Commentary for Kiddushin 48:9
ת"ר הכהו על עינו וסמאה על אזנו וחרשה עבד יוצא בהן לחירות נגד עינו ואינו רואה כנגד אזנו ואינו שומע אין עבד יוצא בהן לחירות אמר רב שמן לרב אשי למימרא דקלא לאו כלום הוא
Those who sought to make a compromise before the Sages said: R'Tarfon's view is preferable in respect of tooth and eye, seeing that the Torah conferred the privilege [of freedom] upon him [as compensation];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore no deed is required.');"><sup>16</sup></span> and R'Akiba's view in respect of other limbs, since it is a punishment of the Sages [that the slave is freed].' A punishment'?
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