Kiddushin 24B

שן דחלב, כתב רחמנא ״עין״. ואי כתב רחמנא ״עין״ הוה אמינא מה עין שנברא עמו ⁠– אף כל שנברא עמו, אבל שן ⁠– לא, צריכא.

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 an eye was created with him in the womb, so too, this halakha applies to anything that was created with him in the womb. But with regard to a tooth, which grows later, perhaps he would not be emancipated if his master knocked it out. Therefore, it is necessary to mention both cases.

ואימא: ״כי יכה״⁠ – כלל, ״שן ועין״⁠ – פרט. כלל ופרט, אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט. שן ועין ⁠– אין, מידי אחרינא ⁠– לא!

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 includes only what is mentioned explicitly in the detail. Consequently, a tooth and an eye are included, but not other matters.

״לחפשי ישלחנו״⁠ – חזר וכלל. כלל ופרט וכלל, אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט, מה הפרט מפורש מום שבגלוי ואינן חוזרים ⁠– אף כל מומין שבגלוי ואינן חוזרין.

The Talmud answers that when each verse states: “To freedom should 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 referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the explicit detail is an exposed blemish that does not regenerate itself, so too, any body parts that are exposed blemishes and that do not regenerate themselves are included in this halakha.