Niddah 8a — the Talmud in English

,

Rabbi Eliezer says: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page")

They instruct the minor girl to perform mi'un with him,

for through the mi'un, the betrothal and the marriage [which are only rabbinic] are uprooted retroactively, and again the yevama is not considered his wife's sister by rabbinic law, and he is permitted to the yevama.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer

and not according to Rabban Gamliel, who disagrees with him.

And if so, it is difficult: why did Shmuel say that the halakha follows the words of Rabbi Eliezer in four matters and not in five!?

And we answer:

When Shmuel said

that the halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer in four, that is

in the Order of Tohorot, but in the other Orders there are many

disputes in which the halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer.

And this too stands to reason

that Shmuel's intention is only to the Order of Tohorot.

For we learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who removes

from the oven small loaves, in each one of which separately there is not the measure that obligates the separation of ḥalla,

and places them in a basket

together—

the basket joins them

together to the measure that obligates

for ḥalla.

Even though the kneading and baking were done with small doughs exempt from separation.

And

about this

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel—

The halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer!

Conclude from it

that when Shmuel said, “The halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer in four,” his intention was only to the Order of Tohorot.

And the Gemara asks about the expression “this too stands to reason,” which implies that from here it is more clearly proven that there are additional places in which Shmuel ruled that the halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer:

And what is the strength of this

in the dispute concerning the separation of ḥalla, from which we hear that Shmuel ruled that the halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer in additional places besides the four disputes concerning purity,

over this

from which he ruled like him concerning mi'un, so that we had to say, “this too stands to reason,” that he ruled like him in additional places, and to bring proof from the dispute concerning the separation of ḥalla?

And we answer:

Because Rabbi Elazar

son of Shamua [the tanna]

stands with him

with Rabbi Eliezer in the law of mi'un. Therefore, it is possible that Shmuel ruled according to Rabbi Eliezer only because of the support of Rabbi Elazar son of Shamua for Rabbi Eliezer, but there is no proof concerning a place where Rabbi Eliezer alone disagrees with the Sages. Therefore, the Gemara had to bring proof from the halakha concerning the separation of ḥalla, that even in a place where there is no tanna who supports Rabbi Eliezer, Shmuel ruled like him.

For we learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Elazar

son of Shamua

says: They instruct the minor girl to perform mi'un with him.

And we refute:

And does

this ruling of Rabbi Elazar son of Shamua stand with Rabbi Eliezer?

But we need them

in tractate Yevamot, for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer and the ruling of Rabbi Elazar son of Shamua concern two different matters of mi'un,

and they are not similar to one another!

And since there is no support for the words of Rabbi Eliezer from the words of Rabbi Elazar son of Shamua, the question returns: what is the strength of the fact that Shmuel ruled concerning the separation of ḥalla according to Rabbi Eliezer over the fact that he ruled concerning mi'un according to Rabbi Eliezer?

And we answer:

Rather,

the fact that there is no complete proof from the fact that the halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer concerning mi'un—

is because Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava stands with him

with Rabbi Eliezer in that same halakha of mi'un.

For it was taught

in tractate Eduyot:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified concerning five matters—

a.

That the minor girls perform mi'un—

that they instruct the minor girls [the minor girl of Rabbi Eliezer and the minor girl of Rabbi Elazar son of Shamua] to perform mi'un in order to fulfill the mitzva of yibbum.

b.

And that they permit the woman to marry

whose husband went overseas

on the testimony of one witness

who testifies that he died.

c.

And that a rooster was stoned in Jerusalem because it killed a person,

for the law of stoning was stated concerning all animals that killed.

d.

And concerning wine that was forty days old, which was poured upon the altar,

for when it is less than forty days old, they do not bring it for libations.

e.

And concerning the morning tamid offering, which was offered at the fourth hour.

And we infer from the first ruling:

What is “minor girls”

in the plural [in the wording] whom they instruct to perform mi'un?

Is it not

one minor girl

one—

that of Rabbi Elazar

son of Shamua,

and

one minor girl

one—

that of Rabbi Eliezer.

And it is proven that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava stands with Rabbi Eliezer concerning the law of mi'un. Therefore, it is impossible to infer from the fact that Shmuel said that the halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer concerning mi'un that even in a place where there is no tanna who supports Rabbi Eliezer, the halakha is according to him.

And we reject this:

No!

the intention of the Mishna is not that “minor girls” in the plural includes the two cases of mi'un [that of Rabbi Eliezer and that of Rabbi Elazar son of Shamua].

Rather,

what is “minor girls”—

“minor girls

in general,”

and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava stands only concerning the ruling of Rabbi Elazar son of Shamua, that they instruct the “minor girls” to perform mi'un in the same case about which Rabbi Elazar son of Shamua spoke; Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava does not stand with Rabbi Eliezer.

And we refute: How can you say that the meaning of “minor girls” is minor girls in general, and that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava does not also stand concerning the mi'un of Rabbi Eliezer?

But

if so,

that “minor girls” means “minor girls in general,” then

concerning

the second ruling stated in that same Mishna, concerning

a woman

whose husband went away,

it should likewise teach “

women

and let it say, “women in general,”

and it should say, “women in general.”

and why did the tanna change his wording and write the ruling concerning the woman whose husband went away in the singular?

And we conclude:

Rather,

necessarily,

from the fact that here,

in the second ruling,

it teaches “a woman”

in the singular,

and

if

here

in the first ruling,

it teaches “minor girls”

in the plural,

conclude from it that it specifically teaches “minor girls”

with the intention being the minor girl of Rabbi Elazar son of Shamua and the minor girl of Rabbi Eliezer; and consequently

conclude from it

that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava stands with Rabbi Eliezer, and therefore there is no proof from the Mishna of mi'un that the halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer alone.

And the Gemara brings, in addition to Shmuel, who rules that the halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer—

And Rabbi Elazar

son of Pedat [the amora]

said likewise: The halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer

[the tanna],

in four!

And, similar to the earlier question concerning Shmuel, the Gemara again asks from the words of Rabbi Elazar son of Pedat against his own words:

And

if

are there no more?

But we learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says: They instruct the minor girl to perform mi'un with him! And

about this

Rabbi Elazar

son of Pedat [the amora]

said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer!?

And if you would say that when Rabbi Elazar

son of Pedat said that

the halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer in four

that is only

in the Order of Tohorot, but in the other Orders there are

additional laws in which he rules like him.

And are there

according to Rabbi Elazar son of Pedat additional places in which he decided according to Rabbi Eliezer?

But we learned in the Mishna: The roses and the henna

[types of spices],

and the lotem and the kataf

[a tree that produces resin alone]—

they have

the laws of

the Sabbatical year

[for they are not merely trees with which the laws of the Sabbatical year do not apply],

and their monetary value

also has the law of

the Sabbatical year.

And likewise

they have

the obligation of

removal

[as with the mitzva of Sabbatical-year produce]

and

also

their monetary value

which becomes sanctified with the sanctity of the Sabbatical year has the mitzva of

removal.

And Rabbi Pedat,

the son of Rabbi Elazar son of Pedat, in explaining this Mishna,

said: Who is the tanna [who holds] that kataf is a fruit,

and therefore the Sabbatical-year laws apply to it—

it is Rabbi Eliezer

he!

And Rabbi Zeira said to him

to Rabbi Pedat [the son of Rabbi Elazar son of Pedat]:

See

[I see]

that from you and from your father

[from your words and your father’s words combined]

you have permitted kataf

concerning the Sabbatical year

for everyone

[for you have permitted kataf, so that the laws of the Sabbatical year should not apply to it].

For

you

[Rabbi Pedat]

said: Who is the tanna [who holds] that kataf is a fruit

it is—

Rabbi Eliezer

he!

And

if

your father

[Rabbi Elazar son of Pedat]

said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer in four

places only [and the matter of kataf was not included among those four!], and in the other places the halakha is according to those who disagree with him.

And from this it follows from the words of both of you that with regard to kataf, concerning which the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer and the halakha follows them, the laws of the Sabbatical year do not apply!

And now it is difficult:

And if it is so

that the fact that Rabbi Elazar son of Pedat ruled that the halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer in only four is only in the Order of Tohorot, but outside this Order he holds that there are additional places where the halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer,

let Rabbi Pedat say to him

Rabbi Pedat to Rabbi Zeira—

When Father

[Rabbi Elazar son of Pedat]

said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer in four

laws only, that is specifically

in the Order of Tohorot, but in the other Orders there are

additional places where the halakha is like him. And if so, perhaps with regard to kataf too the halakha is like him!?

And from the fact that Rabbi Pedat did not answer Rabbi Zeira thus, it is proven that he holds that his father, Rabbi Elazar son of Pedat, indeed decided that only in four places throughout all the Orders is the halakha according to Rabbi Eliezer.

Rather,

if so,

that

concerning mi'un, where Rabbi Elazar son of Pedat decided that the halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer—and this is an additional case beyond the four—is difficult?!

One may say that the fact that there he decided according to him is not included in the count, since the decision is not because of Rabbi Eliezer’s authority alone, but

because

also

Rabbi Elazar

son of Shamua [the tanna]!

stands with him.

For we learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Elazar

son of Shamua

says—

They instruct the minor girl to perform mi'un with him.

And we refute:

And does

Rabbi Elazar son of Shamua stand with Rabbi Eliezer?

But there in Yevamot we require them

there in Yevamot for the two laws of mi'un

and

the mi'un of Rabbi Eliezer and the mi'un of Rabbi Elazar son of Shamua

are not similar to one another!? Rather,

the Gemara retracts and gives a new answer as to why the fact that Rabbi Elazar son of Pedat also ruled concerning mi'un according to Rabbi Eliezer should not be difficult for him—

for there he ruled like him

because Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava stands with him,

and therefore it is not included in the count of four.

And the Gemara continues to raise a difficulty against Rabbi Elazar son of Pedat:

And

are there no more,

more than four?

But we learned in the Mishna:

Where does one recite the blessing of havdala in the prayer on the conclusion of Shabbat?

Rabbi Akiva says—

he recites it

the blessing of havdala

as the fourth blessing

in the Amida, as a blessing

by itself.

Rabbi Eliezer says—

he recites it within the thanksgiving,

for he includes it within the blessing of thanksgiving.

And

about this

Rabbi Elazar

son of Pedat

said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer!?

Rabbi Abba said: That

concerning havdala, where he ruled like him, is because

Rabbi Eliezer said

this

in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel,

and this is not a decision according to Rabbi Eliezer’s own words.

For it was taught: Rabbi Akiva says—

he recites it as the fourth blessing, by itself.

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says—

he recites it within the thanksgiving.