Kiddushin 4b (ד:) — the Talmud in English

This teaches us:

therefore the verse stated

“And she shall go out for nothing”,

teaching that the aylonit goes free upon displaying the signs of maturity. From here we know that even an aylonit may be sold as an ama, since the Torah stated that she goes free upon displaying the signs of maturity.

The Gemara returns to discuss the challenge of Mar bar Rav Ashi, who questioned Abaye’s statement that the word “for nothing” is needed to teach that the aylonit goes free upon reaching maturity:

And he asked: Is it not a kal va-chomer that the aylonit goes free upon reaching maturity?

If signs of maturity, 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, should certainly remove her from her master’s authority?!

And we question Mar bar Rav Ashi’s challenge:

And according to Mar bar Rav Ashi, who said

“Is it not a kal va-chomer,”

this is difficult:

We said

earlier:

A matter that can be derived—

a matter that is learned

by means of a kal va-chomer—

the verse took the trouble to write explicitly!

And if so, why did he find it difficult? Why did the verse teach us that the aylonit goes free upon reaching maturity, when this can be derived by a kal va-chomer from her going free upon reaching adolescence?

And we answer: What we said—that when a matter is learned by means of a kal va-chomer,

that applies only where there is no way to offer an alternative explanation.

This applies only where it is impossible to offer another, preferable explanation.

But where there is a way to offer an alternative explanation—

we offer it.

Where it is possible to offer a preferable explanation, and there is no need to say that the verse taught us something that we could have understood on our own by means of a kal va-chomer, it is appropriate to offer that explanation.

Therefore, since Mar bar Rav Ashi could explain the verse in accordance with his own statement, he did not accept Abaye’s statement.

Thus far, the Gemara has discussed Rav’s statement, that kiddushei kesef are derived from the verse “There is no money” [ultimately: from the letter yod in the word “ein”]. [

Incidentally, the Gemara explained the beraita: “And she shall go out for nothing—these are the signs of maturity,” since the beraita was cited in the course of the discussion concerning Rav.]

Now the Gemara brings another source for kiddushei kesef:

And we say:

And one tanna—

derives it from here.

There was a tanna who derived kiddushei kesef from the exposition of the verse stated in the passage concerning divorce—

As it was taught:

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

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

“and it shall be, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found in her”

a matter of indecency, and he writes her a scroll of severance [a get] and sends her from his house.”

The verse does not explain in what manner the man “took” the woman as his wife.

And the tanna explains:

The expression

“taking”—

is only with money.

And so

[the verse]

says

[Genesis 23]:

“I have given the money for the field;”

“take”

it from me!

You might say: Why did we need to learn from “When a man takes a woman” that a woman is betrothed with money?

Is this not a logical inference!

We could have learned this on our own, by means of a kal va-chomer:

And if a Hebrew maidservant, who is not acquired

by her master

through intercourse,

nevertheless

is acquired

by him

with money.

This woman,

a married woman,

who

is easier to acquire, since she indeed

is acquired

by her husband

through intercourse,

then

should she not certainly be acquired

by him also

with money?!

Your answer is:

A levirate wife proves otherwise,

for one cannot derive kiddushei kesef from kiddushei bi’ah:

For

a levirate wife is acquired by the yavam

through intercourse, and

nevertheless

is not acquired

by the yavam

with money.

And similarly, one could say concerning a married woman that although she is acquired through intercourse, nevertheless she is not acquired with money!

And if you would say:

What is the case with a levirate wife,

who is not acquired with money despite being acquired through intercourse? It is because there is a means of acquisition that acquires a maidservant but does not acquire a levirate wife—

for

the levirate wife

is not acquired through a document,

and therefore in this respect she is less than a maidservant.

Can you say the same concerning this woman,

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

for

she

is acquired

also

through a document!

And therefore she should also be acquired with money.

Your answer is:

The Torah states:

“When a man takes

a woman.” And “taking” is only with money.

From here it follows that a woman is betrothed with money.

Immediately the Gemara asks: According to the conclusion of the tanna, the acquisition of money for kiddushin can be learned by means of a kal va-chomer from a Hebrew maidservant. If so, this is difficult:

Then—

why do I need a verse!?

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

It can be derived,

for we have already learned this by means of 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 that at the very basis of the inference—

there is a refutation!

One can say that the very case from which the kal va-chomer is derived—the law of the Hebrew maidservant—provides a refutation of the kal va-chomer. [

This is unlike the refutation cited in the beraita: The beraita attempted to refute the kal va-chomer by deriving from a levirate wife, that is, from another case, rather than from the very case from which the kal va-chomer was derived]—for

from where are you bringing it?

From where did you derive the kal va-chomer concerning kiddushei kesef?

You derived it

from the Hebrew maidservant! [

Although a Hebrew maidservant is not acquired through intercourse, she is nevertheless acquired with money; a woman who is acquired through intercourse should certainly be acquired with money!]

But your statement can be refuted, as follows:

What is the case with a Hebrew maidservant?

It is logical that she is acquired by her master with money, because

since

she

goes out

from her master’s authority

with money: She can redeem herself during the six years if she wishes, as it is stated concerning a Hebrew maidservant, “Then she shall be redeemed” [Exodus 21]. From here the Sages derived that she can redeem herself with money and go free.

