Study Kiddushin folio 24B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
a milk tooth, a child’s tooth that will eventually fall out to be replaced by another, is included in this halakha. Therefore God writes “eye,” to teach that this halakha applies only to a body part that does not regenerate, like an eye. And if God had written only “eye,” I would say that just as
The Talmud asks: But one can say the following argument: “If a man smites” (Exodus 21:26), is a generalization; “a tooth” and “an eye” are each a detail. If so, this should be read as a generalization and a detail, and the hermeneutical principle in a case of this kind is that the generalization i
The Talmud answers that when each verse states: “To freedom shall he send him” (Exodus 21:26, 27), it then generalized again. Consequently, this should be read as a generalization and a detail and a generalization. In this case, the hermeneutical principle is that you may deduce that the verse is r
The Talmud asks: If so, one can limit this category even further: Just as with the explicit details, they are referring to exposed blemishes and the body part is prevented from performing its regular function and does not regenerate, so too, a slave should be emancipated as a result of an injury t
The Talmud asks: But if it is an amplification, which includes additional injuries, the slave should also be emancipated even if he struck him on his hand and it withered, i.e., became temporarily paralyzed, but would eventually be expected to regenerate. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: If