Niddah

ANY LIMB THAT GROWS A NAIL etc. If it grows a nail  it  conveys uncleanness  by means of touch, carriage and overshadowing. If it contains a bone but grows no nail it conveys uncleanness  by means of touch and carriage but does not convey it by means of overshadowing. R. Hisda stated: The following was said by our great Master,  may the Omnipresent be his help. A redundant finger that contains a bone but grows no nail conveys uncleanness  by means of touch and carriage but does not convey it by means of overshadowing. Rabbah b. Bar Hana explained: This is the case only when it  is not counted in [the row of the fingers of] the hand. WHATEVER CONTRACTS MIDRAS — UNCLEANNESS etc. Whatever object is fit for midras contracts corpse-uncleanness, but there are such as contract corpse-uncleanness and do not contract midras-uncleanness. What is this rule intended to include? — It is intended to include a se'ah measure and a tarkab;  for it was taught: And he that sitteth on any thing;  as it might have been presumed that if the zab inverted a se'ah measure and sat upon it or a tarkab measure and sat upon it, it shall be unclean,  it was explicitly stated, Whereon he that hath the issue sat,  implying  that the text refers only to a thing that is appointed for sitting;  but this one  is excluded, since people would tell him, 'Get up that we may do our work with it'. MISHNAH. WHOSOEVER IS FIT TO TRY CAPITAL CASES IS ALSO FIT TO TRY MONETARY SUITS, BUT ONE MAY BE FIT TO TRY MONETARY SUITS AND YET BE UNFIT TO TRY CAPITAL CASES. GEMARA. Rab Judah stated: This  was meant to include a bastard.  Have we not, however, learnt this once before: 'All are eligible to try monetary suits but not all eligible to try capital cases';  and when the question was raised, 'What was this intended to include?' Rab Judah replied, 'It was intended to include a bastard'?  — One statement was intended to include a proselyte and the other to include a bastard. And both statements were necessary. For if we had been informed of the proselyte only it might have been presumed that it applied to him alone because he is eligible to enter the Assembly  but not to a bastard who is not eligible to enter the Assembly.  And if we had been informed of the bastard only it might have been presumed to apply to him alone because he issues from an eligible source  but not to a proselyte who issues from an ineligible source.  Hence the necessity for both rulings. MISHNAH. WHOSOEVER IS ELIGIBLE TO ACT AS JUDGE IS  ELIGIBLE TO ACT AS WITNESS, BUT ONE MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO ACT AS WITNESS AND NOT AS JUDGE. GEMARA. What [was this  intended] to include? — R. Johanan replied: To include one who is blind in one eye;  and who is the author?