Kiddushin 48

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.');">¹</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.');">²</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.

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.');">³</span> But let us say, [And] if [a man] smite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 26f.');">⁴</span> - that is a general proposition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that the slave is freed for the destruction of any limb.');">⁵</span>

(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'.');">⁶</span>

אי מה הפרט מפורש מומין שבגלוי ובטל ממלאכתו ואינו חוזר אף כל מומין שבגלוי ואינו חוזר ובטל ממלאכתו אלמה תניא תלש בזקנו ודילדל בו עצם עבד יוצא בהם לחירות לחפשי ישלחנו ריבויא הוא

what is similar to the specification: just as the specification is explicit as a patent blemish and does not return, so for all [limbs whose loss are] patent blemishes and do not return [the slave is freed]. If so, [say] just as the specification is explicit as a patent blemish, ceases to do its work,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The eye is blinded and the tooth cannot masticate. ksks');">⁷</span> and does not return, so for all [limbs whose loss are] patent blemishes, cease to function, and do not return [the slave is freed]! Why [then] was it taught: If he [the master] plucked out his [the slave's] beard and thereby loosened his [jaw.] bone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This appears to be the meaning of the phrase, and is so understood in J.D. 267, 30, where, 'from the jaw' is added. Jast. s.v. translates: omg he loosened a tooth in the slave's jaw. But there seems no sufficient reason for translating here as tooth.');">⁸</span>

ואי ריבויא הוא אפי' הכהו על ידו וצמתה וסופה לחזור נמי אלמה תניא הכהו על ידו וצמתה וסופה לחזור אין עבד יוצא בה לחירות א"כ שן ועין מאי אהני ליה

the slave is liberated on their account?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the bone still functions.');">⁹</span> - 'He shall let him go free' is an amplification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not merely a generalization, and therefore it teaches the inclusion of bodily hurts which are not completely similar to the loss of an eye or tooth.');">¹⁰</span> But if it is an amplification, even if he struck his hand and it withered, but it will ultimately heal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'return' - to its normal state.');">¹¹</span>

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.');">¹²</span> of what use are 'tooth' and 'eye'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it must be to exclude injuries which are not permanent.');">¹³</span>

המכריעים לפני חכמים אומרים נראין דברי ר"ט בשן ועין שהתורה זכתה לו ודברי ר"ע בשאר אברים הואיל וקנס חכמים הוא קנס הוא קראי קא דרשינן אלא הואיל ומדרש חכמים הוא

Our Rabbis taught: On account of all these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the twenty-four projecting limbs.');">¹⁴</span> a slave gains his freedom, yet he needs a deed of emancipation:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To legalise his marriage with a free Jewess.');">¹⁵</span> this is R'Simeon's opinion.

מ"ט דר"ש יליף שילוח שילוח מאשה מה אשה בשטר אף עבד נמי בשטר ור"מ אי כתב חפשי לבסוף כדקאמרת השתא דכתב לחפשי ישלחנו הוה ליה חפשי מעיקרא

R'Meir said: He does not need one. R'Eleazar said: He does need one; R'Tarfon said: He does not need one. R'Akiba said: He needs one.

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.');">¹⁶</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'?

והתני רמי בר יחזקאל תרנגול שהושיט ראשו לאויר כלי זכוכית ותקע בו ושברו משלם נזק שלם ואמר רב יוסף אמרי בי רב סוס שצנף וחמור שנער ושברו כלים בתוך הבית משלמים חצי נזק

