Commentary for Kiddushin 7:24

"A similar going out it comes to exclude". Rabbenu Hananel explained: "The going out of a Hebrew slave girl from her master that is at the time of being a na'arah, so too here [she is] a na'arah." [In other words: the similarity is the timing.] Problem: The sugya does not mean at all that it needs to learn that it is dealing with the day she is a na'arah but rather about the question "From where do we know that the money belongs to the father?"! Solution: "A similar going out"—i.e. under the authority of her master, if there was money there, then he could have given it to the master in order that she go out from him; so too here where there is money in her going out of the authority of the father, since it is her father, and this is also the meaning of the question. [In other words: the similarity is the existence of money.]

"From where do we know [that the verse includes] an unfit seed (i.e. child)?" Rabbenu Yitzhak said: [The midrash] was talking about an unfit grandchild (lit. seed of a seed), for since she had sex to make her unfit, she was made unfit [to marry a man] from the priesthood and she can no longer eat terumah. Therefore it is not possible to explain literally "an unfit child" but "an unfit grandchild".

The resolution of how we know that the father receives the money goes back to the original source—the fact that when the daughter sold into slavery goes free, the master does not receive a payment. Had there been a payment, the master would have received it. Thus, logically, in the case of betrothal, where there is a payment, the money goes to the father, who is akin to the master.

The problem is that the comparison between the two “going outs” is not precise. When the maidservant goes free, she becomes completely free. Her master retains no control. But betrothal is only a partial transfer of authority. Her father still retains some authority over her and will continue to do so until she enters the huppah. So how can the two be compared?

The answer is that in one respect, even though still living in her father’s house, the father has lost control over her at betrothal—he no longer has the right to unilaterally annul her vows. Once betrothed, the father and husband jointly annul her vows.

This other midrash is more directly related to the verses of the Torah. The Torah specifies that a girl bought as a slave at a young age “goes out” if the master does not do certain things on her behalf (like marry her, or marry her off to his son). But there would seem to be the need for a time-limit. The rabbis invent such a time limit, and apply it here and elsewhere. A “ketanah” is a girl under 12. A girl between 12 and 12 ½ is called a “na’arah” and after that she becomes a “bogeret.” This midrash teaches that if the master has not done these things before she hits 12, she goes out free and need not pay any money for her manumission.

Ravina reads meaning into the letter “yod” found in the word “eyn.” The appearance of the letter “yod” allows two halakhot to be learned from this verse. This is of course an unusual derashah to say the least. Tannaim do not derive meaning from verses in this way. Even among late amoraim, which Ravina is, this is a strange derashah, which the Talmud will immediately notice.

The midrash here teaches that if a daughter of a priest who is married to a non-priest and then the non-priest died had any offspring, even grandchildren or illegitimate offspring (such as mamzerim) she no longer may eat priestly food such as terumah. The midrash uses the letter “yod” in “eyn” as if the word was written “ayen” which means to “search.” Her lineage must be examined to see if she has any offspring. The reason this midrash is cited is to prove that derashot (rabbinic exegesis) may be based on the letter yod.

The midrash here teaches that if a daughter of a priest who is married to a non-priest and then the non-priest died had any offspring, even grandchildren or illegitimate offspring (such as mamzerim) she no longer may eat priestly food such as terumah. The midrash uses the letter “yod” in “eyn” as if the word was written “ayen” which means to “search.” Her lineage must be examined to see if she has any offspring. The reason this midrash is cited is to prove that derashot (rabbinic exegesis) may be based on the letter yod.

This very derashah undermines what the Talmud perceives to be a rule of exegesis—no word may be interpreted twice. The word “eyn” was used to derive that both grandchildren and illegitimate offspring disqualify her from eating terumah. To resolve the difficulty, the Talmud says that the first derashah, concerning grandchildren, was not needed. Grandchildren are treated like children (usually treated much better than children, I might add). The derashah was needed to teach that illegitimate children also prevent her from eating terumah.

