Nedarim 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, the latter clause

of the first clause, which speaks of a case where

he said

at first,

“For this one and for that one”,

and now he retracts even from his wording, this constitutes a change both in the vow and in the wording, and it is a vow whose part was annulled, which according to everyone means that the entire vow was annulled. If so, according to your view, this is difficult: Why did the Mishna say that this applies only according to

Rabbi Akiva?

And

why do the Rabbis disagree with him?

But you said

that if part of the vow was annulled,

according to everyone it is permitted!

For according to your view, everyone agrees that when part of a vow is annulled, the entire vow is annulled; they disagree only as to when it is defined as a vow whose part was annulled.

Rava said

to Rav Pappa:

And according to Rabba, according to Rabbi Akiva—

is the latter clause satisfactory?

In what case does he establish it, when he says, “To all of you”—

which one

is

the first, and which one

is

the last?

That is, if he does not retract from his wording, as you said, but leaves it as it stands, who is the first and who is the last mentioned by the Mishna in the latter clause, and why does the tanna not call them all by the same name in the first clause and in the latter clause?

Rather,

the explanation of our Mishna must necessarily be that it is speaking of a matter entirely different from the way you established it:

The first clause,

the first case can be established as it was originally understood:

when he says, “To all of you,”

as we explained.

And the latter clause

of the first clause, as well as the latter clause itself, is speaking of a case

where he linked them

all

to one another

like a chain.

And he said: “So-and-so”—

“like so-and-so, and so-and-so”—

“like so-and-so.”

This is also precise, as it is taught in a beraita: If the middle one was permitted—

those from it and below are permitted.

Those from it

and above are forbidden.

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection to Rava [and all the more so to Rabba; see the Ran]

from what we learned:

“A konam: I will not taste onion,”

because

“onion is harmful to the heart!”

They said to him: “But”

the

Kufri onion is beneficial to the heart!

The prohibition was annulled with regard to the

onion

of Kufri

in accordance with the law of a mistaken vow.

And not with regard to the

onion

of Kufri alone was the vow annulled; rather,

it was annulled

with regard to all onions.

There was an incident, and Rabbi Meir permitted all onions,

because when part of a vow is annulled, the entire vow is annulled.

Rav Adda bar Ahava infers:

Is it not that he said: “Had I known that the Kufri onion is beneficial to the heart, I would have said: All onions are forbidden, and the Kufri onion is permitted”!?

That is, he did not change his wording, but left it as it stood, and nevertheless Rabbi Meir said that when part of a vow is annulled, the entire vow is annulled.

And since according to Rava, Beit Shammai agree that when part of a vow is annulled, the entire vow is annulled, and the question is only where this is a vow whose part was annulled—and Rava established above that the view of Beit Shammai follows Rabbi Meir, who holds that one seizes the first formulation—and it is reasonable that Rabbi Meir likewise holds, in accordance with the view of Beit Shammai on this matter, that only the first one is permitted and all the rest are forbidden, if so, why did Rabbi Meir permit all the onions here?

And the Gemara rejects this:

No,

this is not what the case concerns.

Rather, it concerns

one who says: “Had I known that the Kufri onion is beneficial to the heart, I would have said: So-and-so onion

and so-and-so are forbidden, and the Kufri onion is permitted.”

That is, he changes both his vow and his wording; in such a case, everyone agrees that this is a vow whose part was annulled, and according to Rava, everyone agrees that the entire vow was annulled.

Therefore, Rava explains:

And Rabbi Meir

follows

both according to Rabbi Akiva, and

both

according to the Rabbis.

Ravina raised an objection to Rava

from what we learned:

Rabbi Natan says: There is a vow whose part is permitted and whose part is forbidden.

How so?