Kiddushin 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

The release of the same kind is what it excludes!

The release of the young woman through betrothal, which the verse excludes, is in a manner similar to the release of the maidservant from the authority of her master, as follows:

With regard to the release of the maidservant from the authority of her master, the verse comes to teach us that she goes free, and there is no need to give money to the master from whose authority she is leaving in order to compensate him for her departure.

Similarly, with regard to release through betrothal, which the verse excluded from the general category of the maidservant’s release, and from the verse it is understood that the young woman does indeed leave her father’s authority through betrothal effected with money, the intent of the verse is to say that the father receives money when his daughter leaves his authority.

And we challenge this: Is the daughter’s release through betrothal truly similar to the maidservant’s release?!

But this release is not comparable -

to that release!

The release of the maidservant is not comparable to the release of the woman, because -

There,

in the case of the Hebrew maidservant,

she leaves

when she manifests the signs of maidenhood

the authority

of

the master completely.

But

if

here,

with regard to release through betrothal,

still

she is

lacking

and requires

delivery to the wedding canopy.

As long as the daughter has not been delivered to her husband under the wedding canopy, she has not entirely left her father’s authority through betrothal.

We learned in a Mishna in tractate Ketubot: The father is entitled to his daughter’s earnings, to what she finds, and to nullify her vows.

His rights apply as long as she is a minor or a young woman, at which time she is under his authority, so long as she has not married.

But at the time of marriage [the wedding canopy], the daughter leaves her father’s authority completely, and from then on her earnings and what she finds belong not to him but to her husband.

Likewise, once the daughter has married, the father can no longer nullify her vows at all; only the husband can nullify her vows. The betrothal itself, however, does not remove the daughter entirely from her father’s authority, for her earnings and what she finds still belong to him, and the father nullifies her vows jointly with her betrothed.

Accordingly, the release of the maidservant from the master’s authority is not comparable to the daughter’s release from her father’s authority through betrothal. The maidservant leaves the master’s authority [through the signs of maidenhood] completely and without payment, whereas the daughter’s release through betrothal is not a complete release from her father’s authority, because her delivery under the wedding canopy is still lacking. Only at the time of the wedding canopy does the daughter leave her father’s authority completely, and her earnings and what she finds no longer belong to him.

If so, this presents a difficulty with what we explained above: that the verse excludes release through betrothal in a manner similar to the maidservant’s release. For these releases are not comparable to one another!

And we answer:

At least with regard to the nullification of vows, she leaves his authority!

That is to say, at least with regard to the nullification of vows, the daughter leaves her father’s authority completely through betrothal, as follows:

As we learned [

Nedarim 66a]:

A betrothed young woman -

her father and her husband nullify

together

her vows,

and neither of them can nullify her vows alone.

It follows that through betrothal the daughter has left her father’s authority completely, since from that point onward he no longer has the power to nullify her vows by himself.

In summary: The Gemara’s conclusion is that from the verse stated with regard to the Hebrew maidservant, “And she shall go free without payment,” we learn that a woman is betrothed with money, and that the money belongs to her father [if she is betrothed before attaining maturity].

And we ask:

And

is

this “‘And she shall go free’” -

is that what it comes for!?

what does it come for!?

Does the verse “And she shall go free without payment” come to teach us this—that a woman is betrothed with money, and that the money of a young woman belongs to her father?!

But

this is needed for that which was taught,

for this verse is needed to teach a different exposition, explained in a beraita. With regard to the Hebrew maidservant, three ways were stated by which she leaves the master’s authority, from that point onward he may no longer treat her as a maidservant:

a. By the master taking her as a wife. [This is the mitzva of designation] .

b. By the master giving her to his son as a wife [the mitzva of designation for his son].

c. Through monetary redemption: The master deducts from the money he paid for her the value of the time she worked for him, and the father gives him the balance of the payment [Exodus 21:8–9].

And it is stated [there, verse 11]: “And if he does not perform these three for her, then she shall go free without payment.” Yet the verse does not explain when she goes free without payment.

As it was taught,

so we learned in a beraita: “

And she shall go free” -

it is reasonable to say that

these are the days of

her

maturity,

when she ceases to be called a “young woman” and from then onward is included in the category of a “mature woman,” at which point the maidservant leaves the master’s authority.

And the verse added and said, “

without payment,”

to teach about release at another time. And

these are the days of maidenhood,

when she manifests the signs of maidenhood and ceases to be called a “minor.” And she is a “young woman.”

And below the Gemara will explain how it is possible for the maidservant to leave upon maturity, when she already leaves upon maidenhood.

This now presents a difficulty for Rav Yehuda, who said that Rav expounded the surplus words “without payment” to teach: There is no payment to this master, but there is payment to another master, namely, the father.

Said

and explained

Ravina:

Indeed, the words “without payment” are not superfluous, for they came to teach that the maidservant leaves during the days of maidenhood. But the verse may still be questioned: If the verse came only to teach us that the maidservant leaves upon maidenhood,

then let the verse say,

let the verse write, “‘

an kesef’” [“

‘ein’ without the letter yod”]!

What is the meaning of “

without payment”?

Why is “without payment” written in full [when we find that the verse states “man yevami,” without the letter yod, with the meaning “my levir does not wish”] -

From here the Sages learned that the verse comes to say:

There is no payment to this master

alone.

But there is payment to another master,

from whose authority the young woman leaves.

And who is he,

who is that other master? It is the

father.

The Gemara now brings a source for Ravina’s statement, that the letter yod in the word “ein” is expounded independently, because it would have been appropriate to write “an,” without the letter yod:

And from where do we know that we expound it in this manner?

From where do we know that the surplus letter yod in the word “ein” is indeed expounded?

As it was taught

in a beraita, similarly, with regard to the law of eating teruma:

A daughter of a kohen eats teruma. But if she marries an Israelite, she is prohibited from eating teruma.

And it is stated in this regard [Leviticus 22:13]:

“But if the daughter of a kohen becomes a widow or divorced [that is, her Israelite husband dies or divorces her], and she has no offspring, and she returns to her father’s house as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s bread [from the teruma that her father the kohen receives].”

It is evident from this verse that a daughter of a kohen who has offspring from an Israelite is prohibited from eating teruma even after her husband’s death.

And we learned in a beraita concerning this verse:

“

And she has no offspring” -

I have derived

from this verse

only

that

her offspring

from an Israelite prevents the daughter of a kohen from eating teruma.

But if her son from an Israelite dies, leaving behind a son, who is

her offspring’s offspring

from an Israelite -

from where

do we know that he too prevents her from eating teruma?

The verse states,

for this reason it says, “

she has no offspring,” written in full [rather than “an”]. And the Sages expounded the verse as though it said, “Offspring -

examine for her.”

examine her.”

That is, even if her son from an Israelite dies, examine and investigate after him: If he left offspring, his kohen mother remains prohibited from eating teruma.

And

similarly, we can reason:

I have

no source that offspring from an Israelite prevents the daughter of a kohen from eating teruma

except

when that offspring is

valid offspring.

Invalid offspring,

such as a mamzer,

from where

do we know that he too prevents his mother [the daughter of a kohen] from eating teruma?

The verse states: “

She has no offspring,” written in full [rather than “an”], and the Sages expounded the verse as though it said, “Offspring -

in the full spelling [rather than “there is no”], and the Sages expounded the verse as though it said, “Child—

examine for her” -

search and investigate after any offspring whatsoever, including even a mamzer.

And we challenge the beraita: How can it be learned from the verse “She has no offspring” that even a mamzer’s offspring prevents his mother from eating teruma?

But you have already extracted it,

for you have already expounded the verse

to

include

the offspring’s offspring!

And we answer:

The offspring’s offspring -

the verse is not needed!

There is no need for a verse to include the offspring’s offspring in order to disqualify her from eating teruma, since

grandchildren -

are considered like children,

as the Gemara expounds in tractate Yevamot [62b] from the verse.

Therefore,

when the verse is needed,

all that the verse was needed

to

teach is that even

invalid offspring prevents the daughter of a kohen from eating teruma.

In any event, we have learned from the beraita that the letter yod in the word “ein” is expounded as superfluous, and the Sages expound it independently. Therefore, Rav too expounded the letter yod in the verse “without payment” to teach that the young woman is betrothed with money, and that the money belongs to her father.

And we inquire into this:

But the tanna himself -

from where did he know to expound it in this manner!?

The tanna himself, who expounded “she has no offspring” as “examine for her,” from where did he learn that the letter yod in the word “ein” is superfluous and that an exposition can be derived from its superfluity?

They said,

the Sages said in explanation:

Indeed,

it is written [Numbers 22]: “

Numbers 22]: “

Balaam refused to go with us.”

to go with us.”

The word “refused” means “there is not,” that Balaam had no intention of going with us.

And

likewise it is written [Deuteronomy 25]: “

My levir refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel.” Here too, the meaning of the word “refuses” is “there is not”: The levir has no intention of establishing a name for his brother in Israel.

My brother-in-law refuses

For it is not written in them

in these verses the letter

yod

in the word “refuses,” so that the verse is as though it said “ein,” meaning “there is not,” without using the letter yod.

It is evident that the wording of the verse “ein” can be expressed as “an,” without a yod.

But

if

here [

in the verses “without payment,” and “he has no offspring”]

it is written with

the letter

yod.

Why did the verse add a yod here?

Rather,

conclude from this that it comes for an exposition.

Learn from here that the letter yod comes to teach us an exposition.

In summary: According to the Gemara’s conclusion, the letter yod in the verse “without payment” teaches that the young woman is betrothed with money, which is given to her father.

In the course of the discussion, the statement of Rav Huna who said that Rav was also cited: From where do we know that the earnings of a daughter belong to her father? As it is stated [Exodus 21]: “And if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant.” Just as the earnings of the maidservant belong to the master, so the earnings of the daughter belong to the father.

The Gemara now clarifies why the verse had to teach that the daughter’s earnings and betrothal money belong to the father, rather than learning one from the other:

And we explain:

And it was necessary

for the verse

to write

that the money of

her betrothal

belongs

to her father.

And

it was also

necessary to write

that the payment for

her earnings

belongs

to her father.

Because

if the Merciful One had written

only that the money of

her betrothal

belongs

to her father, I would have said that the verse granted the father only the money of his daughter’s betrothal

because

he does not toil for it [

the money does not come to the daughter because she did not toil for it].

But

the payment for

her earnings, for which she does toil, I would say belongs to her.

I would have said that the payment for her earnings, in which she toils, belongs to her.

Therefore, the verse had to teach us that her earnings belong to her father.

And had it taught us

only that

her earnings

belong to her father, I would have said that the reason the verse granted them to the father is

because she is supported by him,

since the daughter is sustained from her father’s property, and the father, who feeds his daughter, intends to cover his expenses by acquiring the payment for her earnings, as this is a readily available form of property.

However,

the monetary right to

her betrothals, which come to her from elsewhere

—which happen to come to her as one-time occurrences—the father does not have them in mind, and

say that they belong to her mother

, I would say that they belong to her. Therefore

it is necessary

: The verse had to state that both the money of betrothal and the proceeds of the daughter’s labor belong to the father.

In the course of the sugya, the words of the beraita were brought: “‘And she shall go free without payment’—these are the days of adulthood. ‘There is no money’—these are the days of maidenhood” [from which it follows that the Hebrew maidservant goes free upon the appearance of the signs of maidenhood].

The substance of the matter

: The Gemara now discusses the substance of the beraita’s statement, in which we learned: “

And she shall go free without payment

—these are the days of adulthood; ‘

there is no money

’—these are the days of maidenhood.”

And we raised the following difficulty:

Let the Merciful One write

[let Him write]

that

the maidservant goes free only during the days of

maidenhood

,

and

since she has already left the master’s authority during the days of maidenhood,

there is no need

to release her from his authority a second time during the days of

adulthood!

Rabba said

: An answer: Had the Torah explicitly stated that the maidservant goes free during the days of maidenhood, there indeed would have been no need to state that she goes free during the days of adulthood.

But since it did not explicitly state that the maidservant goes free during the days of maidenhood [rather, we derive this from the fact that there is nothing else to which to attribute the maidservant’s departure], the verse had to write an apparently superfluous phrase.

And

this

verse

came

, “‘And she shall go free without payment,’”

and taught about this

—about the phrase “‘there is no money,’” that the departure takes place during the days of maidenhood.

For had it stated only, “‘And she shall go free; there is no money,’” I would have said that the departure takes place at the time of adulthood. But since “‘And she shall go free without payment’” has already been stated [and these are the days of adulthood], it necessarily follows that “‘there is no money’” comes to teach that the departure takes place already from the time of maidenhood.

And Rabba proves his statement—that the Torah writes a superfluous phrase in order to teach about another phrase —

As is the case with resident and hired laborer

: Just as we find something similar concerning “resident” and “hired laborer,” mentioned in the Torah with regard to eating teruma—

It is stated in Leviticus [22:6]: “‘A resident of a koen and a hired laborer may not eat holy food’”—that is, teruma.

And the beraita explains who the “resident” and “hired laborer” mentioned here are:

As it was taught: “

A resident

of a koen,” whom the verse says may not eat teruma—

this

is a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced, who is acquired by his koen master as

a permanent acquisition

, until the Jubilee. And the verse informs us that although a Canaanite slave of a koen may eat teruma, a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced for his koen master may not eat teruma, since he is not acquired by his master with a bodily acquisition that permits him to eat teruma, as in the case of a Canaanite slave. “

a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced for his priestly master may not eat teruma, because his physical person has not been acquired by the master in the manner that permits him to eat teruma, as a Canaanite slave does. “

A hired laborer

”—this is a Hebrew slave

acquired

by his koen master as an

acquisition

of six

years

, for the six years from the time of his acquisition have not yet elapsed [and he is destined to leave his master’s authority after six years].

And the beraita discusses the matter:

One may ask: Why should the

verse say only

“

resident”

[a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced], who may not eat teruma because of his koen master,

and not say

that

a hired laborer

[who is acquired by a koen for six years] may not eat teruma as well?

And I say

—this follows from my own reasoning, even without the verse revealing it:

Since the Torah states that a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced, who is

acquired as a permanent acquisition, may not eat

teruma—

One acquired as an acquisition

of six

years, all the more so

may not eat!

For if you say that even a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced, who is acquired as a permanent acquisition, is not bodily acquired and may not eat teruma, then by a kal va-chomer a Hebrew slave acquired for only six years is not bodily acquired by his koen master and may not eat teruma! And it can be answered:

If

the verse had said

so

[mentioning only “resident” and not “hired laborer”],

I would say that “

that

resident”—

this

is a slave

acquired as an acquisition

of six

years

. Only he, whose body is not acquired, may not eat teruma.

However,

the slave whose ear was pierced, who is

acquired as a permanent acquisition,

is also bodily acquired by the koen, and therefore he does

eat

teruma, as a Canaanite slave does.

Therefore the Torah said, “‘A resident and a hired laborer.’”

And

there came “

hired laborer

,” who is a slave acquired for six years,

and taught about “

resident

,” that he is not a slave acquired for six years [for the one acquired for six years is the “hired laborer” already mentioned in the verse], but rather he is a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced,

who, even though

he is

acquired as a permanent acquisition,

nevertheless he

does not eat

teruma.

These are the words of the beraita.

From the words of the beraita, Rabba proved that the Torah writes a superfluous phrase in order to teach about another phrase. “Hired laborer” was written only to reveal what “resident” means.

From this point onward, the verse “‘And she shall go free without payment’” may likewise be explained in this manner: “without payment” teaches about “there is no money,” that it refers to the days of maidenhood.

Abaye said

to Rabba: Your proof can be rejected; one cannot expound the verse in the manner of “this came and taught about that”:

For

are they comparable

? Is the teaching of the beraita comparable to your statement [concerning the verse “‘And she shall go free without payment’”]? There,

“resident” and “hired laborer”

—

they are two separate persons

. They are two distinct individuals, and both are prohibited from eating teruma. Therefore, there is no difficulty in saying that one came and taught about the other.

