QUESTIONS: Rebbi Yosi bar Chanina says that a man who is Motzi Shem Ra about a girl who is a Yesomah (whose father died) is exempt from paying the Kenas because the verse says, "And he shall give it to the father of the girl" (Devarim 22:19). This verse teaches that only when the girl has a father is the man obligated to pay the Kenas. The Gemara challenges this assertion from a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili says that the verse, "Im Ma'en Yema'en..." -- "If her father refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out silver..." (Shemos 22:16), teaches that a Yesomah does receive a Kenas (in the case of a Mefutah).

RASHI explains that the repetitive phrase "Ma'en Yema'en" teaches that either the girl's father may refuse the marriage to the Mefateh, or that the girl herself may refuse the marriage if her father is not alive. If she refuses the marriage, the Mefateh must pay a Kenas to her. Although the verse of the Kenas of an Anusah states that the Kenas is paid to the father of the girl ("la'Avi ha'Na'arah"; Devarim 22:29), and the Kenas of a Mefutah is derived through a Gezeirah Shavah from the Kenas of an Anusah, nevertheless the Kenas is paid even when there is no father. Likewise, in the case of Motzi Shem Ra, when there is no father the Kenas is paid to the girl.

Rashi then asks that perhaps there is a difference between the Kenas of a Mefutah and the Kenas of Motzi Shem Ra. In the case of a Mefutah, a special verse ("Ma'en Yema'en") teaches that the Kenas is paid to the Yesomah. In the case of Motzi Shem Ra, however, there is no extra wording in any verse to teach that the Kenas is paid to the girl. Rashi answers that in the case of a Mefutah, there is also no extra wording in the verse. The verse of "Ma'en Yema'en" is not extra and is not teaching that the girl receives the Kenas. Rather, the Tana simply understands that the words "la'Avi ha'Na'arah" ("the father of the girl") teaches only that when the father is alive, he receives the Kenas, and it does not teach that a Kenas is given only when the father is alive.

Rashi's words are difficult to understand for several reasons.

If the Tana's intention is merely to teach that a Yesomah also receives a Kenas, why does he need to cite the verse of "Ma'en Yema'en" and say that the verse teaches that a Yesomah also receives a Kenas? If, as Rashi says, the verse does not teach that a Yesomah receives a Kenas (but rather, the verse merely does not indicate that she does not receive it), then the Tana should say simply that a Yesomah receives the Kenas without quoting the verse! (RABEINU KRESKAS)

Moreover, if Rashi understands that the words "Ma'en Yema'en" do not teach that a Yesomah receives a Kenas, then why does Rashi say in the beginning of his comments that the word "Ma'en" refers to the father and "Yema'en" refers to the daughter when there is no father? According to Rashi's conclusion, this is not what the verse means at all; the verse is not teaching that a Yesomah is paid a Kenas. Why, then, does Rashi begin his explanation by saying that the verse does refer to a Yesomah?

Finally, how can Rashi suggest that the words "Ma'en Yema'en" do not teach that a Yesomah receives a Kenas? The Gemara earlier (39b, as Rashi cites here at the beginning of his comments) uses this verse to teach that either the father or the girl herself may veto the marriage to the Mefateh. If her father is alive, how can the girl veto the marriage? When she is a Ketanah or Na'arah, the father may marry her off against her will, and thus if the father wants her to marry the Mefateh she should have no veto power! The only time she may veto the marriage is after her father has died. Hence, the verse must be teaching that after the father dies she still receives the Kenas!

(a) RABEINU KRESKAS explains that the verse of "Im Ma'en Yema'en" which teaches that the girl herself may refuse the marriage indeed might refer to a girl whose father is alive. The verse is teaching that if the girl refuses to marry, the Mefateh must pay the Kenas even though the father could then force her to marry him in any case. The Mefateh would have to pay the Kenas (since the girl refused to marry him) even though he marries the girl (if her father did not refuse the marriage and agrees to let him marry her). TOSFOS (39b, DH Ein Li) offers a similar explanation.

In what way does the verse include any reference to a Yesomah? Rabeinu Kreskas explains that had the verse not taught that the girl also may refuse the marriage, a Yesomah would have been excluded (from receiving the Kenas) for an entirely different reason even if the words "la'Avi ha'Na'arah" do not exclude a Yesomah. She would have been excluded because had her father been alive, perhaps he would have agreed to the marriage and the Mefateh would not have to pay the Kenas. The fact that she refused the marriage would make no difference, since one would think that it is entirely dependent on the father's agreement to the marriage. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili says that now that the verse teaches that she may also refuse the marriage (and claim the Kenas of Mefutah on those grounds), this reason to exempt the Mefateh of a Yesomah from paying the Kenas does not apply. Consequently, the Yesomah receives a Kenas (assuming she was a Ketanah who cannot be Mochel).

This answers all of the questions on Rashi. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili indeed learns that a Yesomah is entitled to a Kenas from the verse, "Ma'en Yema'en," and he does learn from the extra word that the girl herself may refuse the marriage and obligate the Mefateh to pay a Kenas, but he does not learn from that word specifically that there is a Kenas after the father dies. Perhaps she could refuse to marry the Mefateh, and thereby obligate him to pay the Kenas, only when her father is alive. The fact that she may refuse when her father is not alive is assumed on logical grounds, since the words "la'Avi ha'Na'arah" do not exclude a Yesomah.

(b) Perhaps another, simple answer may be suggested to explain Rashi's intention here. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili certainly learns from "Ma'en Yema'en" that the daughter may refuse the marriage if she is no longer in her father's Reshus. However, this does not necessarily mean that when she is a Yesomah at the time of the seduction that she receives the Kenas; it might mean that she receives the Kenas only when she is a Na'arah at the time of the seduction, and afterwards either her father died or she became a Bogeres (as TOSFOS explains (39b, DH Ein Li) in his second answer, citing Rashi's words here for support). When Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili says that a Yesomah at the time of the seduction receives the Kenas, he does not derive this from the verse of "Ma'en Yema'en," and thus his ruling must be based on logical grounds (i.e. that the words "la'Avi ha'Na'arah" do not exclude a Yesomah).

This answers all of the questions. The verse indeed uses extra wording to teach that a Yesomah may refuse the marriage, but it does not teach specifically that a Yesomah at the time of the seduction receives the Kenas. That detail is derived through logic, and it applies to Motzi Shem Ra as well.

The Gemara rejects the proof and says that when Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili mentions a "Yesomah," he indeed refers to a girl whose father was alive at the time of the seduction but who died afterward.