She Goes Out Free Without Money and the Days of Girlhood

Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: "And she shall go out free, without money" (Exodus 21:11) means there is no money for this master, but there is money for another master [the verse teaches that the maidservant who has been freed without payment may still be acquired in marriage by another with money]. But does this "and she shall go out free" really come for that lesson? That phrase is needed for what was taught: "And she shall go out free" - these are the days of full maturity; "without money" - these are the days of girlhood [a maidservant goes free when she reaches these stages without her master receiving payment]. Ravina said: If so, let the verse write "without money" [spelled defectively]; what is the force of the fuller spelling of "without"? It teaches there is no money for this master and so forth. And from where do we know that we expound in this way? As it was taught: "And she has no child" (Leviticus 22:13) - I have only her child; from where do I include her child's child? Scripture says "and she has no child" - examine her case in any event [the extra letter signals an expansion to descendants]. But you have already used that for her child's child! The child's child does not require a verse, for grandchildren are like children, and the verse is needed only for unfit offspring. And the very teacher who expounds in this way, from where does he learn it? They said: It is written "my brother-in-law refuses" (Deuteronomy 25:7) and "Balaam refused to go with us," and there the word is written without a yod, whereas here it is written with a yod; learn from this that it comes for an exposition. "And she shall go out free" - these are the days of maturity. "Without money" - these are the days of girlhood. But let the Merciful One write only girlhood and not require maturity! Rava said: This one came and taught about that one, just as in the case of the resident and the hired laborer, as it was taught: "a resident" (Exodus 12:45 and elsewhere) - this is one acquired as a permanent possession, and so forth. Abaye said to him: Are the cases comparable? There you have two separate bodies, but here, once she leaves girlhood, what need is there of maturity beside it? Mar bar Rav Ashi said: It is needed only for the essential validity of the sale of a barren woman incapable of bearing children. You might have thought that if she develops the signs of girlhood the sale is a valid sale, and if she does not develop the signs of girlhood the sale is not a valid sale; the verse therefore teaches us otherwise.