Did Rav Yosef blind himself in a fit of piety? The story goes that he sat in a dark house for 40 days and, when he emerged, commanded that marble stones be brought before him. He gazed into them and became blind. Ran (first chapter of Kiddushin) alludes to this, saying that this was so that he wouldn’t look outside his own four cubits (just as Rav was capable of doing via sheer willpower). Ramban (Kiddushin 31a) mentions Rav Yosef blinding himself, as does Rashi (in Sefer HaOrah). Rabbenu Gershom (on Menachot 110a) includes both Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet as those who did this to follow in Rav’s pious practice. Rav Yechiel Heilprin adds that they say Rav Ashi did the same. Rav Aharon Hyman expresses skepticism that one as pious as Rav Yosef would blind himself, thereby violating Torah law by wounding himself, but אם קבלה היא נקבלת, if it’s an authentic tradition, he’ll accept it. However, he’d rather speculate that Rav Yosef became blind when stricken by the illness which caused him to forget much of his Torah (discussed two weeks ago).
I agree that the story seems unlikely, and may reflect the ascetic attitudes of certain rishonim more than actual history. If you ask your local orthodox rabbi, or your personal mental health professional, they will tell you not to do it! I’m also unconvinced we need to associate his blindness with his illness. While certain medical events, such as a stroke, can cause both blindness and memory loss, these might well have occurred separately
He Could See
Rav Yosef was not blind from birth. For instance, in Shabbat 138a, he testified, “I saw the canopies of the house of Rav Huna that were spread out in the evening, and in the morning they were cast off and lying on the ground.” Besides revealing permissibility of such dismantling and spreading out on Shabbat, this statement reveals that he could see. Rav Huna was a second-generation amora while Rav Yosef was a third-generation amora. The actions of the household would be on Rav Huna’s authority. He is testifying to something the listeners might not see themselves, so this seems like this was in Rav Yosef’s youth. Similarly, in Shabbat 52a, he declares “I saw the calves of the house of Rav Huna go out into the public domain on Shabbat with their bits and with the reins wrapped around their necks.” Such detailed testimony requires sight, and mustn’t be hearsay.
On the other hand, at some point, Rav Yosef was clearly blind. In our sugya (Nedarim 55a), Rava annoys and insults Rav Yosef. That is, Rava sent Rav Yosef a halachic question. Upon receiving a reply with Rav Yosef saying X and Abaye saying Y, Rava responds that he wasn’t in doubt that Y was the case, but rather was wondering about another point. Rav Yosef then exclaimed, “since he does not need us, why did he send us the question?” Rava went to appease Rav Yosef. The attendant was mixing a cup of wine, and Rava took his place, mixing in three parts water to one part wine. Upon tasting it, Rav Yosef recognized that the proportions were those of Rava. They then engaged in conversation. The implication is that Rav Yosef was blind at this point. We might broadly categorize younger vs. older Rav Yosef and his statements based on blindness.
The clearest indication of Rav Yosef’s blindness is Kiddushin 31a (paralleled in Bava Kamma 87a) where he says: Initially, I would say that if I heard someone say the halacha was like Rabbi Yehuda (that a blind person is exempt from mitzvot), I’d host a kiddush for the rabbis. Why? Because despite not being commanded, I perform mitzvot. Now that I’ve heard that Rabbi Chanina said that one who is commanded and performs is greater than one who isn’t commanded and performs, if I hear someone say the halacha is not like Rabbi Yehuda, I’d host a kiddush for the rabbis. Now, I can see how this might make us think that he opted into blindness, since he is weighing the merits of blindness and praising it. But, simply put, he is looking to make the best of his situation.
Impact of Blindness
Rav Yosef’s blindness has occasional practical halachic impact. For instance, in Pesachim 116b, Mereimar (a sixth-generation Amora of Sura) asks the Sages of Rav Yosef’s house/academy who recited the Haggadah and is told that it was (fourth-generation) Rav Yosef himself. The same for another fourth-generation Amora, Rav Sheshet. The Talmudic Narrator contrasts this with a statement of (third-generation) Rav Acha bar Yaakov, a student of Rav Huna, who connected the בַּעֲבוּר זֶה by Haggadah with בְּנֵנוּ זֶה by the rebellious son. Here, one must be capable of pointing to the korban and other items, or later, just the matza, and say “this.” That excludes a blind man. Rather than saying that Rav Yosef (in Pumbedita) and Rav Sheshet (of Nehardea, Mechoza, and ultimately founding an academy in Shilchi) disagreed with this late derasha, the Talmudic Narrator initially suggests that they maintain that matza is only Rabbinic nowadays. When that line of reasoning doesn’t pan out, he retracts and explains why they disagree, and assert blind people are obligated in reciting the Haggadah.
Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet use the term אֲפִילּוּ לְדִידִי to indicate that something affects even them, as blind people. Thus, in Shabbat 109a, where amoraim discuss eye cures which would be forbidden on Shabbat, and what substances don’t actually help the eyes and are permitted, Rav Yosef says coriander is harmful “even for me,” and Rav Sheshet says arugula is beneficial “even for me.” In Berachot 55a, Rav Yosef says that “even for me”, the joy of a good dream negates it. Why? The positive result the dream predicted was the happiness of receiving the dream.
There’s so much more to say, but let’s end with a girsological insight. The Aramaic of Rav Yosef’s dreamy statement was חֶלְמָא טָבָא, אֲפִילּוּ לְדִידִי, בְּדִיחוּתֵיהּ מְפַכְּחָא לֵיהּ. The word מְפַכְּחָא is a hapax legomenon in Talmud, occurring only here, though the root פכח, “to ooze out, evaporate, counteract the effect of” does appear elsewhere. While Munich changes it to לפתוחי, a few manuscripts (Firenze 7, Oxford 366, Paris 671, Faro printing) have מפקחא, from the root פקח, to open the eyes. If so, a good dream isn’t obviated, but is a way the blind can see. While a compelling variant, I believe our מְפַכְּחָא is original. This is an example of error by sound similarity, with the kaf heard as a kuf. Lectio difficilior potior, the principle that the more difficult word is the stronger reading, points me to the less frequent and lesser known root.
Rabbi Dr. Joshua Waxman teaches computer science at Stern College for Women, and his research includes programmatically finding scholars and scholastic relationships in the Babylonian Talmud.
1 The full story appears in Sefer Mekor Chaim on parashat Shelach. Allusions to this self-blinding appear in the writings of Ran, Ramban and Rashi.
