(Rava): Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that if he says 'had I known that father was among them, I would have said 'Ploni and Almoni are forbidden, and father is permitted'', they are all permitted. (Since he would have used a different expression to forbid the others, all permit totally.)

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

(R. Meir and R. Yosi argue about a self-contradictory statement, e.g. 'this animal is Temuras (in place of) a Korban Olah (it is) Temuras Shelamim.') Beis Shamai hold like R. Meir, who says that that his first words are primary. (Therefore, we do not say that the latter words nullify his first words;)

Beis Hillel hold like R. Yosi, that his last words are primary. (This is like a partially permitted Neder, which is totally permitted.)

Question (Rav Papa against Rava - Mishnah): In what case did R. Akiva say that a vow that was partially permitted is entirely permitted? If one said 'Konam, none of you may benefit from me', and he became permitted to one of them, he is permitted to all of them;

If he said 'may not benefit from me - not this one, nor this...', and the first becomes permitted, all are permitted. If the last becomes permitted, the others remain forbidden.

This is not difficult for Rabah. He establishes the Reisha (if he becomes permitted to one 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'';

The Seifa is when he retracted and said 'Had I known, I would have said 'they are forbidden to all of you, except for...''

Also Rava can explain the Reisha. He retracted and said 'had I known, I would have said 'they are forbidden to all of you, except for...''

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

According to Rava, all agree in this case!

Counter-question: According to Rabah, how can we establish the Seifa like R. Akiva?

If he said 'to all of you', it is inappropriate to discuss permitting the first or last!

Answer (for Rabah and Rava): In the Reisha, he said 'to all of you.' In the Seifa, he made each dependent on the previous - 'they are forbidden to Shimon. Levi is (forbidden) like Shimon; Yehudah is like Levi...'

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

Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah, against Rava - Mishnah): If one said 'onions are forbidden to me, for they harm the heart', and then he heard that onions of Kufri are good for the heart, he is permitted to eat all onions;

Such a case occurred, and R. Meir permitted all onions to him.

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''!

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.''

R. Meir holds like R. Akiva and like Chachamim. (Since he would have used a different expression to forbid the other onions, even Chachamim permit totally.)