ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 4
KIDUSHIN 2-5 - sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) We finally extrapolate that the father of a Na'arah receives the money
of Kidushin from the Pasuk with which we began "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam Ein
Kasef" - from which we Darshen that, in the same way as the master whose
jurisdiction the maidservant leaves receives no money, so too does her
father whose jurisdiction the daughter leaves, receive the Kidushin money.
(b) We query this comparison (contrast) however - on the grounds that a
daughter does not really leave her father's jurisdiction (regarding the work
of her hands and her inheritance) when she becomes betrothed until she
enters the Chupah.
(c) We conclude that a girl does leave her father's jurisdiction when she
becomes betrothed - regarding the annulment of vows (which her father can no
longer nullify single-handedly), sufficient to render her comparable to a
maidservant leaving her master's domain.
(a) We learn from ...
1. ... "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam" - that a girl leaves her master's jurisdiction
when she becomes a Bogeres (half a year after Na'arus).
(b) We nevertheless learn from the same Pasuk 'Ein Kasef le'Adon Zeh, Aval
Yesh Kesef le'Adon Acher' - from the extra 'Yud' in "Ein".
2. ... "Ein Kasef" - that she leaves at the age of twelve (as soon as she
brings Simnei Na'arus).
(c) We have a precedent to Darshen the word "Ein" in this way - in the word
"ve'Zera *Ein* Lah" (in Emor, in connection with permitting a bas Kohen to
return to her father's house and eat Terumah after the death of her husband
who was a Yisrael).
(a) The Tana in the Beraisa learns from "ve'Zera *Ein* Lah" - which he
Darshens to mean 'Ayin Alah' (examine her [descendants]), that any offspring
from her Yisrael husband, even if he is Pasul (e.g. a Mamzer), prevents her
from eating Terumah.
(b) We retract from the original D'rashah (to learn grandchildren from
there) - on the grounds that we already have other sources for 'B'nei Banim,
Harei Hein ke'Banim'.
(c) The Tana knows to Darshen the 'Yud' in "Ein" in this way - from the
couple of times where the word "Me'ein" (from the same root as 'Ein',
appears without a 'Yud' ("Me'ein Bil'am" [Balak], "Me'ein Yabmi" [Ki
(d) We now have two Pesukim regarding a father, one to teach us that he
receives his daughter's Kidushin money, the other, that he receives the
produce of her hands. We cannot learn ...
1. ... the Din regarding the produce of her hands, which entailed hard work
on her part, from that of her Kidushin money - which she did nothing to
2. ... the Din regarding her Kidushin money - which is completely external
(and her father did not have them in mind), from that of the produce of her
hands - which her father had in mind should be his in exchange for his
having constantly fed her.
(a) We need two Pesukim to teach us that a maidservant goes free when she
becomes a Na'arah and when she becomes a Bogeres. One Pasuk will not suffice
to teach us that she goes free when is a Na'arah - because, seeing as
neither Pasuk is explicit, if there was only one, we would establish it by a
Bogeres, and it is only when we have two Pesukim that we use the second one
to teach is that she goes free already when she is a Na'arah.
(b) Rabah compares this to a "Toshav Kohen" and a "Sachir (Kohen)", neither
of whom may eat Terumah.
1. A "Toshav Kohen" is a 'Kanuy Kinyan Olam' (an Eved Ivri who had his ear
pierced and who continues to work for his master until the Yovel year).
(c) The Torah found it necessary to teach us both - because if we only had
one Pasuk, we would establish it by a Kinyan Shanim (who is more temporary
than a Toshav [but a Kinyan Olam would not eat Terumah]).
2. A "Sachir Kohen" is - a 'Kanuy Kinyan Shanim' (an Eved Ivri who is still
serving his first six-year period).
(d) The Torah might well have written just one Pasuk and referred to him
specifically as 'Kanuy Kinyan Olam'. It nevertheless chose to leave the
Lashon vague, and present the same Chidush in two Pesukim, based on the
principle 'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal va'Chomer Tarach ve'Kasav Lah K'ra'.
(a) We reject Rabah's comparison of Na'arah and Bogeres to Kanuy Kinyan Olam
and Kanuy Kinyan Shanim - on the grounds that whereas there we are talking
about two different Avadim, each of whom fits into one of the respective
Pesukim (and both of whom might even belong to the master at the same time),
in our case, we are talking about the same woman who left her master's
domain when she was a Na'arah, and who has now become a Bogeres. Having left
her master's domain when she was a Na'arah, how can she still be there when
she becomes a Bogeres?
