Yudan the Distinguished - Yudan was his name, and he was a great one of his generation. Anywhere the appellation Biribi is used it has the meaning of wisdom and sharpness.

Only the earlobe - the lobe of the ear, in the flesh and not on the ridge.

And the Rabbis say, etc. - they disagree with [Yudan]. This is their proof: it is established for us that a Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced, because this would make him blemished, and he will no longer be able to return to his original status. Later on, we derive from "And he shall return to his own family” (Leviticus 25:41) -- to his status in his family (Kiddushin 21b:12). How then can he be rendered blemished? Did we not learn in a Mishna, regarding blemishes, "[the firstborn is considered blemished, and may be slaughtered outside the Temple] if the ear was damaged from the cartilage but not if the skin was damaged" (Bekhorot 37a:15).

He is pierced only, etc. - you may learn from here that we only pierce on the upper part of the ear.

With regard to what do they disagree - regarding a sharp thorn and a thorn.

Expounds generalizations and details - throughout the Torah, in a place where it generalizes and specifies, he expounds that the specification is an explanation of the generalization, and the generalization only includes what is in the specification. When [the verse] then goes on to generalize again, the latter generalization is only adding that which is similar to the specification.

Amplifications and restrictions - [in his method of exegesis,] the specification is not taken as what is meant by the generalization -- that is, you should not say the general term only includes that which is in the specification. Rather, it comes to restrict -- the general term would have included everything, and the restriction comes afterwards to indicate that this, and things similar to it, were what I meant for you by the generalization. Therefore, even if [the verse] does not go on to state another generalization, I would have [known that the rule applies only] to bring things that are similar to the specification. If the verse then goes on to amplify again, it comes to amplify [and include] everything, and there is only one thing excluded. It was given over to the Rabbis to decided which thing was fit to be removed from the generalization. Thus "restriction" is interpreted to mean "restricted somewhat from its connotation."

It excludes a corrosive substance - that he cannot place a corrosive substance on his ear and thereby make a hole in it, since that is not similar to an awl, since it does not make a hole through human force, but rather on its own.

The thigh: the most important part of the thigh - in Chapter "Sciatic Nerve", "Rabbi Yehuda says: [The prohibition of the sciatic nerve] applies only [to the sciatic nerve] in one of the animal’s thighs, and logic dictates that it is the right thigh." (Chullin 90b:16) He derives [this ruling] from the letter He of Hayerech [the thigh], and expounds: the thigh -- the most important of all the thighs.

And let him be rendered blemished - and what of it? Is not piercing a commandment?

It is a novelty - that a Canaanite maidservant should be permitted to a Jew.

Did you play with tokens - you did not take care to be exact in your studies, but were like those who play with dice / MRYYLS.

And if you say that if his master cannot provide him with a Canaanite maidservant - why would I need the explanation that it would render him blemished? Even without that, piercing would be inapplicable, since we require [the slave to be able to say] "I love .. my wife" (Exodus 21:5).

Nothing more - there can be no answer to this [proof].

A priest - who is forbidden [to marry a] convert, who [is considered to have been] a zonah prior [to converting].

What [is the halakha] with regard to a beautiful woman - in battle.

Permitted - as it will go on to explain.

The Torah spoke - it only permitted it for the sake of the evil inclination, since if it would not have permitted it, he would have violated the prohibition, as is derived later on from the fact that "beautiful" is written -- that the evil inclination inflames him. Therefore, with a priest as well, one must account for the evil inclination, and it is thus permitted.

With regard to the second act of sexual intercourse - once his spirit has already cooled off.

“Then you shall bring her home to your house” - to keep her.

One can read with regard to: “And see her among the captives" - what he set his eyes upon is then [likewise] permitted to him.

When she is a captive - if he had first set his eyes upon her then. But not if he had [previously] bought her in order to sell or to be a maidservant, and then set his eyes upon her.

"A beautiful woman" - this implies that she was permitted to him because her beauty inflamed his inclination. And [she was permitted to him only] reluctantly; but better that a Jew eat meat from a slaughtered dying animal -- that is, from a slaughtered animal that was critically ill -- even though it is loathsome, as is written in Ezekiel, "nor has foul flesh entered my mouth" (Ezekiel 4:14).

And let them not eat the meat of dying animals - after they have died, when they will have become carcasses.