## Nedarim Daf 87a

###### Nedarim 87a:1
[Nedarim 87a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/87a:1)

וְהָא גַּבֵּי קְרָעִים דִּכְתִיב ״עַל״ ״עַל״, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל שָׁאוּל וְעַל יְהוֹנָתָן בְּנוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **But** is it not so that **with regard to** the **tears** in one’s clothing that are made for the dead, **as it is written “for,” “for,”** and **about which is written:** “And David took hold of his garments and rent them, and likewise all the men that were with him, and they wailed, and wept, and fasted until the evening, **for Saul, and for Jonathan his son,** and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel, because they were fallen by the sword” (II Samuel 1:11–12). The use of the word “for” with regard to each of them indicates that one must make a separate tear in his garment for each person who died.


###### Nedarim 87a:2
[Nedarim 87a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/87a:2)

וְתַנְיָא: אָמְרוּ לוֹ ״מֵת אָבִיו״ וְקָרַע, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא בְּנוֹ — יָצָא יְדֵי קְרִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** yet it **is taught** in a *baraita*: If **they said to him** that **his father had died and he rent** his garment over his death, **and afterward it was discovered** that it was not his father who died, but **his son, he has fulfilled** his obligation of **rending** his garment. This shows that even if a person mistakenly tore his garment for the wrong person he has nevertheless fulfilled the obligation. Here too, if a man nullified the vow of his wife, thinking that it was the vow of his daughter, his nullification should be effective.


###### Nedarim 87a:3
[Nedarim 87a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/87a:3)

אָמְרִי, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בִּסְתָם, וְהָא בִּמְפָרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction **is not difficult**. **That** baraita refers to a case where he received a **non-specific** report, i.e., he was told that an unspecified relative died. In such a case his obligation to rend his garment has been discharged. And **this** mishna refers to a case where the bearer of the news mistakenly **specified** that his daughter had taken the vow, when in reality his wife had. In such a case, his nullification is ineffective.


###### Nedarim 87a:4
[Nedarim 87a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/87a:4)

וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמְרוּ לוֹ ״מֵת אָבִיו״ וְקָרַע, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא בְּנוֹ — לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי קְרִיעָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ ״מֵת לוֹ מֵת״, וּכְסָבוּר אָבִיו הוּא וְקָרַע, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא בְּנוֹ — יָצָא יְדֵי קְרִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** similarly in the following *baraita*: If **they said to him** that **his father had died and he rent** his garment over his death, **and afterward it was discovered** that it was not his father who died, but **his son, he has not fulfilled** his obligation of **rending** his garment. If, however, **they said to him** that a relative **of his had died, and he thought it was his father and he rent** his garment over his death, **and afterward it was discovered** that it was not his father who died, but **his son, he has fulfilled** his obligation of **rending** his garment. This proves that a distinction is made between one who rends his garment relying on a specific report and one who does so following a non-specific report.


###### Nedarim 87a:5
[Nedarim 87a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/87a:5)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כָּאן בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִבּוּר, כָּאן לְאַחַר כְּדֵי דִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi says** that the discrepancy between the *baraitot* with regard to the rending of garments can be reconciled in a different manner: **Here,** the person who rent his garment for the wrong relative realized his error **within the time required for speaking** the short phrase: Greetings to you, my teacher. Until that time has passed his action is seen as incomplete and can therefore still be modified. **There,** the mistake was noted only **after the time required for speaking** a short phrase.


###### Nedarim 87a:6
[Nedarim 87a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/87a:6)

הָא דְּקָאָמְרַתְּ יָצָא יְדֵי קְרִיעָה — שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִבּוּר. הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי קְרִיעָה — לְאַחַר כְּדֵי דִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** case, **where you said** that **he has fulfilled** his obligation of **rending** his garment even though he had initially been told explicitly that his father died, deals with a situation **where it was discovered within the time required for speaking** a short phrase, i.e., immediately after he rent his garment, that the deceased was **his son.** However, **that** case, **where you said** that **he has not fulfilled** his obligation of **rending** his garment, deals with a situation where he became aware of his mistake **after the time required for speaking** a short phrase, i.e., a short while later.


###### Nedarim 87a:7
[Nedarim 87a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/87a:7)

וְהָתַנְיָא: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חוֹלֶה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְנִתְעַלֵּף, וְכִמְדוּמֶּה שֶׁמֵּת, וְקָרַע, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת — לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי קְרִיעָה. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁמֵּת לְאַחַר כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר, אֲבָל בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר — כְּדִבּוּר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in the following *baraita*: **One who has an ill** relative **in his house, and** the latter **fainted** and lost consciousness, **and it seemed** to him **that** the ill person had **died and** therefore **he rent** his garment over his assumed death, if it turned out that he had not yet actually died at that point **and** it was only **afterward** that **he died,** the relative **has not fulfilled** his obligation of **rending** his garment. And with regard to this *baraita*, **Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said** that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: They taught** that he has not fulfilled his obligation of rending **only if** the ill person **died after the time required for speaking** a short phrase. **But** if he passed away **within the time required for speaking** a short phrase, **it is** all considered **like** continuous **speech,** and his relative has fulfilled his obligation. That is to say, his act of rending is not viewed as complete until the time required for saying a short phrase has elapsed, and until that time has passed the act can still be modified.


###### Nedarim 87a:8
[Nedarim 87a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/87a:8)

וְהִילְכְתָא: תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִבּוּר — כְּדִבּוּר דָּמֵי, חוּץ מִמְּגַדֵּף וְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּמְקַדֵּשׁ וּמְגָרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is: The legal status of a pause or retraction **within** the time required **for speaking** a short phrase **is like** that of **continuous speech,** and so a person can retract what he first said if he issues the retraction within this period of time after he finished speaking. This principle holds true in almost every area of *halakha*, **except for** the case of one who **blasphemes** God; **or** in the case of **an idol worshipper,** who verbally accepts an idol as his god; **or** one who **betroths** a woman; **or** one who **divorces** his wife. In these four cases, a person cannot undo his action, even if he immediately retracts what he said within the time required for saying a short phrase.


###### Nedarim 87a:9
[Nedarim 87a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/87a:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** אָמְרָה ״קֻוֽנָּם תְּאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֶמֶת״, קִיֵּים לִתְאֵנִים — כּוּלּוֹ קַיָּים, הֵפֵר לִתְאֵנִים — אֵינוֹ מוּפָר עַד שֶׁיָּפֵר אַף לַעֲנָבִים. אָמְרָה ״קֻוֽנָּם תְּאֵנָה שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֶמֶת וַעֲנָבָה שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֶמֶת״ — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי נְדָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a woman **said: Tasting these figs and grapes is *konam* for me,** and her husband **upheld** her vow **with regard to figs, the entire** vow **is upheld,** but if **he nullified** it **with regard to figs it is not nullified until he also nullifies** the vow **with regard to grapes.** If **she said: Tasting a fig and tasting a grape are *konam* for me, these are** viewed as **two** separate **vows;** if the husband upholds one of the vows it has no effect on the other one.


###### Nedarim 87a:10
[Nedarim 87a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/87a:10)

**גְּמָ׳** מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישָׁהּ יְקִימֶנּוּ וְאִישָׁהּ יְפֵרֶנּוּ״, אָמְרָה ״קֻוֽנָּם תְּאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֶמֶת״, קִיֵּים לִתְאֵנִים — כּוּלּוֹ קַיָּים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Whose** opinion is expressed in **the mishna?** The Gemara answers: It follows the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse concerning vows that states: **“Her husband may uphold it, or her husband may nullify it”** (Numbers 30:14), may be expounded as follows. If a woman **said: Tasting these figs and grapes is *konam* for me,** and her husband **upheld** her vow **with regard to figs, the entire** vow **is upheld.**