A PARTIALLY PERMITTED VOW (cont.)
Question (Ravina against Rava - Beraisa - R. Nasan): A vow can be partially permitted and partially forbidden. The case is, he vowed not to eat from a basket containing Benos Shu'ach (a species of fig);
(When he found out,) he said 'had I known that Benos Shu'ach were inside, I would not have vowed.' The rest of the basket is forbidden, and the Benos Shu'ach are permitted;
Later, R. Akiva taught that a vow that is partially permitted is entirely permitted.
Suggestion: He said 'had I known that Benos Shu'ach were inside, I would have said 'black and white figs are forbidden, and Benos Shu'ach are permitted.'' This is R. Akiva's opinion, and Chachamim argue!
Answer: No. He said 'had I known that Benos Shu'ach were inside, I would have said 'the (entire) basket is forbidden, (but) the Benos Shu'ach are permitted.''
Question: Who is the Tana of the following Beraisa?
(Beraisa): Reuven took one vow not to benefit from five people. If one of them became permitted, all five are permitted;
If he said '(had I known, I would have said) 'all are forbidden except for Ploni'', Ploni is permitted, and the others are forbidden.
Answer: According to Rabah, the Reisha is like R. Akiva, and all agree to the Seifa;
According to Rava, the Seifa is like Chachamim, and all agree to the Reisha.
THE EXEMPTION OF ONES
(Mishnah): The following are vows of Ones. Shimon made Reuven vow that he will eat by him. Reuven (was unable to because he) or his son fell ill, or he could not cross the river. These are vows of Ones.
(Gemara - Rav Huna): Reuven was holding documents in his favor in Beis Din. He said 'if I do not return within 30 days, these proofs should be void.' An Ones prevented him from returning in time. His proofs are void.
Question (Rabah): The Torah exempts one when there is an Ones. "You will not do anything to the girl (who was raped during Eirusin)"!
Suggestion: Perhaps this applies only to capital punishment.
Rejection (Mishnah): The following are vows of Ones. Shimon made Reuven vow that he will eat by him. Reuven or his son fell ill, or he could not cross the river.
Counter-question #1: According to Rabah, why is this different than the following?
(Mishnah): If a man said 'this Get divorces you now, if I do not come within 12 months' and he died within this time, the Get worked.
According to Rabah, since Ones prevented him from returning, the Get should be invalid!
Answer: Perhaps that case is different. Had he known that he would die, he would have divorced her immediately (unconditionally).
Counter-question #2: According to Rabah, why is Rav Huna's case different than the following?
A man told witnesses 'if I do not come within 30 days, this Get should be valid.' On day 30 he was unable to get the ferry to cross the river. He screamed 'see, I am coming'!
(Shmuel): This is not considered coming.
According to Rabah, the Get should not work, due to the Ones!
Answer: Perhaps the Halachah is different regarding a common Ones.
Question: Why did Rav Huna rule that the man's proofs are void? This was Asmachta (an exaggeration) which is not binding!
Answer: This case was different for he was holding his proofs.
Question: Holding them does not prevent it from being Asmachta!
(Mishnah - R. Yosi): Reuven paid part of his debt. The document was given to a third party. Reuven said 'If I do not pay the rest within 30 days return the document to the lender (and he can collect the full loan).' He did not pay up in time. We give the document to the lender;
R. Yehudah says, we do not.
(Rav Nachman): The Halachah does not follow R. Yosi, who says that Asmachta is binding.
Answer: This case is different. Since he said that the proofs should be void, this is like an admission that they are invalid.
The Halachah is, Asmachta is binding when there is no Ones, and when the stipulation was made in a respected Beis Din.