The Gemara continues its analysis, six lines down, by reviewing a previous discussion. We had learned from a verse in Scripture that when a Hebrew maidservant, an Amah Ivriya, is freed, her master, the Adon, does not receive compensation. The Gemara then asked: if the Adon receives no compensation, who does? The answer was the father, who receives the money when he marries off his daughter. This established that money, Kesef, is indeed a valid means for betrothal, Kiddushin.
However, the Gemara immediately challenged this, stating that this verse is needed for a different teaching. As learned in a Braita, the verse "and she shall go out for nothing" (V'yatz'a Hinam) teaches that when a girl reaches the stage of Bagrut (maturity, defined as 12 years and 6 months, assuming she has physical signs of maturity), she goes out free. The term Kesef in the verse, when interpreted as "no money," teaches that when she is a Na'ara (a young woman, between 12 and 12 and a half years old), she also goes out free. The Gemara acknowledges a potential question here: if she goes out as a Na'ara, why is a verse needed to state she goes out as a Bogeret? Nonetheless, the point is that the verse is used to teach these specific rules of freedom for the Amah Ivriya and cannot be used to derive the law of Kiddushin through Kesef.
The Gemara then offers a new interpretation of the word "for nothing" (Ein Kesef). It proposes reading it as "An Kesef," spelled with an extra letter yud (א-י-ן) instead of the simpler spelling (א-ן). This extra yud is considered superfluous if the Torah merely intended to convey "no." Therefore, this additional yud can be expounded upon. The Gemara notes that sometimes the word "An" (אין) in the Torah signifies refusal or rejection, as seen in the case of Yibum (levirate marriage) where the sister-in-law states her refusal. This extra yud, therefore, teaches two things: first, that the Adon receives no compensation, and second, that there is another Adon who does receive money, namely the father.
But how do we know that this extra yud can be expounded upon in this way? The Gemara brings a Braita that discusses a Bat Kohen (daughter of a priest) married to an Yisrael (non-priest). Once married, she can no longer eat Terumah (priestly tithe). If her husband dies or she divorces, she returns to her father's house. Whether she can then eat Terumah depends on if she has children. The Torah states that if she has no children, she returns to her father's house and eats Terumah. The Gemara expounds on the extra yud in the word "no" (אין) in this context. It teaches that one must "investigate" (חקר) to see if she has any living descendants, not just children but also grandchildren. Even if these grandchildren are illegitimate (Zera Pasul), their existence prevents her from eating Terumah.
The Gemara challenges this, asking how the extra yud can teach about illegitimate offspring when it was already used to teach about grandchildren. The response is that a verse is not needed to teach that grandchildren are like children in this regard, as this is a known rule. Therefore, the verse's extra yud must be teaching about Zera Pasul. The Gemara clarifies that this refers to a case where the legitimate child of the Bat Kohen had an illegitimate child (a Mamzer), as the Bat Kohen herself, if she had an illegitimate child, would be disqualified from eating Terumah anyway (as a Zonah, a harlot). Thus, the extra yud teaches that even an illegitimate grandchild disqualifies her. This demonstrates that the extra yud can indeed be expounded upon.
The Gemara then asks how the Tanna (sage) of this Braita knew to expound upon the yud. It answers that the Torah sometimes uses the word "An" (אין) without a yud, such as when Balak's messengers reject Bilaam's refusal. This proves that a yud, when present, is indeed extra and can be expounded upon.
Now, returning to the original question: how do we know that Kiddushin is made with Kesef, and that the father receives this Kesef? From the extra yud in the word "An" (אין) in the verse "and she shall go out for nothing" (V'yatz'a Hinam). This yud indicates that while the current Adon receives no money, another Adon (the father) does. This is the first proof.
The Gemara then refers to a previous discussion about a different verse: "and when a man sells his daughter to his mother." This verse was expounded to create a connection between the daughter and her mother. Just as the maidservant's earnings (Ma'asehadeha) go to her master, so too the young woman's earnings go to her father. The Gemara then asks: why not say that Kiddushin also goes to the father, since it is a form of "earnings"? The reply is that Kiddushin is not "work" that she toiled for. It's a "windfall." Her actual labor (Ma'asehadeha) goes to the father as compensation for his support, but Kiddushin is "free money" and might not be included. Therefore, a separate verse is needed to teach that the Kesef Kiddushin also goes to the father. The father's understanding (Da'at) is to receive her regular earnings, but not necessarily unexpected windfalls like Kesef Kiddushin. Thus, the verse about the extra yud is essential to teach that the Kesef Kiddushin goes to the father.
