"A similar going out it comes to exclude". Rabbenu Hananel explained: "The going out of a Hebrew slave girl from her master that is at the time of being a na'arah, so too here [she is] a na'arah." [In other words: the similarity is the timing.] Problem: The sugya does not mean at all that it needs to learn that it is dealing with the day she is a na'arah but rather about the question "From where do we know that the money belongs to the father?"! Solution: "A similar going out"—i.e. under the authority of her master, if there was money there, then he could have given it to the master in order that she go out from him; so too here where there is money in her going out of the authority of the father, since it is her father, and this is also the meaning of the question. [In other words: the similarity is the existence of money.]

"From where do we know [that the verse includes] an unfit seed (i.e. child)?" Rabbenu Yitzhak said: [The midrash] was talking about an unfit grandchild (lit. seed of a seed), for since she had sex to make her unfit, she was made unfit [to marry a man] from the priesthood and she can no longer eat terumah. Therefore it is not possible to explain literally "an unfit child" but "an unfit grandchild".

"'She goes out free'—these are the days of being a bogeret; 'There is no money'—these are the days of being a na'arah". [Problem:] But if you say: If should have mentioned "these are the days of being a na'arah" first and afterwards "days of being a bogeret", solution: it is because "There is no money" is required to be assigned to the days of being a na'arah as we say earlier, "But there is money for a different master", this applies while she is a na'arah since the father has no rights to her bogeret daughter's kiddushin.

"This comes and teaches about that". Explanation: If only one of them were written, they would have assigned it to whatever seemed better, which would have been bogrut. [Problem:] But if you say: Why would I need "She goes out free" to teach on "There is no money"—I would have been forced not to assign "There is no money" to be about bogrut but rather na'arut, for it is from this that we explain above "But there is money for another master, and who is it? the father"; if so, this verse must be about na'arut, for if it were about bogrut, the father has no rights to her kiddushin, since when she is a bogeret her father has no authority over her!? [Solution:] Says Rabbenu Moshe: If there was no verse "She will go out free", we would have assigned [the 2 extraneous features of the verse] (i) "There is no money" and (ii) the extra י that Ravina talked about, one of them to na'arut, the other to bogrut, but the derashah of "There is no money for this master" we never would have come up with—this is why "She will go out free" is necessary.

"Being a bogeret that takes her out of the authority of the father..." [Problem:] But if you say: The death of the father breaks the ק״ו since it takes her out of the authority of her father but does not take her out of the authority of her master, solution: It would be possible to object: The death of the father that has involves no bodily change, you would say the same about bogrut that involves bodily change!?

"If the signs of na'arut have not arrived, then the sale would be invalid". [Problem:] But if you say: While she is a minor, how would we know that she would not produce the signs of na'arut since the signs of being an aylonit are if she is 20 years old and hasn't produced 2 hairs, as is in chapter Ha-Arel (Yevamot 80b)!? [Additional layer to the problem:] And even though there are signs of being an aylonit that are possible to recognise while she is a minor, such as a thick voice and her lower abdomen is not like those of women, we say regarding a eunuch: "Until he should have all of [the signs he is not considered a eunuch", and we would assume that this is the case also for an aylonit! Solution: This is what it meant to say: "The sale is invalid" and the master needs to return her handiwork and the father should return the money [so you can wait until all the signs of an aylonit are there and then retroactively undo the sale]. This all would be the case also if she were designated [and sold as a wife to a freeman, and not just sold for her handiwork, the sale would be disqualified].