Kiddushin 7

יציאה דכוותה קא ממעט

it applies to an analogous going forth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After all, the matter is deduced from 'and she shall go out for nothing' without money, the reasoning being as follows: The verse teaches that only for a maidservant is no payment due for gaining her freedom. Now, if it were due, it would obviously be her master's; hence when we learn that elsewhere, sc. marriage, payment is due, it is likewise due to the master whom she leaves, viz., her father.');">¹</span> But the one departure is dissimilar to the other: there [sc. a maidservant] she passes from her master's authority completely; whereas here she yet wants being given over for huppah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before which her father is still entitled to her labour, and acts as her heir.');">²</span>

והא לא דמיא האי יציאה להאי יציאה התם נפקא לה מרשות אדון לגמרי והכא אכתי מיחסרא מסירה לחופה בהפרת נדרים מיהא נפקא לה מרשותיה דתנן נערה המאורסה אביה ובעלה מפירין נדריה

- Nevertheless, she passes out of his control in respect of annulment of vows; for we learnt: A betrothed maiden - her father and husband [together] may annul her vows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the father no longer enjoys undivided control.');">³</span> Now, this verse: 'and she shall go out for nothing' - does it come to teach this?

והאי (שמות כא, יא) ויצאה חנם להכי הוא דאתא הא מבעי ליה לכדתניא דתניא ויצאה חנם אלו ימי בגרות אין כסף אלו ימי נערות

Surely it is needed for what was taught, viz. , 'And she shall go out for nothing' - this refers to the days of bagruth;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁴</span> without money - to the days of na'aruth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Thus the verse merely teaches that something else, not money, frees her, but implies no other exclusion. it h iht');">⁵</span>

אמר רבינא אם כן לימא קרא אן כסף מאי אין כסף אין כסף לאדון זה אבל יש כסף לאדון אחר ומאן ניהו אב

- Said Rabina: If so, Scripture should have written, en kesef [without money]; why write, eyn kesef<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabina assumes that 'without money' could be written, (en) ; the inserted yod ( eyn) is superfluous, so expresses a further limitation. h');">⁶</span> - [To teach:] no money is due to this master, but money is due to another, viz. , her father.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabina assumes that 'without money' could be written, (en) ; the inserted yod ( eyn) is superfluous, so expresses a further limitation. h');">⁶</span>

וממאי דדרשינן הכי דתניא (ויקרא כב, יג) וזרע אין לה

And how do you know that such exegesis is permissible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the yod () may be regarded as superfluous?');">⁷</span> - Because it was taught: [If a priest's daughter also be married unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things.

אין לי אלא זרעה זרע זרעה מנין ת"ל זרע אין לה עיין לה ואין לי אלא זרע כשר זרע פסול מנין ת"ל זרע אין לה עיין לה

But if the priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced,] and have no [eyn] child [. she shall eat of her father's meat].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 12f.');">⁸</span>

והא אפיקתיה לזרע זרעה זרע זרעה לא איצטריך קרא דבני בנים הרי הן כבנים כי איצטריך קרא לזרע פסול

I only know [that] her own child [disqualifies her]; whence do I know [the same of] her child's child?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her own being dead. vk ihhg iht t g');">⁹</span> From the verse: 'and have no [eyn] child', [teaching] examine her [for issue].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ , a play on the word or an interchange of the with the , as is frequent in Semitic languages]. See if she has any descendants. This is deduced from the superfluous yod.');">¹⁰</span>

ותנא גופיה מנליה דדריש הכי אמרי כתיב (במדבר כב, יד) מאן בלעם (דברים כה, ז) ומאן יבמי דלא כתיב בהו יו"ד והכא כתיב ביה יו"ד ש"מ לדרשא הוא דאתא

Again, I only know [that] legitimate seed [disqualifies her]: whence do I know it of illegitimate [pasul] seed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Illegitimate' not in the modern sense, but e.g., a child born of adultery.');">¹¹</span> From the verse, and have no [eyn] child: examine her [for any issue whatsoever].

ואיצטריך למכתב קידושיה לאביה ואיצטריך למכתב מעשה ידיה לאביה דאי כתב רחמנא קידושיה לאביה הוה אמינא משום דלא טרחא בהו אבל מעשה ידיה דקא טרחא בהו אימא דידה הוו

But you have employed this for her child's child? - For her child's child no verse is required, because grand-children are as children;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is deduced in Yeb. 62b.');">¹²</span> [hence] the verse is required only for her illegitimate seed.

ואי אשמעינן מעשה ידיה דקא מתזנא מיניה אבל קידושיה דמעלמא קאתי לה אימא דידה הוו צריכא :

Now, how does the Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹³</span> himself know that such exegesis is permissible? - I will tell you.

גופא ויצאה חנם אלו ימי בגרות אין כסף אלו ימי נערות ולכתוב רחמנא נערות ולא בעי בגרות

It is written: Baalam doth not consent [me'en],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXII, 14.');">¹⁴</span> and my husband's brother doth not consent [me'en]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 7.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רבה בא זה ולמד על זה

neither of which contain a yod, whereas here [in the verses under discussion] a yod is written:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that me'en is derived from en.');">¹⁶</span> this proves that it [sc the yod] comes for exegesis.

