כא ולא היא רב המנונא מגופא דמתניתין קא דייק הא לאחר זמן היכי דמי אי דלא אייתי שתי שערות קטן הוא אלא לאו דאייתי שתי שערות
21 it follows, does it not, that the intervening period is regarded as that of under age? Said Raba to him, Read then the first clause: PRIOR TO THIS AGE, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID, 'WE KNEW IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR VOW' OR 'IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR DEDICATION', THEIR VOW IS NO VALID VOW AND THEIR DEDICATION IS NO VALID DEDICATION. Thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on PRIOR. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> it follows, does it not, that the intervening period is regarded as that of over age? — This, however, is no argument, Raba having laboured under a misapprehension. He thought that R. Hamnuna drew his inference from a Mishnah redundancy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the apparent superfluity of the rulings PRIOR TO THIS AGE etc. and SUBSEQUENT TO etc. discussed and explained supra. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> [hence he argued that] instead of drawing an inference from the final clause he might as well have drawn one from the first clause; but this was not the case. R. Hamnuna in fact drew his inference from the very wording<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the body'. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> of our Mishnah. How [he reasoned] is one to understand the expression of 'SUBSEQUENT TO THAT AGE'? If by that time one had not yet grown two hairs, one would, surely, still be a minor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could it be ruled, THEIR VOW IS VALID etc. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> Consequently it must refer to one who had grown two hairs,