Nedarim

Which Tanna is the authority for the following dictum of the Rabbis? If one vowed simultaneously not to benefit from five men, if he is absolved in respect of one of them, he is absolved in respect of all; but [if he stated,] 'Except one of them,' that one is permitted, but the others are forbidden [to him]. According to Rabbah, the first clause agrees with R. Akiba [only], and the second clause with all.  According to Raba, the second clause agrees with the Rabbis [only], and the first clause with all. MISHNAH. VOWS [BROKEN] UNDER PRESSURE: IF ONE SUBJECTED HIS NEIGHBOUR TO A VOW, TO DINE WITH HIM,  AND THEN HE OR HIS SON FELL SICK, OR A RIVER PREVENTED HIM [FROM COMING TO HIM] — SUCH IS A VOW [BROKEN] UNDER PRESSURE. GEMARA. A man once deposited his rights  at Beth din, and declared: 'If I do not appear within thirty days, these rights shall be void.' Subsequently he was unavoidably prevented from appearing. Thereupon R. Huna ruled: His rights are void. But Rabbah said to him, He was unavoidably prevented, and the Divine Law exempts such, for it is written, But unto the damsel shalt thou do nothing.  And should you answer, the death penalty is different,  but we learnt: VOWS [BROKEN] UNDER PRESSURE; IF ONE SUBJECTED HIS NEIGHBOUR TO A VOW TO DINE WITH HIM, AND THEN HE OR HIS SON FELL SICK, OR A RIVER PREVENTED HIM [FROM COMING TO HIM] — SUCH IS A VOW [BROKEN] UNDER PRESSURE! Now, according to Rabbah, wherein does this differ from what We learnt: [If one said to his wife,] 'Behold! this is thy divorce, [to be effective] from now, if I do not come back within twelve months', and he died within the twelve months, the divorce is valid?  Yet why so? was he not forcibly prevented! — I will tell you. There it may be different,