Kiddushin 4a — the Talmud in English

It is the departure analogous to it that it excludes!

The departure of the maiden through erusin, which the verse excluded, is in a manner resembling the departure of the maidservant from the authority of the master, as follows:

With regard to the departure of the maidservant from the authority of the master, the verse comes to make known to us that she departs without payment, and there is no need to give money to the master from whose authority she departs, in order to compensate him for her departure.

And similarly, the departure through erusin, which the verse excluded from the general category of the departure of the maidservant—and the meaning of the verse is that the maiden does indeed depart from her father’s authority through money kiddushin—the intention of the verse is to say that the father receives money when the daughter departs from his authority.

And we challenge this: Is the departure of the daughter through erusin analogous to the departure of the maidservant?!

But this departure is not analogous -

to that departure!

Behold, the departure of the maidservant is not analogous to the departure of the woman, for—

there,

there, in the matter of the Hebrew maidservant,

she departs

for she departs upon the appearance of the signs of maidenhood

from the

the

authority of the master completely.

But

if

here,

with regard to the departure through erusin,

still

she is still

lacking

she is lacking

delivery to the wedding canopy.

And as long as the daughter has not been delivered to the husband under the wedding canopy, the daughter does not depart completely from the father’s authority through erusin.

We learned in the Mishna in tractate Ketubot: The father is entitled to what his daughter produces with her labor, to her found objects, and to the annulment of her vows.

His rights are for as long as she is a minor or a maiden, when she is in his authority, as long as she has not married.

But at the time of marriage [the wedding canopy], the daughter departs completely from her father’s authority, and from then on what she produces with her labor and her found objects belong not to him but to her husband.

And likewise, once the daughter has married, the father can no longer annul her vows at all; rather, the husband alone annuls her vows. But the kiddushin by themselves do not remove the daughter completely from her father’s authority, for what she produces with her labor and her found objects still belong to him, and likewise the father annuls her vows in partnership with the betrothed.

And therefore, the departure of the maidservant from the master’s authority is not analogous to the departure of the daughter from the father’s authority through kiddushin. For the maidservant departs [through the signs of maidenhood] completely from the master’s authority without payment, whereas the departure of the daughter through kiddushin is not a complete departure from her father’s authority, because her delivery to the wedding canopy is still lacking. Only at the time of the wedding canopy does the daughter depart completely from her father’s authority, and what she produces with her labor and her found objects no longer belong to him.

If so, there is a difficulty with what we answered above, that the verse excludes the departure through erusin in a manner analogous to the departure of the maidservant. For these departures are not analogous to one another!

And we answer:

With regard to the annulment of vows, at least, she departs from his authority!

That is, at least with regard to the annulment of vows, the daughter departs completely from the father’s authority through kiddushin, as follows:

For we learned [

Nedarim 66a]:

A maiden who is betrothed—

her father and her husband annul

together

her vows,

and neither of them can annul her vows alone.

It follows that through the erusin, the daughter departed completely from the father’s authority, for from this point onward he does not have the power to annul her vows alone.

In summary: The conclusion of the Gemara is that we learn from the verse stated regarding the Hebrew maidservant, “She shall go out for nothing; there is no money,” that a woman is betrothed with money, and that the money belongs to her father [if she is betrothed before her majority].

And we ask:

And

is it the case that

this “

she shall go out for nothing”—

is this what it comes for!?

Is it so that the verse “She shall go out for nothing; there is no money” comes to teach us this—that a woman is betrothed with money, and that the money of the maiden belongs to her father?!

But

this is needed for that which was taught,

for this verse is needed to teach us another exposition, explained in a beraita: regarding the Hebrew maidservant, three ways were stated through which she departs from the master’s authority, and from then on he cannot treat her as a slave:

a. Through the master taking her for himself as a wife. [And this is the mitzva of designation] .

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

c. Through redemption with money, whereby the master deducts from the money he paid for her the value of the time that 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, she shall go out for nothing; there is no money.” But it is not explained in the verse when she shall go out for nothing, without money.

For it was taught,

so we learned in a beraita: “

She shall go out for nothing”—

it is reasonable to say that

these are the days of

the

majority,

when she ceases to be called a “maiden,” and from then on she is included among those who have attained majority, at which time the maidservant departs from the master’s authority.

And the verse added and said

“There is no money,”

to teach about departure 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 “maiden.”

[And below the Gemara will explain how it is possible for the maidservant to depart upon attaining majority, when she already departs upon becoming a maiden].

And now there is a difficulty with Rav Yehuda citing Rav, who expounded from the extra words “there is no money” to teach: There is no money for this master, but there is money for another master, namely, the father.

Said

he answered,

Ravina:

Indeed, the words “there is no money” are not superfluous, for they came to teach that the maidservant departs during the days of maidenhood. But it is still possible to ask about the verse: If the verse came to teach us only that the maidservant departs upon becoming a maiden,

if so, let the verse say,

let the verse say

“an money” [“there is” without a yod]!

["There is" is spelled defectively].

What

“there is no money”?

Why is “there is no money” stated in full spelling [for we find that the verse says “The levir refuses me,” without the letter yod, and the meaning of the expression is “My levir does not wish”]—

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

There is no money for this master

alone.

But there is money for another master

from whose authority the maiden departs.

And who is he,

and who is that other master?—It is the

father.

And the Gemara now brings a source for Ravina’s statement, that they expound the letter yod in the word “there is” independently, because it would have been proper for the verse to write “an,” without the letter yod:

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

From where do we know that they indeed expound the extra letter yod in the word “there is”?

For it was taught

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

A daughter of a koen eats teruma. But if she marries an Israelite, she is forbidden to eat teruma.

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

“But if the daughter of a koen becomes a widow or divorced [when 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 [of the teruma that her father the koen receives].”

And it is demonstrated from this verse that a daughter of a koen who has offspring from an Israelite is forbidden to eat teruma even after the death of her husband.

And we learned in a beraita concerning this verse:

“And she has no offspring”—

And she has no offspring” -

I have only

to learn from the words of this verse

but

only that

her offspring

from an Israelite prevents the daughter of the koen from [eating] teruma.

But if her son from an Israelite died, yet left behind a son, who is

the offspring of her offspring

from an Israelite—

from where

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

The verse says,

for this reason it said

“offspring, she has none”

in full spelling [and it did not say “an”]. And from this the Sages expounded the verse as though it had said, “Offspring,

look into it.”

That is, even if her son from an Israelite died, look into and investigate after him: if he left offspring behind, his koen mother is still forbidden to eat teruma.

And

similarly we can reason:

I have only

a source that the offspring of an Israelite prevents the daughter of a koen from [eating] teruma

but

when that offspring is

fit offspring.

Unfit offspring,

such as a mamzer,

from where

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

The verse says:

“Offspring, she has none”

in full spelling [and it did not say “an”], and the Sages expounded the verse as though it had said, “Offspring,

look into it”—

search for and investigate every offspring whatsoever, and even a mamzer is included.

And we challenge the beraita: How is it possible to learn from the verse “she has no offspring” that even the offspring of a mamzer prevents his mother from eating teruma?

But you have already used it,

for you have already expounded the verse

to

include

the offspring of her offspring!

And we answer:

The offspring of her offspring—

the verse is not needed!

There is no need for a verse in order to include the offspring of her offspring so as to disqualify her from eating teruma. Since

the sons of sons—

they are like sons,

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

And therefore,

when the verse is needed,

all that the verse was needed for is

to

teach that even

unfit offspring

prevents the daughter of the koen from eating teruma. In any event, we have learned from the words of the beraita that they expound the letter yod in the word “there is” as superfluous, and the Sages expound it independently. Therefore, Rav too expounded the letter yod in the verse “there is no money” to teach that the maiden is betrothed with money, and that the money belongs to her father.

And we consider the matter:

But the tanna himself—

from where does he know that he expounds it in this way!?

The tanna himself, who expounded “she has no offspring”—look into it, from where did he learn that the letter yod in the word “there is” is superfluous, and that it is possible to learn an exposition from its being superfluous?

They said,

the Sages said in explanation:

But

it is written [

Numbers 22] “

Balaam refuses

to go with us.”

And the word “refuses” means “there is not”: Balaam did not intend to go with us.

And

similarly it is written [

Deuteronomy 25] “

My levir refuses

for it is not written in them

in these verses the letter

yod

in the word “refuses,” as though the verse had said “there is” without using the letter yod.

And it is demonstrated that the expression “there is” in the verse can be stated as “an,” without a yod.

And

if

here [

in the verses “there is no money,” and likewise “there is no offspring”]

it is written in it

the letter

yod.

And why did the verse add the letter yod here?

Rather,

infer from it that it comes for an exposition.

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

In summary: According to the conclusion of the Gemara, the letter yod in the verse “there is no money” teaches that the maiden is betrothed with money, which is given to her father.

And in the course of the discussion, the words of Rav Huna citing Rav were brought: From where do we know that what the daughter produces belongs to the father? As it is stated [Exodus 21]: “And when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant.” Just as what the maidservant produces belongs to the master, so what the daughter produces belongs to the father.

And now the Gemara clarifies why the verse needed to teach that what the daughter produces and her kiddushin belong to the father, and why we do not learn one from the other:

And we explain:

And it was necessary,

the verse was necessary

to write

that the money of her

kiddushin

belongs

to her father.