מידי דהוה אתושב ושכיר דתניא תושב זה קנוי קנין עולם שכיר זה קנוי קנין שנים

Now, it is necessary to state that in the case of a na'arah, both her kiddushin and her labour belong to her father.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These were deduced from two separate verses on 3b. l,hcku.');">¹⁷</span> For had Scripture written that her kiddushin belongs to her father, I might have thought, That is because she takes no pains with it; but her labour, for which she toils, I would say is her own.

יאמר תושב ולא יאמר שכיר ואני אומר קנוי קנין עולם אינו אוכל קנוי קנין שנים לא כ"ש

And if we were told about her labour, that is because she lives thereby;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She must work for her keep, hence her earnings belong to her father, who keeps her. - Tosaf. in Git. ');">¹⁸</span> but her kiddushin, which comes from elsewhere, I would think is hers: thus both are necessary.

אילו כן הייתי אומר תושב זה קנוי קנין שנים אבל קנוי קנין עולם אוכל בא שכיר ולימד על תושב שאע"פ שקנוי קנין עולם אינו אוכל

The [above] text [says:] 'And she shall go out for nothing - this refers to the days of bagruth; without money - to the days of na'aruth.' Then Scripture should have written na'aruth, which renders bagruth superfluous?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she is freed at na'aruth, which is earlier, surely she is freed at bagruth!');">¹⁹</span>

א"ל אביי מי דמי התם תרי גופי נינהו דכי נמי כתב רחמנא תושב נרצע לא יאכל והדר כתב אידך הוה שכיר מילתא דאתיא בק"ו ומילתא דאתיא בק"ו טרח וכתב לה קרא

- Said Rabbah: One comes and illumines the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two phrases must refer to two ages, na'aruth and bagruth. But if only one were written - and she shall go out for nothing - I would apply it to bagruth only.');">²⁰</span> For this may be compared to the case of toshab and sakir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to Lev. XXII, 10: a toshab (E.V. sojourner) of the priest, or a sakir (E.V. hired servant) , shall not eat of the holy thing.');">²¹</span>

אלא הכא חד גופא היא כי נפקא לה בנערות בגרות מאי בעיא גביה

as was taught: Toshab means one [a Hebrew slave] acquired in perpetuity;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., until Jubilee; v. Ex. XXI, 5f.');">²²</span> sakir, one purchased for a period of [six] years.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid. 2.');">²³</span>

אלא אמר אביי לא נצרכה אלא לבגר דאילונית

Now, let toshab be stated, but not sakir, and I would reason: if one acquired in perpetuity may not eat, how much more so one purchased only for a period of [six] years?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the former is more of the priest's chattel (v. Lev. XXII, 11) than the latter.');">²⁴</span> Were it so, I would say, toshab is one purchased for a limited period, but one acquired in perpetuity may eat.

סד"א בנערות תיפוק בבגרות לא תיפוק קמ"ל

Therefore sakir comes and illumines [the meaning of] toshab, [teaching] that though he is purchased for ever, he may not eat. Said Abaye to him: How compare! There they are two persons, and even had Scripture [explicitly] written, a toshab whose ear was bored,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. ibid.');">²⁵</span>

מתקיף לה מר בר רב אשי ולאו ק"ו הוא ומה סימנין שאין מוציאין מרשות אב מוציאין מרשות אדון בגרות שמוציאה מרשות אב אינו דין שמוציאה מרשות אדון

and then added the other, sakir would be something which might be inferred a minori; and a thing which is derived a minori Scripture [often] takes the trouble to write. But here [in the case of a maidservant] she is only one person: having departed in na'aruth, what business has she with him in bagruth? - But, said Abaye, it is necessary only for the majority of a [constitutionally] barren woman:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She has no symptoms of na'aruth, and attains her majority (bagruth) at the age of twenty.');">²⁶</span>

אלא אמר מר בר רב אשי לא נצרכה אלא לעיקר זבינא דאילונית סד"א דאתיא סימני נערות הוי זבינא דלא אתיא סימני נערות לא הוי זבינה זבינא

I might have thought, she [a Hebrew maidservant] is freed only by na'aruth, but not by bagruth: hence we are informed [otherwise]. Mar, son of R'Ashi, demurred: But does this not follow a minori? If symptoms [of na'aruth], which do not free her from parental authority,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 7.');">²⁷</span> free her from her master's authority: then bagruth, which liberates from parental authority, surely liberates her from her master's authority! - But, said Mar, son of R'Ashi: This is necessary only in respect of the sale itself of barren woman:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a minor who shews symptoms of constitutional barrenness.');">²⁸</span> I might have thought, with one who will [subsequently] produce evidence of na'aruth, the sale is valid: but with one who will not produce such evidence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 5.');">²⁹</span> the sale is altogether invalid: