- The Mishnah’s number excludes other methods from effecting kiddushin (חופה, חליפין)
The Gemara asks what the number of the Mishnah (“three ways”) excludes (from effecting kiddushin). It initially answers that it excludes chuppah, but the Gemara asks that according to Rav Huna, who holds that chuppah is an effective method for kiddushin, what then is excluded? The Gemara answers it excludes חליפין – exchange (a kinyan of an “exchange” of items, effected through receiving one of them), and explains: since money for kiddushin is derived from land acquisitions (קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון), one might have thought that just as a field can be acquired through חליפין, kiddushin can also be effected through חליפין. The reason that חליפין does not actually effect kiddushin is: חליפין איתנהו בפחות משוה פרוטה – חליפין can be accomplished with an item less than a perutah’s value, ואשה בפחות משוה פרוטה לא מקניא נפשה – and a woman does not give herself over for less than a perutah’s value (Rashi explains that this would be demeaning); therefore, חליפין can never effect kiddushin, even if he gives an item of higher value.
- The source that a father receives his daughter’s kiddushin money
The Mishnah had taught that money can effect kiddushin. Another Mishnah states: האב זכאי בבתו בקדושיה – A father has rights to his daughter’s kiddushin, בכסף בשטר ובביאה – regarding money, a document, and relations (i.e., he retains money paid for her kiddushin, and controls kiddushin made through a document or relations). The Gemara asks: מנלן דמיקניא בכסף וכסף דאבוה הוא – from where do we know she can be acquired with money, and that the money is her father’s? Rav Yehudah quotes Rav, who darshened a passuk regarding a Jewish maidservant who becomes a naarah: "ויצאה חנם אין כסף" – and she shall go out for free; there is no money given. This implies: אין כסף לאדון זה – No money is given to this master, אבל יש כסף לאדון אחר – but there is money given to another master, ומאן ניהו אב – and who is that? The father. The Gemara questions how we can derive that the money is the father’s, and not hers, and ultimately explains: מסתברא דכי קא ממעט – it is reasonable that when the passuk excludes (i.e., distinguishes kiddushin from going free), יציאה דכוותה קא ממעט – it excludes a departure similar to a maidservant’s. That is, in contrast to a maidservant leaving her master, where her master receives no money, when a naarah leaves the father’s domain (through kiddushin), the father (the “master” of the domain) does receive money.
- The source of a father’s control over a naarah (re: nedarim and earnings)
When the Gemara had asked that a naarah should retain her kiddushin-money (when she accepts kiddushin), it initially answered: regarding a father’s right to annul his daughter’s nedarim, the passuk says, "בנעוריה בית אביה" – while she is a naarah in her father’s house, teaching כל שבח נעורים לאביה – all benefits of the naarus stage belong to her father. This apparently proves the father retains kiddushin money as well. However, the Gemara proves this cannot be. Rav explained the source that all a naarah’s earnings belong to her father, based on a passuk: "וכי ימכור איש את בתו לאמה" – When a man shall sell his daughter as a maidservant, which implies a comparison between the two: מה אמה מעשה ידיה לרבה – Just as a maidservant, her earnings belong to her master, אף בת נמי מעשה ידיה לאביה – so too, regarding a daughter, her earnings belong to her father. From the fact that Rav required a source and could not derive it from כל שבח נעורים לאביה, it proves that that passuk refers only to his nedarim rights. Rights to kiddushin-money cannot be derived from nedarim rights, because ממונא מאיסורא לא ילפינן – monetary law cannot be derived from prohibitory law.
