Study Niddah folio 50A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
It is the opinion of R' Meir, as it is taught in a baraita that R' Meir would say: What is the meaning when the verse states: “According to their word shall every dispute and every leprous mark be” (Deuteronomy 21:5)? What do disputes have to do with leprous marks? The verse juxtaposes disputes to
And just as leprous marks are seen by priests who can see, but not by blind priests, as it is written: “As far as appears to the priest” (Leviticus 13:12), which teaches that they must be viewed by priests who can see with both eyes, so too, disputes are not adjudicated by blind judges, even if the
The baraita continues: If these two halakhot are compared, one can also say that just as disputes are judged specifically by 3 judges, so too, leprous marks must be viewed by 3 priests. And this suggestion is supported by a logical inference: If a case that only involves one’s money is adjudicated
The Talmud relates: There was a certain blind person who was living in the neighborhood of R' Yoḥanan who would render judgments, and R' Yoḥanan did not say anything to him. The Talmud asks: How could R' Yoḥanan do this? But didn’t R' Yoḥanan himself say that the halakha is in accordance with the r
And we learned in the Mishnah: Any person who is fit to adjudicate a case and serve as a judge is fit to testify as a witness, and there are those who are fit to testify but are not fit to adjudicate. And we said: What is added by this halakha, and R' Yoḥanan said: It serves to add one who is blind