## Kiddushin Daf 4a

###### Kiddushin 4a:1
[Kiddushin 4a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:1)

יְצִיאָה דִּכְווֹתַהּ קָא מְמַעֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**it excludes a departure** that is **like it,** i.e., a departure wherein the two masters are the potential recipients. Just as when no money is paid, the individual who might have received the payment is her master, so too, when money is paid, in a different set of circumstances, the money goes to the one who has authority over her, i.e., her father.


###### Kiddushin 4a:2
[Kiddushin 4a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:2)

וְהָא לָא דָּמְיָא הַאי יְצִיאָה לְהַאי יְצִיאָה, הָתָם נָפְקָא לַהּ מֵרְשׁוּת אָדוֹן לִגְמָרֵי, וְהָכָא אַכַּתִּי מִיחַסְּרָא מְסִירָה לְחוּפָּה! בַּהֲפָרַת נְדָרִים מִיהָא נָפְקָא לַהּ מֵרְשׁוּתֵיהּ. דִּתְנַן: נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה אָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But this departure is not similar to that departure,** as **there, she leaves the authority of the master entirely** upon being freed and she no longer retains any connection to him, **and here, she still lacks** the act of **passing** her over **to the** wedding **canopy.** Until she actually enters the wedding canopy, she has not left her father’s authority completely. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a similarity between her departures in both cases, as **she leaves** her father’s **authority at least as** far as **the nullification of vows** is concerned. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Nedarim* 66b): With regard to **a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband** together **nullify her vows,** and her father cannot nullify them alone.


###### Kiddushin 4a:3
[Kiddushin 4a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:3)

וְהַאי ״וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הָא מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם״ – אֵלּוּ יְמֵי בַּגְרוּת, ״אֵין כָּסֶף״ – אֵלּוּ יְמֵי נַעֲרוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** does **this** verse: **“Then shall she go out for nothing”** (Exodus 21:11), **come for that** purpose, to teach that there is no money for this master, but there is money for a different master? **But it is required for that which is taught** in the following *baraita*. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse “Then shall she go out for nothing, without money” should be understood as follows: **“Then shall she go out for nothing”; these** words **are** referring to **the days of adulthood,** i.e., a Hebrew maidservant leaves her owner’s authority once she becomes an adult. **“Without money [*ein kasef*]”; these** words **are** referring to **the days of** her **youth,** i.e., when she becomes a young woman she leaves his authority.


###### Kiddushin 4a:4
[Kiddushin 4a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:4)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״אֵן כָּסֶף״. מַאי ״אֵין כָּסֶף״ – אֵין כֶּסֶף לְאָדוֹן זֶה אֲבָל יֵשׁ כֶּסֶף לְאָדוֹן אַחֵר, וּמַאן נִיהוּ – אָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: If so,** that the verse is to be used only for this derivation, **let the verse say: *En kasef*,** without the letter *yod*. **What** is indicated by the full spelling with a *yod*: ***Ein kasef*?** This serves to teach the *halakha* stated above: **There is no money for this master, but there is money for a different master. And who is he?** He is her **father,** who has a right to receive the money when his daughter leaves his authority upon her betrothal.


###### Kiddushin 4a:5
[Kiddushin 4a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:5)

וּמִמַּאי דְּדָרְשִׁינַן הָכִי – דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And from where** is it derived that **one interprets** the verse **homiletically** in **this** manner? How is it known that the full form of the word *ein* teaches a *halakha*? **As it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the daughter of a priest who married a non-priest and was subsequently widowed or divorced: **“And she has no child,** and is returned to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread” (Leviticus 22:13). This verse indicates that if she has no children from her non-priest husband she may once again partake of *teruma*.


###### Kiddushin 4a:6
[Kiddushin 4a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:6)

– אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זַרְעָהּ. זֶרַע זַרְעָהּ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זֶרַע אֵין לָהּ״ – עַיֵּין לָהּ. וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא זֶרַע כָּשֵׁר. זֶרַע פָּסוּל מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זֶרַע אֵין לָהּ״ – עַיֵּין לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I have** derived **only** that this *halakha* applies to **her** actual **children. From where** do I derive that **her children’s children** are equivalent to children with regard to this *halakha*? **The verse states: “She has no [*ein lah*] child,”** where *ein* is spelled with a *yod* inserted in the middle. This additional letter serves to enable an alternative articulation of the term, specifically, **one examines her [*ayyein lah*]** to see if she has any descendants. **And I have** derived **only** that this *halakha* applies to **children** of **unflawed** lineage, i.e., her legitimate offspring. **From where** do I derive that **children** of **flawed** lineage, e.g., *mamzerim*, are also considered her children for the purposes of this *halakha*? **The verse states: “She has no child,”** which indicates that **one examines her,** as explained above.


###### Kiddushin 4a:7
[Kiddushin 4a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:7)

וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ לְזֶרַע זַרְעָהּ! זֶרַע זַרְעָהּ לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, דִּבְנֵי בָנִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבָנִים. כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא – לְזֶרַע פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the last derivation, the Gemara asks: **But you have** already **derived** one *halakha* from this word, that **her children’s children** are considered like her children in this case. The Gemara answers: In fact, **a verse was not necessary** to teach about **her children’s children, as** there is an established principle that **children’s children are** considered **like children.** And therefore, **when the verse was necessary,** it was to teach the requirement of examining her **for children** of **flawed** lineage.


###### Kiddushin 4a:8
[Kiddushin 4a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:8)

וְתַנָּא גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָלֵיהּ דְּדָרֵישׁ הָכִי? אָמְרִי: כְּתִיב ״מֵאֵן בִּלְעָם״ וּ״מֵאֵן יְבָמִי״, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ יוֹד. וְהָכָא, כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ יוֹד – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לִדְרָשָׁא הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the *tanna* himself, from where does he** know **that** one **can expound** the *yod* in *ein* in **this** manner? The Gemara answers: **They say** in explanation that it is **written: “Balaam refuses [*me’en*]”** (Numbers 22:14), **and** it is similarly written: **“My *yavam* refuses [*me’en*]”** (Deuteronomy 25:7), and **in neither** case **is a *yod* written. And here** the word *ein* **is written with a *yod*. Learn from it that** the *yod* is superfluous and **comes** for the sake of **an exposition.**


###### Kiddushin 4a:9
[Kiddushin 4a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:9)

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ לְאָבִיהָ, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְאָבִיהָ. דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ לְאָבִיהָ, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא טָרְחָא בְּהוּ, אֲבָל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ דְּקָא טָרְחָא בְּהוּ אֵימָא דִּידַהּ הָווּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And it was necessary to write** a verse that teaches that **her betrothal,** i.e., the money or document of betrothal, belongs **to her father, and it was necessary to write** another verse that teaches that **her earnings** belong **to her father,** as one could not derive one *halakha* from the other. **As, if the Merciful One had written** only that **her betrothal** money belongs **to her father, I would say** that this is **because she did not toil for it** and therefore is not entitled to this sum. **But** with regard to **her earnings, for which she toiled, say** that **they are hers.** Therefore, it is necessary to state that her earnings also belong to her father.


###### Kiddushin 4a:10
[Kiddushin 4a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:10)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, דְּקָא מִתַּזְנָא מִינֵּיהּ, אֲבָל קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ דְּמֵעָלְמָא קָאָתֵי לַהּ אֵימָא דִּידַהּ הָווּ, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if** the verse **had taught us** only the *halakha* of **her earnings,** one would have said **that** they belong to her father because his daughter **is sustained by him** through his property. **But** with regard to **her betrothal,** i.e., the money or document of betrothal, **which comes to her from an external** source, I would **say** that **it is hers.** Therefore, it is **necessary** for the verse to teach both *halakhot*.


