Nedarim Chart #4
Chart for Nedarim Daf 26a
THE THREE CASES IN THE BERAISA OF
A NEDER THAT WAS PARTIALLY REPEALED
| (A) "HE SAID 'L'KULCHEM' - when one becomes permitted, they all become permitted" |
(B) "HE SAID 'LO LA'ZEH V'LO LA'ZEH' - when the first one becomes permitted, they all become permitted" |
(C) "HA'ACHARON MUTAR V'CHULAN ASURIM" |
||
| 1 | ACCORDING TO RABAH (in Havah Amina) |
Meshaneh ("Reisha") |
Meshaneh (1) ("Reisha")(6) |
Ma'amid (2) ("Seifa") |
| 2 | ACCORDING TO RAVA (in Havah Amina) |
Ma'amid ("Reisha") |
Meshaneh (3) ("Seifa") |
? (4) |
| 3 | CONCLUSION | Rabah: Meshaneh Rava : Ma'amid |
b'Toleh | b'Toleh (5) |
==========
FOOTNOTES:
==========
(1) This section of the Beraisa is teaching that one is particular about his phraseology even when he switches from listing each person one by one to listing all of the people together (e.g. "all those present except for...").
(2) The Gemara originally thinks that this means that any one person became Mutar -- and not necessarily the last person of the list.
(3) It is not possible to suggest that the Beraisa here is discussing a case of Ma'amid, like the Reisha, because then this section of the Beraisa would not be teaching us anything new. (According to Rabah, though, this section can be discussing a case of Meshaneh, like the Reisha, because it teaches us that one is particular about even such a wording -- see above, footnote #1.) It is from this case that the Gemara challenges Rava. The Gemara asks, why does Rebbi Akiva have to teach that in a case of Meshaneh all of the subjects of the Neder become permitted -- even the Rabanan agree in such a case (according to Rava)!
(4) A question may be asked on Rava's opinion from this section of the Beraisa as well. Even if this section is discussing a case of Ma'amid, why aren't all of the subjects of the Neder permitted, according to Rava's understanding of Rebbi Akiva. The Gemara could have challenged Rava from here as well (RAN).
(5) According to this final interpretation, the middle part (B) of the Beraisa and the end (C) of the Beraisa are one and the same case. (6) So writes the RAN. It seems that his intention is to answer the question of the Rishonim, why does the Gemara not explain the last case of the Beraisa according to Rabah. The ROSH, though, explains that this second section of the Beraisa is what the Gemara refers to as the "Seifa" (just as the Gemara refers to it by that name according to Rava).