Commentary for Kiddushin 48:2
ואימא (שמות כא, כ) כי יכה כלל שן ועין פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט שן ועין אין מידי אחרינא לא
Thus both are necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore they are not two verses with the same purpose.');"><sup>3</sup></span> But let us say, [And] if [a man] smite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 26f.');"><sup>4</sup></span> - that is a general proposition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that the slave is freed for the destruction of any limb.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The Talmud now proposes reading the verse as a case of a general statement followed by a specific one. In such a case, the rule applies only to the specific examples—only the tooth and eye.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The Talmud now reads the verses as a sequence of general, followed by particular, followed by another general statement. In such a case, the law applies to things like the specific example. In this case, the slave goes free when he loses limbs that are like eyes and teeth—noticeable and they do not return.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
Eyes and teeth when put out cease to function. So why then does slave go free if the master dislocates his jaw. This is not a total loss of function. It is not like the eye or tooth.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The verse “he shall let him go free” is read as including another way of the slave going free—in this case for the dislocated jaw. But now that we read this as an inclusion, we have to ask why temporary wounds, such as temporarily causing the hand to wither, do not also cause the slave to go free.
The answer is that including all such injuries would render the examples of “eye and tooth” meaningless. Thus we need to negotiate between the limitations of “eye and tooth” and inclusion of something else. For a dislocated jaw, the slave goes free, but not for a temporarily hurt hand.
The answer is that including all such injuries would render the examples of “eye and tooth” meaningless. Thus we need to negotiate between the limitations of “eye and tooth” and inclusion of something else. For a dislocated jaw, the slave goes free, but not for a temporarily hurt hand.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy