Nedarim 26b — the Talmud in English

Rather, the latter clause

of the first clause, which speaks of a case such as

where he said

at the outset,

“for this one and for this one,”

and now he retracts also from his wording, this is a change both in the vow and in the wording, and it is a vow whose part was permitted according to everyone. If so, according to your view it is difficult: why did the Mishna say that it is only according to

Rabbi Akiva?

And

why do the Rabbis disagree with him?

But you said

that if part of the vow was permitted, according to

everyone it is permitted!

For according to your words, everyone agrees that a vow whose part was permitted was entirely permitted, and they disagreed only as to when it is defined as a vow whose part was permitted.

Rava said

to Rav Pappa:

And according to Rabba, according to Rabbi Akiva—

does the latter clause sit well?

How does he establish it, [in a case] where he said, “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 establishes it as it stands, who is the first and who is the last whom the Mishna mentions 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,

necessarily, this is the explanation of our Mishna: it speaks of an entirely different matter from the way you established it:

The first clause,

the first case can be established as at the outset,

where he said, “to all of you,”

as we explained.

And the latter clause

of the first clause, and the latter clause itself, speak 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.”

It is precise as well, for it was taught: If the middle one was permitted—

those from it and below are permitted.

From it

and above are forbidden.

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection to Rava [and all the more so according to Rabba; see the Ran] from what we learned:

[and all the more so against Rabba; see the Ran] from what we learned:

“Konam, the onion that I taste,”

because

“the onion is bad for the heart!”

They said to him: “But is it not so that

the

kupri onion is good for the heart!”

He was permitted with regard to the

onion

kupri,

in accordance with the law of a mistaken vow.

And he was not permitted with regard to the

onion

kupri alone; rather,

he was permitted

with regard to all the onions.

An incident occurred, and Rabbi Meir permitted him with regard to all the onions,

because a vow whose part was permitted was entirely permitted.

And Rav Adda bar Ahava infers:

Is it not that he said: “Had I known that the kupri was good for the heart, I would have said, ‘All onions are forbidden, and the kupri is permitted’!”

That is, he does not change his wording, but establishes it as it stands, and nevertheless Rabbi Meir said that a vow whose part was permitted was entirely permitted.

And since according to Rava Beit Shammai agree that a vow whose part was permitted was entirely permitted, but the question is where this is a vow whose part was permitted, and Rava established above the view of Beit Shammai as that of Rabbi Meir, who holds that one seizes the first wording, and it is reasonable that Rabbi Meir also holds according to the view of Beit Shammai in this matter, that only its father is permitted and all the rest are forbidden, if so, why did Rabbi Meir here permit all the onions?

And the Gemara rejects:

No,

this is not what is being discussed.

Rather, it speaks of

one who says: “Had I known that the kupri was good for the heart, I would have said, ‘So-and-so onion

and so-and-so are forbidden, and the kupri is permitted.’”

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

And therefore Rava answers:

And Rabbi Meir

proceeds 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?