Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kidushin, 24

1) A MARRIED WOMAN WHO REDEEMS "MA'ASER SHENI"

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses whether one can give a gift to a woman on condition that her husband has no rights to it, or on condition that she use it for a specific purpose. From the Mishnah (22b) it seems that Rebbi Meir does not allow such a Kinyan, but the Rabanan do allow such a Kinyan.

The Gemara questions this from a Beraisa in which Rebbi Meir seems to allow such a Kinyan, while the Rabanan do not allow it. The Beraisa teaches that according to the Rabanan, a woman cannot redeem Ma'aser Sheni without paying a Chomesh (it is considered as if the owner is redeeming his own Ma'aser Sheni). Rebbi Meir says that she can redeem Ma'aser Sheni without paying a Chomesh. The Gemara says that the Beraisa cannot be discussing a situation in which the woman is using her own money (of Nichsei Milug, -Rashi) to redeem the husband's Ma'aser Sheni, since it should be obvious that in such a case she does not have to add a Chomesh, because the verse says, "Ish" (Vayikra 27:31), and not "Ishah," teaching that if the wife redeems the husband's Ma'aser, she does not have to pay a Chomesh. It must be that the woman is redeeming her husband's Ma'aser with money that was given to her with the condition that it be used only for the purpose of redeeming her husband's Ma'aser. The Rabanan consider the money given to her to be the husband's, and therefore she must add a Chomesh when she redeems the Ma'aser. Rebbi Meir considers the money to be the woman's, and therefore she does not have to add a Chomesh, since she is not the owner. We see that the Rabanan and Rebbi Meir contradict their opinions in our Mishnah!

Rava answers that the Beraisa is discussing Ma'aser Sheni that the woman inherited (which is Nichsei Milug), and the woman is redeeming it with the husband's money. The Rabanan hold that Ma'aser Sheni is "Mamon Hedyot," and therefore the husband has rights to it (that is, to the Peros, as he has rights to all of her Nichsei Milug). Rebbi Meir holds that Ma'aser Sheni is "Mamon Gavo'ah," and therefore the husband has no rights to it; when the woman uses her husband's money to redeem the Ma'aser Sheni, it is not being redeemed by the owner and she does not have to add a Chomesh.

The Gemara seems to contradict itself with regard to who is considered the owner of Nichsei Milug. Initially, the Gemara says that if the woman uses her money of Nichsei Milug to redeem her husband's Ma'aser Sheni, she does not add a Chomesh. This implies that the Nichsei Milug is considered hers (since she owns the Keren, the principle, of the Nichsei Milug). However, the Gemara concludes that when she uses her husband's money to redeem Ma'aser Sheni that is her Nichsei Milug, according to the Rabanan (who consider the Ma'aser Sheni to be Nichsei Milug) she is considered to be using her husband's money to redeem *his* Ma'aser Sheni!

Also, the Gemara initially understands that the woman is redeeming her husband's Ma'aser Sheni with money that was given to her with the condition that it be used to redeem Ma'aser. According to the Rabanan, the Gemara thought that the husband is considered the owner of the money, and therefore she must add a Chomesh when redeeming the Ma'aser Sheni, even though the money should still be Nichsei Milug, just like money that she inherits while she is married (see RASHI, DH d'Aysi). This implies that Nichsei Milug is considered to belong to the husband, since he owns the Peros. Why, then, does the Gemara initially say that when she uses money of Nichsei Milug to redeem his Ma'aser Sheni, she does not add a Chomesh?

Indeed, the Gemara itself does not say that the woman is using "money of Nichsei Milug" to redeem her husband's Ma'aser Sheni, but rather that she is using "her money." It is possible to explain that she was using money that was entirely hers, such as in a case where her husband removed his rights from her property during Erusin (see Kesuvos 83a), as the TOSFOS RID and SHITAH LO NODA L'MI explain, or where her husband gave her the money as a gift so that the money belongs entirely to her, as the RASHBA and MAHARSHA explain. TOSFOS (end of DH Ela) suggests a similar explanation. RASHI (DH Ela b'Zuzi Didah), however, writes that the woman was using the money of her Nichsei Milug! (Perhaps Rashi's source is the Gemara which explains that she is exempt from paying a Chomesh because of the Derashah of "'Ish' and not 'Ishah'," and not from the Derashah of "'mi'Ma'asro' ('his Ma'aser') (Vayikra 27:31) and not 'Ma'aser of others'," implying that the woman's money is not entirely comparable to a stranger's money.) Why, then, should she not add a Chomesh? It should be considered like her husband's money, as we see from the conclusion of the Gemara! (TOSFOS DH Ela)

ANSWERS:

(a) The RASHBA explains that Nichsei Milug is considered the woman's money (since she owns the Keren of the Nichsei Milug). Therefore, if she uses it to redeem her husband's Ma'aser Sheni, she does not have to add a Chomesh. However, when the Ma'aser Sheni is Nichsei Milug (as in the Gemara's conclusion), it is judged differently. Since the only use of Ma'aser Sheni is to be eaten in Yerushalayim, it has no use that can be considered Peros (it cannot be used for the purchase of land which will produce Peros). The Rashba writes that Nichsei Milug of the wife which has no Peros is given entirely to the husband, and therefore he is considered to be the full owner of the Ma'aser Sheni. Hence, if his money is used to redeem it, then she must add a Chomesh.

The Rashba suggests a similar logic with regard to money which is given to the woman on condition that it be used only to redeem Ma'aser. Since it must be used to redeem Ma'aser and it cannot be used to purchase land, it has no Peros and the husband owns it entirely. (See SEFER HA'MIKNAH.)

(b) Perhaps Rashi learns that the Nichsei Milug are considered both the property of the woman and of the man. The Keren belongs to the woman, and the Peros of the Nichsei Milug belong to the man. If a third party would pay twenty per cent of the value of the Nichsei Milug in order to receive the husband's rights to the property, then twenty per cent of the Nichsei Milug are considered to be the sole property of the husband, while eighty per cent (the value of the Keren) is the wife's. (The SEFER HA'MIKNAH also suggests that the Nichsei Milug is considered to be jointly owned.)

When the Gemara says that if she uses her money of Nichsei Milug to redeem her husband's Ma'aser Sheni then she does not add a Chomesh, it is referring to when she only uses the value of the Keren to redeem the Ma'aser Sheni. (For example, she is Mechalel the Kedushah of the fruit onto only eighty per cent of the money, or she sells her portion of the Nichsei Milug and uses the profits of the sale to redeem the fruit.)

When the Gemara concludes that if she redeems Ma'aser Sheni of Nichsei Milug with her husband's money then she must add a Chomesh, it means that she must add a Chomesh for the *husband's* portion of the Ma'aser Sheni that she redeemed with his money (that is, the Peros-value of the Ma'aser Sheni). The wording of the Beraisa is very precise according to this, because the Tana Kama does not write that the woman must "pay a Chomesh," but that "she cannot redeem Ma'aser Sheni without a Chomesh" (because although she does pay a Chomesh, she only pays a Chomesh for part of the Ma'aser Sheni).

Even though Ma'aser Sheni has no Peros, as the Rashba points out, nevertheless after it is redeemed it *can* be used to purchase land, as the TOSFOS RID writes, and therefore the Ma'aser Sheni does have a Peros-value.

How will Rashi explain the Gemara that says that if a woman receives money on condition to use it only to redeem Ma'aser, then she must add a Chomesh according to the Rabanan, because the money becomes her husband's despite the stipulation? Why do we not view the money as Nichsei Milug? It should be considered the woman's money, since such money has no Peros-value!

The Rishonim (TOSFOS RID) and Acharonim (SEFER HA'MIKNAH) point out that Rashi apparently holds that money which is given to the woman as a gift is not considered Nichsei Milug like money that she inherits. Rather, such money is considered the exclusive possession of her husband, just like money that she finds or that she earns. This is clear from Rashi earlier (23b, DH Kinyan) and in Sanhedrin (71a, DH Al Menas). Accordingly, if we view money that is given to her for the purpose of redeeming Ma'aser like any other gift, it is considered to be entirely the husband's property and not Nichsei Milug, and therefore she must add a Chomesh when she uses it to redeem her husband's Ma'aser Sheni.

24b

QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that an Eved Kena'ani goes free if his master blinds him. Even if the Eved was already blind, he goes free if his master knocks out his eye, because the removal of a limb from the body of the Eved warrants his release to freedom. The Gemara writes later that if an Eved has a loose tooth which serves no purpose and the master knocks it out, the Eved does *not* go free, since the tooth was useless before it was knocked out.

What is the difference between the removal of a useless eye and the removal of a useless tooth? In any case, he has removed a limb from the Eved's body and it should warrant the release of the Eved! Moreover, it seems clear that the Gemara views the tooth to be a limb, as it views the eye, since the Gemara derives from the "Shen v'Ayin" in the verse (Shemos 21:26) that the removal of any of the Roshei Evarim will free the Eved. Hence, even the removal of a useless tooth should free the Eved! (RASHBA, MAHARSHA, and others. See Insights to 25:1.)

ANSWERS:

(a) The RASHASH answers that a tooth differs from an eye, since it is not considered as much a part of the body as the eye, since it tends to fall out with age, and since a person is not born with it.

We may ask on this answer that if the tooth is not as much a part of the body as the eye, then the Gemara (at the beginning of the page) should have given this as a reason for why the Torah writes both "tooth" and "eye" in the verse! Had the Torah written only "eye," we would have thought that the Eved does *not* go free when his tooth is knocked out, since the tooth is not as much a part of the body as the eye!

However, it is clear that the Gemara there could have suggested other reasons for why the Torah had to mention the loss of a tooth. A tooth is not as visible as the eye, for it is only seen when the mouth is open, and therefore had the Torah written only "eye," we would have thought that the Eved does not go free unless a very exposed part of his body (like the eye) is damaged, but not when his tooth is knocked out. In fact, a missing tooth is not considered a Mum with regard to the blemishes that invalidate a Korban (or a Kohen), as REBBI AKIVA EIGER and the SEFER HA'MIKNAH ask.

The SHITAH LO NODA L'MI also asks this question. He answers that the Gemara could also have used this logic to explain why the Torah had to write "tooth," but instead it chose a different logic. Hence, the Gemara does not pose a question on the Rashash's answer, because it could have indeed suggested that a tooth is different because it falls out when a person ages, but it chose to suggest a different logic.

(b) The SHITAH LO NODA L'MI and RABEINU YEHONASAN MI'LUNIL explain that when a tooth is so loose that it is useless, it will eventually fall out, and therefore the master has not caused any damage by knocking it out. It cannot be compared to a blind eye which would have always remained in its place had the master not knocked it out.