Previous daf

1)

(a) We finally extrapolate that the father of a Na'arah receives the money of Kidushin from the Pasuk with which we began "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam Ein Kasef" - from which we Darshen that, in the same way as the master whose jurisdiction the maidservant leaves receives no money, so too does her father whose jurisdiction the daughter leaves, receive the Kidushin money.

(b) We query this comparison (contrast) however - on the grounds that a daughter does not really leave her father's jurisdiction (regarding the work of her hands and her inheritance) when she becomes betrothed until she enters the Chupah.

(c) We conclude that a girl does leave her father's jurisdiction when she becomes betrothed - regarding the annulment of vows (which her father can no longer nullify single-handedly), sufficient to render her comparable to a maidservant leaving her master's domain.

(a) We learn from ...

1. ... "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam" - that a girl leaves her master's jurisdiction when she becomes a Bogeres (half a year after Na'arus).
2. ... "Ein Kasef" - that she leaves at the age of twelve (as soon as she brings Simnei Na'arus).

(b) We nevertheless learn from the same Pasuk 'Ein Kasef le'Adon Zeh, Aval Yesh Kesef le'Adon Acher' - from the extra 'Yud' in "Ein".

(c) We have a precedent to Darshen the word "Ein" in this way - in the word "ve'Zera *Ein* Lah" (in Emor, in connection with permitting a bas Kohen to return to her father's house and eat Terumah after the death of her husband who was a Yisrael).

(a) The Tana in the Beraisa learns from "ve'Zera *Ein* Lah" - which he Darshens to mean 'Ayin Alah' (examine her [descendants]), that any offspring from her Yisrael husband, even if he is Pasul (e.g. a Mamzer), prevents her from eating Terumah.

(b) We retract from the original D'rashah (to learn grandchildren from there) - on the grounds that we already have other sources for 'B'nei Banim, Harei Hein ke'Banim'.

(c) The Tana knows to Darshen the 'Yud' in "Ein" in this way - from the couple of times where the word "Me'ein" (from the same root as 'Ein', appears without a 'Yud' ("Me'ein Bil'am" [Balak], "Me'ein Yabmi" [Ki Seitzei]).

(d) We now have two Pesukim regarding a father, one to teach us that he receives his daughter's Kidushin money, the other, that he receives the produce of her hands. We cannot learn ...

1. ... the Din regarding the produce of her hands, which entailed hard work on her part, from that of her Kidushin money - which she did nothing to obtain.
2. ... the Din regarding her Kidushin money - which is completely external (and her father did not have them in mind), from that of the produce of her hands - which her father had in mind should be his in exchange for his having constantly fed her.

(a) We need two Pesukim to teach us that a maidservant goes free when she becomes a Na'arah and when she becomes a Bogeres. One Pasuk will not suffice to teach us that she goes free when is a Na'arah - because, seeing as neither Pasuk is explicit, if there was only one, we would establish it by a Bogeres, and it is only when we have two Pesukim that we use the second one to teach is that she goes free already when she is a Na'arah.

(b) Rabah compares this to a "Toshav Kohen" and a "Sachir (Kohen)", neither of whom may eat Terumah.

1. A "Toshav Kohen" is a 'Kanuy Kinyan Olam' (an Eved Ivri who had his ear pierced and who continues to work for his master until the Yovel year).
2. A "Sachir Kohen" is - a 'Kanuy Kinyan Shanim' (an Eved Ivri who is still serving his first six-year period).

(c) The Torah found it necessary to teach us both - because if we only had one Pasuk, we would establish it by a Kinyan Shanim (who is more temporary than a Toshav [but a Kinyan Olam would not eat Terumah]).

(d) The Torah might well have written just one Pasuk and referred to him specifically as 'Kanuy Kinyan Olam'. It nevertheless chose to leave the Lashon vague, and present the same Chidush in two Pesukim, based on the principle 'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal va'Chomer Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra'.

(a) We reject Rabah's comparison of Na'arah and Bogeres to Kanuy Kinyan Olam and Kanuy Kinyan Shanim - on the grounds that whereas there we are talking about two different Avadim, each of whom fits into one of the respective Pesukim (and both of whom might even belong to the master at the same time), in our case, we are talking about the same woman who left her master's domain when she was a Na'arah, and who has now become a Bogeres. Having left her master's domain when she was a Na'arah, how can she still be there when she becomes a Bogeres?

