The master’s intention is decisive TB Kidushin 24

Rabbi Kahati explains in his commentary on the Mishna why all non-Jewish slaves are called Canaanite slaves even when their origin is not from the Canaanite people. Back in Genesis after the flood, Noah drank himself to sleep. His son Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and called his other two brothers to take a look. By walking backwards Shem and Yafet covered their father’s nakedness with a cloth without looking at him. When Noah awoke and learn what Ham did, he said “Cursed be Canaan; The lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers... And let Canaan be a slave to them.” (Genesis 9:25 & 27) Because of this curse, the rabbis called all non-Jewish slaves as Canaanite slaves.

The life of a Canaanite slave was much worse than an eved evri. The Canaanite slave was chattel and could be passed down as an inheritance to the next generation. The rabbis frowned upon emancipating him. Nevertheless, there were ways a Canaanite slave could be emancipated.

“A Sage taught: A Canaanite slave is emancipated through a tooth and an eye and through permanent damage to other extremities that do not regenerate if they are severed. The Gemara asks: Granted, a tooth and an eye, these body parts are explicitly written, as the Torah states clearly that if a master damages a tooth or blinds an eye the slave is emancipated (Exodus 21:26–27). But from where do we derive that if the master permanently damages other extremities the slave is likewise emancipated? The Gemara answers: These extremities are similar to a tooth and an eye: Just as the removal of a tooth and an eye leads to exposed, i.e., external, blemishes that do not regenerate, so too, the same applies to all blemishes caused by the slave’s master that are exposed and that do not regenerate.” TB Kidushin 24, Sefaria.org translation)

The Canaanite slave is emancipated though only if the master intentionally sought to damage him.

“The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 9:9): In a case where his master was a doctor and the slave said to him to paint his eye with a medicament, and the master blinded it in the process, or he asked him to drill his aching tooth, and the master knocked it out, the slave laughs at the master and is emancipated. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that the verse: “And if a man smites the eye of his slave, or the eye of his maidservant, and destroys it, to freedom shall he send him for his eye’s sake” (Exodus 21:26), means that the slave is not emancipated unless the master intends to destroy it. If he intended to heal him, the slave is not freed, even if the master did, in fact, injure him.

“The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this verse “and destroys it”? What do they derive from this phrase? The Gemara answers: They require it for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says that in a case where the master stuck his hand into the womb of his maidservant to assist her in giving birth and he blinded the fetus in her womb, he is exempt and the fetus is not emancipated when born. What is the reason for this? As the verse states “and destroys it,” meaning unless he intends to destroy it, and in this case he did not mean to touch the fetus’s eye.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Tosefot ד"ה מִיבְּעֵי לְהוּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא wants to know what is the qualitative difference between two seemingly similar situations. Apparently in the first case when the master stuck his hand to the room of his maidservant and blinded the fetus everybody agrees that the master is exempt from freeing his slave and account of the eye injury.

They cite the second case from TB Baba Kama 26b where there is a disagreement between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the sages. “Rabba says: If there was a stone lying in one’s lap and he was unaware of it, and he arose and it fell and caused damage, with regard to damages…With regard to a Canaanite slave whose tooth was destroyed or eye was blinded by the stone, potentially enabling the slave to earn his freedom (see Exodus 21:26–27), this is the subject of a dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:25): If the master was a doctor and the slave said to him: Paint the lid of my eye in order to heal it, and the master blinded it during the procedure, or if the slave requested from his master: Scrape my tooth in order to heal it, and the master knocked out the tooth while scraping it, the slave has mocked the master, as he is emancipated due to the act of the master himself.

“By contrast, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slave is not emancipated in these cases because the verse states: “And destroy it” (Exodus 21:26), from which it is derived that the slave is emancipated only in a case where the master intends to destroy the eye or the tooth, but not if he intended to heal the slave. So too, in the case where a stone fell and accidentally blinded a slave’s eye or knocked out his tooth, according to the Rabbis the slave would be emancipated and according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel he would not.” (Sefaria.org translation) Notice the Gemara in Baba Kama cites our daf.

 

In the case with the of the master damaging the fetuses’ eye, the Masters is exempt from emancipating his maidservant because of two positive intentions. He intended only to help his maidservant and never intended to damage the eye at all. However the case in Baba Kama is similar to the case where the slave told the master who was a doctor to treat him. In this case the master had only one good intention i.e. heal his slave, but had one bad outcome because he intended to treat the eye. In the first case with two positive intentions, there is agreement amongst all the sages. In the other two cases where there’s only one positive intention and one negative intention, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the sages disagree whether the slave is emancipated or not.