Nedarim 53
והיו בה בנות שוח ואמר אילו הייתי יודע שבנות שוח בתוכה לא הייתי נודר הכלכלה אסורה בנות שוח מותרות עד שבא רבי עקיבא ולימד נדר שהותר מקצתו הותר כולו מאי לאו דאמר אילו הייתי יודע שבנות שוח בתוכה הייתי אומר תאנים שחורות ולבנות אסורות בנות שוח מותרות ורבי עקיבא היא ופליגי רבנן
among which were shuah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A species of white figs. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
לא באומר אילו הייתי יודע שבנות שוח בתוכה הייתי אומר כל הכלכלה אסורה ובנות שוח מותרות
figs, and then declared, 'Had I known that shuali figs were among them, I would not have vowed' — the basket of figs is forbidden, but the shuah figs are permitted. Then R. Akiba came and taught: A vow which is partially annulled is entirely annulled. Does it not mean that he declared, 'Had I known that shuah figs were among them, I would have vowed: "The black figs and white figs be forbidden, but the shuah figs be permitted"?' Yet it is R. Akiba's view only, but the Rabbis dispute it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This contradicts Raba's view that in such a case there is no dispute. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן נדר מחמשה בני אדם כאחד הותר לאחד מהם הותרו כולן חוץ מאחד מהן הוא מותר והן אסורין
— No. This refers to one who declared, 'Had I known that shuah figs were among them, I would have vowed, "Let the whole basket [of figs] be forbidden, but the shuah figs permitted."'
אי לרבה רישא רבי עקיבא וסיפא דברי הכל אי לרבא סיפא רבנן ורישא דברי הכל:
Which Tanna is the authority for the following dictum of the Rabbis? If one vowed simultaneously not to benefit from five men, if he is absolved in respect of one of them, he is absolved in respect of all; but [if he stated,] 'Except one of them,' that one is permitted, but the others are forbidden [to him]. According to Rabbah, the first clause agrees with R. Akiba [only], and the second clause with all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause it is assumed that his partially revoking statement was, 'Had I known that X was in the group, I would have said, " a,="" b,="" c,="" etc.="" be="" forbidden,="" but="" x="" permitted".'="" this="" assumption="" is="" based="" on="" the="" contrast="" with="" second="" clause,="" where="" one="" was="" excluded,="" from="" which="" it="" assumed="" that="" his="" revoking="" statement="" was,="" 'had="" i="" known …="" would="" have="" declared,="" "all="" of="" you="" forbidden="" etc."'="" ');"=""><sup>3</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ההוא גברא דאתפיס זכוותא בבי דינא ואמר אי לא אתינא עד תלתין יומין ליבטלון הני זכוותאי איתניס ולא אתא אמר רב הונא בטיל זכוותיה
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. VOWS [BROKEN] UNDER PRESSURE: IF ONE SUBJECTED HIS NEIGHBOUR TO A VOW, TO DINE WITH HIM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Saying, 'You are forbidden to benefit from me if you do not eat with me'. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
וכי תימא קטלא שאני והתנן נדרי אונסין הדירו חבירו שיאכל אצלו וחלה הוא או שחלה בנו או שעיכבו נהר הרי אלו נדרי אונסין
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. A man once deposited his rights<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A document embodying his rights (Tosaf.). ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ולרבא מאי שנא מהא דתנן הרי זה גיטיך מעכשיו אם לא באתי מכאן עד י"ב חדש ומת בתוך י"ב חדש הרי זה גט אמאי והא מינס איתניס אמרי דלמא שאני התם
at <i>Beth din</i>, and declared: 'If I do not appear within thirty days, these rights shall be void.' Subsequently he was unavoidably prevented from appearing. Thereupon R. Huna ruled: His rights are void. But Rabbah said to him, He was unavoidably prevented, and the Divine Law exempts such, for it is written, But unto the damsel shalt thou do nothing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 26. This refers to a betrothed maiden who was violated against her will; but if she was a consenting party, she was punished with death. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> And should you answer, the death penalty is different,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because of its gravity. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> but we learnt: VOWS [BROKEN] UNDER PRESSURE; IF ONE SUBJECTED HIS NEIGHBOUR TO A VOW TO DINE WITH HIM, AND THEN HE OR HIS SON FELL SICK, OR A RIVER PREVENTED HIM [FROM COMING TO HIM] — SUCH IS A VOW [BROKEN] UNDER PRESSURE!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Proving that such exemption holds good in all cases. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> Now, according to Rabbah, wherein does this differ from what We learnt: [If one said to his wife,] 'Behold! this is thy divorce, [to be effective] from now, if I do not come back within twelve months', and he died within the twelve months, the divorce is valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if she is childless she is free from Levirate marriage or the ceremony of loosening the 'shoe (v. Deut XXV, 5. seq.), because she is not the deceased's widow. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> Yet why so? was he not forcibly prevented! — I will tell you. There it may be different,