## Kiddushin Daf 24a

###### Kiddushin 24a:1
[Kiddushin 24a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/24a:1)

אֵין אִשָּׁה פּוֹדָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּלֹא חוֹמֶשׁ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִשָּׁה פּוֹדָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּלֹא חוֹמֶשׁ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּזוּזֵי דְבַעַל, וּמַעֲשֵׂר דְּבַעַל – שְׁלִיחוּתֵיהּ דְּבַעַל קָא עָבְדָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A woman may not redeem** her husband’s **second tithe without** adding **one-fifth** of its value to the redemption money, as is required from all those who redeem their own second tithe. **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Meir: A woman may redeem second tithe without** adding **one-fifth.** The Gemara inquires: **What are the circumstances? If we say** that she redeems second tithe **with** her **husband’s money,** which he gave her for this purpose, **and the tithe** belongs **to** her **husband,** in this case **she acts** with **the agency of** her **husband.** Just as he is required to add one-fifth when he redeems his own second tithe, it is clear that she too must add one-fifth.


###### Kiddushin 24a:2
[Kiddushin 24a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/24a:2)

וְאֶלָּא בְּזוּזֵי דִידַהּ וּמַעֲשֵׂר דִּידֵיהּ – ״אִישׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא אִשָּׁה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But rather,** one might say that this is referring **to** a case where she uses **her money and** it is **his tithe.** This is also difficult, as in this case the Rabbis would agree that she is exempt from paying the additional fifth, as **the Merciful One states:** “And if **a man** shall redeem any of his tithe” (Leviticus 27:31). The emphasis of the term “man” teaches: This applies to a man, **but** this does **not** apply to **a woman** who redeems her husband’s tithe.


###### Kiddushin 24a:3
[Kiddushin 24a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/24a:3)

אֶלָּא לָאו כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא, דְּאַקְנִי לַהּ אַחֵר מָנֶה, וַאֲמַר לַהּ: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּפְדִּי בּוֹ אֶת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״, וְאִיפְּכָא שְׁמַעְנָא לְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** correct to say that we are dealing with **a case like this** following one: **Where another** person **transferred one hundred dinars to her, and said to her:** I am giving this to you **on the condition that you redeem** your husband’s **tithe with it? And** if so, **we heard them** say the **opposite** with regard to the issue of whether such a condition is effective. According to Rabbi Meir’s reasoning presented in the case of a slave, anything a woman acquires should be acquired by her husband, which would mean that it is as though her husband himself redeemed it. How, then, could Rabbi Meir rule that a woman redeems second tithe without adding one-fifth? Additionally, the Rabbis said that the money received by the slave is not immediately acquired by his master, and yet here they consider the money received by the wife as belonging to her husband.


###### Kiddushin 24a:4
[Kiddushin 24a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/24a:4)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֵיפוֹךְ. רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ, וְהָכָא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר דַּאֲתָא מִבֵּי נָשָׁא עָסְקִינַן, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: מַעֲשֵׂר מָמוֹן הֶקְדֵּשׁ הוּא, וְלָא קָנֵי לֵיהּ בַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Reverse** the opinions in the case of redemption of tithes. **Rava said: Actually do not reverse** them, **and here, with regard to tithes, we are dealing with tithe she received from her father’s house** as an inheritance. **And Rabbi Meir** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning, as he says: Tithe is property** that belongs to the **Temple** treasury, **and** therefore **the husband does not acquire it,** unlike the regular property a woman brings to her marriage. Consequently, a woman can redeem it with her husband’s money without adding one-fifth, as the husband is not the owner of the tithe.


###### Kiddushin 24a:5
[Kiddushin 24a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/24a:5)

וְרַבָּנַן לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאָמְרִי: מָמוֹן הֶדְיוֹט הוּא, וְקָנֵי לֵיהּ בַּעַל, הִילְכָּךְ שְׁלִיחוּתָא דְבַעַל קָעָבְדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis** conform **to their** standard line of **reasoning, as they say: Tithe is common,** i.e., non-sacred, **property.** It is not owned by the Temple treasury. **And** consequently, the **husband acquires it** like other property of his wife, to whose profits he is entitled. **Therefore, she performs** with **the agency of** her **husband** and must add the fifth.


###### Kiddushin 24a:6
[Kiddushin 24a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/24a:6)

תָּנָא: יוֹצֵא בְּשֵׁן וָעַיִן וְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן חוֹזְרִים. בִּשְׁלָמָא שֵׁן וָעַיִן – כְּתִיבִי. אֶלָּא רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים מְנָלַן? דּוּמְיָא דְשֵׁן וָעַיִן, מָה שֵׁן וָעַיִן מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי וְאֵינָן חוֹזְרִין – אַף כֹּל מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי וְאֵינָן חוֹזְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ A Sage **taught:** A Canaanite slave **is emancipated through a tooth and an eye and** through permanent damage to other **extremities that do not regenerate** if they are severed. The Gemara asks: **Granted, a tooth and an eye,** these body parts are explicitly **written,** as the Torah states clearly that if a master damages a tooth or blinds an eye the slave is emancipated (Exodus 21:26–27). **But from where do we** derive that if the master permanently damages other **extremities** the slave is likewise emancipated? The Gemara answers: These extremities are **similar to a tooth and an eye: Just as** the removal of **a tooth and an eye** leads to **exposed,** i.e., external, **blemishes that do not regenerate, so too,** the same applies to **all blemishes** caused by the slave’s master that are **exposed and that do not regenerate.**


###### Kiddushin 24a:7
[Kiddushin 24a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/24a:7)

וְאֵימָא נִיהְווֹ שֵׁן וָעַיִן כִּשְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין! צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״שֵׁן״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** one can **say** that the examples of **a tooth and an eye are like two verses that come as one,** i.e., they teach the same matter, **and** there is a principle that **any two verses that come as one do not teach** their *halakha* so that it can be applied to other cases. If so, a slave should be emancipated only for an injury to a tooth or an eye. The Gemara answers: It is **necessary** to mention both a tooth and an eye, as neither *halakha* could be derived from the other. Consequently, they are not considered to be like two verses that come as one. The Gemara elaborates: **As, if the Merciful One had written** only **tooth, I would say** that **even**