For even if

,

the Merciful One had written

explicitly, “

A pierced slave may not eat

teruma,” I would then know by a kal va-chomer that a hired laborer sold for six years may not eat;

and

nevertheless, if

the Merciful One had gone back and written

the

other

—if the verse had repeated and stated that a hired laborer sold for six years may not eat, it would not be difficult for us why the verse had to repeat and state that a hired laborer may not eat teruma, despite its being something that follows on its own by a kal va-chomer—

For

it would be the law that a “

hired laborer

” may not eat teruma,

a matter that follows by a kal va-chomer

—the hired laborer would be a matter learned by a kal va-chomer from the slave whose ear was pierced.

And a matter that follows

[a matter that is learned]

by a kal va-chomer—

the verse took the trouble to write it

explicitly.

Therefore, now that “‘a resident and a hired laborer’” has been stated without explaining who they are, it can be said that one came and taught about the other.

But here

, with regard to the Hebrew maidservant,

it is one person!

The verse “‘And she shall go free without payment; there is no money’” speaks of one person, the Hebrew maidservant. If

she leaves upon maidenhood

—what is adulthood doing with her!?

Since the maidservant leaves her master during maidenhood, how could the maidservant be with the master at the time of adulthood!? [For it is impossible for her to leave his authority at adulthood, since she is no longer a maidservant].

Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the verse to state explicitly, “And she shall go free during the days of maidenhood,” and then the verse would not have needed to include the days of adulthood, during which she does not leave at all! For this reason Abaye disputes Rabba’s answer. The earlier difficulty returns: Since the maidservant already leaves upon maidenhood, why did the verse say that she leaves upon adulthood?

Rather, Abaye said

, another answer:

It was necessary

: The word “without payment,” which includes departure upon adulthood, was needed

only for an adult woman who is an aylonit.

That is, an aylonit, who never develops the signs of maidenhood, goes free upon the appearance of the signs of adulthood.

Had the verse mentioned only the days of maidenhood,

it might enter your mind

that only

upon maidenhood would she leave

, whereas

upon adulthood she would not leave!

You might have thought that the maidservant goes free only upon the appearance of the signs of maidenhood and not upon the appearance of the signs of adulthood, and therefore the aylonit would not go free upon the appearance of the signs of adulthood.

Therefore,

it teaches us

that adulthood releases the aylonit from her master’s authority.

But Mar bar Rav Ashi rejects Abaye’s answer:

Mar bar Rav Ashi raised an objection against it

: Could one really have thought that the aylonit does not go free upon adulthood, such that the verse had to state this?!

And

for this matter—that the aylonit goes free upon the appearance of the signs of adulthood—

is it not a kal va-chomer?

And just as signs that do not release her from the authority of

the

father

[for the work of the maiden continues to belong to her father even after she has developed the signs of maidenhood, as explained earlier in the Gemara] nevertheless

release her from the authority of

the

master

—adulthood, which releases her from the authority of

the

father,

surely

should it not follow that it releases her from the authority of the master!?

Had the Torah stated that the maidservant goes free upon maidenhood, I would have understood on my own that she also goes free upon adulthood [by a kal va-chomer]. Why, then, did the verse need to mention departure upon the days of adulthood?

Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said

: Another answer: The word “without payment,” which includes the days of adulthood,

was necessary only for the validity of the sale itself in the case of an aylonit

. It teaches that a person can sell his aylonit daughter as a maidservant while she is a minor.

For had the Torah not stated that adulthood releases her from the master’s authority,

it might enter your mind

that you would think as follows:

Only a minor

who develops

the

signs of maidenhood—

her sale is valid

. Her sale as a maidservant is valid, since the law of departure upon the appearance of the signs of maidenhood can be fulfilled in her.

But an aylonit,

who does not develop

the

signs of maidenhood—

her sale is not a valid sale

. Her sale is not valid, because the law of departure upon the appearance of the signs of maidenhood mentioned in the Torah cannot be fulfilled in her. ,