Kiddushin 47

אין אשה פודה מעשר שני בלא חומש ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר משום ר' מאיר אשה פודה מעשר שני בלא חומש היכי דמי אילימא בזוזי דבעל ומעשר דבעל שליחותיה דבעל קא עבדה

A woman cannot redeem second tithe without [adding] a fifth. R'Simeon B'Eleazar said on R'Meir's authority: A woman can redeem second tithe without [adding] a fifth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Second tithe produce was eaten in Jerusalem, or it was redeemed and the money expended in Jerusalem. When one redeemed his own, he added a fifth of its value, but not when he redeemed second tithe belonging to another, unless the owner deputed him. It is assumed that this Baraitha refers to the crops of her husband's field.');">¹</span> Now, how is this meant?

ואלא בזוזי דידה ומעשר דידיה איש אמר רחמנא ולא אשה

Shall we say, [she redeems it] with her husband's money, the second tithe also being her husband's - then she merely acts as her husband's agent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And must certainly add a fifth.');">²</span> But if with her money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Money, the principal of which by the terms of the marriage settlement belonged to her, while her husband enjoyed its usufruct. This money, and all other property held by a wife on the same terms, are designated 'property of plucking' (v. Glos. s.v. mulug) .');">³</span> and his tithe, the Divine Law said, [And if] a man [will redeem aught of his tithe, then he shall add there to the fifth part thereof],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 31.');">⁴</span>

אלא לאו כי האי גוונא דאקני לה אחר מנה ואמר לה ע"מ שתפדי בו את המעשר ואיפכא שמענא להו

but not his wife?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his wife ranks as a stranger.');">⁵</span> Hence it surely refers to such a case, viz. , that a stranger gave her a maneh, and said,'On condition that you redeem the tithe therewith,' and thus we learn that they hold contrary opinions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To those they hold on the question of a slave's freedom. - The rights of a slave and a woman are similar: either they can both acquire independently or both can not.');">⁶</span> - Said Abaye: Then reverse it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna rules that she does not add a fifth; R. Meir holds that she must add a fifth.');">⁷</span>

אמר אביי איפוך רבא אמר לעולם לא תיפוך והכא במעשר דאתא מבי נשא עסקינן ור"מ לטעמיה דאמר מעשר ממון הקדש הוא ולא קני ליה בעל

Raba said: After all, you need not reverse it, but here the reference is to tithe which came [to her from her father's estate,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the house of the wife'. I.e., she inherited it as her father's heir. Property acquired by a woman after marriage is likewise 'property of plucking'.');">⁸</span> R'Meir following his opinion that tithe is sacred property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'money'.');">⁹</span> so that her husband does not acquire it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra ');">¹⁰</span>

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.');">¹¹</span>

תנא יוצא בשן ועין וראשי אברים שאינן חוזרים בשלמא שן ועין כתיבי אלא ראשי אברים מנלן דומיא דשן ועין מה שן ועין מומין שבגלוי ואינן חוזרין אף כל מומין שבגלוי ואינן חוזרין

Now, as for [the loss of] his tooth or eye, it is well: these are written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 26f.');">¹²</span> But how do we know [the loss of] the projecting limbs? - By analogy with tooth and eye: just as these are patent blemishes, and do not return, so [is he freed for the loss of] all [limbs which are] patent blemishes and do not return. But let us say that 'tooth' and 'eye' are two laws<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'verses'.');">¹³</span>

ואימא ניהוו שן ועין כשני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין צריכא דאי כתב רחמנא שן הוה אמינא אפילו

which come as one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to teach the same thing. For this analogy could be drawn only if one were mentioned.');">¹⁴</span> and whenever two verses come as one, they do not illumine [other cases].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise, only 'eye' or 'tooth' should have been mentioned, and by analogy the other, as well as all limbs the loss of which has the same result, would be included.');">¹⁵</span> - Both are necessary. For had the All-Merciful mentioned 'tooth' [only], I would have argued, [It refers] even