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 herself, it is also significant for acquiring her.

Can you say the same concerning this woman,

a married woman,

who does not go out with money,

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

Therefore the tanna needed to say:

The Torah states:

“When a man takes”

[from which kiddushei kesef are derived].

It follows that we have two sources for the law of kiddushei kesef:

a. Rav derived it from the verse “And she shall go out for nothing; there is no money.”

b. The tanna derived it from the verse “When a man takes a woman.”

Now the Gemara explains why the verse needed to state both passages, “And she shall go out for nothing” and “When a man takes” —

And it was necessary to write,

and it was necessary to write

“And she shall go out for nothing,”

and it was necessary to write

also

“When a man takes” —

because

if the Merciful One had written

only

“When he takes”

[that “taking” is only with money, as above],

I would have thought that the

money of kiddushin that the husband gives her—

would belong 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.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote

“And she shall go out for nothing;

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

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 whose authority she goes out, so too when the daughter leaves her father’s authority through kiddushei kesef, the money belongs to the father, from whose authority she has departed.

And if the Merciful One had written only

“And she shall go out for nothing”—

I would have thought: Where she gives money to him and betroths him,

I would have said that where the woman gives money to the husband and betroths him, saying to him, “Be betrothed to me,”

the kiddushin would be valid.

These would be kiddushin, since once we have learned [from the verse “There is no money”] that money effects kiddushin, I would say that there is no distinction between money given by the husband and money through which the woman is acquired.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote

“When he takes,”

whose meaning is that the taking is carried out by the man.

And

he did not write in the wording

“When she takes,”

which would imply that the woman, too, can betroth her husband.

The Gemara now cites the continuation of the earlier tanna’s words, in which he expounded the verse, “When a man takes a woman and possesses her.” The tanna explained that “taking” is only with money.

The tanna continues and explains the verse: “

And possesses her”—

this teaches that

the woman

is acquired through intercourse.

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

Is this not a logical inference?

We could have learned this on our own, by means of a kal va-chomer:

And if a levirate wife, who

although

is not

she

acquired

by the yavam

with money, nevertheless she

is acquired through intercourse—

This woman,

a married woman,

who is acquired

by her husband

with money—

should she not certainly be acquired

also

through intercourse?!

But the tanna rejects the kal va-chomer:

A Hebrew maidservant proves otherwise,

for one cannot learn by a kal va-chomer from money that intercourse effects acquisition:

For

a Hebrew maidservant

is acquired with money, and

nevertheless

is not

she

acquired through intercourse.

And similarly one could say concerning a married woman that although she is acquired with money, nevertheless she is not acquired through intercourse!

And the tanna returns to uphold the kal va-chomer:

What is the case with a Hebrew maidservant?

The reason she is not acquired through intercourse is

that her acquisition is not for the purpose of

[for the purpose of]

marriage.

Therefore there is no reason for intercourse to effect acquisition in her case.

Can you say the same concerning this woman—

a married woman—

whose acquisition is for the purpose of marriage,

so that she, too, should not be acquired through intercourse?! [

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

And the tanna concludes and says:

The Torah states:

“And possesses her”—

the verse teaches that a woman is acquired through intercourse.

Immediately the Gemara asks: According to the conclusion of the tanna, it is possible to learn that intercourse effects acquisition in the case of a married woman by means of a kal va-chomer from a levirate wife.

And

if so,

why do I need a verse,

why is the verse “And possesses her” necessary?

It can be derived,

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

Rav Ashi said

the following answer: The tanna needed to derive this from a verse

because

the kal va-chomer can be rejected:

For it can be said that at the very basis of the inference—

there is a refutation!

One can say that the very case from which the kal va-chomer is derived, namely, the levirate wife, provides a refutation of the kal va-chomer [unlike the refutation cited in the beraita, where the beraita attempted to refute the kal va-chomer by bringing proof from a Hebrew maidservant, that is, from another case]—

for

from where are you bringing it?

From where did you derive the kal va-chomer that a married woman is acquired through intercourse? You derived it

from a levirate wife! [

Just as a levirate wife, who is not acquired with money, is acquired through intercourse, so a married woman, who is acquired with money, should certainly be acquired through intercourse.]

But your statement can be refuted, as follows:

What is the case with a levirate wife

who is acquired through intercourse? The reason is

that, since

she

is bound and destined

for levirate marriage by virtue of the deceased’s kiddushin [and is not permitted to marry a stranger], intercourse is needed only to strengthen and complete the bond she already has toward the yavam. Therefore intercourse acquires her.

If so, can one

say that from here we can learn that even

that from here we should learn that also

in this case,

a married woman,

who is not

she

bound and destined

from the outset to any man, she too should be acquired through intercourse?!

After all, one can say that intercourse cannot initiate an acquisition from the outset [but can only strengthen and complete the levirate wife’s bond to the yavam]!

It follows that one cannot learn that intercourse effects acquisition in the case of a married woman by means of a kal va-chomer from a levirate wife. Therefore the tanna concluded and said:

The Torah states:

“And possesses her”—

the verse teaches that a woman is acquired through intercourse.