The Gemara then revisits the original challenge regarding the Amah Ivriya. The verse "V'yatz'a Hinam" teaches that she goes out free at Bagrut and at Na'arut. A Bogeret is 12 and a half years old, and a Na'ara is between 12 and 12 and a half. The question is: if she goes out as a Na'ara, why state she goes out as a Bogeret, and vice-versa? The Gemara explains that "Ba Zeh V'limed Al Zeh" (one teaches about the other). Since the verse doesn't explicitly state an age, if only one term (e.g., "she goes out") were used, one might assume it refers only to the older stage (Bagrut). Therefore, both terms are needed to teach that she goes out free at both Bagrut and Na'arut.
This concept of "Ba Zeh V'limed Al Zeh" is supported by another case: the eating of Terumah by a Hebrew servant (Eved Ivri). The Torah states that a "sojourner" (Toshav) and a "hired hand" (Sakhir) may not eat Terumah. A Toshav refers to an Eved Nirtza, a servant who has chosen to serve forever (his ear is pierced). A Sakhir is a temporary servant, serving for a set number of years. The Gemara asks why both are mentioned. If a permanent servant (Eved Nirtza) doesn't eat, surely a temporary one (Sakhir) wouldn't either. The answer is that if only Toshav were mentioned, one might think only a permanent servant doesn't eat, but a temporary one (who is less connected to the master) might. Conversely, if only Sakhir were mentioned, one might think only a temporary servant doesn't eat, but a permanent one (who is like part of the household) might. Therefore, both terms are used to teach that neither a permanent nor a temporary Eved Ivri eats Terumah. This illustrates the principle of "Ba Zeh V'limed Al Zeh" where two seemingly redundant terms are used to include both cases.
Abaye challenges this analogy. He argues that the cases of Bogeret and Na'ara are not comparable to Toshav and Sakhir. In the latter, we are dealing with two distinct individuals (an Eved Nirtza and an Eved Shanim). Even if one could be deduced from the other by a Kavahomer (a fortiori argument), the Torah sometimes explicitly states things that could be derived by Kavahomer. However, in the case of Bogeret and Na'ara, it is the same girl. Every Bogeret was once a Na'ara. If she is freed as a Na'ara, there is no separate case of her being freed as a Bogeret because she is already free. A Bogeret cannot exist as a separate category for freedom if she was already freed earlier.
The Gemara then provides a scenario where a Bogeret is a distinct case: an Ailonit. An Ailonit is a girl who does not develop physical signs of maturity. She remains in a state of "childhood" (Katnut) until age 20, at which point she is definitively classified as an Ailonit and has the legal status of a male. Such a girl never experienced the stage of Na'arut with its associated signs. One might think that an Amah Ivriya who is an Ailonit would never go out free because she never exhibited the signs of Na'arut. Therefore, the verse teaching about Bagrut is necessary to include the case of an Ailonit who, even without signs of Na'arut, goes out free at age 20 (her "Bagrut"). This provides a distinct case for Bagrut that is not subsumed by Na'arut.
Mor Bar Rav Asher challenges this, arguing that the freedom of an Ailonit at age 20 could be derived by a Kavahomer. If a Na'ara (who is still under her father's jurisdiction regarding her earnings, but is freed from her master) is freed, then surely a Bogeret (who is entirely out of her father's jurisdiction) should be freed from her master. This Kavahomer would apply to an Ailonit as well, who, upon reaching 20, is considered a Bogeret and out of her father's jurisdiction. Thus, a verse is still not needed.
The Gemara rejects this Kavahomer. It argues that the verse is needed to teach that an Ailonit can even be sold as an Amah Ivriya in the first place when she is a Ketanah (minor). One might have thought that the sale of a girl who will never develop the signs of Na'arut is invalid from the outset. The verse "V'yatz'a Hinam" thus teaches that even an Ailonit, who will never bring signs of Na'arut, can be validly sold as an Amah Ivriya. The sale is valid, though the money must be returned when she goes free. This is a unique teaching that cannot be derived by Kavahomer.
