## Nedarim Daf 69b

###### Nedarim 69b:1
[Nedarim 69b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/69b:1)

תָּא שְׁמַע מִפְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. דִּתְנַן: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אִם לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּין מִתְּחִלָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִקְרוֹת שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאֶחָד — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 69b:2
[Nedarim 69b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/69b:2)

וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קָאָמַר, דְּלָא אָמַר ״לָא תֵּיחוּל זוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה זוֹ״, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּאָמַר ״לֹא תֵּיחוּל הֲקָמָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה הֲפָרָה״ — רַבִּי מֵאִיר נָמֵי מוֹדֶה דַּהֲפָרָה חָלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Nedarim 69b:3
[Nedarim 69b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/69b:3)

בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים וּמוּפָר לִיכִי״ בְּבַת אַחַת, מַהוּ? תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 69b:4
[Nedarim 69b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/69b:4)

בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים לִיכִי הַיּוֹם״, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַר לַהּ ״מוּפָר לִיכִי לְמָחָר״, אוֹ דִלְמָא הָא לָא אֲמַר לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.