On 3b the Gemara asks aima Hani mili ketana,but a naara can be mekadesh herself and get the money. According to Tosfos, the question is if a naara accepts kidushin for herself, how do we know the money goes to the father.
If so, how does the Gemara answer this on top of 4a. Even after we know the diyuk of ain kasef, perhaps this is only true of a ketana,(or perhaps if the father accepts kidushin for a naara), like the Gemara asked previously. But how do we know even if a naara accepts kidushin for herself that the money goes to the father.
According to Rach in Tosfos on top of 4a it's good. But Tosfos reject this. So according the Tosfos how do we answer the gemara's question?
Yaron Barach, Brooklyn, USA
1) I assume that when you refer to the Gemara's answer on top of 4a, you mean what the Gemara states on the bottom line of 3b and top line of 4a: "Ela Mistabra d'Ki ka'Mema'et Yetzi'ah d'Kavata ka'Mema'et," which is an answer to the question of, "How do we know that when a Na'arah accepts Kidushin for herself, that the money goes to her father?"
2) Rashi (3b, DH Ela) explains the Gemara's answer, which is based on the Derashah, "There is no money for this master but there is money for another master," the other master meaning the father who will receive her money. This is how we know that the Na'arah does not keep the money.
We are now in a position to answer the question which the Gemara asked earlier, "v'Eima l'Didah?" -- "And let us say that she gets the money?" The Gemara decided earlier that this question must be referring to the Na'arah because a Ketanah cannot receive the Kidushin money anyway, so no verse is needed to tell us that she will not get the money. How, though, do we know that the Na'arah does not keep the money?
3) To this the Gemara answers, "Mistabra d'Ki ka'Mema'et Yetzi'ah d'Kavata ka'Mema'et." When the maidservant leaves the master, the master does not receive any money, but the Torah excludes the father from this situation and states that the father does receive the money when the Na'arah leaves through Kidushin.
4) Rabeinu Chananel, cited by Tosfos (4a, DH Yetzi'ah) is not discussing who gets the money when the Na'arah leaves. Rather, he is saying that the Na'arah leaves the father's control for certain matters on the day that she becomes 12 1/2 years old. In fact, Tosfos criticizes Rabeinu Chananel for learning like this, because Tosfos asserts that the Sugya is not discussing when the Na'arah leaves because of her age, but rather the Sugya is asking how do we know who keeps the Kidushin money.
5) To summarize. The Derashah, "There is no money for this master but there is money for another master," cannot be referring to a Ketanah because we do not need a special Derashah to tell us the obvious fact that the Ketanah does not keep the money. It must be referring to a Na'arah.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you for the response.
But I'm still unclear. Tosfos 3b d"h v'aima (2nd) says that we do require a pasuk to teach that a father gets the money when he marries off a ketana. L'chora which pasuk is Tosfos referring to. It can't be the pasuk of es biti nasati, because if we can learn from there that the money goes to the father, why didn't the Gemara bring this passuk initially when seeking the source for this din. Rather, this passuk just shows that the father has the authority to marry her off, but we don't yet know that he gets the money. So the Gemara quotes the source from ein kasef, from which weare medayek that the money goes to him. So when Tosfos says that we do need a pasuk to teach that he gets the money, it's referring to the pasuk of ain kasef, because es biti is not referring to money, as mentioned. If so, how do we answer in the maskana? You can still say that ain't kasef is referring to a ketana. Yetzia d'kavasa just tells me the money goes to the father, but doesn't prove that we're addressing the case of the question, when she's a naara. so how is the question answered?
It seems that when the Gemara (end of 3b, beginning of 4a) answers, "d'Ki ka'Mema'et Yetzi'ah d'Kavasah ka'Mema'et," it cannot be referring only to a Ketanah. This is because the exit from the master from whom we derive Kidushin is an exit that takes place when she becomes a Na'arah. One cannot say that from this exit of a Na'arah one learns only the Kidushin of a Ketanah and not the Kidushin of a Na'arah. To say such a thing would be considered an "Olam Hafuch" -- an "upside-down world." Therefore, it is logical to say that we learn the Kidushin of both a Ketanah and a Na'arah from this Yetzi'ah, and we are Medayek that in both cases the father keeps the money.
Yaron, thank you for your very well thought-out and thorough questions.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom