## Niddah Daf 8a

###### Niddah 8a:1
[Niddah 8a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:1)

מְלַמְּדִין אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה שֶׁתְּמָאֵן בּוֹ, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר! כִּי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּאַרְבָּעָה בְּסֵדֶר טְהָרוֹת, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר סְדָרִים אִיכָּא טוּבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We instruct the minor,** i.e., the surviving brother’s wife, **to refuse** to continue to stay married to **him** so that her marriage is dissolved, and he may then enter into levirate marriage with her adult sister, the widow of his childless brother. **And Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.** The Gemara explains: **When Shmuel says** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer in four** cases, what he meant was four cases **within *Seder Teharot*** in the Mishna, the order that deals with ritual purity. **But in the other orders, there are many** instances where the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


###### Niddah 8a:2
[Niddah 8a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:2)

וְהָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַף הָרוֹדֶה וְנוֹתֵן לַסַּל, הַסַּל מְצָרְפָן לַחַלָּה. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **This too stands to reason, as we learned** in a mishna in the order of *Zera’im* (*Ḥalla* 2:4) that **Rabbi Eliezer says: Even** with regard to **one who removes** loaves of bread from an oven **and places them in a basket, the basket** serves to **combine them to** reach the quantity from which one is required to separate ***ḥalla*,** despite the fact that each of the loaves does not contain the necessary measure for *ḥalla* on its own. **And Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer. Conclude from this** that Shmuel’s general statement applies only to *Seder Teharot*.


###### Niddah 8a:3
[Niddah 8a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:3)

וּמַאי אוּלְמֵיהּ דְּהַאי מֵהַאי? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר כְּוָתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: The case of *ḥalla* was cited as proof that there is an exception to Shmuel’s principle that there are only four cases where the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, after a difficulty was raised from the case of levirate marriage with the sister of one’s minor wife. **But** in **what** way is **this** case of *ḥalla* **greater** proof **than that** case of the levirate marriage? Neither case appears in *Seder Teharot*. The Gemara answers: The case of the levirate marriage is different, **as** there **Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with** the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


###### Niddah 8a:4
[Niddah 8a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:4)

דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: מְלַמְּדִין אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה שֶׁתְּמָאֵן בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in the mishna (*Yevamot* 111b): A *yavam* may perform levirate marriage with only one of his deceased brother’s wives. Once he does so, the other wives are forbidden to him, because they had been married to his brother. If a deceased brother had two wives, an adult and a minor, and the *yavam* engaged in sexual intercourse with the minor and then engaged in intercourse with the adult, the Rabbis maintain that he disqualifies the minor from staying married to him, as her levirate bond is uncertain, and the adult wife is also prohibited to him, because the levirate marriage with the minor is considered effective by rabbinic law. **Rabbi Elazar says:** The court **instructs the minor to refuse him,** thereby annulling her marriage retroactively, and he may then perform levirate marriage with the adult. Accordingly, the case of *ḥalla* is a stronger example, as there the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer exclusively, as his opinion is not supported by another *tanna*.


###### Niddah 8a:5
[Niddah 8a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:5)

וּמִי קָאֵי? וְהָא אַצְרוֹכֵי מַצְרְכִינַן לְהוּ, וְלָא דָּמְיָין לַהֲדָדֵי! אֶלָּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא כְּוָתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does** Rabbi Elazar in fact **hold** in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? **But doesn’t** the Gemara (*Yevamot* 111b) explain that both the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar **are necessary,** as they apply to different cases, **and** therefore **they are not comparable to each other?** The Gemara suggests a new answer: **Rather,** the ruling with regard to levirate marriage is a weaker example of a case where the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer **because Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with his opinion.**


###### Niddah 8a:6
[Niddah 8a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:6)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא הֵעִיד חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים: שֶׁמְּמָאֲנִים אֶת הַקְּטַנּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified** about **five matters of** *halakha*: Normally, marriage refusals of girls married off by their mother or brothers are discouraged. Yet, in specific instances where it is clear that if the marriage were to remain in effect it would engender problems related to levirate marriage and *ḥalitza*, the court **persuades minor girls to refuse** to continue living with their husbands, thereby resolving the complications involved in the case.


###### Niddah 8a:7
[Niddah 8a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:7)

וְשֶׁמַּשִּׂיאִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד, וְשֶׁנִּסְקַל תַּרְנְגוֹל בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם עַל שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, וְעַל יַיִן בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם שֶׁנִּתְנַסֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְעַל תָּמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר שֶׁקָּרַב בְּאַרְבַּע שָׁעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** he also testified **that one may** allow **a woman** who seeks to remarry after hearing of her husband’s death **to marry based on** the testimony of **one witness,** as opposed to the two witnesses required for other matters of testimony. **And** he further testified **that a rooster was stoned** to death **in Jerusalem for killing a person,** in order to teach that the Torah law requiring the stoning of an ox that killed a person (see Exodus 21:28) applies to other animals as well. **And** he testified **about forty-day-old wine that was** used for **libation on the altar. And** finally, he testified **about** the **daily morning offering that was sacrificed at four hours** of the day.


###### Niddah 8a:8
[Niddah 8a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:8)

מַאי קְטַנּוֹת? לָאו חֲדָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְחַד דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? לָא, מַאי קְטַנּוֹת? קְטַנּוֹת דְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes its proof: When the *baraita* teaches that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava testified that the court persuades minor girls to refuse to continue living with their husbands, **what** is the significance of the reference to **minor girls** in the plural? Is this **not** referring to the **one** minor girl who is the subject of the ruling **of Rabbi Elazar and** the other **one** that is the subject of the ruling **of Rabbi Eliezer?** Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of the minor’s refusal. If so, this ruling is a weaker proof that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in cases outside of *Seder Teharot*. The Gemara answers: **No, what** is meant by the plural: **Minor girls?** It means **minor girls in general,** i.e., all minor girls in such cases where the ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies.


###### Niddah 8a:9
[Niddah 8a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:9)

אִי הָכִי, גַּבֵּי אִשָּׁה נָמֵי, נִתְנֵי ״נָשִׁים״ וְנֵימָא נָשִׁים דְּעָלְמָא! אֶלָּא, מִדְּהָכָא קָתָנֵי ״אִשָּׁה״, וְהָכָא קָתָנֵי ״קְטַנּוֹת״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דַּוְקָא קָתָנֵי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so, with regard to** the *halakha* listed in the *baraita* that one may allow **a woman** to marry based on the testimony of one witness, **let it also teach: Women,** in the plural, **and we will say** that it is referring to **women in general. Rather, from** the fact that **here** it **teaches: A woman, and** yet **here** it **teaches: Minor girls, conclude from** this discrepancy that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava **is teaching** his ruling **specifically** about two minor girls: The one who is the subject of Rabbi Elazar’s ruling and the one who is the subject of Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling. The Gemara comments: Indeed, **conclude from it** that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


###### Niddah 8a:10
[Niddah 8a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:10)

וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּאַרְבָּעָה. וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר מְלַמְּדִין אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה שֶׁתְּמָאֵן בּוֹ, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר! וְכִי תֵימָא: כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּאַרְבָּעָה בְּסֵדֶר טְהָרוֹת, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר סִדְרֵי אִיכָּא. וּמִי אִיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **And similarly, Rabbi Elazar says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer in four** cases. The Gemara asks: **And** are there **no more? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** The court **instructs the minor to refuse** to stay married to **him, and Rabbi Elazar said:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer?** The Gemara adds: **And if you would say** that **when Rabbi Elazar said** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer in four** cases, he meant four cases **within *Seder Teharot*, but in the other orders** of the Mishna **there are many** cases, **are there** really other such cases?


###### Niddah 8a:11
[Niddah 8a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:11)

וְהָתְנַן: הַוֶּרֶד, וְהַכּוֹפֶר, וְהַלְּטוֹם, וְהַקְּטָף — יֵשׁ לָהֶן שְׁבִיעִית, וְלִדְמֵיהֶן שְׁבִיעִית, יֵשׁ לָהֶן בִּיעוּר, וְלִדְמֵיהֶן בִּיעוּר. וְאָמַר רַבִּי פְּדָת: מַאן תְּנָא קִטְפָא פֵּירָא? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Shevi’it* 7:6) that the *halakha* of the following fragrant plants: **The rose, the henna, the rockrose, and the balsam,** is that **they have** the sanctity of the **Sabbatical** Year, **and money** exchanged for **them has** the sanctity of the **Sabbatical** Year. Additionally, **they have** the *halakha* of **eradication and money** exchanged for **them has** the *halakha* of **eradication. And** with regard to this mishna, **Rabbi Pedat said: Who** is the *tanna* who **taught that balsam** has the status of **a fruit,** and is not merely sap, and therefore it has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year? It is **Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Niddah 8a:12
[Niddah 8a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:12)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: חֲזִי דְּמִינָּךְ וּמֵאֲבוּךְ קָשָׁרֵיתוּ קִטְפָא לְעָלְמָא! אַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ: מַאן תַּנָּא קִטְפָא פֵּירָא? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַאֲבוּךְ אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּאַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And Rabbi Zeira said to** Rabbi Pedat: One can **see that from you and from your father,** i.e., between the two of you, **you have permitted balsam to the world,** since the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer is certainly not accepted. As **you said: Who** is the *tanna* who **taught that balsam** has the status of **a fruit?** It is **Rabbi Eliezer. And your father,** Rabbi Elazar, **said** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer in** only **four** cases.


###### Niddah 8a:13
[Niddah 8a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:13)

וְאִם אִיתָא, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: כִּי אָמַר אַבָּא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּאַרְבָּעָה בְּסֵדֶר טְהָרוֹת, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר סִדְרֵי אִיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difficulty: **And if it is so,** that Rabbi Elazar was referring only to *Seder Teharot*, then **let** Rabbi Pedat **say to** Rabbi Zeira: **When** my **father said** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer in four** cases, he meant only four cases **within *Seder Teharot*, but in the other orders there are** other such cases. From the fact that Rabbi Pedat did not reply in this manner, evidently there are no cases in the other orders of the Mishna where, according to Rabbi Elazar, the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


###### Niddah 8a:14
[Niddah 8a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:14)

אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא הָהִיא! מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר כְּוָתֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: מְלַמְּדִים אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה שֶׁתְּמָאֵן בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But that** case, where the *amora* Rabbi Elazar said that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to persuading a minor to refuse to stay married to her husband, is **difficult.** This apparently conflicts with the statement that there are only four cases in which Rabbi Elazar rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara answers: There the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer only **because** the *tanna* **Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with his** opinion. **As we learned** in a mishna that **Rabbi Elazar says:** The court **instructs the minor to refuse** to stay married to **him,** thereby annulling her marriage retroactively.


###### Niddah 8a:15
[Niddah 8a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:15)

וּמִי קָאֵי, וְהָא אַצְרוֹכֵי מַצְרְכִינַן לְהוּ, וְלָא דָּמְיָין לַהֲדָדֵי! אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא כְּוָותֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does** Rabbi Elazar **hold** in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in that case of the minor? **But doesn’t** the Gemara in *Yevamot* explain that both the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar **are necessary, and** therefore **they are not comparable to each other? Rather,** the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in that case **because Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava holds in accordance with his opinion,** as explained earlier.


###### Niddah 8a:16
[Niddah 8a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:16)

וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָתְנַן: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אוֹמְרָהּ בְּרָכָה רְבִיעִית בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אוֹמְרָהּ בַּהוֹדָאָה, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** are there **no more** cases in which Rabbi Elazar maintains that the *halakha* is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Berakhot* 33a): One recites the prayer of distinction between the holy and the profane [*havdala*], said in the evening prayer following Shabbat and festivals, in the fourth blessing of the *Amida* prayer: Who graciously grants knowledge. **Rabbi Akiva says: One recites** *havdala* as **a fourth blessing by itself. Rabbi Eliezer says** that **one recites it in** the blessing of **thanksgiving.** And with regard to this dispute, **Rabbi Elazar says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Niddah 8a:17
[Niddah 8a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8a:17)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: הָהוּא דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אוֹמְרָהּ בְּרָכָה רְבִיעִית בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אוֹמְרָהּ בַּהוֹדָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said,** in explanation: **That** case is different, **as** that is not the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer himself. Rather, he **stated** that ruling **in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Akiva says: One recites** *havdala* as **a fourth blessing by itself; Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: One recites it in** the blessing of **thanksgiving.**