(Exodus 21:26) "And if a man strike the eye of his (Canaanite) man-servant": What is the intent of this? From (Leviticus 25:26) "Forever shall you have them serve you," I might think, even if he knocked out his tooth or blinded his eye; it is, therefore, written "And if a man strike the eye of his man-servant or the tooth of his maid-servant, etc." Scripture took his Canaanite man-servant out of his class (of serving forever) to the end of leniency, (a Hebrew man-servant not going free in this manner.)
R. Eliezer says: The verse speaks of a Canaanite man-servant. You say this, but perhaps a Hebrew is intended? It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 25:44) "From them (the Canaanites) shall you buy a man-servant and a maid-servant."
"the eye of his man-servant": I might think (that he goes free) even if it developed a leucoma; it is, therefore, written "and he destroy it." Only a blow that causes destruction (is intended). I might think, even if he performed no act upon it; it is, therefore, written :"And if a man strike the eye" — whence it was ruled: If he struck his ear and deafened him, or his eye and blinded him, he goes free. (If he struck) near his eye, so that he does not see, or near his ear, so that he does not hear, he does not go free.
If he knocked out two of his teeth at the same time or blinded two of his eyes at the same time, he goes free and takes nothing, it being written "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." If he knocked out one after the other, he goes free for the first and takes his injury (payment) for the second, it being written in lieu of his eye."
R. Eliezer says: It is written here "send" (viz. "free shall he send him") and elsewhere, (in respect to a divorce) "send" (viz. Devarim 24:1 "and he shall send her from his house"). Just as there, with a writ, so, here with a writ.
For I might think, since the Torah speaks of one who sends away and one who is sent away, that just as the first cannot send away unless he is an adult, so, the second cannot be sent away unless he is an adult; it is, therefore, written "free shall he send him in lieu of his tooth" — in any event (i.e., even if he is a minor).
I might think (that he goes free) even if he knocked out a milk tooth, (which grows back); it is, therefore, written "eye." Just as an eye does not grow back, so the tooth (in question must be one which) does not grow back. This tells me only of tooth and eye. Whence do I derive (the same for) all of the other organs? It is derived inductively (binyan av) from the two, viz.: Tooth is not like eye, and eye is not like tooth. What is common to them is that they (i.e., their maimings) are permanent maimings of external organ prominences which do not grow back, (the maiming of which) causes the servant to go free, so (the maimings of) all such organ prominences which do not grow back cause him to go free.
R. Yishmael says: A Canaanite man-servant can never be redeemed and can go free only by consent (of the master), as it is written (Leviticus 25:46) "And you shall hold them as an inheritance … to inherit as a holding, etc." And in our manner we have learned that a Canaanite man-servant is like a field of holding forever.
But if his master persecuted him and knocked out his tooth or blinded his eye or (maimed) one of his (other) external organ prominences, he acquires himself (i.e., his freedom) with afflictions. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one can acquire himself by afflictions from the hand of flesh and blood, how much more so, from the hands of Heaven! And thus is it written (Psalms 118:18) "The L–rd has afflicted me exceedingly and He did not consign me to death."
(שמות כא,כו) "וְכִי יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת עֵין עַבְדּוֹ, אוֹ אֶת עֵין אֲמָתוֹ, וְשִׁחֲתָהּ, לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ תַּחַת עֵינוֹ." לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה פָרָשָׁה זוֹ? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (ויקרא כה,מו) "וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחֻזָּה, לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ", שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, אַף הִפִּיל אֶת שִׁנּוֹ וְסִמָּא אֶת עֵינוֹ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (שמות כא,כו-כז) "וְכִי יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת עֵין עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת עֵין אֲמָתוֹ וְשִׁחֲתָהּ, לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ תַּחַת עֵינוֹ. וְאִם שֵׁן עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ שֵׁן אֲמָתוֹ יַפִּיל, לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ תַּחַת שִׁנּוֹ." וַהֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב מוֹצִיא עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי מִכְּלָלוֹ, לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו שֶׁיְּהֵי יוֹצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים, לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ.
(Exodus 21:26) "And if a man strike the eye of his (Canaanite) man-servant": What is the intent of this? From (Leviticus 25:26) "Forever shall you have them serve you," I might think, even if he knocked out his tooth or blinded his eye; it is, therefore, written "And if a man strike the eye of his man-servant or the tooth of his maid-servant, etc." Scripture took his Canaanite man-servant out of his class (of serving forever) to the end of leniency, (a Hebrew man-servant not going free in this manner.)
"וְכִי יַכֶּה אִישׁ". אִשָּׁה מְנַיִן? הָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֶמְרוּ כָל נְזָקִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם, וּפָרַט בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן, שֶׁעָשָׂה בוֹ נָשִׁין כַּאֲנָשִׁין, פּוֹרֵט אֲנִי בְכָל נְזָקִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, לַעֲשׁוֹת בָּהֶן נָשִׁין כַּאֲנָשִׁין.
