Niddah

[Reverting to] the above text, 'If a minor dedicated some food and others ate it, R. Kahana ruled, They are not to be flogged, while both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish ruled, They are to be flogged'. On what principle do they differ? — The Masters  are of the opinion that an intelligent minor approaching manhood is under a Pentateuchal obligation  while the Master  is of the opinion that an intelligent minor approaching manhood is only under a Rabbinical obligation.  R. Jeremiah raised an objection: If a fatherless girl  made a vow, her husband may disallow it for her. Now if you grant that an intelligent minor approaching manhood is only under a Rabbinical obligation  one can well justify the ruling,  since the force of a Rabbinical marriage  may well annul a Rabbinical vow, but if you maintain that the obligation  is Pentateuchal, could [it may be objected] the force of a Rabbinical marriage  annul a Pentateuchal vow? — R. Judah citing Samuel replied: Her husband may disallow her vow for her whatever your assumption might be. If the minor's obligation  is Rabbinical, the whole matter is a Rabbinical affair; and if the obligation is Pentateuchal, it is a case of a minor who eats nebelah  where it is not the duty of the Beth din to take it away from him. But would she not be eating, in reliance upon the first disallowance,  even when she attains her majority?  — Rabbah b. Liwai replied: Her husband disallows her vow for her every now and then.  This,  however, applies only to one who cohabited with her.  But, surely, no husband may disallow vows made prior to marriage?  — This  is in agreement with R. Phinehas who cited Raba,  for R. Phinehas citing Raba stated: Any woman who vows acts in reliance on the opinion of her husband. Said Abaye, Come and hear: If a minor has not yet grown two hairs, R. Judah ruled, his terumah is not  valid; while R. Jose ruled, Before reaching the age when his vows are valid  his terumah is not valid, but after reaching the age when his vows are valid  his terumah is valid.  Assuming  that R. Jose is of the opinion that terumah at the present time is a Pentateuchal institution, his ruling would be well justified if you grant that an intelligent minor approaching manhood is under a Pentateuchal obligation,  since a man under a Pentateuchal obligation may well render fit  Pentateuchal tebel,  but if you maintain that he is only under a Rabbinical obligation,  could a man under a Rabbinical obligation render fit Pentateuchal tebel?  — No, R. Jose is of the opinion that terumah at the present time is only a Rabbinical institution. But does R. Jose hold that terumah at the present time is only Rabbinical? Was it not in fact taught in Seder Olam:  'Which thy fathers possessed and thou shalt possess it,  they had a first,  and a second  possession  but they had no need for a third one';  and R. Johanan stated, 'Who is the author of Seder Olam? R. Jose?'  — R. Jose may well be its compiler  but he himself does not uphold this view.  This  may also be supported by a process of reasoning. For it was taught: A dough  that had become subject to the restrictions of terumah  or became sour through a leaven of terumah,