Explanation #1: Rabeinu Chananel explains that just as the going out of the Amah ha'Ivriyah from the master takes place when she is a Na'arah, so too, here is she a Na'arah.

Refutation: The Sugya does not imply at all that we need to learn that it refers to the day of Na'arus however ...

Refutation (cont.): But from where we know that the money goes to her father.

Explanation #2: What the Gemara is therefore saying is that 'going out in similar fashion', such as in the jurisdiction of the master - if there would be money at that stage, he would give it to the master from whom she is going out, likewise here, if there is money when she goes out from the father, it goes to him.

Support: And that is also implied by the Lashon of the Kashya.

Clarification: The Ri explains that this refers to her Pasul offspring ...

Reason: Because since she she had relations with someone who is forbidden to her, he (anyway) disqualifies her from the Kehunah, and she may no longer eat Terumah.

Conclusion: One cannot therefore explain it literally as Pasul children, only Pasul offspring.

Clarification: Had the Torah written only one of them, we would apply it to the one that is more logical - i.e. Bagrus.

Question: Why does the Torah see fit to write "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam" to explain "Ein Kesef", since in any event we could not have established "Ein Kesef" by Bagrus, only by Na'arus ...

Reason: Since we Darshened from it earlier 'But there is Kesef for another master, and who is that, the father' ...

Reason (cont.): In which case this Pasuk must be speaking about Na'arus, because as far as Bagrus is concerned, the father does not merit the Kidushin, since, once she becomes a Bogeres, he has no more jurisdiction over her?

Answer: The Ram explains that, were it not for "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam", we would have established "Ein Kesef" plus the extra 'Yud' mentioned by Ravina, one with regard to Na'arus, and the other, with regard to Bagrus ...

Answer (cont.): And the D'rashah of 'Ein Kesef le'Adon Zeh ... ' we would not have learned.

Answer (concl.): That is why we need "veYatz'ah Chinam".

Question: Miysas ha'Av will be a Yochi'ah - which takes her out of his jurisdiction, but not from that of her master, so too ... ?

Answer: One can counter 'Whereas in the case where father dies, her body has not changed, as it has in the case of a Bogeres'.

Question: Surely, it ought first to have mentioned 'Eilu Yemei Na'arus', and then "Eilu Yemei Bagrus'?

Answer: Because we have to establish "Ein Kasef" with regard to the days of Na'arus, as the Gemara said earlier 'But there is Kesef for snother master - with reference to the days of Na'arus ...

Reason: Since a father does not merit the Kidushin of his daughter who is a Bogeres,

Question: How can we know, when she is still a Ketanah, that she will not produce Simanim of Na'arus? ...

Question (cont.): Because we only know that she is an Aylonis when she turns twenty and has not grown Sa'aros, as the Gemara states in Perek ha'Areil (Yevamos, Daf 80b).

Refuted Answer: And even though there are some Simnei Aylonis that are discernable when she is a Ketanah, such as a man's voice and her stomach is not rounded like those of women ...

Refutation: The Gemara says there in connection with a Saris (a eunuch) 'until when he has all the signs', and presumably the same applies to an Aylonis.

Answer: What the Gemara means is that 'The sale is not valid' - and the master must return what she produced, the father, the money, and in the event that he performed Yi'ud with her, it is invalid.

Implied Question: The Gemara could just as well have mentioned the fact that she goes out after six years, in the Yovel and with Simanim ...

Answer: Only it prefers to ask a Pircha that applies equally to a Shifchah Cana'anis, since it could have learned the same Kal va'Chomer from her, and there the Pircha from Simanim, six years and Yovel would not be applicable.

Question: The question remains, asks R. Ya'akov from Orleans, why do we need "ki Yikach", since, granted, we cannot learn it from a Kal va'Chomer, nevertheless, we can learn it from a Hekesh ...

Question (cont.): Since the Torah compares her to Amah ha'Ivriyah, when it writes - "ve'Im Acheres Yikach lo", 'The Pasuk compares her to Acheres', as the Gemara explains later on (on Daf 16a) ...

Question (cont.): And the Gemara learns later (on Daf 14b) that an Amah ha'Ivriyah can be acquired with Kesef from "ve'Hefdah".

Question (concl.): Consequently, just as an Amah can be acquired with Kesef, so too, can an Ishah - and one cannot query a Hekesh (Bava Kama, 63b)?

Answer #1: From a Hekesh alone we would have thought that one P'rutah will not suffice, unless there are two, as is required by Amah ha'Ivriyah, as is evident later (on Daf 12a).

Answer #2: Whereas Rabeinu Nesanel answers that since we only know that Amah ha'Ivriyah can be acquired with Kesef from "ve'Hefdah" - because since she goes out with Kesef she comes in with Kesef ...

Answer #2 (cont.): We cannot learn the acquiring of Ishah from there - seeing as she does go out with Kesef, like an Amah ha'Ivriyah does.

Question: Why can we not learn Kesef from Bi'ah - If Bi'ah, which does not acquire by Amah ha'Ivriyah acquires by Ishah, Kesef, which does, should certainly acquire by Ishah too?

Answer: All the more one could make a Yochi'ach from Yevamah, who is acquired with Bi'ah but not with Kesef.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that she says 'Harei Atah Mekudash li'.

Question: But the Lashon 'Kidushin' is not applicable to a man, since he does not become forbidden to marry other women?

Explanation #2: What she therefore says is 'Harei Ani Mekudeshes L'cha'.

Commenting on Text: And we have to say that 'She gives it to him' is La'av Davka

Reason (cont.): Since it is her father who receives the Kidushin.

