Ketubot

But for one who taught [others] there is no limit. AND IF THERE ARE WITNESSES THAT SHE WENT OUT WITH A HINUMA etc. What is hinuma.? — Surhab b. Papa said in the name of Ze'iri: A myrtle-canopy.  R. Johanan said: A veil under which the bride [sometimes] slumbers. R. JOHANAN THE SON OF BEROKA SAYS, etc. It was taught: This was [regarded as] a proof in Judaea; what is [the proof in] Babylonia? — Rab said: The dripping of oil on the heads  of the scholars.  R. Papa said to Abaye: Did the master speak of oil [used] for cleaning [the head]?  — He said to him:  Orphan,  did not your mother do the dripping of the oil on the heads of the scholars at the time  of the event?  As that [case when] one of the scholars was occupied with [the wedding of] his son in the house Of Rabbah b. 'Ulla — and some say, Rabbah b. 'Ulla was occupied with [the wedding of] his son in the house of one of the scholars — and he dripped oil on the heads of the scholars at the time of the event.  — What [sign is there at the wedding of] a widow? — R. Joseph taught: A widow has no roasted ears of corn [distributed at her wedding]. AND R. JOSHUA ADMITS THAT IF ONE SAYS TO HIS FELLOW etc. But let him  teach: R. Joshua admits that in [the case when] one says to his fellow,'this field belonged to you  and I have bought it of you' [he is believed]? — Because he would have to teach [in] the last clause: If there are witnesses that it was his and he says. 'l have bought it of you'. he is not believed.  [And] how shall we imagine this case? If he ate [the fruits of] it [during the] years of hazakah  why should he not be believed? And if he did not eat [the fruits of] it [during the] years of hazakah it is self-evident that he is not believed!  — If so, with regard to his father  also [one could argue]: If he  ate [the fruits of] it [during the] years of hazakah. why should he not be believed?  And if he did not eat [the fruits of] it [during the] years of hazakah, it is self-evident that he is not believed! We grant you with regard to his father, [because] there may be a case, as, for instance, when he ate [the fruits of] it two [years] during the life of the father and one [year] during the life of his son.  And [this would be] according to R. Huna, for R. Huna said: One does not acquire the ownership of the property of a minor by the undisturbed possession of it during the prescribed period. even if [he continued in the possession after] the minor had become of age.  But R. Huna comes to let us hear [what is already taught In] our Mishnah!  — If you wish. you may say. R. Huna says. 'what is to be derived from our Mishnah by implication.'  And if you wish, you may say, 'he lets us hear, even if he had become of age'. But let him  [after all] teach with regard to himself  and put the case when he  ate [the fruits of] it two [years] in his presence  and one [year] in his absence,  and, for instance, when he  fled? — Because of what did he flee? If he fled because of [danger to his] life,  it is self-evident that he  is not believed. since he cannot protest!  And if he fled because of money [matters].  he ought to have protested.  because it is established for  [that] a protest in his absence  is a [valid] protest!  For we have learned: There are three countries with regard to hazakah: Judaea, Trans-Jordan and Galilee.  [If] he  was in Judaea and someone took possession [of his land] in Galilee, [or he' was] in Galilee and Someone took possession [of his land] in Judaea, it is no hazakah  until he is with him in the [same] province.  And we asked  concerning it,  What opinion does he  hold? If he holds that a protest in his absence  is a [valid] protest,  this should apply also to Judaea and Galilee.  And if he holds [that] a protest in his absence is not a [valid] protest. it should not he [a valid protest] even if they are both in Judaea?  [And] R. Abba the son of Memel said: Indeed, he holds [that] a protest in his absence is a [valid] protest, but our Mishnah speaks  of a time of lawlessness.  — And why does he just speak of Judaea and Galilee?  '