The Gemara over here brings a passuk of b'Ne'ure'ha Beis Aviha which we DARSHUN from it that Kol Shevach Ne'urim l'Aviha (the Rishonim say that the drasha is that it already says b'Ne'ure'ha Beis Aviha in the first part of the passuk so the fact that it says it again at the end of the passuk it must be that it is telling us something new which is Kol Shevach Ne'urim l'Aviha.)
then the Gemara carries on and says that according to rav huna why does he not learn his din from this passuk so the Gemara says that he uses this passuk to tell us that a father can annul the neder of his daughter (and Rashi says on this that it's coming l'Gufeih meaning that it's not a drasha)
so then the Gemara asks that we aswell need this passuk to tell us that a father can annul the neder of his daughter so if so how do we know that kidushei kesef goes to the father. And then the Gemara goes and gives its answer.
Now my question is that the fact that a father can annul the neder of his daughter is not a drasha as Rashi says that it's coming l'Gufeih rather it's poshut pshat in the passuk, so if it's only the pshat in the passuk then why can't u still use the drasha part (the fact that it says b'Ne'ure'ha Beis Aviha again at the end of the passuk) to tell us that a father gets the money for the kiddushin?
Many thanks
Benzi
The Torah does not write "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" earlier in the Pasuk. It does mention the word "bi'Ne'urehah" in Pasuk 4, and what the Rishonim probably mean is that since the Torah repeats "bi'Ne'urehah" here, it must be coming to teach us something new.
In answer to the question why Rav Huna needs the Hekesh from Amah to Na'arah -- why does he not learn it directly from "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" -- the Gemara explains that the Pasuk is referring to Hafaras Nedarim and comes to teach us that a Na'arah is under her father's jurisdiction to annul her Nedarim, and that we cannot extend this to teach us that he also acquires his daughter with regard to her Kesef Kidushin, because we cannot learn Mamon from Isur.
I trust that this solves your problem.
Wishing you a Chag Kasher v'Same'ach and good health,
B'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler
But don't the rishonim speak out that it is a superfluous verse and that's why we DARSHUN Kol Shevach Ne'urim l'Aviha?
The only Rishon I could find is Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi, who is brought in the Sifsei Chachamim that I cited above. He says (based on the Sifri that Rashi to Bamidbar 30:4 cites) that the superfluous verse teaches that even if she is not actually in the father's house but only in the father's Reshus, he still can annul her vows.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom