Niddah 50a — the Talmud in English

And from where [is this derived]? ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

It is Rabbi Meir's [opinion],

who disqualifies a blind person even in one of his eyes from judging.

For it was taught: Rabbi Meir would say: What is the meaning of the verse

“And the priests shall draw near, for them the Lord your God chose”,

and

“and according to their word shall be every dispute and every affliction [be decided],” and what connection do disputes [quarrels between people]

between people

have with afflictions?

Rather,

the verse compares

the written text

disputes to afflictions: Just as afflictions

are seen by a priest only

during the day, as it is written,

“And on the day that living flesh appears in it

he shall become impure,”

so too, disputes

between people may be judged only

during the day

and not at night.

And

likewise:

Just as afflictions

are seen specifically

not by a blind person,

and even not by one blind in one eye [for with both eyes it is obvious that he is disqualified, since he does not see],

as it is written,

“For every

appearance of the priest’s eyes,”

so too, disputes

are judged specifically

not by a blind person,

by judges who are not blind.

And it also compares

as well

afflictions to disputes: Just as disputes

are judged specifically

not in the presence of relatives, so too afflictions

are seen by a priest specifically

not in the presence of relatives.

If [you say]: Just as disputes

are judged

by three

judges,

so too afflictions

are seen only

by three

priests [by virtue of the comparison].

And

likewise, besides the comparison, is it not

a logical inference

that afflictions should be seen only by three priests, by means of a kal va-chomer: If a person’s

property

is judged

by three

judges, his bodily afflictions

all the more so

should be seen and declared impure by three priests?

The verse states: “And he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests,”

from this you learn that even one priest inspects the afflictions!

That blind person,

blind in one eye,

who was in the neighborhood [in his vicinity]

in the neighborhood

of Rabbi Yohanan, who was judging a case, and he did not say to him

Rabbi Yohanan

anything at all.

And he raised an objection:

How did

Rabbi Yohanan

do this,

not protesting against him?

But Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha follows an unattributed Mishna. And we learned: Anyone who is fit to judge is fit to testify; and there are those who are fit to testify but are not fit to judge. And we said: What does this come to include? And Rabbi Yohanan said: It comes to include one blind in one eye;

and if so, according to Rabbi Yohanan’s words, the halakha is that one blind in one eye is disqualified [from judging]!

And he answered:

Rabbi Yohanan found another unattributed [Mishna]

and determined the halakha according to it, that one blind in one eye is fit to judge.

For we learned: Monetary cases are judged during the day and concluded at night,

and it follows from this that disputes are not compared to afflictions [for if they were compared, it would be impossible to conclude [a case] at night, just as afflictions are not seen at all at night], and we have no source to disqualify one blind in one eye.

And we wondered:

And what is the superiority

what is the advantage

of this unattributed [Mishna]

according to which Rabbi Yohanan decided

over that unattributed [Mishna]?

And we explained:

If you wish, say: An unattributed [Mishna] representing the majority is preferable,

and this unattributed [Mishna] that compares disputes to afflictions follows Rabbi Meir, whose opinion is that of an individual; therefore, that other unattributed Mishna, which follows the majority, is preferable.

And if you wish, say

that Rabbi Yohanan decided according to this unattributed [Mishna]

because it is taught

in tractate Sanhedrin

concerning the halakhot of monetary cases,

where its appropriate place is, and therefore it is primary in comparison with our Mishna, which was taught in tractate Niddah only incidentally, as part of the phrase “a similar case was taught.”

Mishna:

Anyone who is liable for tithes

is food, and he

contracts food impurity.

And there are those that contract food impurity but are not liable for tithes.

Gemara:

Regarding what they said, “There are those that contract food impurity but are not liable for tithes,”

what does this come to include?

It comes to include meat, fish, and eggs,

which are exempt from tithes.

Mishna:

Anyone who is liable for the poor man’s gift is liable for tithes.

And there are those who are liable for tithes but are not liable for the poor man’s gift.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses: That which we learned, “There are those who are liable for tithes but are not liable for the poor man’s gift,”

what does this come to include?

It comes to include figs and vegetables, which are not liable for the poor man’s gift,

but are liable for tithes.

The Gemara brings two Mishnayot, one in tractate Peah and the other in tractate Ma'asrot, from which the distinction between the poor man’s gift and tithes with regard to figs and vegetables is clear:

For we learned

in tractate Peah with regard to the obligations of the poor man’s gift:

They stated a general rule concerning the poor man’s gift: Whatever is food, is guarded, grows from the earth, is gathered all at once, and is brought in for storage,

it is

liable for the poor man’s gift!

And we said in explanation of the Mishna:

“Food”—to exclude the aftergrowths of istis and kotsa,

which are not food but types of dyes [and the novelty is that they are exempt even though they are fit for eating, since they are not designated for this].

“And is guarded”—to exclude ownerless produce,

for one who harvests an ownerless field is exempt from leaving the poor man’s gift.

“And grows from the earth”—to exclude mushrooms and fungi,

which grow by drawing sustenance from the air.

“And is gathered all at once”—to exclude a fig tree,

whose fruits ripen one after another over a period of time.

“And is brought in for storage”,

meaning that it can be stored in a house for a long time,

to exclude vegetables,

which spoil quickly.

But

with regard

to tithes we learned

in tractate Ma'asrot:

Whatever is food, is guarded, and grows from the earth, is liable for tithes!

And we infer:

But

the condition of

“being gathered all at once”

and the condition of

“being brought in for storage”

is not taught

here, with regard to tithes; and it is proven that a fig tree is liable for tithes despite not being gathered all at once, and likewise that vegetables are liable for tithes despite not being brought in for storage.

There are vegetables that depart from the general rule and are liable even for the poor man’s gift, such as:

If there were garlic and onions among them, they are liable

for the poor man’s gift, because they are brought in for storage.

For we learned: Beds [rows]

rows

of onions among vegetables [that grow within a vegetable field exempt from the poor man’s gift].

[that grow within a vegetable field exempt from pe’a].

Rabbi Yose says:

he separates

the poor man’s gift from each one individually,

for since the vegetables separate the rows, each row of onions is considered a field in its own right and is liable for separation from that field itself.

And the Sages say:

he may separate

from one for all,

for they do not consider the vegetables between the rows something that divides them into separate fields.

It follows that according to all opinions onions are liable for the poor man’s gift despite being vegetables, because they are brought in for storage.

We learned above in the Mishna that whatever is liable for tithes contracts food impurity, and there are those that contract impurity but are exempt from tithes.

Rabbah bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Endives,

a type of vegetable that is sometimes sown for human consumption, in which case it has the status of food with regard to the laws of food impurity; and sometimes it is sown for animal feed, in which case it is not called human food and does not contract food impurity. And it happened

that they sowed them

endives

initially for an animal, and then changed their mind regarding them

after they had grown, but before they had been detached,

for

human

consumption;

his thought before they were detached does not suffice to give them the status of food; rather,

the endives require

the

thought

of human consumption additionally

when they are detached.