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 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.
ואלא בזוזי דידה ומעשר דידיה איש אמר רחמנא ולא אשה
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.
אלא לאו כי האי גוונא דאקני לה אחר מנה ואמר לה ע"מ שתפדי בו את המעשר ואיפכא שמענא להו
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 with 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.
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
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.
ורבנן לטעמייהו דאמרי ממון הדיוט הוא וקני ליה בעל הילכך שליחותא דבעל קעבדא:
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.
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
§ 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.
ואימא ניהוו שן ועין כשני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין צריכא דאי כתב רחמנא שן הוה אמינא אפילו
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 not 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