"And if a man strike": When do I derive the same for a woman? R. Yishmael said, etc. (See 21:18 above).
רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,כט) "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,לג) "וְכִי יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר אוֹ כִּי יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בֹּר וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (שמות כא,כט) "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה", בָּא הַכָּתוּב וְהִשְׁוָה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה לָאִישׁ בְּכָל נְזָקִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.
רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר: (שמות כא,לד) "בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם"? (שמות כב,ה) "שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם הַמַּבְעִר אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה." הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה"? לְתַלְמוּדוֹ בָא.
"אֶת עֵין עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת עֵין אֲמָתוֹ", לְחַיֵּב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.
"the eye of his man-servant or the eye of his maid-servant": to make him liable for each in itself.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בַּכְּנַעֲנִי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בַּכְּנַעֲנִי הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בָּעִבְרִי? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (ויקרא כה,מד) "מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ עֶבֶד וְאָמָה."
R. Eliezer says: The verse speaks of a Canaanite man-servant. You say this, but perhaps a Hebrew is intended? It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 25:44) "From them (the Canaanites) shall you buy a man-servant and a maid-servant."
"אֶת עֵין עַבְדּוֹ". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, אֲפִלּוּ הֶעֱלַת חֲוַרְוַר!*חֲוַרְוַר: לובן שבעין. תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְשִׁחֲתָהּ", לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא מַכָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי הַשְׁחָתָה. מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: טָפַח עַל עֵינוֹ וְסִמָּהוּ, עַל אָזְנוֹ וְחֵרְשׁוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה יוֹצֵא בֶּן חוֹרִין; כְּנֶגֶד עֵינוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה, כְּנֶגֶד אָזְנוֹ וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בֶּן חוֹרִין. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְכִי יַכֶּה אִישׁ", עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה.
"the eye of his man-servant": I might think (that he goes free) even if it developed a leucoma; it is, therefore, written "and he destroy it." Only a blow that causes destruction (is intended). I might think, even if he performed no act upon it; it is, therefore, written :"And if a man strike the eye" — whence it was ruled: If he struck his ear and deafened him, or his eye and blinded him, he goes free. (If he struck) near his eye, so that he does not see, or near his ear, so that he does not hear, he does not go free.
הִפִּיל שְׁתֵּי שִׁנָּיו כְּאַחַת, סִמָּא שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כְּאַחַת, הֲרֵי זֶה יוֹצֵא בֶן חוֹרִין וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל כְּלוּם. תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "עַיִן", "עַיִן", "שֵׁן", "שֵׁן". זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ, יוֹצֵא עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וְנוֹטֵל נִזְקֵי שְׁנִיָּה, תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "תַּחַת עֵינוֹ", "תַּחַת שִׁנּוֹ".
If he knocked out two of his teeth at the same time or blinded two of his eyes at the same time, he goes free and takes nothing, it being written "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." If he knocked out one after the other, he goes free for the first and takes his injury (payment) for the second, it being written in lieu of his eye."
"לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יִכְתֹּב לוֹ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "תַּחַת עֵינוֹ".
"free shall he send him": I might think that he must write him a writ of emancipation; it is, therefore, written "in lieu of his eye."
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּן 'שִׁלּוּחַ', וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן 'שִׁלּוּחַ'; מַה שִּׁלּוּחַ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן גֵּט, אַף שִׁלּוּחַ הָאָמוּר כָּן גֵּט. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא יָכֹל לְהִשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכֹל לְהִשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (שמות כא,כו) "לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ תַּחַת עֵינוֹ", מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
R. Eliezer says: It is written here "send" (viz. "free shall he send him") and elsewhere, (in respect to a divorce) "send" (viz. Devarim 24:1 "and he shall send her from his house"). Just as there, with a writ, so, here with a writ.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְאָמְרָה תוֹרָה בַמְשַׁלֵּחַ וְאָמְרָה בַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל מְשַׁלֵּחַ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁהוּא גָדוֹל, אַף הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ לֹא יְהֵי מִשְׁתַּלֵּחַ אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁהוּא גָדוֹל? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: "לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ תַּחַת עֵינוֹ", מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
For I might think, since the Torah speaks of one who sends away and one who is sent away, that just as the first cannot send away unless he is an adult, so, the second cannot be sent away unless he is an adult; it is, therefore, written "free shall he send him in lieu of his tooth" — in any event (i.e., even if he is a minor).
