The Gemara explains that both of these sources are necessary. Had the Torah
written only the verse "v'Yatz'ah Chinam" and not "Ki Yikach," we might have
thought that if the *woman* gives money to the man to be Mekadesh *him*, the
Kidushin takes effect. Therefore, we need the verse "Ki Yikach" to teach
that the man must be the initiating party; he must give money to the woman
to "take" her, and not the other way around.
(a) TOSFOS (DH Heicha) explains that the Gemara is not to be understood
literally. The Gemara does not mean that we might have thought that the
woman could give money to the man for Kidushin. Rather, it means that we
might have thought that the woman can tell the man that she is making
Kidushin. The wording that she may use, Tosfos explains, is not "Harei Atah
Mekudash Li," but "Harei Ani Mekudeshes Lecha" -- "I am Mekudeshes to you"
(like the wording quoted by the Beraisa on 5b), because she becomes Asurah
to the rest of the world.
(b) Rashi, however, explains that the Gemara thought that the woman could
actually give the husband money. Perhaps we cannot prove from "v'Yatz'ah
Chinam" that the *only* way to make Kidushin is for the husband to give
money to the woman or to her father; all we see is that *one* way to make
Kidushin is for the husband to give money to the woman or to her father. For
example, it is clear that a person may be Mekadesh a Ketanah with Kidushei
Shtar without giving the father anything, even though the verse says that
the father is to receive the money; the verse refers only to when money is
used to be Mekadesh her. Why, though, does Rashi say that the woman tells
the man that "you are Mekudash to me?"
Although Tosfos quotes Rashi this way, Rashi does not use that exact phrase
("Harei Atah Mekudash Li"). Rather, Rashi writes that she says, "Hiskadesh
Li," which means "become Mekudash to me." It is possible that the word
"Hiskadesh" in Rashi needs to be vowelized differently and read instead as a
question that the woman *asks* the husband: "Ha'tekadesh Li?" -- "Will you
be Mekadesh me?"
Why does Rashi use the question form, and not the statement form that Tosfos
uses ("Harei Ani Mekudeshes Lecha" -- "I am hereby Mekudeshes to you")?
The reason for this may be based on what we wrote earlier (Insights 2:2) to
explain why, when using Kidushei Bi'ah to make the Kidushin, the husband
must ask the woman to become Mekudeshes to him with Bi'ah, rather than
making a statement that she is Mekudeshes to him with Bi'ah. We explained
that the statement form can only create Kidushin when the inaction of the
other party proves the acceptance of the Kidushin. When the husband gives
the wife money or a Shtar and tells her "Harei At Mekudeshes Li," her
inaction (holding the Shtar, or keeping the money) proves that she accepts
it as Kidushin, because she realizes that if the Kidushin is valid then she
will immediately become Asur to marry anyone else. Since accepting the
Kidushin has an immediate effect on her, she would have to immediate protest
it if she did not want to accept it.
For the husband, on the other hand, there is no immediate effect; even if
the Kidushin is valid, he may marry other wives (the obligations of "She'er,
Kesus, and Onah" of Ishus do not have an immediate effect upon him, and nor
are they directly implied by the word "Mekudeshes," which means Asur to the
world like Hekdesh). Therefore, when the woman tells the man, "Harei Ani
Mekudeshes Lecha," he does not feel it necessary to protest the Kidushin
immediately, and his inaction does not prove that he indeed accepts the
Kidushin. The only way to be sure that he is accepting the Kidushin is if he
says so explicitly. Therefore, Rashi explains that the case that the verse
is excluding is when the woman asks the man, "Do you want to be Mekadesh
me," and he answers "yes." The Kidushin would have been valid if not for the
verse of "Ki Yikach."
If this is correct, then Rashi and Tosfos might be following their
respective opinions elsewhere. TOSFOS (3b, DH v'Chi Teima) writes that
before we learned the verse "v'Yatz'ah Chinam," the Gemara thought that a
Na'arah could either be Mekadesh herself or her father could be Mekadesh
her. When her father is Mekadesh her, he keeps the money, and when she is
Mekadesh herself, she keeps the money. The source the Gemara cites to prove
that this is not true is "v'Yatz'ah Chinam," which teaches that the father
*always* receives the money of Kidushei Kesef for a Na'arah (even when she
marries herself off, according to those who permit a Na'arah to do so; see
Kidushin 43b). According to Tosfos, "v'Yatz'ah Chinam" does not leave room
for the possibility that the daughter should give money to the husband,
since the father must always receive the money when performing Kidushei
Kesef. Therefore, he explains that our Gemara means that we would have
thought that even though the husband gives the money to the wife, she can be
the one to say, "I am Mekudeshes to you." Since the main point of the Gemara
is that she should perform the speaking, and not the action of giving,
Tosfos needs to explain that she simply says "Harei Ani Mekudeshes Lecha" as
a statement, because if she would ask him, "Do you want to be Mekadesh me,"
and he would reply "yes," then his positive reply would satisfy the
requirement of "Ki Yikach." (According to Tosfos, the verse teaches us the
logic that we have proposed according to Rashi. When the woman makes a
statement that she is Mekudeshes and the husband does not react, it does not
show his agreement to the Kidushin.)
In contrast, RASHI (3b, DH v'Eima Hani Mili) explains that without
"v'Yatz'ah Chinam" the Gemara thought that *only* a Na'arah should be able
to accept her Kidushei Kesef and *not* the father. "V'Yatz'ah Chinam"
teaches that the father can also accept the Kidushei Kesef. Accordingly,
"v'Yatz'ah Chinam" does not prove that the father *always* receives the
Kesef of Kidushin of his daughter, which is why our Gemara tells us that
without "Ki Yikach" we would have thought that the woman can also give the
man Kidushei Kesef. The main Chidush of the Gemara is that the husband must
do the giving and not the wife. The Gemara is not emphasizing who is
supposed to do the speaking. That is why Rashi explains that the word
"v'Kidashto" means that she simply asked him if he wants to be Mekadesh her,
and he consented. The verse is teaching that such a Kidushin is not valid
because, even though the husband has expressed his consent, that is not
enough -- he must also be the one who gives the money.