Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Daled, Part 4

 

Introduction

More baraitot about when a slave goes free if his master puts out his eye or tooth.

 

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

 

Our Rabbis taught: If he strikes his eye and it grows dim, his tooth, and loosens it: if he can still use them, the slave does not go out free on their account; if not, the slave goes out free on their account.

It was taught in another baraita: If his eye was dim, and he blinds him, 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.

 

Both of these baraitot essentially say the same thing. If the eye or tooth does not work, it counts as having been put out. If it was previously not working and the master puts it fully out, then this does not count as being put out. The test is whether the eye or tooth works.

 

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

 

Now, both are necessary. For if he taught us only the first, [I would say] that is because his eyesight was originally sound and now it is weak; but here [in the second baraita], where at first his eyesight was already weak, I would say [that he does] not [go free].

 

If I only had the first baraita, I might say that if the master severely weakens his eyesight or tooth, so much so that he cannot use them, he goes free. But if the eye is already weak and he puts it out, he does not go free because it was already weak. Therefore we need the second baraita.

 

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

 

And if we were taught the second: that is because he completely blinds him; but there [in the first baraita] where he does not completely blind him, l would say [that he does] not [go free]. Hence both are necessary.

 

If we only had the second baraita, I would think that the slave never goes free unless he is completely blinded. Therefore, we need the first baraita to teach that as long as the slave cannot use his eye or tooth, he goes free, even if he is not completely blind.

 

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

 

Our Rabbis taught: If his master is a doctor and he asks him to paint his eye [with an ointment], and he blinds him, [or] to drill his tooth, and he knocks it out, he has played his master and he goes out free.

R. Shimon b. Gamaliel said: And destroys it (Exodus 21:26) [the slave does not go free] unless he intends to destroy.

 

To the rabbis, if the master puts out the slave s eye or tooth he goes free, even if the master did not intend to do so. But R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says he must intend to put it out.

 

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

 

And the Rabbis: How do they use and he destroys it ?

They need it for what was taught: R. Elazar says: If he inserts his hand in his maidservant s womb and blinds the child within her, he is exempt [from sending the slave free]. What is the reason? Because Scripture said: and he destroy it only when he intends to destroy it.

 

The rabbis use the phrase and he destroys it to exempt a master who accidentally blinds a fetus while trying to help his maidservant deliver her baby. In this case, he did not intend to do anything to an eye at all. However, if he intended to perform an operation on the eye and he accidentally put it out, the slave does go free, because he intended to do something to the eye.

 

ואידך מושחת שחתה נפקא ואידך שחת שחתה לא דריש

 

And the other? From and he destroy it , [instead of] and he destroy.

And the other? He does not derive meaning from he destroy [and] he destroy it.

 

R. Elazar derives this other halakhah from the word it at the end of the verb. This extra word allows him to derive both halakhot.

The other rabbis do not derive any meaning from this extra word. This allows this midrashic discussion to end.