Kiddushin, Daf Daled, Part 4

 

Introduction

Today s section continues to discuss the midrash about when a girl sold into slavery goes free. We had said before that this midrash teaches that she goes free at the age of bagrut even without having reached puberty, an ayloni (this is considered to be 20 by Rashi). She also goes free at na arut, which means she reached puberty and is at least 12 years old.

 

מתקיף לה מר בר רב אשי ולאו ק"ו הוא ומה סימנין שאין מוציאין מרשות אב מוציאין מרשות אדון בגרות שמוציאה מרשות אב אינו דין שמוציאה מרשות אדון

 

Mar bar Rav Ashi raised a difficulty: But is this not a kal vehomer? If signs [of her reaching puberty], which do not free her from the domain of her father, do free her from her master’s authority: then bagrut, which frees her from the domain of her father, surely frees her from her master’s authority!

 

Mar bar Rav Ashi points out that we could have learned that a girl who is a bogeret goes out from her master s authority by a kal vehomer argument. A girl who becomes 12 and has hit puberty goes free from her master but, if she is living in her father s domain, is not free from his authority. But a bogeret, one who reaches majority age, goes free even from her father s domain. All the more so she would go free from the domain of her master. So why do we need a midrash to teach us what we would already know. Obviously any type of bogeret, whether she is an aylonit (a woman who does not hit puberty) or not, goes free.

 

אלא אמר מר בר רב אשי לא נצרכה אלא לעיקר זבינא דאילונית סד"א דאתיא סימני נערות הוי זבינא דלא אתיא סימני נערות לא הוי זבינה זבינא קמ"ל (שמות כא, יא) ויצאה חנם כו’

 

Rather Mar bar R. Ashi said: It was only necessary with respect to the sale itself of an aylonit: Lest I would have said, with one who will [subsequently] produce evidence of na’arut, the sale is valid: but with one who will not produce such evidence the sale is not valid: therefore it teaches us and she shall go out for nothing.

 

The argument here is getting more complex. We might have thought that a girl who will never reach na arut, meaning she will never hit puberty could not be sold. After all, if she goes free at na arut then maybe if she will never be a na arah, meaning she is an aylonit who will never hit puberty, then she could not have been sold in the first place. Therefore, we have a verse that says (midrashically) that an aylonit goes out of slavery at bagrut (age 20). This teaches us that she can be sold in the first place.

 

ולמר בר רב אשי דאמר ולאו ק"ו הוא הא אמרינן מילתא דאתיא בק"ו טרח וכתב לה קרא ה"מ היכא דליכא לשנויי אבל היכא דאיכא לשנויי משנינן :

 

Now, according to Mar bar R. Ashi, who said is this not a kal vehomer , have we not said: Something which can be inferred by a kal vehomer, Scripture will write [explicitly]?

This is only if no other answer is possible; but if it is, we answer.

 

Above, Mar bar R. Ashi argued that the verse cannot be interpreted to say something that we could have learned through logic, through a kal vehomer argument ( all the more so ). But we earlier said that the Torah does write laws (ones usually drawn out by midrash) that could be learned through a kal vehomer. So why is this a difficulty?

The answer is that we would always prefer to read a verse such that its law could not be learned logically. But we do admit that at times the Torah does write a law that could be learned logically.