אָמַר רָבָא הָכָא מֵעִנְיָנֵיהּ דִּקְרָא וְהָכָא מֵעִנְיָנֵיהּ דִּקְרָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר גַּבֵּי רוֹצֵחַ כְּתִיב וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בַיַּעַר כׇּל דְּבַר מֵיעַל לְיַעַר וְסוֹמֵא נָמֵי בַּר מֵיעַל לְיַעַר הוּא וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּלֹא רְאוֹת לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסּוּמָא מִיַּעַר נָפְקָא לֵיהּ אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּלֹא רְאוֹת פְּרָט לְסוּמָּא Rava said: There is no contradiction here, as the dispute with regard to an unintentional killing is based on divergent interpretations of the verse. Here, the ruling follows from the context of the verse, and there, the ruling follows from the context of the verse. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that with regard to the exile of an unintentional killer it is written: “And a man who goes into the forest with his neighbor to hew wood” (Deuteronomy 19:5), which serves to include anyone who is capable of entering a forest, and a blind person is also is capable of entering a forest. And if you say that the phrase “without seeing” serves to include a blind person, this is already derived from the word “forest,” as he too can enter a forest. Rather, learn from it that the phrase “without seeing” serves to exclude a blind person from the category of unintentional killers who are exiled to a city of refuge.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר כְּתִיב בִּבְלִי דַעַת כׇּל דְּבַר מִידָּע וְסוֹמֵא לָאו בַּר מִידָּע הוּא וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּלֹא רְאוֹת פְּרָט לַסּוֹמֵא מִבְּלִי דַעַת נָפְקָא לֵיהּ אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּלֹא רְאוֹת לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסּוּמָא By contrast, Rabbi Meir maintains: It is written in that same section: “One who strikes his neighbor without knowledge” (Deuteronomy 19:4), which indicates that the halakha applies to anyone who is capable of knowing the precise location of the people standing about him, but a blind person is not capable of knowing this. And if you say that the phrase “without seeing” serves to exclude a blind person, this is already derived from the words “without knowledge.” Rather, learn from it that the phrase “without seeing” serves to include a blind person in the halakha of exile, not to exclude him.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּדִּיר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲתָנוֹ וְהוּא רוֹצֶה לָתֵת לְבִתּוֹ מָעוֹת אוֹמֵר לָהּ הֲרֵי הַמָּעוֹת הָאֵלּוּ נְתוּנִין לָךְ בְּמַתָּנָה וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לְבַעְלִיךְ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן אֶלָּא מָה שֶׁאַתְּ נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּפִיךְ MISHNA: With regard to one who vows that benefit from him is forbidden to his son-in-law, but he nevertheless wishes to give his daughter, i.e., the wife of that same son-in-law, money, then, though he cannot do so directly, as anything acquired by a woman belongs to her husband, he should say to her: This money is hereby given to you as a gift, provided that your husband has no rights to it, but the gift includes only that which you pick up and place in your mouth.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר לַהּ מָה שֶׁאַתְּ נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּפִיךְ אֲבָל אָמַר מַה שֶּׁתִּרְצִי עֲשִׂי קְנָה יָתְהוֹן בַּעַל וּשְׁמוּאֵל אוֹמֵר אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר מַה שֶּׁתִּרְצִי עֲשִׂי לָא קְנָה יָתְהוֹן בַּעַל מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא GEMARA: Rav said that they taught this halakha only in a case where he actually said to her: That which you pick up and place in your mouth is yours. But if he said: Do as you please with the money, his stipulation is of no effect, and the husband acquires the money. And Shmuel says that even if he said: Do as you please with the money, the husband does not acquire it. Rabbi Zeira objects to this statement of Rav: