Commentary for Kiddushin 48:1
שן דחלב כתב רחמנא עין ואי כתב רחמנא עין ה"א מה עין שנברא עמו אף כל שנברא עמו אבל שן לא צריכא
to a milk tooth;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which does return; e.g., if the slave was a minor.');"><sup>1</sup></span> therefore the All-Merciful wrote 'eye'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as an eye does not return, so must the tooth also be one which does not return.');"><sup>2</sup></span> And had the All-Merciful written 'eye', I would have thought,just as the eye is created with him, so must all [for whose loss he is emancipated] be created with him [i.e., at birth], but not a tooth.
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