## Tosafot on Kiddushin Daf 3b

###### Tosafot on Kiddushin 3b:3:1
[Tosafot on Kiddushin 3b:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Kiddushin/r/3b:3:1)

ואין דבר אחר כורתה - וא"ת תהא אמה העבריה יוצאה בחליצה מק"ו דיבמה מהאי ק"ו גופה ואין לומר אשה תוכיח דמה לאשה שכן אינה יוצאה בכסף תאמר באמה וי"ל דה"א שפחה כנענית תוכיח דיוצאה בכסף ואין יוצאה בחליצה וא"ת היא גופא תיתי בהאי ק"ו דתיפוק בחליצה וי"ל דאיכא למיפרך מה ליבמה שיוצאת במיתת היבם ולכך יוצאת בחליצה תאמר בשפחה כנענית שכן אינה יוצאה במיתת אדון לכך אינה יוצאה בחליצה וא"ת א"כ היכי נימא שפחה כנענית תוכיח איכא למיפרך מה לשפחה כנענית שכן אינה יוצאה במיתת אדון תאמר באמה העבריה וי"ל דנעשה יוכיח מאשה ומשפחה כנענית דכי פרכת מה לשפחה כנענית שכן אינה יוצאה במיתת אדון אשה תוכיח שיוצאה במיתת הבעל ואינה יוצאה בחליצה מה לאשה שכן אינה יוצאה בכסף שפחה כנענית תוכיח:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"But nothing else divorces her". [Problem:] If you say: Let the Hebrew slave girl leave [her master] with halitzah from the ק״ו of yevamah, from this exact ק״ו; and don't say that a wife breaks the ק״ו for she cannot leave [her husband] with money, which you can say for the אמה. Solution: I would have thought that a Canaanite slave girl would break the ק״ו since she can leave with money and can't leave with halitzah. [Problem:] But if you say: This is exactly what is brought in this ק״ו that excludes halitzah! Solution: It would be possibly to object: The yevamah that leaves [her levirate bond] with the death of the levir, and thus can leave with halitah, you would say that for Canaanite slave girl, who can't leave with the death of [her] master, would leave with halitzah!? [Problem:] But if you say: If so, let us also say a Canaanite slave girl breaks the ק״ו—it would be possible to object: The Canaanite slave girl that can't leave with the death of [her] master, could you then [make a connection to] the Hebrew slave girl [who does leave with the death of her master]? Solution: We could make the break of the ק״ו from [the combination of both] the wife and the Canaanite slave girl, for if you objected: The Canaanite slave girl who doesn't leave with the death of her master, a wife would break the ק״ו since she leaves with the death of her husband but doesn't leave with halitzah; the wife who can't leave [her husband] with money, the Canaanite slave girl would break the ק״ו.


###### Tosafot on Kiddushin 3b:4:1
[Tosafot on Kiddushin 3b:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Kiddushin/r/3b:4:1)

האב זכאי בבתו וכו' - מפרש בירושלמי שיש לו זכות בביאה שנותנין לו שכר לקדש בביאה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"The father profits from his daughter..." It is explained in the Yerushalmi: He has the profit of sex because they give him money to betroth her with sex.


###### Tosafot on Kiddushin 3b:6:1
[Tosafot on Kiddushin 3b:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Kiddushin/r/3b:6:1)

ואימא לדידה - וא"ת הא ע"כ לא איצטריך קרא אלא לומר שהן לאב דהא דמקדשה בכסף גמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון וי"ל דמ"מ מיתורא לא נאמר שהן של אב אם אין משמעות דקרא דלקמן במסקנא אמרי' דהני תרי קראי צריכי:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"Or I could say: it should be hers!" [Problem:] But if you say: Didn't we until now need a verse only in order to say that [the kiddushin money] is the father's, since the fact that he can betroth her with money is learnt from קיחה קיחה (the ג״ש connecting the two instances of "take/purchase") in the field of Efron! [And note we already have the verse that proves this: "'There is no money' for this master, but there is money for another master"]. Solution: Nevertheless, it can't be said that [the kiddushin money] belongs to the father based [only] on an extraneous word (in this case: אין כסף) if that is not the meaning of the verse [so we also need the other verse, "My daughter I gave to this man"], just like we say later in the conclusion that both of these verses are required [to teach that the kiddushin money belongs to the father].


###### Tosafot on Kiddushin 3b:7:1
[Tosafot on Kiddushin 3b:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Kiddushin/r/3b:7:1)

ואימא ה"מ קטנה - אע"ג דקרא איירי בנערה דכתיב (דברים כ״ב:ט״ז) וסקלוה ועוד דמוציא שם רע על הקטנה פטור מ"מ י"ל דה"ק את בתי נתתי לאיש הזה כשהיתה קטנה ועתה היא גדולה וא"ת הא לקטנה לא איצטריך קרא דהשתא זבוני מזבין לה כסף קידושין מיבעיא דכה"ג אמרי' גבי מעשה ידיה בפרק נערה שנתפתתה (כתובות דף מז.) וי"ל דלא דמי דגבי מעשה ידיה ניחא כי כשמכרה מוכר מעשה ידיה שהרי למלאכתה נמכרת אבל קידושין לא שייכא במכר אע"פ שיכול ליעדה היינו בכסף שנמכרה אבל בקידושיה ממש לא מצינו שום זכות לאב וא"ת הא אמרינן בפרק נערה (שם) שמעשה הבת לאב מדזכי ליה רחמנא למימסרה לחופה אע"פ שמבטלה ממלאכתה ופירש התם בקונטרס דזכי ליה רחמנא מדכתיב את בתי נתתי לאיש דמשמע כל נתינות אפילו מסירה לחופה ומאי ראיה אימא ה"מ קטנה אבל נערה לא כדאמר הכא וי"ל דהאי קרא את בתי נתתי ע"כ איירי בנערה כדפרישית ונהי דלענין קידושין נוכל לפרש את בתי נתתי כשהיתה קטנה החופה א"א לפרש אלא בנערה דאי בקטנות א"כ היתה נשואה כשזינתה ודינה בחנק ולא בסקילה דעל זנות של קטנות לא מיחייבה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"Or I could say: These words [apply] to a minor (קטנה)". [Problem:] Even though the verse is dealing with a na'arah! Another problem: It is written, "And they will stone her" (Devarim 22:16), but one who spreads evil rumours about a minor is exempt! [Therefore it can't be that these verses are about a minor]. Solution: Nevertheless, this is what it meant: "My daughter I gave to this man" when she was a minor, and now she is an adult [i.e. the case is when she was a na'arah, even though the father is talking about when his daughter was a minor]. [New problem:] But if you say: For a minor I didn't need a verse, for "now he can sell her, it is necessary [to find a verse for] kiddushin money!?" (Ketubot 47a) in a case just like this that we say regarding her handiwork in the chapter Na'arah She-Nitpat'tah (Ketubot 47a)! Solution: [These situations] are not similar, for regarding her handiwork it makes sense—when he sold her, he sold her handiwork, since behold she was sold for her work—but kiddushin is not connected to sale (even though he can designate her [and sell her as the wife of a freeman], this is with the money with which she is sold, but the kiddushin itself we find no [automatic] right for the father). [New problem:] But don't we say in the chapter Na'arah that "the daughter's handiwork belongs to the father *because* God gives him the right to hand her over in marriage even if it [results in] ceasing her work!? And Rashi explains there: "God gives him the right because of what is written 'My daughter I gave to [this] man'—this means all 'givings', including handing her over to marriage. But what evidence is that [i.e. how can Rashi use the verse in that way]!? I could say: These words [apply to] a minor but not a na'arah, just as we say here! [Rashi interprets the verse differently in Ketubot than here—there he assumes it applies to a na'arah, here the sugya claims that maybe it does not]. Solution: This verse "My daughter I gave" must be dealing with a na'arah as I explained. And, though for the matter of kiddushin we are able to explain [it as] "My daughter I gave" when she was a minor, for the matter of marriage it is impossible to explain it except about a na'arah. For if [she were married] while she was a minor, then she would have been married when she whorred and her punishment would be strangling rather than stoning, for she is not held responsible for the whorring while she was a minor [so she would be punished for adultery instead].


###### Tosafot on Kiddushin 3b:11:1
[Tosafot on Kiddushin 3b:11:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Kiddushin/r/3b:11:1)

וכי תימא נילף מבושת ופגם - תימה היכי בעי למימר נילף קידושין מבושת ופגם הא בושת ופגם גופה לא ידעינן שהן לאב אלא מקידושין דאמר בסוף אלו נערות (כתובות דף מ:) דאי בעי מסר לה למנוול ומוכה שחין וכ"ת דנ"מ מיהא דאי בעי מסר לה כשהיתה קטנה והיה עומד לה בושת זה אף בנערות א"כ גם כשהיא בוגרת יהא בושת ופגם של אב מהאי טעמא וי"ל דלא דמי בוגרת לנערות דנהי דלא ילפינן מהפרת נדרים כולה מלתא לענין הא ילפינן שלא ימשוך כח האב אלא ימי נערות כי ההיא דלקמן ומה סימנין שאין מוציאין מרשות אב מוציאין מרשות אדון בגרות שמוציאה כו' ומנא לן הא דבגרות מוציא מרשות אב לקידושין ולכל דבר אי לאו דילפינן מהפרת נדרים מיהו לא נהירא כיון דבטעמא תליא מלתא דאי בעי מסר לה בקטנות כך שייך דבר זה לבגרות כמו לנערה לכן נ"ל לעיל ואימא ה"מ קטנה כלומר קטנה שייך לעשות אותו ק"ו דהשתא אביה מקבל קדושיה איהי תשקול כספא כיון שאין לה כלל יד לקדש עצמה אבל נערה דאית לה יד איהי תקדיש נפשה ותשקול כספא פירוש כיון דיש לה יד לקדש עצמה יהיו הקידושין שלה אבל אמת הוא שגם כשהיא נערה אביה יכול לקדשה וכשאביה מקדשה אז יהיו הקידושין שלו והשתא ניחא קושיא דלעיל דקרא איירי כשקדשה אביה והתם יליף בושת ופגם מקידושין שע"י אביה שהם של אביה והכא ה"ק וכי תימא נילף מבושת ופגם קידושין שע"י עצמה שיהא של אביה מבושת ופגם כי ודאי מקדושי אביה ליכא למילפינהו שאלו על ידה לגמרי הם אבל מתחילה הוה יליף בושת ופגם שאינו על ידה מקדושי אביה ובתר הכי איכא למילף מה שהוא על ידה ממה שאינו על יד אביה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"But if you say: Let us derive it from shame and injury/blemish (פגם)". It is surprising: How could [the Talmud] want to say "Let us derive [that] kiddushin [money belongs to the father] from shame and injury", for we only know that shame and injury themselves belong to the father from kiddushin, as [the Talmud] says at the end of Elu Na'arot (Ketubot 40b): "For if he wants, he can hand her over [by betrothing her] to an ugly man or one afflicted with boils" [and this would cause her shame and injury]!? [Additional problem:] And this might lead you to say that there is a practical legal outcome from this [derivation of kiddushin from shame and injury], for if he wanted he could have handed her over when she was a minor and this shame would last even until she was a na'arah, and if so, even when she is a bogeret her shame and injury would belong to the father from this reasoning [which we know not to be the case, it belongs to her from when she is a bogeret]! Possible solution: Being a bogeret is not similar to being a na'arah because, granted that we don't derive everything [regarding the father's rights] from [the father's right to] the release of [her daughter's] vows, this we do in fact derive: that the power of the father only lasts into her being a na'arah, just as later: "Signs of puberty that don't take her out of the authority of her father but do take her out of the authority of her master, being a bogeret [does take her out of the authority of her father]"—and how would we know that being a bogeret takes her out of the authority of her father regarding kiddushin and everything else if not for [the law regarding] release of vows? [Tentative rejection:] But it is not clear because, since it depends on this reasoning that "If he wants he can hand her over" while she is a minor, this matter [the continuing shame] would be relevant while she is a bogeret just as while she is a na'arah [so it is not obvious there is any distinction as argued previously based on release of vows]. Therefore it seems to me [that we should explain the sugya] above [as so]: "I could say: These words [apply to a] minor", i.e. a minor is relevant for the ק״ו; "for now her father receives her kiddushin, she could take the money!?"—since she has no ability [as a minor] to betroth herself; "But a na'arah, who has the ability, let her betroth herself and take the money!"—since she has the ability to betroth herself, let the kiddushin be hers. But the truth is that also when she is a na'arah her father is able to betroth her, and when her father betroths her, then her kiddushin belongs to him. And now the problem above is resolved since the verse ("My daughter I gave") is dealing with when her father betrothed her, and there [in Ketubot] we derive shame and injury from kiddushin done by her father that these belong to the father; and here, this is what it meant: "But if you say: Let us derive it from shame and injury"—kiddushin done by her should [still] belong to the father because of shame and injury [which would belong to him (when she is not an adult)]. For it is certain that for her father's betrothal it would not be possible to object from a case where she did it herself totally. So initially [the Talmud] had to derive shame and injury that she did not cause from her father's betrothal, and after that it was possible to derive what she did herself from what was not caused by what her father did.