(b) Based on this Pircha, Rabah finally explains the Torah's need to teach
us that a Bogeres leaves her master's jurisdiction, despite having already
taught us that a Na'arah leaves - by establishing Bogeres (not by a regular
Bogeres, but) by a Bogeres de'Aylonis, who never attained the stage of
(c) The Chidush is - that not only Na'arus takes her out of her master's
jurisdiction, but so does Bagrus.
(d) A Bogeres de'Aylonis goes free - as soon as she turns twenty without
having produced Simanim.
(a) Mar bar Rav Ashi queries the need for a Pasuk to teach us that a Bagar
de'Aylonis goes free. He extrapolates this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from
Simanim - which do not take her out of her father's jurisdiction, yet they
do take her out of her master's, Bagrus, which takes her out of her father's
jurisdiction, will certainly take her out of her master's.
(b) Nevertheless, the Torah needs to write "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam" to teach us
(not that a Bogeres de'Aylonis leaves the jurisdiction of her master, but) -
that she can be sold in the first place, even though she is not destined to
pass the stage of Na'arah.
(c) Mar bar Rav Ashi is perturbed by the 'Kal va'Chomer'. He does not just
assume the principle 'Milsa de'Asya be'Kal va'Chomer Tarach ve'Kasav Lah
K'ra' - because we only apply it when there is no better explanation. When
there is, like there is here, as we just explained, then we prefer to use
(a) We just learned that Rav Yehudah derives Kidushei Kesef from "Ein
Kesef". The Tana derives it from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Ki Yikach Ish
Ishah u'Ve'alah ... " - because 'Kichah' always implies money.
(b) The Tana knows that Kichah means money - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
"Kichah" ("Ki Yikach Ish Ishah" - Ki Seitzei) "Kichah" ("Nasati Kesef
ha'Sadeh Kach Mimeni" - Chayei-Sarah).
(c) We query the need for a Pasuk for Kidushei Kesef, because we could learn
a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Amah Ivriyah - who cannot be acquired with Bi'ah, yet
she can be acquired with Kesef, a woman, whom one can acquire with Bi'ah,
how much more so with Kesef.
(d) A Yevamah, who can be acquired with Bi'ah and not with money, is not a
Pircha on the 'Kal va'Chomer' - because she has a weakness in that she can
not be acquired with a Sh'tar.
(a) Despite the 'Kal va'Chomer', the Tana concludes with the Pasuk "Ki
Yikach Ish". Rav Ashi explains that the Tana has a Pircha on the 'Kal
va'Chomer' from 'Ikra de'Dina'. We cannot learn a 'Kal va'Chomer' from an
Amah Ivriyah, he says - because an Amah Ivriyah also goes out with money,
whereas a wife does not.
(b) He refers to the Pircha in this way - because the Pircha shows up an
intrinsic weakness in the actual 'Kal va'Chomer' (unlike the Pircha from
Yevamah, which was a Pircha from an external source).
(c) At the end of the day we have two D'rashos (that of Rav Yehudah Amar
Rav, and that of the Tana of the Beraisa). Having written ...
1. ... "Ki Yikach", the Torah nevertheless needs to add "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam
Ein Kasef" - to teach us that the Kidushin money of a daughter goes to her
father (as we explained above).
2. ... "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam Ein Kasef", the Torah needs to add "Ki Yikach" -
to teach us that it is the man who must betroth the woman, and not the
woman, the man ("Ki Yikach Ish ... ", 've'Lo Ki Sikach'.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah *u'Ve'alah*" - that one can
acquire a woman with Bi'ah.
(b) We try to learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Yevamah - who cannot be
acquired with Kesef, yet she is acquired with Bi'ah, then a wife, whom one
can acquire with Kesef, should certainly be acquired with Bi'ah.
(c) We refute the Pircha from Amah ha'Ivriyah, who can be acquired with
Kesef but not with Bi'ah - on the grounds that the reason that she cannot be
acquired with Bi'ah is because the objective of the Kinyan is not in order
to live with her, as is the case with both a wife and a Yevamah (in which
case, the 'Kal va'Chomer' remains intact).
(d) Despite the 'Kal va'Chomer', the Tana concludes with the Pasuk
"u'Ve'alah". Rav Ashi explains that the Tana has a Pircha on the 'Kal
va'Chomer' me'Ikra de'Dina' - because a Yevamah is already tied to the Yavam
from his brother's marriage (maybe that is why he can acquire her through
Bi'ah, which only really concludes his brother's Kinyan), which is not the
case with a wife (whom he is coming to acquire from scratch).