Kiddushin

it applies to an analogous going forth.1 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?2 — 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.3 Now, this verse: ‘and she shall go out for nothing’ — does it come to teach this? Surely it is needed for what was taught, viz., ‘And she shall go out for nothing’ — this refers to the days of bagruth;4 without money — to the days of na'aruth!5 — Said Rabina: If so, Scripture should have written, en kesef [without money]; why write, eyn kesef6 — [To teach:] no money is due to this master, but money is due to another, viz., her father.6 And how do you know that such exegesis is permissible?7 — 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. But if the priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced,] and have no [eyn] child [. . . she shall eat of her father's meat].8 I only know [that] her own child [disqualifies her]; whence do I know [the same of] her child's child?9 From the verse: ‘and have no [eyn] child’, [teaching] examine her [for issue].10 Again, I only know [that] legitimate seed [disqualifies her]: whence do I know it of illegitimate [pasul] seed?11 From the verse, and have no [eyn] child: examine her [for any issue whatsoever]. 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;12 [hence] the verse is required only for her illegitimate seed. Now, how does the Tanna13 himself know that such exegesis is permissible? — I will tell you. It is written: Baalam doth not consent [me'en],14 and my husband's brother doth not consent [me'en]15 neither of which contain a yod, whereas here [in the verses under discussion] a yod is written:16 this proves that it [sc. the yod] comes for exegesis. Now, it is necessary to state that in the case of a na'arah, both her kiddushin and her labour belong to her father.17 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. And if we were told about her labour, that is because she lives thereby;18 but her kiddushin, which comes from elsewhere, I would think is hers: thus both are necessary. 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?19 — Said Rabbah: One comes and illumines the other.20 For this may be compared to the case of toshab and sakir,21 as was taught: Toshab means one [a Hebrew slave] acquired in perpetuity;22 sakir, one purchased for a period of [six] years.23 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?24 Were it so, I would say, toshab is one purchased for a limited period, but one acquired in perpetuity may eat. 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,25 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:26 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,27 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 a barren woman:28 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 evidence29 the sale is altogether invalid: 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. expresses a further limitation. See if she has any descendants. This is deduced from the superfluous yod. l,hcku. for nothing — I would apply it to bagruth only. eat of the holy thing.