Commentary page

Kiddushin 24a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Kiddushin 24a

Kiddushin 24a. The full printed text of this folio side — 7 numbered segments, about 160 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 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?!

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.

Segment 2

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

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.

Segment 3

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

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.

Segment 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.

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.

Segment 5

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

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.

Segment 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.

§ 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.

Segment 7

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

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

Kiddushin 24a

Kiddushin 24a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Penei Yehoshua

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text