Explanation: Beis Shamai hold like Rabanan, who do not hold that a Neder that was partially permitted is totally permitted, and Beis Hillel hold like R. Akiva, since here there are two [reasons to permit];

Firstly, there is a total mistake regarding the father, and also (secondly), regarding others there is a mistake in the expression;

He says that had he known that his father is among them, even the others he would not have forbade them with the expression he used to forbid them;

He would have been adamant that it [not] be understood from his words, even for a moment while saying them, that his father is included in the Isur.

Therefore, he says that he would not have said "all of you", rather, "Ploni and Ploni."

Summation: Since here there are two [reasons to permit], i.e. a total mistake regarding his father, and a mistake in the expression regarding the others, Beis Hillel hold that in such a case, we apply call (apply to) it a Neder that was partially permitted is totally permitted.

Explanation: Rava holds that they argue about when he is Ma'amid his first expression;

Beis Shamai hold like R. Meir, who says (Temurah 25b) that one who says "this is Temuras (in place of) Olah, and then said "it is Temuras Shelamim", we follow his initial words, and it is Temuras Olah. It has no [Kedushas Temuras] Shelamim at all;

R. Yosi holds that it is Temuras Shelamim. We follow his final words.

Beis Shamai hold like R. Meir, who says that we follow his initial words. Therefore, since his initial words, i.e. "all of you are forbidden", are like he initially said [the Neder stands].

Implied question: In his final words, i.e. he says "except for father", he considers his initial words to be mistaken!

Answer: We are not particular about this, because one's primary utterance is his initial words;

Just like there (Temurah), when his initial word (Olah) contradicts his final word, we are not concerned at all for what he said at the end, i.e. Temuras Shelamim...

Also here, even though his final word, i.e. "except for father", is fulfilled, since it does not contradict his initial word, rather, it explains it...

In any case, since we hold that when they (his initial and final words) contradict each other, we follow his initial words, also when they do not contradict each other, we make his initial words primary.

Since his initial words agree with what he said at the beginning of his vow, it is fulfilled regarding the others. It was not partially permitted at all, for his father was never included in the Neder.

Explanation: Beis Hillel hold like R. Yosi, who say that when his words contradict each other, we follow his final words;

Also here, when they do not contradict, we make his final words primary, i.e. "except for father";

It turns out that there is a mistake in the Neder. Since part is Batel, it is totally Batel.

Explanation: Granted, Rabah establishes the Reisha when he said "to this [one] and to this", and in the Seifa he said "to all of you";

I.e. the first two clauses are called the Reisha, and the last clause is called the Seifa.

It means as follows. Granted, Rabah establishes the first two clauses when he changes his initial words;

Due to the first clause it discusses when he said at the beginning "that I give benefit to all of you", [Rabah] establishes it that he said [now] "to this and to this";

I.e. now that he knows that his father was among them, he says that had he known so from the beginning, he would have said "to this and to this";

Explanation (cont.): Therefore, according to R. Akiva, if one of them was permitted, all of them are permitted, since there are two [reasons to permit];

There is a mistake about the father, and a mistake in the expression regarding the others.

Explanation (cont.): Also regarding the middle clause, "that I will not give benefit to this and to this", is when he changes, but the change is the opposite of the first

In the Reisha, he initially said "to all of you", and now he changes to say that had he known, he would have said "to this and to this";

In the middle clause, the case is that he initially said to this and to this, and now he changes to say that had he known that father is among [them], he would have said "all of you, except for father";

The Chidush is, he is particular also in such a case, and it is called a change;

Some people are adamant when they know that their father is among them to say "to this and to this, so the father will not be included in the Neder even for a moment;

Some people are adamant oppositely to say "all of you" when their father is among them, and not to say "to this and to this", for one who says "to this and to this" delays greatly to show that he will not mention his father by name;

One who hears that he begins to say "to this and to this", perhaps he thinks that at the end he will mention also his father. Therefore, for the honor of his father, he prefers to be Madir the others through "to all of you", in order to explain immediately that his father is not included.

Explanation (cont.): Therefore, the first clause of the Beraisa teaches that when he changes from a Klal (all of you) to Prat (to this and to this), this is a change, and when part is permitted, all is permitted;

The middle clause teaches that when he changes from Prat to Klal, i.e. initially he said "to this and to this" and now he says "to all of you";

Also such a case is a change. If the first was permitted, i.e. one of them, all of them are permitted.

The Seifa teaches that if the last was permitted, the last is permitted, and all of them are forbidden. He said "to all of you" both at the beginning and at the end.

Alternatively, he said "to this and to this" both at the beginning and at the end. Since he is Ma'amid his words, it (the law) is all the same (no matter which expression he said).

Support: This is why it taught "the last was permitted", i.e. the one of them, i.e. the last is permitted, and all of them are forbidden.

