Kiddushin 4b — the Talmud in English

This teaches us:

therefore the verse made this known to us,

“She shall go out freely,”

that the aylonit goes out by the signs of maturity; and from here we know that even an aylonit is sold as a Hebrew maidservant, since the Torah said that she goes out by the signs of maturity.

And the Gemara returns to discuss the attack of Mar bar Rav Ashi, who wondered about Abaye’s words, that the word “freely” was needed for the aylonit’s release upon maturity:

And he wondered: Is it not a kal va-chomer that the aylonit goes out upon her maturity?

And if signs, which do not remove her from her father’s authority, remove her from her master’s authority, then maturity, which removes her from her father’s authority—surely it is a matter of law that it should remove her from her master’s authority?!

And we wonder about Mar bar Rav Ashi’s attack:

And according to Mar bar Rav Ashi, who said

“And is it not a kal va-chomer,”

there is a difficulty:

We said

above:

A matter that comes,

a matter that is learned

by a kal va-chomer—

the verse took the trouble and wrote it!

And if so, why was it difficult for him? Why did the verse make known to us that the aylonit goes out upon maturity, when this is a kal va-chomer from release upon maidenhood?

And we answer: What we said, that a matter learned by a kal va-chomer is nevertheless written by the verse,

this applies where there is no way to answer otherwise.

The matter is said only where it is impossible to give another, better answer.

But where there is a way to answer otherwise—

we answer otherwise.

Where it is possible to give a better answer, and there is no need to say that the verse made known to us something that we could have understood ourselves by a kal va-chomer, it is proper to answer it in that way.

And therefore, since Mar bar Rav Ashi was able to explain the verse according to his own words, he did not accept Abaye’s words.

Until here the Gemara discussed Rav’s words, who said that betrothal by money is learned from the verse “She shall go out freely; there is no money” [in the conclusion: from the letter yod in the word “there is not”]. [

And incidentally, the Gemara explained the baraita: “She shall go out freely”—these are the signs of maturity, since the baraita was brought in the course of the discussion of Rav’s words.]

And now the Gemara brings another source for betrothal by money:

And we say:

And a tanna—

derives it from here.

There is a tanna who learned betrothal by money from the exposition of the verse stated in the section concerning divorce—

For it was taught:

It is stated in the Torah [Deuteronomy 24:1]:

“When a man takes a woman and possesses her,”

“and it shall be, if she does not find favor in his eyes, because he has found in her”

a matter of indecency, and he writes her a document of severance, [a bill of divorce], and sends her from his house.”

And the verse did not explain in what manner the man “took” the woman for himself as a wife.

And the tanna explains:

There is no

expression of

taking

except by money.

And so it

the verse]

says [Genesis 23]:

“I have given the money for the field”—

“Take

it

from me!”

Perhaps you will say: Why did we need to learn from “When a man takes a woman” that the woman is betrothed by money?

Is it not a matter of law?

We could have learned this ourselves, by a kal va-chomer:

And if a Hebrew maidservant, who is not acquired

by the master

through intercourse,

nevertheless

is acquired

by him

with money.

This one,

a married woman,

who

is easy to acquire, for she indeed is

acquired

by her husband

through intercourse,

then

is it not a matter of law that he acquires her

also

with money?!

Your answer is:

A levirate wife proves it,

for betrothal by money cannot be learned from betrothal through intercourse:

Who

is a levirate wife acquired by the levir

through intercourse, and

nevertheless

is not acquired

by the levir

with money.

And similarly it may be said concerning a married woman: Although she is acquired through intercourse, nevertheless she is not acquired with money!

And perhaps you will say:

What is there about a levirate wife,

that she is not acquired with money although she is acquired through intercourse? It is because there is an acquisition that acquires in the case of a maidservant but does not acquire in the case of a levirate wife,

for there is no

levirate wife

acquired by a document,

and therefore in this matter she is more easily acquired than the maidservant.

Can you say this of this one,

of a married woman, who should be acquired with money by a kal va-chomer—

who

indeed is

acquired

also

by a document! And therefore she is acquired also with money.

And therefore she should also be acquired with money.

Your answer is:

The Torah says:

“When a man takes

a woman.” And taking is only by money.

And from here [we know] that a woman is betrothed by money.

And immediately the Gemara wonders: According to the conclusion of the tanna, it is possible to learn betrothal money by a kal va-chomer from the Hebrew maidservant. And if so, there is a difficulty:

Then—

why do I need a verse!?

Why was the verse “When a man takes” needed?

It has already come to us,

for we already learned this by a kal va-chomer [even without a verse]!

He said,

he answered,

Rav Ashi:

The tanna needed this verse

because

the kal va-chomer can be rejected:

For it can be said: At the very beginning of the reasoning—

there is a refutation!

For it can be said that from the very matter from which the kal va-chomer is learned, from the law of the Hebrew maidservant, there is a refutation of the kal va-chomer. [

This is unlike the refutation brought in the baraita: The baraita attempted to refute the kal va-chomer by learning from a levirate wife, that is, from another matter and not from the very matter from which the kal va-chomer is learned]—for

from where are you bringing it?

From where did you learn the kal va-chomer for betrothal by money?

You learned it

from the Hebrew maidservant! [

If a Hebrew maidservant, who is not acquired through intercourse, is nevertheless acquired with money, then a woman who is acquired through intercourse is certainly acquired with money!]

But your words can be refuted, by saying:

What is there about the Hebrew maidservant,

that it is a matter of law that she is acquired by the master with money? It is

because

she

goes out

from the master’s authority

with money,

for she can redeem herself within six years if she wishes, as it is stated concerning the Hebrew maidservant, “and he shall redeem her” [Exodus 21]. And from here the Sages learned that she can redeem herself with money and go out.

