Question: These departures are not similar!

An Amah totally leaves her master's jurisdiction. A girl who becomes Mekudeshes does not totally leave her father's jurisdiction until Chupah!

Answer: Regarding vows she is no longer in her father's jurisdiction (he can no longer annul her vows by himself);

(Mishnah): The father and husband jointly annul the vows of a Na'arah Me'orasah (during Erusin, after Kidushin and before Nisu'in).

Question: We need "v'Yatz'ah Chinam Ein Kasef" for a different teaching!

(Beraisa): "V'Yatz'ah Chinam" teaches that she goes free when she becomes a Bogeres. "Ein Kasef " teaches that she goes free when she becomes a Na'arah.

Answer (Ravina): If the verse came to teach only one of these, it would have said "An Kesef". Rather, it says "Ein Kesef" to teach both teachings.

Question: What is the source to expound the Yud (i.e. that it says Ein, not An)?

Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion: "V'Zera Ein Lah" (if a Bas Kohen married to a Yisrael was widowed without children, she may eat Terumah again) - perhaps only children from a Yisrael forbid her from eating Terumah again, but (if the children died,) grandchildren do not!

Rejection: (We read "Ein Lah" like) 'Ayen Lah' (investigate her. Even grandchildren forbid.)

Suggestion: Perhaps only legitimate descendants from a Yisrael forbid her!

Rejection: 'Ayen Lah' (even Mamzerim prevent her).

Question: We expounded this to teach that grandchildren forbid her!

Answer: Really, a verse is not needed for grandchildren, for they are like children. The verse is needed only for Mamzerim.

Question: What is the Tana's source to expound the Yud this way?

Answer: Sometimes the Torah omits the Yud, e.g. "Me'en Bilam" and "Me'en Yabmi". Since there is a Yud here, we expound it.

The Torah needed to teach that her father gets her Kidushin money, and also her earnings;

Had it taught only that he keeps the Kidushin money, one might have thought that this is because she did not work to get the money;

She would keep her own earnings, for which she toiled;

Had it taught only that he keeps her earnings, one might have thought that this is because he continuously feeds her (and expects frequent compensation);

She would keep her Kidushin money, for her father does not think about this when feeding her.

(Beraisa): "She goes out for free" teaches that she goes free when she becomes a Bogeres (six months after becoming a Na'arah). "There is no money" teaches that she goes free when she becomes a Na'arah.

Question: If the Torah says that she goes free upon becoming a Na'arah, it need not say that she goes free when she becomes a Bogeres!

Answer #1 (Rabah): Both of these are needed, just like in the following case:

(Beraisa): "Toshav (a resident)" refers to one (a Nirtza, whose ear was bored through) who serves forever (until Yovel. He may not eat Terumah, even if he is a Kohen's slave.) "Sachir (a hired worker may not eat Terumah)" refers to a (Yisrael) slave who serves for six years.

Question: The Torah forbids even a permanent slave to eat Terumah. Why must it teach that a temporary slave may not eat?

Answer: Had the Torah taught only that a Toshav not eat, one would have thought that Toshav refers to a temporary slave, but a permanent slave (of a Kohen) eats Terumah!

It wrote also "Sachir", to teach that "Toshav" refers to a permanent slave.

Objection (Abaye): There is different! Had the Torah written only "Toshav", we would say that a Nirtza does not eat. It also wrote that a Sachir (six-year) slave does not eat, even though this could have been learned from a Kal va'Chomer;

Here, there is only one person. If she leaves at Na'arus, she is not with the master at Bagrus!

Answer #2 (Abaye): "There is no money" teaches that an Ailonis (a girl who does not develop like a normal female) goes free at Bagrus (she becomes a Bogeres when she brings certain Simanim (signs). She is never a Na'arah.)

One might have thought that a (regular) girl goes free at Na'arus, but (an Ailonis) does not go free at Bagrus. The verse teaches that this is not so.

Objection (Mar bar Rav Ashi): A Kal va'Chomer teaches that an Ailonis goes free at Bagrus!

When a girl becomes a Na'arah, she does not leave her father's jurisdiction, but she leaves her master. Bagrus takes her from her father's jurisdiction, all the more so it frees her from her master!

Answer #3 (Mar bar Rav Ashi): The words teach that the sale of an Ailonis is valid.

One might have thought that only a girl who can go free through signs of Na'arus can be sold. The verse teaches that this is not so.

Question: Does Mar bar Rav Ashi not agree that the Torah sometimes teaches a law that could have been derived from a Kal va'Chomer?

Answer: We say so only when we cannot derive a new law. If we can derive a new law, we do so.

(Beraisa): "When a man will take (be Mekadesh) a woman and have Bi'ah with her" - he takes her through money;

We find that acquisition through money is called Kichah (taking) - "I gave the money for the field, take it from me".

Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach this! An Amah cannot be acquired through Bi'ah, but she can be acquired through money. A woman can be Mekudeshes through Bi'ah, all the more so, she can be Mekudeshes through money!

Objection: A Yevamah disproves the Kal va'Chomer, for she can be acquired through Bi'ah, but not through money!

Answer: A woman can be Mekudeshes through a document, unlike a Yevamah. Likewise, we can say that a woman can be Mekudeshes through money, unlike a Yevamah.

"When a man will take a wife" teaches that she may be Mekudeshes through money.

Question: We defended the Kal va'Chomer. Why must we learn from the verse?

Answer (Rav Ashi): One can uproot the Kal va'Chomer:

We learned that if an Amah can be acquired through money, all the more so money makes Kidushin. We can say that money acquires an Amah because an Amah goes free through money (but money cannot undo Kidushin)!

Therefore, a verse was needed.

The Torah needed to write both "she goes out for free" and "when a man will take a wife".

Had it written only the latter verse, one might have thought that she keeps the Kidushin money. Therefore, we need "she goes out for free";

Had it written only "she goes out for free", one might have thought that if a woman gives a man money and is Mekadesh him, it works. Therefore, we need "when a man will take a wife".

"And he has Bi'ah with her" teaches that a woman can be Mekudeshes through Bi'ah.

Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach this! A Yevamah cannot be acquired through money, but she can be acquired through Bi'ah. A woman can be Mekudeshes through money, all the more so, she can be Mekudeshes through Bi'ah!

Objection: An Amah disproves the Kal va'Chomer, for she can be acquired with money, but not through Bi'ah!

Answer: That does not disprove the Kal va'Chomer. An Amah cannot be acquired through Bi'ah because she is not acquired for the sake of marriage. A wife is acquired for the sake of marriage!

"And he has Bi'ah with her" (teaches that she can be Mekudeshes through Bi'ah).

Question: We defended the Kal va'Chomer. Why must we learn from the verse?

Answer (Rav Ashi): One can uproot the Kal va'Chomer:

We learned from acquisition of a Yevamah. Bi'ah alone does not acquire a Yevamah. She is already partially acquired from the Kidushin of the deceased brother! (We cannot learn to Kidushin, in which the woman is not already partially acquired.)

Therefore, we must learn from the verse.