Why do both Rav and Shmuel agree to the Kal va'Chomer
"A girl who was sold goes free when she becomes a Na'arah, all the more so a Na'arah cannot be sold!" Why don't they both learn Dayo, all we should be able to conclude from the kal va'Chomer is that if the father sells his daughter as a slave when she is a Na'arah, she goes free immediately (and the would-be master loses his money). Shmuel seems to say this very svara in the case of one who sells his ancestral field during the Yovel year itself - it is sold and goes out.
A second question - why did the Gemara say that Rav does not learn the kal va'Chomer of Shmuel regarding Yovel, the Gemara should have said that Rav learns the kal va'Chomer but he holds Dayo -just like if a person sells a field before the Yovel, it goes out in Yovel, is is sufficient to conclude in a case of a person who sells his field during the Yovel that it is sold and goes out.
Aharon Grenadir, Brooklyn, NY USA
Dear Aharon
Thank you for your questions, sorry it took so long to get back to you.
I would explain it like this. You are looking into the end result, i.e. can the father sell her or not. However, we must take this one step further. If the daughter who was sold at a young age goes free when she becomes a na'a'rah, this shows us that the father has no ownership of his daughter from that age and on, thus the sale ends at the beginning of na'a'rus. If so he surely cannot sell her when she is already a na'a'rah.
This is unlike the case of Yovel where the owner still has some ownership, which expresses itself in the fact that he could sell the field in following years.
I hope this clarifies the issue.
Kol tuv,
Yehuda Landy