it excludes a departure that is like it, i.e., a departure wherein the two masters are the potential recipients. Just as when no money is paid, the individual who might have received the payment is her master, so too, when money is paid, in a different set of circumstances, the money goes to the one who has authority over her, i.e., her father.

The Gemara asks: But this departure is not similar to that departure, as there, she leaves the authority of the master entirely upon being freed and she no longer retains any connection to him, and here, she still lacks the act of passing her over to the wedding canopy. Until she actually enters the wedding canopy, she has not left her father’s authority completely. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a similarity between her departures in both cases, as she leaves her father’s authority at least as far as the nullification of vows is concerned. As we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 66b): With regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband together nullify her vows, and her father cannot nullify them alone.

The Gemara asks: But does this verse: “Then shall she go out for nothing” (Exodus 21:11), come for that purpose, to teach that there is no money for this master, but there is money for a different master? But it is required for that which is taught in the following baraita. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse “Then shall she go out for nothing, without money” should be understood as follows: “Then shall she go out for nothing”; these words are referring to the days of adulthood, i.e., a Hebrew maidservant leaves her owner’s authority once she becomes an adult. “Without money [ein kasef]”; these words are referring to the days of her youth, i.e., when she becomes a young woman she leaves his authority.

Ravina said: If so, that the verse is to be used only for this derivation, let the verse say: En kasef, without the letter yod. What is indicated by the full spelling with a yod: Ein kasef? This serves to teach the halakha stated above: There is no money for this master, but there is money for a different master. And who is he? He is her father, who has a right to receive the money when his daughter leaves his authority upon her betrothal.

The Gemara explains: And from where is it derived that one interprets the verse homiletically in this manner? How is it known that the full form of the word ein teaches a halakha? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the daughter of a priest who married a non-priest and was subsequently widowed or divorced: “And she has no child, and is returned to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread” (Leviticus 22:13). This verse indicates that if she has no children from her non-priest husband she may once again partake of teruma.

I have derived only that this halakha applies to her actual children. From where do I derive that her children’s children are equivalent to children with regard to this halakha? The verse states: “She has no [ein lah] child,” where ein is spelled with a yod inserted in the middle. This additional letter serves to enable an alternative articulation of the term, specifically, one examines her [ayyein lah] to see if she has any descendants. And I have derived only that this halakha applies to children of unflawed lineage, i.e., her legitimate offspring. From where do I derive that children of flawed lineage, e.g., mamzerim, are also considered her children for the purposes of this halakha? The verse states: “She has no child,” which indicates that one examines her, as explained above.

With regard to the last derivation, the Gemara asks: But you have already derived one halakha from this word, that her children’s children are considered like her children in this case. The Gemara answers: In fact, a verse was not necessary to teach about her children’s children, as there is an established principle that children’s children are considered like children. And therefore, when the verse was necessary, it was to teach the requirement of examining her for children of flawed lineage.

The Gemara asks: And the tanna himself, from where does he know that one can expound the yod in ein in this manner? The Gemara answers: They say in explanation that it is written: “Balaam refuses [me’en]” (Numbers 22:14), and it is similarly written: “My yavam refuses [me’en]” (Deuteronomy 25:7), and in neither case is a yod written. And here the word ein is written with a yod. Learn from it that the yod is superfluous and comes for the sake of an exposition.

The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to write a verse that teaches that her betrothal, i.e., the money or document of betrothal, belongs to her father, and it was necessary to write another verse that teaches that her earnings belong to her father, as one could not derive one halakha from the other. As, if the Merciful One had written only that her betrothal money belongs to her father, I would say that this is because she did not toil for it and therefore is not entitled to this sum. But with regard to her earnings, for which she toiled, say that they are hers. Therefore, it is necessary to state that her earnings also belong to her father.

And conversely, if the verse had taught us only the halakha of her earnings, one would have said that they belong to her father because his daughter is sustained by him through his property. But with regard to her betrothal, i.e., the money or document of betrothal, which comes to her from an external source, I would say that it is hers. Therefore, it is necessary for the verse to teach both halakhot.

The Gemara returns to the matter itself: The baraita states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: “Then shall she go out for nothing,” these are the days of adulthood; “without money,” these are the days of her youth. The Gemara asks: And let the Merciful One write that she leaves her master when she reaches her youth, and it would not be necessary to state that she leaves upon reaching adulthood. If she has already left her master when she becomes a young woman, it is not necessary to state that she leaves him upon reaching adulthood.

Rabba says: This phrase comes and teaches about that phrase. In other words, since it is not explicitly stated that this particular verse is referring to her departure when she becomes a young woman, if there was only one superfluous phrase one would conclude that it is referring to adulthood, as the halakha that she leaves the master when she becomes an adult is a lesser novelty. Therefore, two extraneous verses are required.

Rabba cites an analogous case. This is just as it is with regard to a tenant and a hired worker. As it is taught in a baraita concerning teruma: The verse states: “A tenant of a priest or a hired worker shall not eat of the consecrated” (Leviticus 22:10). “A tenant”; this is referring to a Hebrew slave who has been acquired as a permanent acquisition, i.e., one who said he wishes to stay with his master. This Hebrew slave has his ear pierced and he remains with his master until the Jubilee Year. “A hired worker”; this is referring to a Hebrew slave who has been acquired for an acquisition of six years, the standard period of servitude for a Hebrew slave.

The baraita asks: Let the verse say “tenant” and let it not say “hired worker,” and I would say: If one who is acquired as a permanent acquisition does not partake of his owner’s, i.e., the priest’s, teruma, as despite his status as a Hebrew slave he is not considered his owner’s property, is it not all the more so that one who is acquired for an acquisition of six years should not be permitted to partake of teruma?

The baraita answers: If so, that the verse were stated in this manner, I would say: “A tenant”; this is one who was acquired for an acquisition of six years, as the term itself is ambiguous. But one who was acquired as a permanent acquisition may partake of teruma. Therefore, the term “hired worker,” which is certainly referring to one who is less permanent than a tenant, comes and teaches about the meaning of the term “tenant,” that even if a Hebrew slave was acquired as a permanent acquisition he may not partake of teruma. A similar line of reasoning applies in the above case of a young woman and an adult.

Abaye said to Rabba: Are these cases really comparable? There, the tenant and the hired worker are two bodies. This is significant, as even if the Merciful One had written explicitly that a pierced tenant may not partake of teruma, from which the halakha of a Hebrew slave for six years could have been inferred, and then the Merciful One wrote the other case of a Hebrew slave acquired temporarily, this would not present a serious difficulty. The reason is that, although the halakha of a hired worker is a matter that could be derived by means of an a fortiori inference, and therefore it does not have to be stated explicitly, there is a principle: Sometimes with regard to a matter that can be derived through an a fortiori inference, the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes it explicitly.

But here, with regard to a woman, she is one body, i.e., it is the same Hebrew maidservant. Once she has left upon the arrival of her youth, what is she doing in his authority as an adult? It is entirely unnecessary for the verse to teach that she leaves her master upon becoming an adult, as she has already left him.

Rather, Abaye rejects the previous suggestion that one verse teaches about the other, and said: The claim that the verse “Then shall she go out for nothing” is referring to adulthood is necessary only for the adulthood of a sexually underdeveloped woman who is incapable of bearing children [ailonit]. An ailonit will never develop the physical signs of maturity, i.e., two pubic hairs. Consequently, she does not go through the halakhic stage of a young woman. Instead, she remains a minor until the age of twenty, at which point she immediately becomes an adult.

Consequently, if the Torah did not teach that a Hebrew maidservant leaves her master upon becoming an adult, it might enter your mind to say: She leaves only when entering her youth, but when entering adulthood directly she does not leave. Since an ailonit is never classified as a young woman, she would never leave servitude. Therefore, the verse teaches us that a Hebrew maidservant leaves her master even if she reaches adulthood directly.

Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: But is it not an a fortiori inference? And if the signs indicating that a young woman has entered puberty do not fully release a young woman from her father’s authority, as he can still betroth her, nevertheless, they do release her from the master’s authority; is it not logical that adulthood, which completely releases her from her father’s authority, should release her from the master’s authority? If so, one can derive by this reasoning that an ailonit leaves her master in adulthood, which means the verse is unnecessary.

Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi says: This verse is necessary only with regard to the basic halakha of the sale of an ailonit as a Hebrew maidservant. As it might enter your mind to say that if a female will show the signs of a young woman, i.e., puberty, her sale is a valid sale, whereas in a case where she will not show the signs of a young woman, her sale is not a valid sale. The reason one might think this is the case is that if the maidservant turns out to be an ailonit, one cannot fulfill the requirements of the verse, as she will never become a young woman.