Kiddushin - Daf 4
- The need for separate sources for the father’s rights to his daughter’s kiddushin and earnings
The Gemara on Daf 3b brought separate sources for the father’s rights to his daughter’s kiddushin money (ויצאה חנם אין כסף) and her earnings (וכי ימכור איש את בתו לאמה). Here, the Gemara explains why both derashos are necessary: If the Torah had only taught that the father is entitled to his daughter’s kiddushin money, הוה אמינא משום דלא טרחא בהו – I might have said this is because she did not expend effort for [the money], אבל מעשה ידיה דקא טרחא בהו – but her earnings, for which she expended effort, אימא דידה הוו – I would say they are hers. If the Torah had only taught that the father keeps her earnings, one might have said the reason is דקא מתזנא מיניה – because she is being sustained by him, אבל קידושיה דמעלמא קאתי לה – but kiddushin money, which comes to her from elsewhere, אימא דידה הוו – I might say it is hers. Therefore, both derashos were required.
- בא זה ולימד על זה re: נערות ובגרות and תושב ושכיר
It was taught in a Baraisa: the passuk says, "ויצאה חנם" – and she shall go out for free, אלו ימי בגרות – this refers to the days of bagrus (adulthood), "אין כסף" – there is no money given, אלו ימי נערות – this refers to the days of naarus, teaching that a maidservant goes free at either stage. The Gemara asks why both derashos are needed, since bagrus is after naarus!? Rabbah answers: בא זה ולמד על זה – This additional phrase came and taught about this other phrase (meaning, if only one phrase was written, only the smaller novelty – the freedom of a bogeres – can be derived. The additional phrase clarifies that the other phrase includes even naarus). Another application is found regarding the phrases "תושב" and "שכיר", teaching that a Jewish servant of a Kohen cannot eat terumah, even if he is permanently owned (i.e., a nirtza). Abaye objects that they are not analogous: the two cases of Jewish servants concern different people (permanent and temporary servants), whereas the two cases of maidservants concern the same person. Since she goes free at naarus, it is impossible for her to leave at bagrus!? Instead, Mar bar Rav Ashi eventually explains that the passuk is teaching about an aylonis (who never attains naarus and proceeds directly to bagrus at age twenty) that she goes free at bagrus. Although this is obvious, the novelty is that she can be sold initially (because one might have thought that only one capable of leaving at naarus can be sold initially).
- The necessity for two sources of kiddushin with money: כי יקח and ויצאה חנם אין כסף
It was taught in a Baraisa that money can effect kiddushin, based on the passuk (as quoted on Daf 2):"כי יקח איש אשה" – when a man shall take a woman, אין קיחה אלא בכסף – and this “taking” only means with money, as a passuk says, "נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני" – I have given the money of the field, take it from me. Since the Gemara on Daf 3b had quoted another source (ויצאה חנם אין כסף), the Gemara explains why both are necessary: had the Torah only written כי יקח, one would think that a naarah who accepts kiddushin money may keep it. Therefore, the Torah wrote ויצאה חנם אין כסף to teach that the money belongs to the “other master,” namely, the father. Had the Torah only written this passuk, one might think: היכא דיהבה איהי לדידיה וקידשתו הוו קידושי – where she gives money to him and is mekadesh him, the kiddushin is valid. Therefore, the Torah wrote: "כי יקח" ולא כי תקח – and he shall take, and not “and she shall take.”