(b) Based on this Pircha, Rabah finally explains the Torah's need to teach us that a Bogeres leaves her master's jurisdiction, despite having already taught us that a Na'arah leaves - by establishing Bogeres (not by a regular Bogeres, but) by a Bogeres de'Aylonis, who never attained the stage of Na'arah.

(c) The Chidush is - that not only Na'arus takes her out of her master's jurisdiction, but so does Bagrus.

(d) A Bogeres de'Aylonis goes free - as soon as she turns twenty without having produced Simanim.

(a) Mar bar Rav Ashi queries the need for a Pasuk to teach us that a Bagar de'Aylonis goes free. He extrapolates this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Simanim - which do not take her out of her father's jurisdiction, yet they do take her out of her master's, Bagrus, which takes her out of her father's jurisdiction, will certainly take her out of her master's.

(b) Nevertheless, the Torah needs to write "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam" to teach us (not that a Bogeres de'Aylonis leaves the jurisdiction of her master, but) - that she can be sold in the first place, even though she is not destined to pass the stage of Na'arah.

(c) Mar bar Rav Ashi is perturbed by the 'Kal va'Chomer'. He does not just assume the principle 'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal va'Chomer Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra' - because we only apply it when there is no better explanation. When there is, like there is here, as we just explained, then we prefer to use it.

7)

(a) We just learned that Rav Yehudah derives Kidushei Kesef from "Ein Kesef". The Tana derives it from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah u'Ve'alah ... " - because 'Kichah' always implies money.

(b) The Tana knows that Kichah means money - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Kichah" ("Ki Yikach Ish Ishah" - Ki Seitzei) "Kichah" ("Nasati Kesef ha'Sadeh Kach Mimeni" - Chayei-Sarah).

(c) We query the need for a Pasuk for Kidushei Kesef, because we could learn a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Amah Ivriyah - who cannot be acquired with Bi'ah, yet she can be acquired with Kesef, a woman, whom one can acquire with Bi'ah, how much more so with Kesef.

(d) A Yevamah, who can be acquired with Bi'ah and not with money, is not a Pircha on the 'Kal va'Chomer' - because she has a weakness in that she can not be acquired with a Sh'tar.

(a) Despite the 'Kal va'Chomer', the Tana concludes with the Pasuk "Ki Yikach Ish". Rav Ashi explains that the Tana has a Pircha on the 'Kal va'Chomer' from 'Ikra de'Dina'. We cannot learn a 'Kal va'Chomer' from an Amah Ivriyah, he says - because an Amah Ivriyah also goes out with money, whereas a wife does not.

(b) He refers to the Pircha in this way - because the Pircha shows up an intrinsic weakness in the actual 'Kal va'Chomer' (unlike the Pircha from Yevamah, which was a Pircha from an external source).

(c) At the end of the day we have two D'rashos (that of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, and that of the Tana of the Beraisa). Having written ...

1. ... "Ki Yikach", the Torah nevertheless needs to add "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam Ein Kasef" - to teach us that the Kidushin money of a daughter goes to her father (as we explained above).
2. ... "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam Ein Kasef", the Torah needs to add "Ki Yikach" - to teach us that it is the man who must betroth the woman, and not the woman, the man ("Ki Yikach Ish ... ", 've'Lo Ki Sikach'.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah *u'Ve'alah*" - that one can acquire a woman with Bi'ah.

(b) We try to learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Yevamah - who cannot be acquired with Kesef, yet she is acquired with Bi'ah, then a wife, whom one can acquire with Kesef, should certainly be acquired with Bi'ah.

(c) We refute the Pircha from Amah ha'Ivriyah, who can be acquired with Kesef but not with Bi'ah - on the grounds that the reason that she cannot be acquired with Bi'ah is because the objective of the Kinyan is not in order to live with her, as is the case with both a wife and a Yevamah (in which case, the 'Kal va'Chomer' remains intact).

(d) Despite the 'Kal va'Chomer', the Tana concludes with the Pasuk "u'Ve'alah". Rav Ashi explains that the Tana has a Pircha on the 'Kal va'Chomer' me'Ikra de'Dina' - because a Yevamah is already tied to the Yavam from his brother's marriage (maybe that is why he can acquire her through Bi'ah, which only really concludes his brother's Kinyan), which is not the case with a wife (whom he is coming to acquire from scratch).