Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A VOW THAT WAS PARTIALLY PERMITTED

(a) (Rava): Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree, if he says, 'Had I known that father was among them, I would have said, 'Ploni and Ploni are forbidden, and father is permitted' - they are all permitted.

1. They argue when he says, 'Had I known that father was among them, I would have said, they are all forbidden except for father'.

i. Beis Shamai hold as R. Meir, that his 1st words are primary;
ii. Beis Hillel hold as R. Yosi, that his last words are primary.

(b) Question (Rav Papa against Rava - Mishnah): In what case did R. Akiva say that a vow that was partially permitted is entirely permitted? 'Konam, none of you may benefit from me' - if he becomes permitted to 1 of them, he is permitted to all of them;
(c) 'May not benefit from me - not this one, nor this...' - if the first becomes permitted, all are permitted; if the last becomes permitted, the others remain forbidden.
(d) This is not difficult for Rabah - he establishes the 1st clause (if he becomes permitted to 1 of them, he is permitted to all of them) when he retracted and said 'Had I known, I would have said they are forbidden to this one and this one';

1. The next clause (if the first becomes permitted, all are permitted) is when he retracted and said 'Had I known, I would have said that they are forbidden to all of you, except for ...'.
2. Also Rava can explain the 1st clause - he retracted and said 'Had I known, I would have said that they are forbidden to all of you, except for ...';

3. (Summation of question against Rava): In the 2nd clause, when he retracted he said 'Had I known, I would have said that they are forbidden to this one and to this one ...' - why is this only R. Akiva's opinion?

i. According to Rava, all agree in this case!

(e) Counter-question: According to Rabah, how can we establish the end of the Mishnah as R. Akiva?

1. If he said 'to all of you' - it is inappropriate to speak of permitting the 1st or last!

(f) Answer (On behalf of Rabah and Rava): In the beginning of the Mishnah, he said 'To all of you'; in the end of the Mishnah, he made each dependent on the previous - 'They are forbidden to Shimon; Levi is (forbidden) as Shimon; Yehudah is as Levi ...'.

1. Support (Beraisa): If the middle one was permitted, the later ones are also permitted; the earlier ones are forbidden.

(g) Question (Rav Ada Bar Ahavah, against Rava - Mishnah): 'Onions are forbidden to me, for they harm the heart'; he then heard that onions of Kufri are good for the heart;

1. He becomes permitted to eat all onions; such a case occurred, and R. Meir permitted all onions to him.
2. Suggestion: He said, 'Had I known that that onions of Kufri are good for the heart, I would have said 'All onions are forbidden to me, but Kufri are permitted'!

(h) Answer: No - he said, 'Had I known that that onions of Kufri are good for the heart, I would have said 'These onions and these onions are forbidden to me, but Kufri are permitted'.

1. R. Meir holds as R. Akiva and as Chachamim.

i. Question (Ravina against Rava - Beraisa): R. Nasan says, a vow can be partially permitted and partially forbidden; the case is, he vowed not to eat from a basket containing Bnos Shu'ach (a species of fig).