###### Kiddushin 4a:11
[Kiddushin 4a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:11)

גּוּפָא: ״וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם״ – אֵלּוּ יְמֵי בַּגְרוּת, ״אֵין כֶּסֶף״ – אֵלּוּ יְמֵי נַעֲרוּת. וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא נַעֲרוּת, וְלָא בָּעֵי בַּגְרוּת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to **the** matter **itself:** The *baraita* states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: **“Then shall she go out for nothing,” these are the days of adulthood; “without money,” these are the days of** her **youth.** The Gemara asks: **And let the Merciful One write** that she leaves her master when she reaches her **youth, and it would not be necessary** to state that she leaves upon reaching **adulthood.** If she has already left her master when she becomes a young woman, it is not necessary to state that she leaves him upon reaching adulthood.


###### Kiddushin 4a:12
[Kiddushin 4a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:12)

אָמַר רַבָּה: בָּא זֶה וְלִמֵּד עַל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba says: This** phrase **comes and teaches about that** phrase. In other words, since it is not explicitly stated that this particular verse is referring to her departure when she becomes a young woman, if there was only one superfluous phrase one would conclude that it is referring to adulthood, as the *halakha* that she leaves the master when she becomes an adult is a lesser novelty. Therefore, two extraneous verses are required.


###### Kiddushin 4a:13
[Kiddushin 4a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:13)

מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַתּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר. דְּתַנְיָא: ״תּוֹשָׁב״ – זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם, ״שָׂכִיר״ – זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba cites an analogous case. This is **just as it is** with regard to **a tenant and a hired worker. As it is taught** in a *baraita* concerning *teruma*: The verse states: “A tenant of a priest or a hired worker shall not eat of the consecrated” (Leviticus 22:10). **“A tenant”; this** is referring to a Hebrew slave **who has been acquired as a permanent acquisition,** i.e., one who said he wishes to stay with his master. This Hebrew slave has his ear pierced and he remains with his master until the Jubilee Year. **“A hired worker”; this** is referring to a Hebrew slave who has been **acquired for an acquisition of** six **years,** the standard period of servitude for a Hebrew slave.


###### Kiddushin 4a:14
[Kiddushin 4a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:14)

יֵאָמֵר ״תּוֹשָׁב״ וְלֹא יֵאָמֵר ״שָׂכִיר״, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: **Let** the verse **say “tenant” and let it not say “hired worker,” and I** would **say:** If one who is acquired **as a permanent acquisition does not partake** of his owner’s, i.e., the priest’s, *teruma*, as despite his status as a Hebrew slave he is not considered his owner’s property, is it **not all the more so** that **one who is acquired for an acquisition of** six **years** should not be permitted to partake of *teruma*?


###### Kiddushin 4a:15
[Kiddushin 4a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:15)

אִילּוּ כֵּן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: ״תּוֹשָׁב״ – זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים. אֲבָל קְנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם – אוֹכֵל. בָּא ״שָׂכִיר״ וְלִימֵּד עַל ״תּוֹשָׁב״, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם – אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* answers: **If so,** that the verse were stated in this manner, **I would say: “A tenant”; this is one who was acquired for an acquisition of** six **years,** as the term itself is ambiguous. **But one who was acquired as a permanent acquisition may partake** of *teruma*. Therefore, the term **“hired worker,”** which is certainly referring to one who is less permanent than a tenant, **comes and teaches about** the meaning of the term **“tenant,” that even if** a Hebrew slave **was acquired as a permanent acquisition he may not partake** of *teruma*. A similar line of reasoning applies in the above case of a young woman and an adult.


###### Kiddushin 4a:16
[Kiddushin 4a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם תְּרֵי גוּפֵי נִינְהוּ, דְּכִי נָמֵי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״תּוֹשָׁב נִרְצָע לֹא יֹאכַל״ וַהֲדַר כְּתַב אִידַּךְ, הֲוָה שָׂכִיר מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר, וּמִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר טָרַח וְכָתַב לַהּ קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rabba: **Are** these cases really **comparable? There,** the tenant and the hired worker **are two bodies.** This is significant, **as even if the Merciful One had written** explicitly that **a pierced tenant may not partake** of *teruma*, from which the *halakha* of a Hebrew slave for six years could have been inferred, **and then** the Merciful One **wrote the other** case of a Hebrew slave acquired temporarily, this would not present a serious difficulty. The reason is that, although the *halakha* of **a hired worker is a matter** that could **be derived by** means of **an *a fortiori*** inference, and therefore it does not have to be stated explicitly, there is a principle: Sometimes with regard to **a matter that can be derived through an *a fortiori*** inference, the **verse** nevertheless **takes the trouble and writes it** explicitly.


