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
I want to attempt the following answer. Rashi in Chumash, on the first verse, "b'Veis Aviha b'Ne'ureha" (30:4), writes (in the name of the Sifri) that even if she is not actually in her father's house, but she is still in his Reshus, the father may annul the Nedarim. The Sifsei Chachamim there, in the name of the Mizrachi, writes that the Sifri learns this from the fact that there is another verse at the end of the Parshah that says, "bi'Ne'ureha Beis Aviha" (30:17), so why do we need both the verse in 30:4 and also in 30:17? The Sifri learns from the fact that we have a seemingly superfluous verse that the power of the father to annul the vows applies not only if she is still in his house, but even if she is not physically in his house but merely in his Reshus.
At any rate, we learn from the Sifri cited by Rashi that there is no superfluous verse here, so we are not able to learn from here that the father gets the Kidushin money.
Yasker Ko'ach,
Dovid Bloom