THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
KIDUSHIN 24-30 (9-15 Sivan) - This week's study material has been dedicated
by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y., in loving memory of her husband,
Reb Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu Grunberger. Irving Grunberger helped many
people quietly in an unassuming manner and is dearly missed by all who knew
him. His Yahrzeit is 10 Sivan.
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)
(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.
2) A USELESS TOOTH
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.)
(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.