Kiddushin

to a milk tooth;1 therefore the All-Merciful wrote ‘eye’.2 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. Thus both are necessary.3 But let us say, [And] if [a man] smite4 — that is a general proposition;5 ‘the tooth . . . the eye’ — that is a specification; and in a general proposition followed 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 include6 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,7 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,8 the slave is liberated on their account?9 — ‘He shall let him go free’ is an amplification.10 But if it is an amplification, even if he struck his hand and it withered, but it will ultimately heal,11 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,12 of what use are ‘tooth’ and ‘eye’?13 Our Rabbis taught: On account of all these14 a slave gains his freedom, yet he needs a deed of emancipation:15 this is R. Simeon's opinion. 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. 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];16 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’? Surely [Scriptural] verses are [here] expounded!17 — But [say thus:] since it is an exposition of the Sages.18 What is R. Simeon's reason? — He learns the meaning of ‘sending’ here from a [married] woman:19 just as a woman [is sent forth] by deed, so is a slave too [sent forth] by deed. And R. Meir?20 — Were ‘to freedom’ written at the end [of the verse, it would be] as you say;21 since, however, it is written: ‘to freedom shall he send him away’, it implies that he is free at the very outset.22 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; near23 his eye, so that he cannot see, [or] near his ear, and he can not hear,24 the slave does not go out [free] on their account. R. Shaman said to R. Ashi: Are we to assume that sound is nothing?25 But Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: If a cock stretches its head into the cavity of a glass vessel, crows there and breaks it, he [its owner] must pay for it in full. Also, R. Joseph said: The scholars of Rab26 said: If a horse neighs or an ass brays and breaks utensils in a house, he [their owner] must pay for half the damage!27 — Man is different, he replied; since he is an intelligent being, he frightens himself.28 As it was taught: If one frightens his neighbour,29 he is exempt by the law of man, yet liable by the law of Heaven.30 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. Our Rabbis taught: If he strikes his eye and dims it,31 [or] his tooth, and loosens it: if he can [nevertheless] still use them, the slave does not go out free on their account; if not, the slave goes out free on their account. Another [Baraitha] taught: If his eye [sight] was dim, and he [altogether] blinds him,32 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. 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]. 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,33 [or] to drill his tooth, and he knocks it out, he laughs at his master and goes out free. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: and he destroy it34 [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 womb35 and blinds the child within her, he is free [from punishment].36 What is the reason? — Because Scripture said: ‘and he destroy it’, [implying], only when he intends to destroy it. And the other?37 — He deduces this from ‘and he destroy it’, [instead of] ‘and he destroy’.38 And the other? — He does not interpret ‘he destroy’, [and] ‘he destroy it’. 39 R. Shesheth said: If he has a blind eye and he [the master] removes it, the slave is freed on its account. And a Tanna supports this: Perfection40 and male sex are required in animals41 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 said: And if [the burnt sacrifice be . . .] of fowls,42 but not all fowls.43 R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: If he had Jast. s.v. ksks translates: he loosened a tooth in the slave's jaw. But there seems no sufficient reason for translating omg here as tooth. to the loss of an eye or tooth. 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. divorce. and send her (we-shillehah, the same verb as yeshallehenu) out of his house — Deut. XXIV, 1. then is he free. 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.). nerves, rendering him blind or deaf. centuries after his death, or, scholars in general. damage. something to it, his intention must be destructive. slave.