And

it was also

necessary to write

that the wages of what she produces with

her labor

belong

to her father.

Because

if the Merciful One had written

only that the money of her

kiddushin

belongs

to her father, I might have said

that the verse granted the father only the money of the daughter’s kiddushin,

because he does not toil for them [

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

But

the wages of

what she produces with her labor, for which she does toil, I might say that they belong to her.

What she produces with her labor, for which she toils, I might say that the wages belong to her.

Therefore, the verse needed to make known to us that what she produces with her labor belongs to her father.

And if it had made known to us,

if the verse had made known to us only that

what she produces with her labor

belongs to her father, I would say that the reason the verse granted it to the father is

because she is supported by him,

because the daughter is sustained from her father’s money, and the father, who sustains his daughter, intends to cover his expenses by acquiring the wages of what she produces with her labor, for this is money that is commonly available.

But,

the monetary right to

her betrothals, which come to her from elsewhere,

which happen to her on a one-time basis, is not in the father’s mind, and

let us say that they are hers,

I would say that they belong to her. Therefore

it is necessary,

the verse had to state both with regard to betrothals and with regard to the earnings of the daughter’s labor that they belong to the father.

And in the course of the sugya the words of the beraita were brought: “And she shall go out freely” — these are the days of maturity. “There is no money” — these are the days of maidenhood [and from this it follows that the maidservant goes out upon the signs of maidenhood].

The substance of the matter,

the Gemara now comes to discuss the substance of the words of the beraita, in which we learned: “

And she shall go out freely,

these are the days of maturity, “

there is no money,

these are the days of maidenhood.”

And we deliberated about it:

And let the Merciful One write

[let Him write]

that

the maidservant goes out during the days of

maidenhood

alone.

And

since she went out from the master already during the days of maidenhood,

there is no need

there is no need to take her out of his authority again during the days of

maturity!

Rabba said

an answer: Had it been explicitly stated in the Torah that the maidservant goes out during the days of maidenhood, indeed there would have been no need to state that she goes out during the days of maturity.

But since it was not explicitly stated that the maidservant goes out during the days of maidenhood [rather, we learn this from the fact that we have nothing else upon which to base the maidservant’s going out], therefore the verse had to write an additional verse.

And

this

verse

came: “And she shall go out freely,”

“freely,”

and taught concerning this,

concerning the verse “there is no money,” that the going out is during the days of maidenhood.

For had it stated only “and she shall go out; there is no money,” I would say that the going out is at the time of maturity. But since “and she shall go out freely” has already been stated [that these are the days of maturity], necessarily “there is no money” comes to teach that the going out is already from the time of maidenhood.

And Rabba proves his words, that the Torah writes a superfluous verse in order to teach concerning its fellow —

Just as is the case with resident and hired laborer.

Just as we find something similar concerning “resident” and “hired laborer,” which are 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 shall not eat holy food.” That is, teruma.

And it is explained in a beraita who the “resident” and “hired laborer” mentioned here are:

For it was taught: “

Resident

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

this

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

an acquisition of the world,

until the Jubilee. And the verse informs us that although a Canaanite slave of a koen eats teruma,

a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced for his koen master does not eat teruma, since he is not acquired by the master with an acquisition of the body that permits him to eat teruma, like a Canaanite slave. “

Hired laborer” —

this is a Hebrew slave

acquired

by his koen master

with an acquisition

of six

years,

for six years have not yet passed from his acquisition [and he is destined to go out from his master’s authority after six years].

And the beraita discusses:

There is a question to ask: Why should the verse not

say

only

“resident”

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

and not say

that even

“hired laborer”

[who is acquired by the koen for six years] does not eat teruma?

And I say

this on my own, even without the revelation of the verse:

Since the Torah said that a slave whose ear was pierced,

acquired with an acquisition of the world, does not eat

teruma —

One acquired with an acquisition

of six

years, all the more so

does he not eat?!

For if you say that even a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced, acquired with an acquisition of the world, does not have his body acquired, and does not eat teruma, then by kal va-chomer a Hebrew slave acquired for six years בלבד does not have his body acquired by his koen master, and does not eat teruma! And it may be answered:

If

the verse had said

so

[that it mentioned only “resident” and not “hired laborer”],

I would say

that

“resident” —

this

is a slave

acquired with an acquisition

of six

years.

And only he, whose body is not acquired, does not eat teruma.

But,

the slave whose ear was pierced, who is

acquired with an acquisition of the world,

even his body is acquired by the koen, and therefore he does

eat

teruma, in the manner that a Canaanite slave eats.

Therefore the Torah said: “Resident and hired laborer.”