Therefore, since money is significant for her to redeem her, it is significant for her also to acquire her.

Can you say this of this one,

of a married woman,

who does not go out with money,

and if so, money is not significant for acquiring her!

For this reason the tanna needed to say:

The Torah says:

“When a man takes” [

from which betrothal by money is learned].

It follows that we have two sources for the law of betrothal by money:

A. Rav learned this from the verse “She shall go out freely; there is no money.”

B. The tanna learned this from the verse “When a man takes a woman.”

And now the Gemara explains why the verse needed to state both passages, “She shall go out freely” and “When a man takes” —

And it was necessary to write,

and it was necessary to write

“She shall go out freely,”

and it was necessary to write

also

“When a man takes” —

because

if the Merciful One had written

only

“When a man takes” [

that “taking” is only by money, as above],

I might have said that the

betrothal money that the husband gives her—

belongs to her.

I would have said that the money of kiddushin that the husband gives the girl belongs to her herself and not to her father.

I would have said that the betrothal money that the husband gave the young woman belongs to her herself and not to her father.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote

“She shall go out freely;

there is no money,” to teach that the money belongs to her father.

And as we said: There is no money for this master, but there is money for another master.

And just as when the maidservant goes out with money, the money belongs to the master from whom she went out, so when the daughter goes out from her father’s authority through betrothal by money, the money belongs to the father, from whom she went out.

And if the Merciful One had written only

“She shall go out freely”—

I might have said: Where she gives it to him, and betroths him,

I would have said: Where the woman gave money to the husband and betrothed him and said to him, “Become betrothed to me,”

they are betrothal,

these are betrothal, for since we learned [from the verse “there is no money”] that money effects betrothal, I would have said that there is no distinction between the money that the husband gives and the money with which the woman is acquired.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote

“When a man takes,”

whose meaning is that the taking is performed by the man.

And

he did not write in the language

“When you take,”

from which it would have been understood that the woman too can betroth her husband.

And the Gemara brings the continuation of the words of the earlier tanna, who expounded the verse “When a man takes a woman and possesses her.” The tanna explained that there is no “taking” except by money.

And the tanna continues and explains the verse: “

And possesses her”—

teaches that

the woman

is acquired through intercourse.

And the tanna asks: Why did the verse need to teach us that the woman is acquired through intercourse?

Is it not a matter of law,

for we could have learned this ourselves, by a kal va-chomer:

And if a levirate wife, who

even though

is not

she

acquired

by the levir

with money,

nevertheless she is

acquired through intercourse—

This one,

a married woman,

who is acquired

by her husband

with money—

is it not a matter of law that she is acquired

also

through intercourse?!

But the tanna rejects the kal va-chomer:

The Hebrew maidservant proves it,

for it cannot be learned by a kal va-chomer from money that intercourse acquires her:

For

the Hebrew maidservant

is acquired with money, and

nevertheless

is not

she

acquired through intercourse.

And similarly it may be said concerning a married woman: Although she is acquired with money, nevertheless she is not acquired through intercourse!

And the tanna returns and answers the kal va-chomer:

What is there about the Hebrew maidservant,

that she is not acquired through intercourse? This is because

her acquisition is not for the purpose of [

for the sake of]

marriage.

And therefore there is no reason for intercourse to effect an acquisition in her.

Can you say this of this one—

of a married woman,

whose acquisition is for the purpose of marriage,

that she too is not acquired through intercourse?! [

For the acquisition of a married woman is for the purpose of marriage, unlike that of the maidservant!]

And the tanna concludes and says:

The Torah says:

“And possesses her”—

the verse teaches that the woman is acquired through intercourse.

And immediately the Gemara wonders: According to the conclusion of the tanna, it is possible to learn that intercourse acquires a married woman by a kal va-chomer from a levirate wife.

And

if so,

why do I need a verse,

why is the verse “and possesses her” needed?

It has already come to us,

for we already learned this by a kal va-chomer [even without a verse]!

Rav Ashi said

an answer: The tanna needed to learn this from a verse

because

the kal va-chomer can be rejected:

For it can be said: At the very beginning of the reasoning—

there is a refutation!

For it can be said that from the very matter from which the kal va-chomer is learned, namely, from a levirate wife, there is a refutation of the kal va-chomer [unlike the refutation brought in the baraita: The baraita attempted to refute the kal va-chomer by proof from the Hebrew maidservant, that is, from another matter]—

for

from where are you bringing it?

From where did you learn the kal va-chomer that a married woman is acquired through intercourse?—you learned it

from a levirate wife! [

If a levirate wife, who is not acquired with money, is acquired through intercourse, then a married woman, who is acquired with money, is certainly acquired through intercourse.]

But your words can be refuted, by saying:

What is there about a levirate wife,

that she is acquired through intercourse? This is because

she

is

in need of and stands ready

for levirate marriage on account of the betrothal of the deceased [and is not permitted to marry a stranger], and intercourse is needed only to strengthen and complete the bond that she has toward the levir. Therefore intercourse acquires her.

And if so, is it possible

to say

that from here we should learn that also

in this one,

in a married woman,

who is not

she

in need of and stands ready

from the outset for any man, she too is acquired through intercourse?!

For it can be said that intercourse cannot initiate an acquisition from its beginning [but only strengthen and complete the bond of the levirate wife to the levir]!

And from here it follows that one cannot learn that intercourse acquires a married woman by a kal va-chomer from a levirate wife; therefore the tanna concluded and said:

The Torah says:

“And possesses her”—

the verse teaches that the woman is acquired through intercourse.