Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT IS LEARNED FROM THE VERSE?

(a) Question: But we need "She goes out for free, there is no money" for a different teaching!

1. (Beraisa): "She goes out for free" - this teaches that she goes free when she becomes a Bogeres; "there is no money" - this teaches, she goes free when she becomes a Na'arah.

(b) Answer (Ravina): If the verse only came to teach 1 thing, it would say "An (there is no) money"; rather, it said "Ein money", to teach both teachings.
(c) Question: How do we know that we can expound the Yud (i.e. that it says Ein, not An)?
(d) Answer (Beraisa): (A Bas Kohen that was married to a Yisrael and was widowed) "And she Ein (has no) children" - one might have thought, only children from a Yisrael prevent her from returning to eat Terumah - "(The word Ein may be read as) Ayin (investigate) her" (even grandchildren prevent her);

1. One might have thought, only legitimate children from a Yisrael prevent her from returning to eat Terumah - "Ayin (investigate) her" (even Mamzerim prevent her).
2. Question: But we expounded this to teach that grandchildren prevent her!
3. Answer: Really, a verse is not needed for grandchildren, for grandchildren are as children; the verse is only needed for Mamzerim.

(e) Question: What is the Tana's source to expound the Yud thusly?
(f) Answer: We see, sometimes the Torah omits the Yud - "Me'en (refused, written without a Yud) Bilam"; "Me'en (refused, written without a Yud) my Yavam to marry me".

1. Since here there is a Yud, we expound it.

(g) The Torah had to teach that her father keeps her engagement money, and also her earnings.

1. If it only taught that he keeps the engagement money - this is because she did not work to get the money;

i. But one would think she keeps her own earnings, for which she toiled;

2. If it only taught that he keeps her earnings - this is because he continuously feeds her (and expects frequent compensation);

i. But one would think she keeps her engagement money, for her father does not think about this when feeding her.

(a) (Beraisa): "She goes out for free" - this teaches that she goes free when she becomes a Bogeres; "there is no money" - this teaches, she goes free when she becomes a Na'arah.
(b) Question: If the Torah says that she goes free upon becoming a Na'arah, it need not say that she goes free when she becomes a Bogeres!
(c) Answer #1 (Rabah): The 2 phrases are needed, just as in the following case.

1. (Beraisa): "Toshav (a resident - even if by a Kohen, he may not eat Terumah)" - this refers to a (Yisrael) slave (whose ear was bored through) that serves forever (until Yovel); "Sachir (a hired hand, he may not eat Terumah)" - this refers to a (Yisrael) slave that serves for 6 years.
2. Question: If the Torah says that a permanent slave does not eat Terumah, it need not say that a temporary slave does not!
3. Answer: Had the Torah only said that a Toshav does not eat, one would have thought, this refers to a temporary slave, but a permanent slave (of a Kohen) eats Terumah!

i. By also writing "Sachir", we learn that "Toshav" refers to a permanent slave.

(d) Objection (Abaye): That case is different! Had the Torah only written "Toshav", we would say that a slave whose ear was bored does not eat; it also wrote that a Sachir (6-year) slave does not eat, even though this could have been learned from a Kal va'Chomer;

1. Here, there is only 1 person - if she leaves at Na'arus, she is not by the master at Bagrus!

(e) Answer #2 (Abaye): The phrase "There is no money" is needed to teach that an Ailonis goes free at Bagrus.

1. One might have thought, a (regular) girl goes free at Na'arus, but not (an Ailonis) at Bagrus - we hear, this is not so.

(f) Objection (Mar bar Rav Ashi): A Kal va'Chomer teaches that an Ailonis goes free at Bagrus!

1. When a girl becomes a Na'arah, she does not leave her father's jurisdiction, but she leaves her master - becoming a Bogeres, which takes her from her father's jurisdiction, all the more so it frees her from her master!

(g) Answer #3 (Mar bar Rav Ashi): The phrase is needed to teach that the sale of an Ailonis is valid.

1. One might have thought, only a girl that can go free through signs of Na'arus can be sold - we hear, this is not so.

(h) Question: Doesn't Mar bar Rav Ashi agree that the Torah sometimes teaches a law that could have been derived from a Kal va'Chomer?
(i) Answer: We only say that when we cannot derive a different law; if we can derive a different law, we do so.

(a) (Beraisa): "When a man will take (engage) a woman and have relations with her" - he takes her with money;

1. We see that acquisition with money is called taking - "I gave the money for the field, take it from me".

(b) We should be able to learn this from a Kal va'Chomer: a female (Yisrael) slave cannot be acquired through relations, but she can be acquired through money; a woman can be engaged through relations - all the more so, she can be engaged through money!
(c) Objection: A Yevamah disproves the Kal va'Chomer, for she can be acquired with relations, but not through money!
(d) Answer: A woman can be engaged through a document, unlike a Yevamah - likewise, we can say that a woman can be engaged through money, unlike a Yevamah.

1. "When a man will take a wife" teaches that she may be engaged through money.

(e) Question: We defended the Kal va'Chomer, why must we learn from the verse?
(f) Answer (Rav Ashi): Because one can uproot the Kal va'Chomer from its source.

1. We learned that if a slave can be acquired through money, all the more so money makes engagement - but we can say that money acquires a slave because a slave goes free through money! (But money cannot end engagement)

i. Therefore, a verse was needed.

(g) The Torah had to write both "She goes out for free" and "When a man will take a wife".

1. If only the latter verse was written - one might have thought, she keeps the engagement money; therefore, we need "She goes out for free".
2. If it only said "She goes out for free", one might have thought that if a woman gives a man money and engages him, it works - therefore, we need "When a man will take a wife".

(h) "And he has relations with her" - this teaches that a woman can be engaged through relations.
(i) We should be able to learn this from a Kal va'Chomer: a Yevamah cannot be acquired through money, but she can be acquired through relations; a woman can be engaged through money - all the more so, she can be engaged through relations!
(j) Objection: A (Yisrael) slave disproves the Kal va'Chomer, for she can be acquired with money, but not through relations!
(k) Answer: That does not disprove the Kal va'Chomer - a slave cannot be acquired through relations because she is not acquired for the sake of marriage, but a wife is engaged for the sake of marriage!

1. "And he has relations with her" (teaches that she may be engaged through relations).

(l) Question: We defended the Kal va'Chomer, why must we learn from the verse?
(m) Answer (Rav Ashi): Because one can uproot the Kal va'Chomer from its source.

1. We learned from acquisition of a Yevamah - but relations alone do not acquire a Yevamah, she is already partially acquired from the engagement of the deceased brother! (So we cannot learn to engagement, where the woman is not already partially acquired.)
2. Therefore, we must learn from the verse.