And

there came “

hired laborer,”

which is a slave acquired for six years,

and taught concerning “

resident,”

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

who, although

he is

acquired with an acquisition of the world,

nevertheless he

does not eat

teruma.

Thus far are the words of the beraita.

And from the words of the beraita Rabba proved that the Torah writes a superfluous verse in order to teach concerning its fellow. “Hired laborer” was written only to reveal what “resident” is.

And from now it is possible to explain the verse “And she shall go out freely; there is no money” in this manner: “freely” teaches concerning “there is no money,” that it refers to the days of maidenhood.

Abaye said to Rabba,

your proof must be rejected, and one should say that the verse is not to be expounded in the manner of “this came and taught concerning that”:

For

are they comparable?

Is the teaching of the beraita comparable to your words [concerning the verse “And she shall go out freely; there is no money”]? For

there, “

resident” and “hired laborer” —

they are two separate bodies.

They are two distinct people, and both are forbidden to eat teruma. Therefore there is no difficulty in saying that this came and taught concerning that.

For even if,

for even if

the Merciful One had written

explicitly “

a pierced resident shall not eat

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

and

nevertheless, if

the Merciful One had repeated and written

the

other one,

if the verse had repeated and said that a hired laborer sold for six shall not eat, we would not find it difficult why the verse had to repeat and say that a hired laborer does not eat teruma, despite its being something derived by itself through kal va-chomer —

For

it would be the law that “

a hired laborer”

does not eat teruma,

a matter that comes by kal va-chomer,

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

And a matter that comes

[a matter that is learned]

by kal va-chomer —

the verse took the trouble and wrote it

explicitly.

Therefore, now that “resident and hired laborer” was stated, and the verse did not explain who they are, it may be said that this came and taught concerning that.

Rather, here,

with regard to the Hebrew maidservant,

it is one body!

The verse “And she shall go out freely; there is no money” speaks of one body, the Hebrew maidservant, and if

she goes out during maidenhood —

maturity, what is she doing with him!?

Since the maidservant goes out from the master during maidenhood, if so, how can it be possible for the maidservant to be with the master at the time of maturity!? [For it is impossible for her to go out from his authority at maturity, since she is already no longer a maidservant].

Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the verse to state explicitly, “And she shall go out during the days of maidenhood,” and then the verse would not have needed to include the days of maturity, during which she does not go out at all! And for this reason Abaye disagrees with Rabba’s answer. And the earlier difficulty returns: Since the maidservant already went out during maidenhood, why did the verse say that she goes out at maturity?

Rather, Abaye said,

another answer:

It was necessary

not the word “freely,” which includes going out during maturity, was necessary

except for the mature woman who is an ailonit.

To say that the ailonit, who never brings the signs of maidenhood, goes out upon the signs of maturity.

And had the verse mentioned only the days of maidenhood, then

it might enter your mind

that only

during maidenhood shall she go out,

but

during maturity she shall not go out!

It might enter your mind to say that the maidservant goes out only upon the signs of maidenhood and not upon the signs of maturity, and therefore the ailonit would not go out upon the signs of maturity.

Therefore,

it teaches us

that maturity takes the ailonit out from the master’s authority.

But Mar bar Rav Ashi rejects Abaye’s answer:

Mar bar Rav Ashi raised an objection against it:

Could one have thought that the ailonit does not go out at maturity, so that the verse needed to state this?!

And

for this matter—that the ailonit goes out upon the signs of maturity—

is it not a kal va-chomer?

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

the

father

[for the earnings of the maiden’s labor continue to belong to her father even after she has brought the signs of maidenhood, as explained in the Gemara above], nevertheless they

take her out from the authority of

the

master.

Maturity, which takes her out from the authority of

the

father,

and is it not

the law that it takes her out from the authority of the master?!

And had it been stated in the Torah that the maidservant goes out during maidenhood, I would understand on my own that she also goes out at maturity [by kal va-chomer], so why did the verse need to mention going out during the days of maturity?

Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said,

another answer: The word “freely,” which includes the days of maturity,

was necessary only for the fundamental validity of the sale of an ailonit.

To teach concerning the very sale of the ailonit, and to say that a person can sell his ailonit daughter as a maidservant when she is a minor.

For had it not been stated in the Torah that maturity takes her out from the master’s authority,

it might enter your mind

then it might enter your mind to say as follows:

Only a minor

who brings

the

signs of maidenhood —

the sale is valid.

Her sale as a maidservant is a valid sale, since it is possible to apply to her the law of going out upon the signs of maidenhood.

But an ailonit,

who does not bring

the

signs of maidenhood —

her sale is not a valid sale.

Her sale is not a valid sale, because it is impossible to apply to her the law of going out upon the signs of maidenhood, which was mentioned in the Torah. , .