תלמוד על נדרים 5:2

⁷⁹Here the text in Šebuot is no longer a parallel. It was found stated about both cases⁸⁰About vows and oaths.: It is more restrictive for oaths than for vows that an erroneous oath is forbidden but an erroneous vow is permitted⁸¹The Babli, 25b and Šebuot 28b, states the opposite: Both erroneous vows and oaths are permitted.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi [ ]⁸²It is clear that something must be missing since R. Simeon ben Laqish could have asked Rebbi only as a very little boy but this is improbable since he was a wild youth not interested in studies. The commentaries all assume that the original text was בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי [בָּא מַה] בָּא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה and the copyist mistook the name בָּא for the verb בָּא: “Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Abba, what does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel?” However this is not more than a weak conjecture since R. Abba I belongs to the generation of the students of R. Joḥanan. Probably the question was asked before R. Yannai, as most of R. Simeon ben Laqish’s other questions., does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel? As we have stated there⁸³Mishnah 9:6., “until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow of which any part was permitted is totally permitted.⁸⁴R. Aqiba adds much in that Mishnah, that a vow which is voided because the maker of the vow did not consider that it would deprive him of the enjoyment of sabbaths or holidays. Before him, the vow was lifted only for sabbaths or holidays. But in the Mishnah here, the House of Hillel lifts the vow for all people who were eating the figs when his vow was lifted as an erroneous vow only for his father and brothers. So why is the teaching of Mishnah 9:6 not credited to the House of Hillel, who are not mentioned in the Mishnah?” He said to him, if you say that there, in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, you say that a vow of which any part was invalidated is totally invalidated, here, where it does not need investigation by a Sage, so much more⁸⁵From 9:6 one can infer the last statement of 3:2 but not vice-versa; the House of Hillel held that the principle does not apply to vows which have to be investigated by a Sage.! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because of an erroneous vow; if I had known that my father and my brothers were there I would not have made the vow⁸⁶R. Hila holds that in Mishnah 3:2 the vow is not partially but totally in error; the farmer would not have made the vow at all had he known that his father was there, and did not object to the presence of others. One has no information about the views of the House of Hillel in the matter of partially voided vows..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody is forbidden by a vow any profit from another person,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, that he should not stay long⁷⁶There is no intrinsic reason why A cannot sit in B’s chair (Note 72). The rule is simply a precaution that A should not come to violate his own vow. The same tradition is mentioned in the Babli, 39a, in the name of R. Simeon ben Elyaqim..

MISHNAH: One opens about festive days and Sabbaths⁸⁴That the vower could not enjoy Sabbaths and holidays.. In earlier times, they said that these days are permitted but the rest forbidden, until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow which was partially voided is totally voided.
How is this? ‘A qônām that I shall not benefit any one of you,’ if one was permitted, all are permitted. ‘That I shall not benefit this one and this one and this one,’ if the first one becomes permitted, all are permitted; if the last one becomes permitted, he is permitted and the others are prohibited⁸⁵The n-th term in a sequence cannot appear before the (n-l)-th. If there is no (n-l)-th there can be no n-th. If he had said: all of you, viz., X and Y and Z, the order would have been irrelevant. Since he says, X and also Y and also Z, the later depends on the former. The Babli, 66a, notes that only R. Simeon considers this three separate vows; the Yerushalmi, which quotes R. Simeon elsewhere [e. g., Nazir 4:3 (53b)], does not mention it here but seemingly restricts the principle of R. Aqiba to vows declared to concern a group; cf. also Note 89.. ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one, a qorbān for that one’; each single one needs a separate opening⁸⁶While these statements all form one sentence, they represent two separate vows..
‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine, for wine is bad for the intestines.’ If they told him, but old [wine] is good for the intestines, old [wine] was permitted; not only old wine is permitted but all wines. ‘A qônām that I shall not taste onion, for onion is bad for the heart.’ If they told him, but the rural kind is good for the heart, rural [onion] was permitted; not only rural is permitted but all onions. It happened that Rebbi Meїr permitted all onions to him.