Commentary for Bava Kamma 204:13

וכי דעתו של אדם על עצמו למשכנו

But must we not then answer that since the husband was acting on behalf of his wife it is considered as if this was done by the actual hand of the wife? [If so,] also there as the agent was acting upon a mandate<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not ultra vires. ');">²²</span> it is considered as if the purchase of the wheat had been done by the actual hand of the principal. R. Abba, however, said: No; it was because when a man declares his possessions sacred, he has no intention to include the garments of his wife and children.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 46. ');">¹⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 204:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.