Surely [Scriptural verses are [here] expounded!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prove the inclusion of other limbs too. Hence they too have Scriptural force.');">¹⁷</span> - But [say thus:] since it is an exposition of the Sages.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the law is derived by Rabbinical exegesis. - The requirement of a deed is only a Rabbinical measure, lest his former master reclaim him as his slave. Hence it is unnecessary in the case of his tooth and eye, for all know that Scripture gave him his freedom. But not all are aware of the Rabbinical exegesis which extended the law to other limbs too; hence the slave needs a document to prove his freedom. - R. Tam. V. also below for another explanation.');">¹⁸</span> What is R'Simeon's reason? - He learns the meaning of 'sending' here from a [married] woman:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here: To freedom shall he send him away (yeshallehenu) ; a married woman: then he shall write her a bill of divorce. and send her');">¹⁹</span>

א"ל שאני אדם דכיון דבר דעת הוא איהו מיבעית נפשיה כדתניא המבעית את חבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים כיצד תקע באזנו וחרשו פטור אחזהו ותקע באזנו וחרשו חייב

just as a woman [is sent forth] by deed, so is a slave too [sent forth] by deed. And R'Meir?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does he not accept this exegesis?');">²⁰</span> - Were 'to freedom' written at the end [of the verse, it would be] as you say;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then one might argue: he shall send him - in the manner that a woman is sent away, viz., by deed - and only then is he free.');">²¹</span>

ת"ר הכהו על עינו וכהתה על שינו ונדדה אם יכול להשתמש בהן עכשיו אין עבד יוצא בהן לחירות ואם לאו עבד יוצא בהן לחירות תניא אידך הרי שהיתה עינו כהויה וסמאה שינו נדודה והפילה אם יכול להשתמש בהן כבר עבד יוצא בהן לחירות ואם לאו אין עבד יוצא בהן לחירות

since, however, it is written: 'to freedom shall he send him away', it implies that he is free at the very outset.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as soon as he is assaulted he automatically becomes free, and hence no deed is required. - Now, this can apply only to the loss of his eye or tooth, which are distinctly stated in that verse. But the other limbs are included only because 'he shall send him away' is an extension (v. supra) ; hence in respect of those, R. Simeon's exegesis, assimilating the freedom of a slave to that of a woman, may still hold good. Therefore those who compromised ruled that a deed is unnecessary when he loses his eye or tooth, but is necessary in all other cases (Riba in Tosaf.) .');">²²</span> Our Rabbis taught: If he smites his eye and blinds it, [or] his ear, and deafens it, the slave goes out [to freedom] on their account; near<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'against'.');">²³</span> his eye, so that he cannot see, [or] near his ear, and he can not hear,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he forcibly strikes a wall or any other object near his ear, and the shock or noise paralyses his optical or aural nerves, rendering him blind or deaf.');">²⁴</span>

וצריכא דאי אשמועינן הך קמייתא משום דמעיקרא נהורא בריא והשתא נהורא כחישא אבל הכא דמעיקרא נמי נהורא כחישא אימא לא

the slave does not go out [free] on their account. R'Shaman said to R'Ashi: Are we to assume that sound is nothing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he was blinded by sound he is not freed.');">²⁵</span> But Rami B'Ezekiel learnt: If a cock stretches its head into the cavity of a glass vessel, crows th and breaks it, he [its owner] must pay for it in full.

ואי אשמועינן הא משום דסמיא לגמרי אבל התם דלא סמיא לגמרי אימא לא צריכא

Also, R'Joseph said: The scholars of Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Be Rab may either mean the students of Rab's college, which he founded and which continued to flourish several centuries after his death, or, scholars in general.');">²⁶</span> said: If a horse neighs or an ass brays and breaks utensils in a house, he [their owner] must pay for half the damage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 18b. Thus second is a positive action, for which liability is incurred.');">²⁷</span> - Man is different, he replied; since he is an intelligent being, he frightens himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He should be able to control his nerves.');">²⁸</span>

תנו רבנן הרי שהיה רבו רופא ואמר לו לכחול לו עינו וסמאה לחתור לו שינו והפילה שיחק באדון ויצא לחירות רשב"ג אומר (שמות כא, כו) ושחתה עד שיתכוין לשחתה

As it was taught: If one frightens his neighbour,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thereby causing damage.');">²⁹</span> he is exempt by the law of man, yet liable by the law of Heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., legally, he is exempt; morally, he is liable. This proves that in law he is not regarded as having caused the damage.');">³⁰</span> E.g. , if he blows into his ear and deafens him, he is exempt; but if he seizes him, blows into his ear, and deafens him, he is liable.

ורבנן האי ושחתה מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי להו לכדתניא ר"א אומר הרי שהושיט ידו למעי שפחתו וסימא עובר שבמעיה פטור מ"ט דאמר קרא ושחתה עד שיכוין לשחתה

Our Rabbis taught: If he strikes his eye and dims it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seriously impairing his eyesight, but not blinding him.');">³¹</span> [or] his tooth, and loosens it: if he can [nevertheles still use them, the slave does not go out free on their account; if not, the slave goes out free on their accoun Another [Baraitha] taught: If his eye [sight] was dim, and he [altogether] blinds him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it'.');">³²</span> or his tooth was loose, and he knocks it out: if he could use them before, the slave goes out free on their account; if not, the slave does not go free on their account.

ואידך מושחת שחתה נפקא ואידך שחת שחתה לא דריש

Now, both are necessary. For if we were taught the first [only], [I would say] that is because his eyesight was originally sound and now it is weak; but here [in the second Baraitha], seeing that his eyesight was impaired before too, I would say [that he does] not [go free]. And if we were taught the second: that is because he completely blinds him; but there [in the first Baraitha] that he does not completely blind him, l would say [that he does] not [go free].

א"ר ששת הרי שהיתה עינו סמויה וחטטה עבד יוצא בהן לחירות מ"ט מחוסר אבר הוא

Hence both are necessary. Our Rabbis taught: If his master is a doctor and he asks him to paint his eye [with an ointment], and he blinds him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accidentally.');">³³</span> [or] to dril his tooth, and he knocks it out, he laughs at his master and goes out free.

ותנא תונא תמות וזכרות בבהמה ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות

R'Simeon B'Gamaliel said: and he destroy it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 26.');">³⁴</span> [implies], only when he intends to destroy. And the Rabbis: how do they employ 'and he destroy it'? - They need it for what was taught: R'Eleazar said: If he inserts his hand in his bondmaid's womb<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'bowels' - in order to deliver her of child.');">³⁵</span>

יכול יבשה גפה נקטעה רגלה נחטטה עינה ת"ל מן העוף ולא כל העוף

and blinds the child within her, he is free [from punishment].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The child, on birth, is not emancipated. There he does not intend doing anything to its eye at all, but here he does.');">³⁶</span> What is the reason? - Because Scripture said: 'and he destroy it', [implying], only when he intends to destroy it. And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: does he not admit that the word is needed for such a case?');">³⁷</span>

א"ר חייא בר אשי אמר רב היתה לו

- He deduces this from 'and he destroy it', [instead of] 'and he destroy'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And he destroy' implies that he must intend to destroy: 'and he destroy it' implies that even if he is doing something to it, his intention must be destructive.');">³⁸</span> And the other? - He does not interpret 'he destroy', [and] 'he destroy it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'it' has no particular significance.');">³⁹</span> R'Shesheth said: If he has a blind eye and he [the master] removes it, the slave is freed on its account. A a Tanna supports this: Perfection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., freedom from blemish.');">⁴⁰</span> and male sex are required in animals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For burnt-offerings.');">⁴¹</span> but not In birds. I might think, [even] if its wing is palsied, its foot cut off, or its eye picked out [the bird is still fit]: therefore it is if [the burnt sacrifice be.] of fowls,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 14 'of is partitive, excluding some fowls.');">⁴²</span> but not all fowls.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus, though blindness does not disqualify, the loss of a blind eye does. A similar principle operates in the case of a slave.');">⁴³</span> R'Hiyya B'Ashi said in Rab's name: If he had