Study Nedarim folio 26B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אלא סיפא, דאמר ״לזה ולזה״, רבי עקיבא היא, אמאי פליגי רבנן עליה? והאמרת דברי הכל מותר!
But as the latter clause of that Mishnah, in the case where he said: I intended to prohibit eating figs to this one and to that one, and they are all permitted to do so, is the opinion of R' Akiva, which is evident from the fact that this halakha is cited in his name, then according to your opinion why do the Rabbis disagree with him? But haven’t you said that all agree that they are all permitted to partake when the one who took the vow explains that he meant: To this one and to that one?
אמר ליה רבא: ולרבה לרבי עקיבא מי ניחא סיפא? במאי מוקים לה — דאמר ״לכולכם״, הי דין הוא ראשון והי דין הוא אחרון?
Rava said to Rav Pappa: And according to Rabba, whose opinion you are supporting with this objection, does the latter clause work out well according to R' Akiva? In what case does he establish it? In a case where one retracted and said: From all of you, which of them is the first one and which of them is the last one? The Mishnah stated that if benefit from the last one was permitted, benefit from the last one alone is permitted and benefit from all the others is forbidden. If he is now saying: From all of you, who is the first and who is the last?
אלא: רישא דאמר ״לכולכם״, וסיפא, כגון שתלאן זה בזה, ואמר: ״פלוני כפלוני, ופלוני כפלוני״.
Rather, Rava explains as follows: The first clause is referring to where he said: From all of you, and this follows the opinion of Beit Hillel, who say, according to Rava, that the entire vow is dissolved. And in the latter clause, i.e., the last two cases, it is referring to where he did not specify: From this one and from that one, but where, For example: he linked them to one another and said: So-and-so should be prohibited to partake like so-and-so, and so-and-so like so-and-so, but there is no general prohibition on all of them. Rather, each prohibition is linked to another one. Therefore, if the prohibition pertaining to the first individual is dissolved, then all those prohibitions linked to that one are dissolved as well.