Explanation: Now we are thinking that "first" and "last" are not precise. They just mean one of them.

Explanation: I.e. the middle clause, if he said "to this and to this" i.e. initially he said "to all of you", and now he says "to this and to this";

When the Beraisa taught "to this and to this" it refers to his final words.

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] asks in astonishment "is it [only like] R. Akiva?!" When he changes, even Rabanan agree!

Suggestion: Perhaps just like according to Rabah, in the first two clauses he changes, also Rava explains that in the first two clauses he is Ma'amid;

However, in the Reisha he says initially and at the end "to all of you", and in the middle clause he says initially and at the end "to this and to this"!

Rejection: You cannot say so. Granted, according to Rabah, [the Beraisa] needs to teach both of them, that whether he changes from a Klal to Prat, or from Prat to Klal, it is a change;

However, according to Rava, who establishes them only when he is Ma'amid, why do we need two clauses about Ma'amid?!

Rather, surely in the Reisha he is Ma'amid, and in the middle clause he changes. Therefore, the middle clause is difficult. How can [the Mishnah] say that it is R. Akiva, and not Rabanan, for it taught "how did R. Akiva teach..."?

When he changes, even Rabanan agree!

Implied question: We could have asked also from the Seifa, which taught "the last is permitted, and all are forbidden." How can this be like R. Akiva? We said that he permits even when one was Ma'amid!

Answer: Since the middle clause was difficult, he did not wait until the Seifa.

Implied question: Why when we say "granted, according to Rabah...", we call the middle clause the Reisha, but when we say "however, according to you (Rava)...", we call the middle clause the Seifa?

Answer: According to Rabah, the middle clause and the Reisha are in one manner, i.e. he changes. Therefore, we call both of them the Reisha;

According to him, there are only two clauses in the Beraisa, i.e. two ways. In the first, he changes. In the Seifa, he is Ma'amid;

However, according to Rava, we cannot establish the middle clause like the Reisha, when he is Ma'amid, for if so, it is difficult. Why do we need two clauses about Ma'amid?!

[Therefore,] we call the middle clause the Seifa.

Explanation: This is difficult for Rava, who says that they argue about when he is Ma'amid, and establishes Beis Shamai like R. Meir;

Since [Beis Shamai] hold like R. Meir, this connotes that also R. Meir holds like them, that his father is permitted, and all [the others] are forbidden;

Here, R. Meir permits all onions!

Implied question: All the more so this is difficult for Rabah, who says that when he is Ma'amid, all agree that all are forbidden and his father is permitted. If so, R. Meir, who permits all onions, like whom does he hold? (He is not like Beis Shamai or Beis Hillel!)

Answer: Because this Mishnah explicitly teaches R. Meir, and Rava mentioned R. Meir, we ask against Rava.

Implied question: We could have answered that granted, Beis Shamai hold like R. Meir, but R. Meir does not hold like them, rather, like Beis Hillel, and permits even when he is Ma'amid!

Granted, R. Meir said that we follow his initial words. This is when they (his initial and final words) contradict each other, like Olah and Shelamim;

However, when they do not contradict, e.g. he says "except for father", he holds that we follow his final words!

Answer: According to the reasoning of the Makshan, who establishes R. Meir like Beis Shamai, he answered that he is not Ma'amid, rather, he changes. According to Rabah, R. Meir holds like R. Akiva;

Rabah does not hold that Beis Shamai hold like R. Meir. Therefore, we can establish R. Meir like R. Akiva;

According to Rava, who says that when he switches his words, all agree that [all are] permitted, R. Meir holds like everyone.

Opinion #1: We hold like R. Akiva, according to Beis Hillel, that a Neder that was partially permitted is totally permitted;

In the argument of Rabah and Rava, since we can say that the Halachah follows Rabah, because he was the Rebbi of Rava, and we can say that the Halachah follows Rava, because he was Basra (later), we are stringent like Rabah;

When he is Ma'amid, all of them are forbidden and his father is permitted. When he changes, whether he changes from a Prat to a Klal, or from a Klal to a Prat, all of them are permitted. Also the Ramban ruled like this.

Opinion #2: Some say that when we say that when he is Ma'amid, all of them are forbidden, this is only in a case similar to our Mishnah, that he did not know that his father is among them;

Therefore, since he is Ma'amid, we do not have a Neder that was partially permitted, for his father was never included in the Neder;

However, [when he said] "all of you" in general, and he asked to permit one of them, like in our Mishnah of "we are Pose'ach", once one of them was permitted through She'elah, all of them are permitted.

Rebuttal: The Ramban does not hold like this in his Halachos. He holds that even in such a case, we say that a Neder that was partially permitted is totally permitted only if he changed, but not if he was Ma'amid. It seems that he is correct.