## Nedarim Daf 26a

###### Nedarim 26a:1
[Nedarim 26a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/26a:1)

וְרָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר: אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאַבָּא בֵּינֵיכֶם הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: ״פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי אֲסוּרִין וְאַבָּא מוּתָּר״ — כּוּלָּם מוּתָּרִין. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר: אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאַבָּא בֵּינֵיכֶם, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: ״כּוּלְּכֶם אֲסוּרִין חוּץ מֵאַבָּא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said: Everyone** holds **that anywhere that one says: Had I known that father was among you I would have said: So-and-so and so-and-so are prohibited** to partake **and father is permitted** to do so, then **all are permitted** to partake. **They disagree only** in a case **where one says: Had I known that father was among you I would have said: All of you are prohibited** from partaking **except for father.**


###### Nedarim 26a:2
[Nedarim 26a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/26a:2)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The rationale of the dispute is the following: **Beit Shammai hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who said:** If one initially makes one declaration and immediately afterward makes a conflicting declaration, **hold** him accountable for the **first expression.** Since he initially said: All of you are prohibited from partaking, this expression is the effective one and they are all prohibited from doing so. The addition of the words: Except for father, is viewed as a clarification of the previous expression, simply indicating that his father is not included in the prohibition.


###### Nedarim 26a:3
[Nedarim 26a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/26a:3)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: בִּגְמַר דְּבָרָיו אָדָם נִתְפָּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** by contrast, **Beit Hillel hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, who said: A person is held accountable** even **for the conclusion of his statement,** and the second formulation is the primary one. Therefore, the fact that one altered his formulation to exclude his father from the prohibition means that the vow is partially canceled, and a vow that is partially dissolved is dissolved completely.


###### Nedarim 26a:4
[Nedarim 26a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/26a:4)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: כֵּיצַד אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נֶדֶר שֶׁהוּתַּר מִקְצָתוֹ הוּתַּר כּוּלּוֹ? ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לְכוּלְּכֶם״, הוּתַּר אֶחָד מֵהֶן — הוּתְּרוּ כּוּלָּם. ״שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לֹא לָזֶה וְלָזֶה״, הוּתַּר הָרִאשׁוֹן — הוּתְּרוּ כּוּלָּם, הוּתַּר הָאַחֲרוֹן — הָאַחֲרוֹן מוּתָּר וְכוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rava** from the following mishna (66a): **In what case did Rabbi Akiva say** that **a vow which was partially dissolved is dissolved completely?** For example, if one said: The property **of all of you is *konam*** for me, and for **that** reason **I will not benefit** from it, if benefit from **one of them was permitted** for whatever reason, benefit from **all of them is permitted.** However, if one said: The property **of this one and of that one** is *konam* for me, and for **that** reason **I will not benefit** from it, then if benefit from **the first** one **was permitted** for whatever reason, benefit from **all** of them **is permitted,** but if benefit from **the last** one **was permitted,** benefit from **the last** one alone **is permitted and** benefit from **all** the others **is forbidden.**


###### Nedarim 26a:5
[Nedarim 26a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/26a:5)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּה, מוֹקֵים לֵהּ לְרֵישָׁא, דְּאָמַר לָזֶה וְלָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa explains his objection: Rabba stated that when one qualifies his words by saying: I would have said all of you are prohibited from partaking except father, then all agree that everyone except his father is prohibited from doing so, but that when he adds to his words by saying: I would have said that so-and-so and so-and-so are prohibited from partaking and father is permitted to do so, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Rabba, he establishes** Rabbi Akiva’s **first clause,** where benefit from all is permitted, as a case **where he** retracts and **says:** I meant to say that the property **of this one and of that one,** but not that of so-and-so, is *konam* for me, which accords with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


###### Nedarim 26a:6
[Nedarim 26a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/26a:6)

וְסֵיפָא — דְּאָמַר ״לְכוּלְּכֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the last clause** of the mishna, in which benefit from the last one alone is permitted, but benefit from all the others remains forbidden, is a case **where he** retracts and **says:** The property **of all of you** is *konam* for me except for that of one of you. According to the opinion of Rabba, both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel would agree that in this case the one who stated the vow is permitted to benefit only from the one excluded from the vow.


###### Nedarim 26a:7
[Nedarim 26a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/26a:7)

אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ: בִּשְׁלָמָא רֵישָׁא מוֹקֵים לֵהּ דְּאָמַר ״לְכוּלְּכֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to you,** Rava, who holds that if he said: I would have said that so-and-so and so-and-so are prohibited to partake and father is permitted to do so, all concede that everyone is permitted to partake, and that the dispute pertains to when one says: I would have said that all of you are prohibited to partake except for father, **granted, he establishes the first clause** of Rabbi Akiva’s statement as a case **where he** retracts and **says:** The property **of all of you** is *konam* for me except for that of father, and benefit from all is permitted, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.