Mor Bar Rav Asher's initial question, "Is it not a Kavahomer?" is then dismissed as a weak argument. While sometimes the Torah states things that could be derived by Kavahomer, we prefer to find a unique teaching (a Hiddush) for the verse. The case of the Ailonit's initial sale provides such a Hiddush.
The Gemara then moves to a second proof for Kiddushin with Kesef, based on the verse "When a man takes a wife" (Ki Yikach Ish Isha). The term "takes" (Ki Yikach) implies acquisition through money, similar to how Avraham acquired the field from Efron, where the verse states, "I have given the money for the field; take it from me." This shows that "taking" can mean acquiring with money. The Gemara concludes that this "taking" of a wife refers to acquisition through Kesef.
The Gemara then challenges this, asking why a verse is needed when it could be derived by Kavahomer from an Amah Ivriya. If an Amah Ivriya, who cannot be acquired through marital relations (Bi'ah), can be acquired through Kesef, then surely a woman for Kiddushin, who can be acquired through Bi'ah, can be acquired through Kesef. The Gemara initially rejects this Kavahomer by bringing the case of a Yevamah (a sister-in-law awaiting levirate marriage). A Yevamah can be acquired through Bi'ah, but not through Kesef. This shows that acquisition through Bi'ah does not automatically imply acquisition through Kesef. However, the Gemara immediately refutes this counter-argument, noting that a Yevamah also cannot be acquired through a document (Shtar), whereas a woman for Kiddushin can. Since a woman for Kiddushin can be acquired through a Shtar, it stands to reason that she can also be acquired through Kesef. Thus, the Kavahomer from Amah Ivriya seems to hold, and a verse would not be needed.
The Gemara then uproots the entire Kavahomer from its starting point. The comparison to an Amah Ivriya is flawed because an Amah Ivriya can be redeemed (go out) with Kesef. Therefore, it makes sense that she can also be acquired (go in) with Kesef. However, a woman for Kiddushin cannot be released with Kesef; she requires a bill of divorce (Get). Since she cannot go out with Kesef, we cannot derive that she can go in with Kesef. Therefore, the verse "Ki Yikach Ish" is indeed necessary to teach that Kiddushin is effected through Kesef.
The Gemara then asks why both "V'yatz'a Hinam" (with its extra yud) and "Ki Yikach Ish" are needed. The answer is that "V'yatz'a Hinam" teaches that the Kesef Kiddushin goes to the father, while "Ki Yikach Ish" teaches that Kiddushin is effected through Kesef. One might have thought that even if Kesef effects Kiddushin, the money might go to the woman herself, not the father. Thus, both verses are needed. "Ki Yikach Ish" establishes the mechanism of Kinyan Kesef (acquisition through money), and "V'yatz'a Hinam" establishes the recipient of that money.
The verse "Ki Yikach Ish Isha U'va'alah" (When a man takes a wife and has relations with her) also teaches about acquisition through marital relations (Kinyan Bi'ah). One might argue that the Bi'ah mentioned here is merely the relations after Kiddushin, not the act of Kinyan itself. However, the verse teaches that Bi'ah is also a means of Kinyan. Why is a verse needed for Kinyan Bi'ah? Could it not be derived by Kavahomer from an Amah Ivriya? An Amah Ivriya cannot be acquired through Bi'ah, but a woman for Kiddushin can be acquired through Kesef. Surely, if Kesef works, Bi'ah should work too? The Gemara rejects this, stating that an Amah Ivriya is a case of "slavery" (Avdut), not "marriage" (Ishut), and thus not analogous.
The Gemara then returns to the Kavahomer from Yevamah. A Yevamah is acquired through Bi'ah, but not through Kesef. Why does Bi'ah work for a Yevamah? Because there is an existing "bond" (Zikah) between her and the deceased brother, which is completed by Bi'ah. This Zikah is not a magical connection but stems from the Kiddushin of the first husband, implying a potential connection to the brother. Therefore, Bi'ah serves to complete an existing relationship. In contrast, for a regular woman, there is no prior connection; the Kinyan is from scratch. Hence, a verse is needed to teach that Bi'ah creates Kiddushin from the beginning, as it cannot be derived by Kavahomer from a Yevamah.