Kiddushin 24: An Eye or A Tooth; Damaging a Fetus

When bringing the second tithe to Jerusalem (or exchanging it for money which can purchase sanctified food when reaching Jerusalem), the owner must add one fifth to the tithe.  The rabbis argue about whether or not a wife is obligated to add that one fifth of the tithe if she is bringing her husband's share.  This debate is particularly interesting to me as it highlights whether the rabbis believe that a wife is an independent being or a possession of her husband.

The Gemara goes on to consider the case of a Canaanite slave who has been injured by his master.  Both in Exodus (21:26-27) and in other texts, we have learned that a slave is emancipated if his owner injures his tooth or his eye.  For the remainder of our daf, the rabbis attempt to understand what this means.  They consider the role of intention: must a master intentionally hurt his slave?  They also consider what "tooth" and "eye" represent.  Clearly they are not things formed while in utero, for teeth are formed later.  Are these parts of the body that do not regenerate?  Would this mean that knocking out a child slave's 'milk tooth' does not lead to emancipation?  

The rabbis wonder what is included in 'extremities', or in 'regeneration'.  What about an extra finger?  What about damage done psychologically by hitting near the eye or the ear?  Blindness or deafness could result from "fright", leaving a slave functionally blind or deaf though he is physically intact.  The rabbis consider other cases where damage through sound leads to reparations.  Sound is, therefore, considered to be a source of damage.  

Should it matter if the tooth was already loose, or if the eye was already weak?  The rabbis consider the importance of functionality: if the person was able to use the tooth before the strike but was unable to use the tooth after being hurt, he is emancipated.

The rabbis provide an example that elucidates our rabbis' understandings of the status of a fetus.  If a master were helping to deliver his maidservant's baby, and he put his hand in her womb and destroyed the eye of the fetus, is he freed?   He did not intend to cause damage, which is an important consideration.  However, the more interesting point for me is that the rabbis argue about the developmental stage of the fetus being born.  The fetus is still developing while in the womb.  That means that until it is fully born, the fetus's extremities, including it's eyes, are not yet formed.  Thus the fetus is not freed when it is born with a damaged eye.

How horrible to imagine such a situation - and for the master to have no obligation to pay for his damage to this new human being.  However, our ancient rabbis valued a woman's life as a life.  A fetus did not have a life, legally, even at the point of birth, as it was still dependent upon its mother's body to live.  We can appreciate this additional argument regarding today's abortion issues.