Conclusion: What the Gemara really means is 'She says to him'.

Question: Since the main objective of the Pasuk "Ki Yikach" is to teach us that she cannot be Mekadesh him, why do we need to learn 'Kichah' 'Kichah' from S'dei Efron ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as we know it anyway, since the Torah writes "Ki Yikach", 've'Lo ki Sikach Ishah es Ish'?

Answer: If not for the Gezeirah Shavah, we would have established "ki Yikach Ish" by Kidushei Bi'ah, but by Kidushei, we do not need 'Nasan Hu ve'Amar Hu' ...

Conclusion: Hence the Gezeirah Shavah to teach us that "ki Yikach" is speaking by Kesef, and that nevertheless we need 'Nasan Hu ve'Amar Hu' ...

Question: Why can we not learn it from the Pasuk "ki Yikach" - which also implies a Lashon Bi'ah, like all the 'Kichos' of the Arayos ...

Examples: "Ish asher Yikach es Achoso", "ve'Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach", "Ish asher Yikach es EIshes Achiv"?

Answer: It is different there where it is not possible to explain it in any other way ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek Nos'in al ha'Anusah (Yevamos, Daf 97a) - 'Likuchin is written in the Torah S'tam; when it implies Shechivah (Bi'ah), then it means Shechivah, when it implies Lekichah (Kidushin), then it means Lekichah'.

Question: Why can we not learn from the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Kichah' 'Kichah' that she can be acquired with Bi'ah?

Proof: As the Gemara says at the beginning of 'ha'Ba al Yevimto (Ibid. Daf 55b) 'From where do we know that a woman is acquired by her husband via Ha'ara'ah? We learn it via 'Kichah' 'Kichah'.

Answer: Had the Torah not written "u'Ba'alah", we would not learn the basic Bi'ah from the 'Kichah' of Arayos ...

Reason: Bearing in mind that the 'Kichah' there is not talking about a Kinyan at all ...

Reason (cont.): Though it is perfectly in order to learn from there that Ha'ara'ah is considered like G'mar Bi'ah.

Question: Had the Torah not mentioned "uBa'alah", we would have thought that Amah ha'Ivriyah can also be acquired with Bi'ah from a Kal va'Chomer? ...

Reason: Since later on (on Daf 9b) we preclude her from "u'Ba'alah" ...

Question (cont.): And the Gemara is speaking here if "u'Ba'alah" were not written?

Answer: What the Gemara means to ask is - 'Is it not correct, that because of Ishah it would not be necessary to write "u'Ba'alah", since we would learn it ffrom a Kal va'Chomer' ...

Answer (cont.): And if it was to preclude Amah ha'Ivriyah, the Torah could write "u'Ba'al", ffrom which we would preclude her ...

Reason: Because for she (Ishah) herself, it would not be needed ...

Answer (cont.): So why the extra 'Hey'?

Conclusion: And the Gemara answers - that had the Torah written only "u'Ba'al", we would not learn she herself from a Kal va'Chomer, since we would have countered 'Amah ha'Ivriyah Tochi'ach'.

Question: Since the fact that she is already 'Zekukah' does not help regarding Kesef, why do we not include it in the Kal va'Chomer and say as follows ...

Kal va'Chomer: If a Yevamah, who, although she is already Zekukah, cannot be acquired with Kesef, only with Bi'ah, Ishah who is acquired with Kesef, despite the fact that she is not Zekukah, should certainly be acquired with Bi'ah ...

Kal va'Chomer (cont.): And the fact that she is not Zekukah will not make any difference.

Introduction to Precedent: In similar vein we must explain the Gemara in Perek Keitzad ha'Regel (Bava Kama, Daf 25a), where the Gemara wants to prove that Keren pays Nezek Shalem in the Chatzer of the Nizak from a Kal va'Chomer ...

Kal va'Chomer: 'If Shen va'Regel which are Patur in the R'shus ha'Rabim, are Chayav Nezek Shalem in the R'shus ha'Nizak, Keren, which is Chayav Chatzi Nezek in the R'shus ha'Rabim, should certainly be Chayav Nezek Shalem in the R'shus ha'Nizak'.

Question: And the Ri there presents the Pircha 'Whereas the damage of Shen va'Regel is common, that of Keren is not?

Precedent: To which he answers - that with regard to the Chiyuv Nezek in the R'shus ha'Nizak, that is not a Chumra from which one can ask ...

Precedent (cont.): Since it does not have any effect on Shen va'Regel to render it Chayav Chatzi Nezek in the R'shus ha'Rabim like Keren, in which we will include it in the Kal va'Chomer and say ...

Kal va'Chomer: 'If Shen va'Regel, which are Patur in the R'shus ha'Rabim, despite the fact that their damage is common, are Chayav Nezek Shalem in the R'shus ha'Nizak ...

Kal va'Chomer (cont.): 'Keren, which is Chayav Chatzi Nezek in the R'shus ha'Rabim, even though its Nezek is not common, ought certainly to be Chayav Nezek Shalem in the R'shus ha'Nizak'.

Answer #1: The Ri answers that what the Gemara means to ask is 'Since she is already Zekukah' - for Bi'ah ...

Answer #1 (cont.): In other words - Because her main Mitzvah is to set up a name for her brother, it is feasible for her to be acquired via Bi'ah more than Ishah.

Answer #2: Whereas Rebbi Elazar from Shazna explains 'Because she is already Zukukah' to mean - that this Bi'ah does not acquire per se, it only completes the Kidushin of the first Yavam; and because we find that Bi'ah completes, we cannot extrapolate that it also acquires to begin with (See Tosfos, Bava Kama 25a, DH 'Ani')