Commentary for Kiddushin 47:7
ואימא ניהוו שן ועין כשני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין צריכא דאי כתב רחמנא שן הוה אמינא אפילו
which come as one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to teach the same thing. For this analogy could be drawn only if one were mentioned.');"><sup>14</sup></span> and whenever two verses come as one, they do not illumine [other cases].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise, only 'eye' or 'tooth' should have been mentioned, and by analogy the other, as well as all limbs the loss of which has the same result, would be included.');"><sup>15</sup></span> - Both are necessary. For had the All-Merciful mentioned 'tooth' [only], I would have argued, [It refers] even
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
When the Torah uses one example to illustrate a law it can be seen as a paradigm for other potentially similar things. But when it uses two examples, it could be said that these examples are all that fit into the category. Thus it might be that the slave goes free only if the master puts out his tooth or eye.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The Talmud now demonstrates that both are necessary. The case of the eye teaches that he does not go free at loss of a milk tooth, which will be replaced by an adult tooth. And it taught tooth to demonstrate that he need not be born with the “limb” in order to go free at its loss.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy