יז א"ר אבא ההוא דאמר משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל דתניא רבי עקיבא אומר אומרה ברכה רביעית בפני עצמה רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אומרה בהודאה
17 also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like Rab Judah who cited Samuel supra 7b. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> stated, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things'. But are there no more of such rulings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to which the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> Have we not in fact learnt, 'R. Eliezer ruled, The minor is to be instructed to exercise her right of <i>mi'un</i> against him'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra q.v. notes. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> and R. Eleazar stated, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eliezer'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 110a. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> And were you to reply that when R. Eleazar stated, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things' he referred to the rulings in the Order of Toharoth, but that in the other Orders there are many more such rulings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to which the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> [it could be retorted:] But are there any such? Have we not in fact learnt, 'The rose, henna,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'cyprus flower'. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> lotus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'gum-mastich'. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> and balsam as well as their proceeds are subject to the laws of the Sabbatical year<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebi. VII, 6: sc. during that year they must be treated as hefker (v. Glos.) and no trade may be carried on with them. ');"><sup>54</sup></span> and they and their proceeds are also subject to the law of removal,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc., as soon as none of these products respectively remained in the field the owner must remove from his house all that he had previously gathered in. The last quoted part, 'and they … removal' is wanting in the Mishnah. ');"><sup>55</sup></span> in connection with which R. Pedath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The son of R. Eleazar b. Pedath. ');"><sup>56</sup></span> is observed, 'Who taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah cited from Sheb. ');"><sup>57</sup></span> that balsam is a fruit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were it no fruit it would not have been subject to the laws of the Sabbatical Year. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> R. Eliezer'; and R. Zera replied, 'I see that between<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from'. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> you and your father you will cause balsam to be permitted to the world,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the Sabbatical Year, i.e., to be exempt from its restrictions. ');"><sup>60</sup></span> since you said, "Who taught that balsam is a fruit? R. Eliezer" and your father said, "The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things".'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But no more. R. Eliezer's restrictive law concerning balsam, since it is not included in the four, must consequently be against the halachah and must, therefore, be disregarded. ');"><sup>61</sup></span> Now, if it were so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That outside the Order of Toharoth there are other rulings of R. Eliezer in agreement with the halachah. ');"><sup>62</sup></span> why did he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Pedath. ');"><sup>63</sup></span> not reply to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Zera. ');"><sup>64</sup></span> 'When my father said, "The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things" he referred only to rulings in the Order of Toharoth but in other Orders there are many more'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And R. Zera's objection would thus have been met. Since R. Pedath, however, gave no such reply it follows that R. Eleazar's statement that 'the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things' applies to all the Orders of the Talmud. ');"><sup>65</sup></span> — But then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. ');"><sup>66</sup></span> does not the previous difficulty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How is it that in the case of mi'un (which is not included in the four) the halachah is also in agreement with R. Eliezer? ');"><sup>67</sup></span> arise? — [In the case of <i>mi'un</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is not one of the four (cf. prev. n.). ');"><sup>68</sup></span> the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eliezer] because R. Eleazar [b. Shammua'] takes up the same standpoint as he; for we have learnt: R. Eleazar ruled, The minor is to be instructed to exercise her right of <i>mi'un</i> against him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra q.v. notes. ');"><sup>69</sup></span> But does he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar [b. Shammua']. ');"><sup>70</sup></span> take up the same standpoint? Have we not in fact shown that both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rulings of R. Eliezer and R. Eleazar respectively. ');"><sup>71</sup></span> were required because they are not like one another?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra q.v. notes. ');"><sup>72</sup></span> — Rather say: Because R. Judah b. Baba takes up the same standpoint as he.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar [b. Shammua']. ');"><sup>70</sup></span> But are there no more such rulings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning which the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer. ');"><sup>73</sup></span> Have we not in fact learnt: 'R. Akiba ruled, One says it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The benediction of habdalah in the evening service at the conclusion of the Sabbath (cf. P.B., p. 46). ');"><sup>74</sup></span> as an independent benediction;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. it is not to be included in any of the statutory benedictions. ');"><sup>75</sup></span> R. Eliezer ruled, One includes it in the benediction of thanksgiving';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ber. 29a, 33a. Cf. P.B., p. 51. ');"><sup>76</sup></span> and in connection with this R. Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' b. Pedath (cf. supra). ');"><sup>77</sup></span> stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' M. J. Ber. (Tosaf). ');"><sup>78</sup></span> 'The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Eliezer'? — R. Abba replied: [The <i>halachah</i> agrees with him] in that case because he [may have] said it in the name of R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, for it was taught: R. Akiba ruled, One says it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The benediction of habdalah in the evening service at the conclusion of the Sabbath (cf. P.B., p. 46). ');"><sup>79</sup></span> as an independent benediction;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. it is not to be included in any of the statutory benedictions. ');"><sup>75</sup></span> R. Hanina b. Gamaliel ruled, One includes it in the benediction of thanksgiving.