Niddah

R. Eleazar  also  stated, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things'. But are there no more of such rulings?  Have we not in fact learnt, 'R. Eliezer ruled, The minor is to be instructed to exercise her right of mi'un against him'  and R. Eleazar stated, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer'?  And were you to reply that when R. Eleazar stated, 'The halachah 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  [it could be retorted:] But are there any such? Have we not in fact learnt, 'The rose, henna,  lotus  and balsam as well as their proceeds are subject to the laws of the Sabbatical year  and they and their proceeds are also subject to the law of removal,'  in connection with which R. Pedath  is observed, 'Who taught  that balsam is a fruit?  R. Eliezer'; and R. Zera replied, 'I see that between  you and your father you will cause balsam to be permitted to the world,  since you said, "Who taught that balsam is a fruit? R. Eliezer" and your father said, "The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four things".'  Now, if it were so,  why did he  not reply to him,  'When my father said, "The halachah 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'?  — But then,  does not the previous difficulty  arise? — [In the case of mi'un  the halachah 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 mi'un against him.  But does he  take up the same standpoint? Have we not in fact shown that both  were required because they are not like one another?  — Rather say: Because R. Judah b. Baba takes up the same standpoint as he.  But are there no more such rulings? Have we not in fact learnt: 'R. Akiba ruled, One says it  as an independent benediction;  R. Eliezer ruled, One includes it in the benediction of thanksgiving';  and in connection with this R. Eleazar  stated,  'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer'? — R. Abba replied: [The halachah 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  as an independent benediction;  R. Hanina b. Gamaliel ruled, One includes it in the benediction of thanksgiving.