Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Daled, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s section deals with the following verses from Exodus 21:26-27:

When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye.

If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.

 

תנא יוצא בשן ועין וראשי אברים שאינן חוזרים

בשלמא שן ועין כתיבי אלא ראשי אברים מנלן דומיא דשן ועין מה שן ועין מומין שבגלוי ואינן חוזרין אף כל מומין שבגלוי ואינן חוזרין

 

A Tanna taught: He [the Canaanite slave] goes out free through [the loss of] his eye, tooth, and projecting limbs which do not return.

Now, as for [the loss of] his tooth or eye, it makes sense, for these are written.

But how do we know [the loss of] the projecting limbs?

They are similar to tooth and eye: just as these are exposed blemishes, and do not return, so too [he goes free for the loss of] all [limbs which are] exposed blemishes and do not return.

 

The Torah explicitly states that a slave goes free at the loss of an eye or tooth. The rabbis add that the same is true for any projecting limb (such as a leg or hand or finger. There are 24 of these and they will be listed later on daf Kaf Heh). The blemish must also be exposed, as are teeth and eyes. A slave who loses such a limb will be noticeably deformed.

 

ואימא ניהוו שן ועין כשני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין

 

But let us say that tooth and eye are two laws which come as one, and whenever two verses come as one, they do not teach about [other cases].

 

When the Torah uses one example to illustrate a law it can be seen as a paradigm for other potentially similar things. But when it uses two examples, it could be said that these examples are all that fit into the category. Thus it might be that the slave goes free only if the master puts out his tooth or eye.

 

צריכא דאי כתב רחמנא שן הוה אמינא אפילו שן דחלב כתב רחמנא עין

ואי כתב רחמנא עין ה"א מה עין שנברא עמו אף כל שנברא עמו אבל שן לא צריכא

 

Both are necessary. For had the Torah written only tooth I would have said, [it refers] even to a milk tooth; therefore the Torah wrote eye.

And had the Torah written eye I would have said, just as the eye is created with him [at birth], so all limbs [for which he would go free] must be created with him [iat birth], but not a tooth. Thus both are necessary.

 

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.

 

ואימא (שמות כא, כ) כי יכה כלל שן ועין פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט שן ועין אין מידי אחרינא לא

 

But let us say, [And] if [a man] strike this is general statement; the tooth . . . the eye, these are specific statements; in the case of a general statement followed by a specific one, the former includes only that contained in the latter: hence, only tooth and eye but nothing else!

 

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.

 

(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

 

He shall send him free (Exodus 21:26) is another general statement. And in a sequence of general statement, followed by a specific example and then another general statement, you can include only what is similar to the specification: just as the specification is explicit that it is an exposed blemish that does not return, so to [he goes free for loss] for all exposed blemishes that do not return.

 

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.

 

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

 

If so, [say] that just as the specification is explicit as an exposed blemish, and it ceases to function, and does not return, so for all exposed blemishes, which cease to function, and do not return [the slave is freed]!

Why [then] was it taught: If he [the master] plucked out his beard and thereby dislocates his [jaw.] bone, the slave goes free?

 

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.

 

לחפשי ישלחנו ריבויא הוא 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

 

He shall let him go free includes [something else].

But if it is an inclusion, even if he struck his hand and it withered, but it will ultimately heal, he should also [be freed]? Why was it taught: If he struck his hand and it withered, but it will ultimately heal, the slave does not go free?

If so, of what use are tooth and eye ?

 

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.