(שמות כא,כז) "וְאִם שֵׁן עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ שֵׁן אֲמָתוֹ יַפִּיל, לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ תַּחַת שִׁנּוֹ." שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, אֲפִלּוּ הִפִּיל שֵׁן שֶׁלְּחָלָב? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "עַיִן": מָה הָעַיִן, שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַחְזֹר, אַף הַשֵּׁן, שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַחְזֹר. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֵׁן וְעַיִן מְיֻחָדוֹת, וּשְׁאָר כָּל רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִין מְנַיִן? הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן בִּנְיַן אָב מִבֵּין שְׁתֵּיהֶן: לֹא הֲרֵי הַשֵּׁן כַּהֲרֵי הָעַיִן, וְלֹא הֲרֵי הָעַיִן כַּהֲרֵי הַשֵּׁן; הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁהֵם מוּמִין קְבוּעִין, רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִין בְּגָלוּי וּבַמִּתְכַּוֵּן, יוֹצֵא עֲלֵיהֶן בֶּן חוֹרִין. אַף כָּל רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים בְּגָלוּי וּבַמִּתְכַּוֵּן, יוֹצֵא עֲלֵיהֶן בֶּן חוֹרִין.
I might think (that he goes free) even if he knocked out a milk tooth, (which grows back); it is, therefore, written "eye." Just as an eye does not grow back, so the tooth (in question must be one which) does not grow back. This tells me only of tooth and eye. Whence do I derive (the same for) all of the other organs? It is derived inductively (binyan av) from the two, viz.: Tooth is not like eye, and eye is not like tooth. What is common to them is that they (i.e., their maimings) are permanent maimings of external organ prominences which do not grow back, (the maiming of which) causes the servant to go free, so (the maimings of) all such organ prominences which do not grow back cause him to go free.
אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ חָתַךְ מִמֶּנּוּ בָשָׂר? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר הַשֵּׁן וְהָעַיִן: מַה הַשֵּׁן וְהָעַיִן מְיֻחָדוֹת מוּמִין קְבוּעִין, רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִין בְּגָלוּי וּבַמִּתְכַּוֵּן, שֶׁאֵינָן יְכֹלִין לַחְזֹר, יוֹצֵא עֲלֵיהֶן בֶּן חוֹרִין, אַף אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מוּמִין קְבוּעִין, רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִין בְּגָלוּי וּבַמִּתְכַּוֵּן שֶׁאֵינָן יְכֹלִין לַחְזֹר, יוֹצֵא עֲלֵיהֶן בֶּן חוֹרִין.
"לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ", שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יִכְתֹּב לוֹ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "תַּחַת שִׁנּוֹ." רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּן 'שִׁלּוּחַ', וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן 'שִׁלּוּחַ'; מַה שִּׁלּוּחַ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן, גֵּט, אַף שִׁלּוּחַ הָאָמוּר כָּן גֵּט. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁיָּכֹל לְהִשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכֹל לְהִשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: "לַחָפְשִׁי יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ תַּחַת שִׁנּוֹ", מִכָּל מָקוֹם. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי, אֵין לוֹ פִדָּיוֹן לְעוֹלָם, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא אֶלָּא לִרְצוֹן רַבּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא כה,מו) "וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחֻזָּה". לְפִי דַּרְכֵּנוּ לָמַדְנוּ, שֶׁעֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי כִשְׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּה לְעוֹלָם.
R. Yishmael says: A Canaanite man-servant can never be redeemed and can go free only by consent (of the master), as it is written (Leviticus 25:46) "And you shall hold them as an inheritance … to inherit as a holding, etc." And in our manner we have learned that a Canaanite man-servant is like a field of holding forever.
אֲבָל אִם הָיָה רַבּוֹ רוֹדֵהוּ,*רוֹדֵהוּ: מייסר ומעניש אותו. וְהִפִּיל אֶת שִׁנּוֹ וְסִמָּא אֶת עֵינוֹ, אוֹ אֶחָד מִכָּל רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִין גְּלוּיִים בּוֹ,*רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִין: קצות האצבעות, החוטם, האוזניים וכאלה. הֲרֵי זֶה קוֹנֶה עַצְמוֹ בַּיִּסּוּרִים. וַהֲרֵי דְבָרִים קוֹל וָחֹמֶר: אִם מִידֵי בָשָׂר וָדָם אָדָם קוֹנֶה עַצְמוֹ בַּיִּסּוּרִין, קוֹל וָחֹמֶר מִידֵי מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים! וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: (תהלים קיח,יח) "יַסֹּר יִסְּרַנִּי יָּהּ, וְלַמָּוֶת לֹא נְתָנָנִי."
But if his master persecuted him and knocked out his tooth or blinded his eye or (maimed) one of his (other) external organ prominences, he acquires himself (i.e., his freedom) with afflictions. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one can acquire himself by afflictions from the hand of flesh and blood, how much more so, from the hands of Heaven! And thus is it written (Psalms 118:18) "The L–rd has afflicted me exceedingly and He did not consign me to death."