Nedarim 51

Chapter 51

א ורבא אמר דכולי עלמא כל היכא דאמר אילו הייתי יודע שאבא ביניכם הייתי אומר פלוני ופלוני אסורין ואבא מותר כולם מותרין לא נחלקו אלא באומר אילו הייתי יודע שאבא ביניכם הייתי אומר כולכם אסורין חוץ מאבא

1 But Raba maintained: All agree that if he declared, 'Had I known that my father was among you I would have said, "So-and-so are forbidden but my father is permitted",' all are permitted.1

ב בית שמאי סברי לה כרבי מאיר דאמר תפוס לשון ראשון

2 They are in dispute only if he declared, 'Had I known that my father was among you, I would have said, "You are all forbidden except my father".' Beth Shammai agree with R. Meir, who maintains, one's first words are to be reckoned with, and Beth Hillel agree with R. Jose who said, one's last words count.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dispute refers to his second declaration, which is divided into 'first words' and 'last words'. The first words are, 'you are all forbidden'; since these are identical with his earlier declaration, Beth Shammai maintain that his vow has not even been partially annulled. His last words are 'except my father', since these definitely limit the scope of the earlier declaration, Beth Hillel maintain that the vow has thereby been partially, and consequently entirely, annulled. ');">2

ג ובית הלל סברי לה כרבי יוסי דאמר בגמר דבריו אדם נתפס

3 R. Papa objected to Raba: In what instance did R. Akiba rule that a vow which is partially annulled is entirely annulled? E.g., [If one said.] 'Konam, that I do not benefit from any of you,' if one was [subsequently] permitted [to afford him benefit], they are all permitted. [But if he said,] 'Konam that I do not benefit from A, B, C,' etc.: if the first was [subsequently] permitted, all are permitted; but if the last-named was permitted, he alone is permitted, but the rest are forbidden. As for Rabbah, it is well, [for] he can apply the first clause3

ד איתיביה רב פפא לרבא כיצד אמר רבי עקיבא נדר שהותר מקצתו הותר כולו קונם שאיני נהנה לכולכם הותר אחד מהן הותרו כולם שאיני נהנה לא לזה ולזה הותר הראשון הותרו כולם הותר האחרון האחרון מותר וכולן אסורין

4 to one who [in the first instance] enumerated A, B, C, etc.;4

ה בשלמא לרבה מוקים לה לרישא דאמר לזה ולזה

5 while the second clause5

ו וסיפא דאמר לכולכם

6 refers to one who [in the first instance] declared, 'to any of you.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the actual forms given refer to the second declaration. Now, Rabbah maintains that the dispute of Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai, as that of R. Akiba and his predecessors, refers to a case where the second declaration, besides excluding a particular person, differs in form from the first. Hence in the two instances dealt with here it is the view only of R. Akiba (and Beth Hillel) that that absolution extends to all; but his predecessors hold that even in these instances absolution is limited to the person definitely excluded. This explanation does not allow for the distinction drawn in the two subdivisions of the second clause, and Raba draws attention to it in his reply. — A number of varying interpretations have been given in this passage. The one adopted here is that of Tosaf. ');">6

ז אלא לדידך בשלמא רישא מוקים לה דאמר לכולכם

7 But as for yourself: granted that you can apply the first clause to one who [in his second statement] declared, 'to any of you.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, as explained by Raba above, this ruling is disputed by R. Akiba's predecessors; therefore it is given as an illustration of R. Akiba's view on), implying that his predecessors disagree. ');">7

Previous Chapter Next Chapter