Study Nedarim folio 26A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 fat
The rationale of the dispute is the following: Beit Shammai hold in accordance with the opinion of R' 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
And by contrast, Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of R' 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 prohibiti
Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rava from the following Mishnah (66a): In what case did R' 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 fr
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