Commentary for Nedarim 174:5

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ורמינהו (במדבר לה, כג) בלא ראות פרט לסומא דברי רבי יהודה רבי מאיר אומר לרבות את הסומא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But the following contradicts this: [Or if he smote him with any stone, wherewith a man may die,] seeing him not [… then the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 23f. ');">⁹</span> this excludes a blind man;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is not exiled to the refuge cities for manslaughter. ');">¹⁰</span> that is R. Judah's view. R. Meir said: It is to include a blind person!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. XIX, 5, it is stated, as when a man goeth into a wood with his neighbour, etc. This implies that the unwitting murderer must have known where his victim was, but that he killed him unintentionally. If, however, he did not know of his presence, the law of exile is inapplicable. Now a blind person does not see his victim, nevertheless, owing to the greater keenness of his other faculties he senses the presence of the victim, though not knowing exactly where he is. R. Judah maintains that the partial knowledge of the blind is regarded as full knowledge, and would be sufficient for the law to operate. Consequently, when Scripture states, 'seeing him not', which implies that he might however have seen him, it must teach the exclusion of the blind. R. Meir's view is that partial knowledge is in itself not regarded as complete knowledge; hence, without any verse one would assume that a blind person is excluded. Consequently, 'seeing him not' cannot exclude the blind, since for that no verse is necessary, but must be translated, 'though not seeing him', i.e., though unable to see him, and the verse extends the law to the blind. Thus this contradicts the Mishnah, for there R. Meir rules that since he possessed the partial knowledge that a husband can annul vows, he is regarded as having possessed the complete knowledge, and therefore cannot annul after the day of hearing. Likewise R. Judah here is opposed to the Sages in the Mishnah, by whom R. Judah is meant, when they are in opposition to R. Meir (Rashi). Ran, Asheri and Tosaf. give different interpretations. ');">¹¹</span> —

Explore commentary for Nedarim 174:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.