Nedarim 69

שמע אביה והפר לה ולא הספיק הבעל לשמוע עד שמת חוזר האב ומפר חלקו של בעל אמר רבי נתן הן הן דברי בית שמאי בית הלל אומרים אין יכול להפר

If her father heard and nullified the vow for her, and the husband did not manage to hear of the vow before he died, the father may go back and nullify the husband’s portion, and that will complete the nullification of her vow. Rabbi Natan said: This last ruling is the statement of Beit Shammai, but Beit Hillel say that he cannot nullify only the husband’s share of the vow but must also nullify his own share again.

שמע מינה לבית שמאי מיגז גייז לבית הלל מקלש קליש שמע מינה

Having completed its citation of the baraita, the Gemara now states its proof: Conclude from this that, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, whoever nullifies the vow first completely severs his half of the vow, and therefore the father needed only to nullify the part left by the husband. However, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, his nullification weakens the general force of the vow, so the father’s subsequent nullification must address the whole vow. The Gemara rules: Conclude from this baraita that the husband’s nullification weakens the general force of the vow, as the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel.

בעי רבא יש שאלה בהקם או אין שאלה בהקם אם תמצא לומר יש שאלה בהקם יש שאלה בהפר או אין שאלה בהפר

§ Rava raises a dilemma: Is there the possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving the ratification of one’s wife’s vow, or is there no possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving his ratification of one’s wife’s vow? One might seek to dissolve one’s ratification if he now desires to nullify the vow. Furthermore, if you say that there is the possibility of a request to dissolve his ratification, is there the possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving nullification of his wife’s vow, to allow him to ratify the vow in place of nullifying it? Or is there no possibility of a request to dissolve the nullification of his wife’s vow?

תא שמע דאמר רבי יוחנן נשאלין על ההקם ואין נשאלין על ההפר

The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A halakhic authority may be requested to dissolve ratification of one’s wife’s vow but may not be requested to dissolve nullification.

בעי רבה קיים ליכי קיים ליכי ונשאל על הקמה ראשונה מהו

Rabba asks: If, after hearing one’s wife or one’s daughter’s vow, one said: It is ratified for you, it is ratified for you, and then a halakhic authority was requested about the first ratification and dissolved it, but one did not request dissolution of the second ratification, what is the halakha? Is the second ratification in force, or is it irrelevant, as it was performed on an vow that was already ratified and consequently never took effect?

תא שמע דאמר רבא אם נשאל על הראשונה שניה חלה עליו בעי רבה קיים ליכי ומופר ליכי ולא תיחול הקמה אלא אם כן חלה הפרה מהו

The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rava said with regard to one who said: I take an oath that I will not eat, I take an oath that I will not eat: If a halakhic authority was requested to dissolve the first oath and dissolved it, the second oath goes into effect for him. Similarly, the second ratification goes into effect. Rabba further asks: If he said to her: The vow is ratified for you and nullified for you, and the ratification will not take effect unless the nullification takes effect, what is the halakha?

תא שמע מפלוגתא דרבי מאיר ורבי יוסי דתנן הרי זו תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים הרי זו תמורת עולה דברי רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי אומר אם לכך נתכוין מתחלה הואיל ואי אפשר לקרות שני שמות כאחד דבריו קיימין

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna (Temura 25b): If one said about an animal: This is hereby a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering, the halakha is that it becomes a substitute only for a burnt-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who holds that one’s initial statement is determinant. And Rabbi Yosei says: If this is what he intended from the outset, that it should be a substitute for both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, then since it is impossible to give it two names at once and he could not have said burnt-offering and peace-offering simultaneously, his statement is effective, and the animal is a substitute for both of them at once. Similarly, it is possible for him to intend to both ratify and nullify the vow and the vow is nullified, despite the fact that his first statement was to ratify it.

ואפילו רבי מאיר לא קאמר דלא אמר לא תיחול זו אלא אם כן חלה זו אבל הכא דאמר לא תיחול הקמה אלא אם כן חלה הפרה רבי מאיר נמי מודה דהפרה חלה

The Gemara adds: And even Rabbi Meir says that the first part of one’s statement is determinant only where he did not state: This will not take effect unless this also takes effect. Here, however, where he expressly said: The ratification of the vow will not take effect unless the nullification takes effect, even Rabbi Meir concedes that the nullification takes effect.

בעי רבה קיים ומופר ליכי בבת אחת מהו תא שמע דאמר רבה כל דבר שאינו בזה אחר זה אפילו בבת אחת אינו

Rabba further asks: If he said: It is ratified and nullified for you simultaneously, what is the halakha? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rabba himself said: Any two halakhic statuses that one is not able to implement sequentially are not realized even when one attempts to bring them about simultaneously. Since one cannot ratify a vow and subsequently nullify it, one can also not ratify and nullify a vow simultaneously.

בעי רבה קיים ליכי היום מהו מי אמרינן כמאן דאמר לה מופר ליכי למחר או דלמא הא לא אמר לה

Rabba raises another dilemma: If one says to his wife or daughter: Your vow is ratified for you today, what is the halakha? Do we say that he is like one who said to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow? Or perhaps, since he did not explicitly say to her that the vow is nullified, it remains in force.