###### Kiddushin 4a:17
[Kiddushin 4a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:17)

אֶלָּא הָכָא, חַד גּוּפָא הִיא – כִּי נָפְקָא לַהּ בְּנַעֲרוּת, בַּגְרוּת מַאי בָּעֲיָא גַּבֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But here,** with regard to a woman, **she is one body,** i.e., it is the same Hebrew maidservant. **Once she has left upon** the arrival of her **youth, what** is she **doing in his** authority as **an adult?** It is entirely unnecessary for the verse to teach that she leaves her master upon becoming an adult, as she has already left him.


###### Kiddushin 4a:18
[Kiddushin 4a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:18)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְבֶגֶר דְּאַיְלוֹנִית,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye** rejects the previous suggestion that one verse teaches about the other, and **said:** The claim that the verse “Then shall she go out for nothing” is referring to adulthood **is necessary only for the adulthood of a sexually underdeveloped woman** who is incapable of bearing children **[*ailonit*].** An *ailonit* will never develop the physical signs of maturity, i.e., two pubic hairs. Consequently, she does not go through the halakhic stage of a young woman. Instead, she remains a minor until the age of twenty, at which point she immediately becomes an adult.


###### Kiddushin 4a:19
[Kiddushin 4a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:19)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: בְּנַעֲרוּת תִּיפּוֹק, בְּבַגְרוּת לָא תִּיפּוֹק, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, if the Torah did not teach that a Hebrew maidservant leaves her master upon becoming an adult, it might **enter your mind to say: She leaves** only **when** entering her **youth,** but **when** entering **adulthood** directly **she does not leave.** Since an *ailonit* is never classified as a young woman, she would never leave servitude. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that a Hebrew maidservant leaves her master even if she reaches adulthood directly.


###### Kiddushin 4a:20
[Kiddushin 4a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:20)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: וְלָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא? וּמָה סִימָנִין שֶׁאֵין מוֹצִיאִין מֵרְשׁוּת אָב – מוֹצִיאִין מֵרְשׁוּת אָדוֹן, בַּגְרוּת שֶׁמּוֹצִיאָה מֵרְשׁוּת אָב – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמּוֹצִיאָה מֵרְשׁוּת אָדוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: But is it not an *a fortiori*** inference? **And if the signs** indicating that a young woman has entered **puberty do not** fully **release** a young woman **from her father’s authority,** as he can still betroth her, nevertheless, **they do release** her **from the master’s authority; is it not logical that adulthood, which** completely **releases** her **from her father’s authority, should release** her **from** the **master’s authority?** If so, one can derive by this reasoning that an *ailonit* leaves her master in adulthood, which means the verse is unnecessary.


###### Kiddushin 4a:21
[Kiddushin 4a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/4a:21)

אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְעִיקַּר זְבִינָא דְאַיְלוֹנִית, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: דְּאַתְיָא סִימָנֵי נַעֲרוּת – הָוֵי זְבִינָא, דְּלָא אַתְיָא סִימָנֵי נַעֲרוּת – לָא הָוֵי זְבִינַהּ זְבִינָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi says:** This verse **is necessary only with regard to the basic** *halakha* of the **sale of an *ailonit*** as a Hebrew maidservant. As it might **enter your mind to say that** if a female **will show** the **signs of a young woman,** i.e., puberty, her sale **is** a valid **sale,** whereas in a case **where** she **will not show** the **signs of a young woman, her sale is not** a valid **sale.** The reason one might think this is the case is that if the maidservant turns out to be an *ailonit*, one cannot fulfill the requirements of the verse, as she will never become a young woman.