The Talmud now shows that sometimes the Torah writes words that have an “ey” sound without the letter you. The word “me’eyn” does not have a yod, but “eyn” does. This, to the tanna, legitimates making exegetical conclusions from what it perceives to be an extraneous letter.
I should note that such derashot are never made in tannaitic literature. Tannaitic exegesis is based on units that have independent meaning, words, phrases, etc. Not on single letters such as this. This type of “hyper-exegesis” is found in the later stages of the Talmud. This is an issue that I will address in a forthcoming third volume of Reconstructing the Talmud.

If the Torah had written only that her kiddushin money goes to her father, I might have thought that her income from work goes to her since she earned it. It does not—it goes to her father.

I might have thought that her earnings go to her father because in return for her giving him her earnings she is provided for. But her kiddushin money is a different story—she would not be giving it to her father in return for something. Therefore, I might have thought that it is hers. It is not. As we learned, all financial gain that comes from the young daughter goes to her father.

The derashah states that a girl sold into slavery goes free at na’arut (age 12) and at bagrut (12.5). This is obviously superfluous—all the Torah needed to say is that she goes free at na’arut, and then she’ll already be free by bagrut.

Rabbah explains that if we only had one word, we would assume she goes free at bagrut. We need both words to teach that she goes free at na’arut.

The same phenomenon occurs with Leviticus 22:10 which teaches that a “toshav and sakhir” who are part of a priest’s household may not eat terumah. What do these words mean, the rabbis ask? Toshav refers to a Hebrew slave acquired for perpetuity (meaning he was acquired for six years and then did not want to go free. He remains a slave until the Jubilee). And a sakhir is one acquired only for six years. Here too we can ask that if the one acquired for a longer time does not eat terumah, obviously one who is acquired for a lesser period does not eat. After all, he is less owned by the non-Jew. But if only one word had been stated, we would have said that it refers to one acquired for the shorter period—he does not eat terumah. But one acquired for perpetuity does eat terumah. Therefore, I need both words.

The same phenomenon occurs with Leviticus 22:10 which teaches that a “toshav and sakhir” who are part of a priest’s household may not eat terumah. What do these words mean, the rabbis ask? Toshav refers to a Hebrew slave acquired for perpetuity (meaning he was acquired for six years and then did not want to go free. He remains a slave until the Jubilee). And a sakhir is one acquired only for six years. Here too we can ask that if the one acquired for a longer time does not eat terumah, obviously one who is acquired for a lesser period does not eat. After all, he is less owned by the non-Jew. But if only one word had been stated, we would have said that it refers to one acquired for the shorter period—he does not eat terumah. But one acquired for perpetuity does eat terumah. Therefore, I need both words.

The same phenomenon occurs with Leviticus 22:10 which teaches that a “toshav and sakhir” who are part of a priest’s household may not eat terumah. What do these words mean, the rabbis ask? Toshav refers to a Hebrew slave acquired for perpetuity (meaning he was acquired for six years and then did not want to go free. He remains a slave until the Jubilee). And a sakhir is one acquired only for six years. Here too we can ask that if the one acquired for a longer time does not eat terumah, obviously one who is acquired for a lesser period does not eat. After all, he is less owned by the non-Jew. But if only one word had been stated, we would have said that it refers to one acquired for the shorter period—he does not eat terumah. But one acquired for perpetuity does eat terumah. Therefore, I need both words.

Abaye says that the two cases are not similar. When it comes to the toshav and sakhir, these are two different people, and sometimes the Torah writes out a law that could be learned from a “kal vehomer” argument—an “all the more so” type of argument. Therefore, they are not really superfluous.

But here, Abaye continues, there is no reason for the Torah to write both, because if she goes free at na’arut, she’s not even there at bagrut. She’s one person so the verse is truly superfluous.

Abaye points out that not all girls who reach majority age will actually go through “na’arut.” “Na’arut” is more than just hitting 12. It is hitting 12 and developing signs of puberty. A girl can become a bogeret at the age of 20 without ever hitting puberty. Such a girl is called an “aylonit” (we learned the term in Ketubot—it is sometimes translated as barren, but women can hit puberty and be barren. Still an aylonit is by definition barren). If only one word had been taught I might have thought that only a bogeret who had hit puberty would go free. Therefore, the second word teaches that a na’arah goes free, and a bogeret who never becomes a na’arah also goes free (although only at a later age).

