Nedarim 88A

אמר רבא: הכא מעניניה דקרא והכא מעניניה דקרא. רבי יהודה סבר: גבי רוצח כתיב ״ואשר יבא את רעהו ביער״⁠ — כל דבר מיעל ליער, וסומא נמי בר מיעל ליער הוא. ואי אמרת ״בלא ראות״ לרבות את הסומא ⁠— מ״יער״ נפקא ליה. אלא שמע מינה: ״בלא ראות״ פרט לסומא.

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. R' 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 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.

רבי מאיר סבר: כתיב ״בבלי דעת״⁠ — כל דבר מידע, וסומא לאו בר מידע הוא. ואי אמרת ״בלא ראות״ פרט לסומא ⁠— מ״בלי דעת״ נפקא ליה. אלא שמע מינה: ״בלא ראות״ לרבות את הסומא.

By contrast, R' 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.