Commentary for Kiddushin 47:8

Second tithe produce is usually redeemed, the money is brought to Jerusalem and used there to buy food products. The issue here is a woman redeeming her husband’s second tithe. When one redeems one’s own second tithe, one is liable to pay an added fifth. But when redeems someone else’s second tithe, one need not add the fifth.
According to the first opinion, that of the sages, the woman essentially is like her husband, and therefore she must add the fifth. According to R. Meir she need not add the extra fifth.

If the money and the tithe are her husband’s then all would agree that she is her husband’s agent and must add the fifth. And if it is her money (inherited), then all should agree that she is exempt from the tithe.
Therefore, the Talmud suggests that it must be a case where someone gives her money on condition that she use it to redeem the tithe. The rabbis hold that this money is automatically her husband’s and therefore, she is his agent and must add the fifth. R. Meir says it is not automatically her husband’s and therefore she need not add the fifth.
These opinions are opposite of those we saw above, and thus both seem to be contradictory.

If the money and the tithe are her husband’s then all would agree that she is her husband’s agent and must add the fifth. And if it is her money (inherited), then all should agree that she is exempt from the tithe.
Therefore, the Talmud suggests that it must be a case where someone gives her money on condition that she use it to redeem the tithe. The rabbis hold that this money is automatically her husband’s and therefore, she is his agent and must add the fifth. R. Meir says it is not automatically her husband’s and therefore she need not add the fifth.
These opinions are opposite of those we saw above, and thus both seem to be contradictory.

If the money and the tithe are her husband’s then all would agree that she is her husband’s agent and must add the fifth. And if it is her money (inherited), then all should agree that she is exempt from the tithe.
Therefore, the Talmud suggests that it must be a case where someone gives her money on condition that she use it to redeem the tithe. The rabbis hold that this money is automatically her husband’s and therefore, she is his agent and must add the fifth. R. Meir says it is not automatically her husband’s and therefore she need not add the fifth.
These opinions are opposite of those we saw above, and thus both seem to be contradictory.

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.

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.

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.

The Torah explicitly states that a slave goes free at the loss of an eye or tooth. The rabbis add that the same is true for any projecting limb (such as a leg or hand or finger. There are 24 of these and they will be listed later on daf Kaf Heh). The blemish must also be exposed, as are teeth and eyes. A slave who loses such a limb will be noticeably deformed.

When the Torah uses one example to illustrate a law it can be seen as a paradigm for other potentially similar things. But when it uses two examples, it could be said that these examples are all that fit into the category. Thus it might be that the slave goes free only if the master puts out his tooth or eye.

The Talmud now demonstrates that both are necessary. The case of the eye teaches that he does not go free at loss of a milk tooth, which will be replaced by an adult tooth. And it taught tooth to demonstrate that he need not be born with the “limb” in order to go free at its loss.