My question is:
Beis Hillel and R. Akiva state that a neder nullified in part is nullified in its entirety. Yet my English notes in my Artscroll Gemara confuse the issue for me (27a1, note 12).
It adds so many exceptions and opposing views that I don't know what I am left with. One example is that since the dispute between Rabbah and Rava is undecided, we take the stringent view and say that the rest of the neder is nullified only where he would have changed his original formulation. But if not, the rest is not nullifed. Then the Ramban says the nullification counts only if by a sage and based on an opening but not if based on regret. There are other exceptions noted in this note.
Thus, how do I know what the halachah is?
Barry Epstein, Dallas, USA
Forgive my ignorance of Artscroll policy, but I assume that their footnotes are not meant to formulate Halachic rulings, but rather to be help learn the Gemara in depth. If you would like to take the time out to know the Halachah (an admirable endeavor), I would suggest taking the time to piece together the exceptions one by one (assuming they are not exclusive opinions), and figuring out a case/s where the Neder which is partially nullified or is indeed nullified in its entirety. Afterwards, ask your local orthodox Rabbi if you are correct.
Wishing you much success,
Yaakov Montrose