Abaye points out that not all girls who reach majority age will actually go through “na’arut.” “Na’arut” is more than just hitting 12. It is hitting 12 and developing signs of puberty. A girl can become a bogeret at the age of 20 without ever hitting puberty. Such a girl is called an “aylonit” (we learned the term in Ketubot—it is sometimes translated as barren, but women can hit puberty and be barren. Still an aylonit is by definition barren). If only one word had been taught I might have thought that only a bogeret who had hit puberty would go free. Therefore, the second word teaches that a na’arah goes free, and a bogeret who never becomes a na’arah also goes free (although only at a later age).

Mar bar Rav Ashi points out that we could have learned that a girl who is a bogeret goes out from her master’s authority by a kal vehomer argument. A girl who becomes 12 and has hit puberty goes free from her master but, if she is living in her father’s domain, is not free from his authority. But a bogeret, one who reaches majority age, goes free even from her father’s domain. All the more so she would go free from the domain of her master. So why do we need a midrash to teach us what we would already know. Obviously any type of bogeret, whether she is an aylonit (a woman who does not hit puberty) or not, goes free.

The argument here is getting more complex. We might have thought that a girl who will never reach na’arut, meaning she will never hit puberty could not be sold. After all, if she goes free at na’arut then maybe if she will never be a na’arah, meaning she is an aylonit who will never hit puberty, then she could not have been sold in the first place. Therefore, we have a verse that says (midrashically) that an aylonit goes out of slavery at bagrut (age 20). This teaches us that she can be sold in the first place.

"'She goes out free'—these are the days of being a bogeret; 'There is no money'—these are the days of being a na'arah". [Problem:] But if you say: If should have mentioned "these are the days of being a na'arah" first and afterwards "days of being a bogeret", solution: it is because "There is no money" is required to be assigned to the days of being a na'arah as we say earlier, "But there is money for a different master", this applies while she is a na'arah since the father has no rights to her bogeret daughter's kiddushin.

"This comes and teaches about that". Explanation: If only one of them were written, they would have assigned it to whatever seemed better, which would have been bogrut. [Problem:] But if you say: Why would I need "She goes out free" to teach on "There is no money"—I would have been forced not to assign "There is no money" to be about bogrut but rather na'arut, for it is from this that we explain above "But there is money for another master, and who is it? the father"; if so, this verse must be about na'arut, for if it were about bogrut, the father has no rights to her kiddushin, since when she is a bogeret her father has no authority over her!? [Solution:] Says Rabbenu Moshe: If there was no verse "She will go out free", we would have assigned [the 2 extraneous features of the verse] (i) "There is no money" and (ii) the extra י that Ravina talked about, one of them to na'arut, the other to bogrut, but the derashah of "There is no money for this master" we never would have come up with—this is why "She will go out free" is necessary.

For it has not yet reached six years

"Being a bogeret that takes her out of the authority of the father..." [Problem:] But if you say: The death of the father breaks the ק״ו since it takes her out of the authority of her father but does not take her out of the authority of her master, solution: It would be possible to object: The death of the father that has involves no bodily change, you would say the same about bogrut that involves bodily change!?

"If the signs of na'arut have not arrived, then the sale would be invalid". [Problem:] But if you say: While she is a minor, how would we know that she would not produce the signs of na'arut since the signs of being an aylonit are if she is 20 years old and hasn't produced 2 hairs, as is in chapter Ha-Arel (Yevamot 80b)!? [Additional layer to the problem:] And even though there are signs of being an aylonit that are possible to recognise while she is a minor, such as a thick voice and her lower abdomen is not like those of women, we say regarding a eunuch: "Until he should have all of [the signs he is not considered a eunuch", and we would assume that this is the case also for an aylonit! Solution: This is what it meant to say: "The sale is invalid" and the master needs to return her handiwork and the father should return the money [so you can wait until all the signs of an aylonit are there and then retroactively undo the sale]. This all would be the case also if she were designated [and sold as a wife to a freeman, and not just sold for her handiwork, the sale would be disqualified].