Commentary for Kiddushin 48:6
ת"ר בכולם עבד יוצא בהם לחירות וצריך גט שחרור דברי ר"ש ר"מ אומר אינו צריך ר"א אומר צריך ר' טרפון אומר אינו צריך ר"ע אומר צריך
he should also [be freed]? Why was it taught: If he struck his hand and it withered, but it will ultimately heal, the slave is not freed on its account? - If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That nothing at all is excluded.');"><sup>12</sup></span> of what use are 'tooth' and 'eye'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it must be to exclude injuries which are not permanent.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
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