Commentary for Kiddushin 48:3
(שמות כא, כו) לחפשי ישלחנו חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש מום שבגלוי ואינן חוזרים אף כל מומין שבגלוי ואינן חוזרין
'the tooth. the eye' - that is a specification; and in a general proposition follo by a specification the former includes only that contained in the latter: hence, only 'tooth' and 'eye' but nothing else! - 'He shall let him go free' is another general proposition. And in a sequence of generalization, specification and generalization, you can only include<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'judge'.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
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
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
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
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
This baraita contains a dispute over whether the slave being emancipated because his master put out his eye, tooth or other major limb, needs a deed of emancipation. The number of sages who participate is somewhat unusual. In the end, a compromise seems to have been reached. Since tooth and eye are mentioned explicitly in the Torah, the slave does not need a deed of emancipation. But for the other limbs, which are only derived through a midrash, he does.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
This baraita contains a dispute over whether the slave being emancipated because his master put out his eye, tooth or other major limb, needs a deed of emancipation. The number of sages who participate is somewhat unusual. In the end, a compromise seems to have been reached. Since tooth and eye are mentioned explicitly in the Torah, the slave does not need a deed of emancipation. But for the other limbs, which are only derived through a midrash, he does.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The Talmud explains the midrashic origins of the dispute. The word “sending” is used both in the context of the slave and in the context of a woman being divorced. According to R. Shimon, just as a woman being divorced needs a document, so too a slave going free always needs a document.
R. Meir uses the order of the words in the verse to posit that he does not. The phrase begins with “to freedom” and therefore R. Meir holds that the slave is free right away, even without a deed.
R. Meir uses the order of the words in the verse to posit that he does not. The phrase begins with “to freedom” and therefore R. Meir holds that the slave is free right away, even without a deed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
For the slave to go free, the blow must be on the eye or ear. If the master strikes something and doing so makes a loud noise which causes the slave to become so afraid he goes blind or deaf, the slave does not go free. (I do not know how it is possible to cause blindness by making a loud noise. This is how Rashi interprets the statement, probably because Rashi cannot imagine that if a master actually strike’s the slave’s body, and the slave goes blind or deaf, the slave would not go free. Furthermore, this is how the Talmud seems to interpret below. However, a source referred to below refers only to deafness, which makes more sense).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The above tradition does not seem to consider making a noise that causes damage equivalent to physically doing the damage onto the damaged object. But R. Shemen quotes two amoraic statements that refer to animals that cause damage by making noise and in both of them, makes the person liable. Thus making a loud noise does cause liability. This seems to be a contradiction.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The above tradition does not seem to consider making a noise that causes damage equivalent to physically doing the damage onto the damaged object. But R. Shemen quotes two amoraic statements that refer to animals that cause damage by making noise and in both of them, makes the person liable. Thus making a loud noise does cause liability. This seems to be a contradiction.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
R. Ashi explains that the case of a noise damaging an object is different from the case of a person being damaged. A person is intelligent, and to a certain extent, brings this damage on himself by being frightened. This is proven by a case of a person who makes a loud noise and thereby deafens another. He is not liable unless he physically seizes the other person.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
Both of these baraitot essentially say the same thing. If the eye or tooth does not work, it counts as having been put out. If it was previously not working and the master puts it fully out, then this does not count as being put out. The test is whether the eye or tooth works.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
If I only had the first baraita, I might say that if the master severely weakens his eyesight or tooth, so much so that he cannot use them, he goes free. But if the eye is already weak and he puts it out, he does not go free because it was already weak. Therefore we need the second baraita.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
If we only had the second baraita, I would think that the slave never goes free unless he is completely blinded. Therefore, we need the first baraita to teach that as long as the slave cannot use his eye or tooth, he goes free, even if he is not completely blind.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
To the rabbis, if the master puts out the slave’s eye or tooth he goes free, even if the master did not intend to do so. But R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says he must intend to put it out.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The rabbis use the phrase “and he destroys it” to exempt a master who accidentally blinds a fetus while trying to help his maidservant deliver her baby. In this case, he did not intend to do anything to an eye at all. However, if he intended to perform an operation on the eye and he accidentally put it out, the slave does go free, because he intended to do something to the eye.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
R. Elazar derives this other halakhah from the word “it” at the end of the verb. This “extra” word allows him to derive both halakhot.
The other rabbis do not derive any meaning from this extra word. This allows this midrashic discussion to end.
The other rabbis do not derive any meaning from this extra word. This allows this midrashic discussion to end.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
According to R. Sheshet, even if the eye is already blind, if the master removes it, the slave goes free.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
A baraita supports R. Sheshet. According to this baraita, while bird sacrifices need not be fully unblemished (as do animals) they cannot have their eyes plucked out. This supports the idea that if the slave’s eye is plucked out, it is a serious enough offense that he goes free, even if he could not see before.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
A baraita supports R. Sheshet. According to this baraita, while bird sacrifices need not be fully unblemished (as do animals) they cannot have their eyes plucked out. This supports the idea that if the slave’s eye is plucked out, it is a serious enough offense that he goes free, even if he could not see before.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
If the master cuts off the slave’s extra finger, the slave still goes free, as long as it is on his hand. If it is protruding from elsewhere, it does not count as a finger.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy