a zuz, and declared the sticks ownerless. Seeing that the man intended to acquire them for himself again, he said to him: “With respect to the rest of the world, these sticks are ownerless [and anyone can take them]. But with respect to you, they are not ownerless [and you cannot reacquire them].” But if that is the case, who would say it was really ownerless? As it has been taught according to the House of Shammai, items declared ownerless can only be acquired by the poor. According to the House of Hillel, an item only qualifies as ownerless if it can be acquired by rich and poor alike, as in [the case of the rules pertaining to] the sabbatical year. So R. Ishmael the son of R. Yossi did, in fact, declare it ownerless and available to anyone to take! It was by words alone that he stopped him. But R. Ishmael was an elder, and it was not in accordance with his dignity [to help the man]. R. Ishmael, son of R. Yossi, acted within the line of the law. R. Yosef taught [expounding Ex. 18:20], “You shall make known to them” - this refers to their livelihood; “The path” - this refers to acts of loving-kindness; “They are to walk” - this refers to visiting the sick; “Upon” - this refers to burial; “The deeds” - this refers to the law; “They are to perform” - this refers to [actions] within the line of the law.