Explanation: This is not a proper Gezeirah Shavah, since below we ask about one who hired witnesses with land, or for less than Shavah Perutah, even though Ribis does not apply to land; (If it were a proper Gezeirah Shavah, obviously Motzi Shem Ra would apply only if they were paid with something for which one transgresses Ribis.)

Ribis applies only to [payment] like money and food [which the verse mentions].

Ribis does not apply to less than Shavah Perutah, since it says in Bava Metzi'a (61a) "why did the Torah write Lavim regarding theft, Ribis and Ona'ah (overcharging)?"

If Ribis applied to less than Shavah Perutah, we would need the Lav of Ribis for less than Shavah Perutah!

Also, we would be unable to [even try] to learn the others from it, for it applies to less than Shavah Perutah.

Implied question: It says in Erchin (31a) regarding Bayis Ir Chomah (the seller may return the money within a year and take back the house) that it is Ribis, but the Torah permitted it! (It is as if the buyer lived in the house for free in exchange for lending the money he paid, until it was returned. This shows that Ribis applies to land!)

Answer: There is it is considered Ribis because he dwells in the house in place of payment for leaving his money with the seller.

Distinction: However, if one borrows a field, and if it is flooded he will return one and a half fields, or [he borrowed] 10 [trees or] vines laden with unripe figs or grapes on condition to return 11, in which case all agree that it is like land regarding Shevu'ah and every matter...

Perhaps such a case is not considered Ribis of land.

Question: You are forced to say that there are witnesses who say that she was Mezanah. We would not kill her because he did not find Dam Besulim!

If so, what benefit is there to spreading the sheet (on which the Chasan and Kalah had Bi'ah)? Certainly [Dam Besulim on the sheet] does not contradict the witnesses. We can say that the adulterer did Hatiyah (did Bi'ah without breaking the Besulim)!

Answer: [R. Eliezer ben Yakov] holds that [Motzi Shem Ra] is liable only if he was brazen to falsify what is known;

He brazenly showed the sheet to Beis Din, which [according to his claim] has no Dam Besulim, and was found to be a liar, for it is full of blood.

Explanation: He does not expound the word "Simlah" [to be like Sam Lah], for the Beraisa that we bring explains "Simlah" like a new garment;

Rather, he adopted the wording of the verse "v'Sam Lah Alilos Devarim."

Question: How could we say that it is hers? We say in Kidushin (4b) that the Torah needed to write "Ki Yikach [Ish Ishah]", and it needed to write "v'Yatzah Chinam";

Citation (4b): Had the Torah written only "Ki Yikach", one might have thought that the money is hers. Therefore it wrote "v'Yatzah Chinam" [to teach that her father gets it]!

Answer (Ri): The Sugya there is based on the conclusion here, that we say that "v'Yatzah Chinam" excludes a similar departure;

However, if there were no connotation from "v'Yatzah Chinam" that it goes to the father, we would not say that it is his.

Question: Based on what we are thinking now, why do we need "v'Yatzah Chinam" to teach that one is Mekadesh through [giving] money?

We learn this from Ki Yikach, and Es Biti Nasati teaches that the money is not hers!

Implied question: The verse discusses a Bas Onshim (an adult, who is punished for Aveiros)!

Answer: It means "I gave my daughter when she was a minor."

Question: We do not need a verse for a minor. The father can sell her [to be a slave]. There is no need to teach [that he gets] her Kidushin money!

The Gemara asks like this below regarding her earnings.

Answer: Regarding her earnings, it properly says that since he can sell her earnings to someone else, obviously they are his;

However, Kidushin is not relevant to a sale.

Implied question: Her master can do Yi'ud (marry her) through the money he gave to buy her!

Answer #1: That is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv that he can do Yi'ud through the purchase money;

However, regarding other Kidushin money, we could say that the father does not get it at all.

Answer #2: Obviously, her earnings are his as long as he can sell her, i.e. until Na'arus;

However, just because he can sell her until Na'arus, we cannot learn from this that he gets Kidushin money, for she will be Mekudeshes to him (the Mekadesh) forever!

Answer #3: Es Biti Nasati is not extra. We need it even for a minor, to teach that a father is believed to forbid his daughter;

According to the conclusion, you are forced to say that it comes only for this.

Implied question: Now we expound it to teach that her father receives her Kidushin!

Answer: This is from the simple meaning of the verse.

Question: We should learn from annulment of vows that her father can be Mekadesh her! This is Isur from Isur;

Automatically, we know that her father gets the money, like it says above "her father receives the Kidushin (the act of Kidushin is to give the money to him). Will we say that she gets [to keep] the money?!"

Answer: We do not learn an Isur that has [ramifications for] Mamon from an Isur without Mamon.

Explanation #1 (Rashi's second version, and R. Chananel): It is similar, i.e. just like there she is a Na'arah, also here, to this master we include money for a Na'arah.

Objection: We can still ask, that perhaps she gets the money!

Explanation #2: Rashi's [own] Perush is primary. (When a slave leaves her master, no money goes to the master she leaves. In the parallel case (Kidushin), money goes to the master she leaves, i.e. her father.)

Now, since we learn from this verse that the money is her father's, we know from logic that he also makes the Kidushin through receiving the money;

Her father gets [to keep] the money. Will we say that she is Mekadesh herself [and must give the money to him]?!

Implied question: Alternatively, we could have said that she leaves his Reshus regarding eating Terumah!

If a Bas Kohen became Mekudeshes to a Yisrael, she does not eat Terumah, like we say in Yevamos (87a).

Answer: [The Tartzan] prefers to mention Hafaras Nedarim, in which [her father] lost the power he had to annul her vows [alone];

This resembles the departure of [a slave from her] master. He loses her earnings.

Explanation: Mid'Oraisa, we cannot learn that her father gets her Metzi'ah (anything Hefker that she finds), just like he gets her Kidushin;

Kidushin is different. She did not toil for it at all, whereas she toiled to pick up the Metzi'ah.

Support: Similar to this, the Gemara (Kidushin 4b) explains why we do not learn from Kidushin money [that her father gets] her earnings, for she did not toil at all [for Kidushin].

Suggestion: We should learn from [the Tzad ha'Shavah] of both of them (her earnings and Kidushin)! Even though they are due to her body, they are her father's. All the more so her Metzi'ah [is his]!

Rejection: We cannot learn from them, for the father loses through them;

Through Kidushin, she uproots herself from him;

Her earnings [come through a loss to him], for he feeds her, like we say in Kidushin (4b).