Commentary for Kiddushin 47:5
ורבנן לטעמייהו דאמרי ממון הדיוט הוא וקני ליה בעל הילכך שליחותא דבעל קעבדא:
The Rabbis too are in accord with their view that tithe is secular property, [the usufruc of which] her husband acquires. Therefore she is [merely] deputising for her husband. A Tanna taught: He [the heathen slave] goes out [free] through [the loss of] his eye, tooth, and projecting limbs which do not return.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'tips of limbs'. Once lost, just as the eyes and teeth.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
Abaye says that we should reverse the opinions.
But, as usually happens, Rava finds a way not to reverse the opinions. The case is one of tithe which she inherits from her father’s estate. According to R. Meir, second tithe is holy, and therefore her husband does not acquire it. When she redeems the produce, she is redeeming her own tithe.
The other rabbis hold that second tithe is not holy. Her husband does acquire it (or at least certain rights) and therefore when she redeems it, she is fulfilling her husband’s agency. She must add the extra fifth.
But, as usually happens, Rava finds a way not to reverse the opinions. The case is one of tithe which she inherits from her father’s estate. According to R. Meir, second tithe is holy, and therefore her husband does not acquire it. When she redeems the produce, she is redeeming her own tithe.
The other rabbis hold that second tithe is not holy. Her husband does acquire it (or at least certain rights) and therefore when she redeems it, she is fulfilling her husband’s agency. She must add the extra fifth.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy