Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Commentary for Kiddushin 42:7

אמר רבי אלעזר יודן בריבי היה דורש כשהן רוצעים אין רוצעים אלא במילתא וחכ"א אין עבד עברי כהן נרצע מפני שנעשה בעל מום וא"ת במילתא הם רוצעים היאך עבד עברי כהן יעשה בעל מום הא אין נרצע אלא בגובה של אזן במאי קמיפלגי

[that] the great awl [is meant].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained below.');"><sup>8</sup></span> R'Eleazar said: Judan Berabbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Berobbi, Beribbi, a contraction of Be Rabbi, was a title of scholars, generally applied to disciples of R. Judah ha-Nasi (Rabbi par excellence) and his contemporaries, but also to some of his predecessors, and occasionally to the first Amoraim (Jast. s.v.) ; v. Nazir (Sonc. ed.) p. 64. n. 1.');"><sup>9</sup></span> used to expound: When it [his ear] was bored, only the lobe was bored.

Daf Shevui to Kiddushin

The first part of this baraita contains a few opinions as to what the awl used to bore the ear must be made out of—must it be from metal or can it be from other materials.
In the second part of the baraita, the rabbis argue over where on the ear a slave is bored. Evidently, a hole in the earlobe was considered a blemish while a hole in the upper part of the ear, on the cartilage was not. The reason to avoid “blemishing” the slave was that if he was a priest, he would not be able to return to serving as a priest with a permanent blemish. Thus the rabbis say that when boring, we must take into consideration his status after the Jubilee when he is no longer a priest.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Daf Shevui to Kiddushin

The Talmud now discusses the midrashic techniques that led to the dispute between Rabbi and Rabbi Yose b. R. Yehudah. Rabbi uses a midrashic technique that focuses on sequences of generalizations and specifications. This leads to the interpretation that the specification limits the generalization—the awl must be of metal.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse