Amud 3b

תוס' ד"ה ואין

And nothing else separates her - ואין דבר אחר כורתה

Summary: We cannot derive that a אמה העבריה should be יוצאה בחליצה from a ק"ו מיבמה, because (even though we cannot say אשה תוכיח, since אשה is not יוצאה בכסף, but) שפחה כנענית תוכיח. A ש"כ cannot be derived from יבמה because יבמה is יוצאה במיתת היבם but a ש"כ is not יוצאה במיתת האדון. Nevertheless an אמה cannot be derived from יבמה because we have a combined יוכיח from אשה and ש"כ.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה האב

The father has rights in his daughter, etc. - האב זכאי בבתו וכולי

Summary: The father owns the right of קידושי ביאה to the extent that the monies that people offer to be allowed to be מקדש בביאה, are to given to the father; not the daughter (the אשה המתקדשת).

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה ואימה לדידה

And let us say, that it is hers - ואימא לדידה

Summary: We cannot utilize a יתורא דקרא in order to take money from one party and assign it to another. It is necessary for the פסוק to indicate this transfer.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה ואימא ה"מ

And I will say; these words refer to a minor - ואימא הני מילי קטנה

Summary: The פסוק of את בתי נתתי indicates the right of the father to be מקדש his daughter and also be מוסר her לחופה. The content of the פסוק is discussing a woman who is presently a נערה; nevertheless we can argue that the נתינה לקידושין took place while she was a קטנה. However the מסירה לחופה must have been when she was a נערה, otherwise there would not be סקילה (but rather חנק). The ק"ו of השתא מזבין זבין וכולי is appropriate to teach us that מעשה ידיה of a קטנה belongs לאביה, but not that the כסף קידושין belongs לאביה.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה וכי תימא

And if you will say; let us derive from בושת and P'gam - וכי תימא נילף מבושת ופגם

Summary: We cannot assume that since the father can marry off his minor daughter to a מנוול, that therefore he owns the בו"פ rights of a נערה. It is presumed that the father can be מקדש his בתו נערה and retain the כסף. The issue in the גמרא is to prove that he can retain the כסף even if she is מקדש עצמה. We derive from קידושי נערה שע"י אביה that when she is not voluntarily involved in the transaction that the money goes לאביה. Therefore by בו"פ where she is not voluntary involved, the בו"פ belong לאביה. We derive from בו"פ that that the father may retain money even if he is not involved (as in בו"פ of a נערה שנאנסה), therefore it follows that he should also acquire her כסף קידושין even is she was מקדש עצמה and he was not involved.

[View / Print]