## Nedarim Daf 87b

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

הֵפֵר לִתְאֵנִים — אֵינוֹ מוּפָר עַד שֶׁיָּפֵר אַף לַעֲנָבִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אִישָׁהּ יְקִימֶנּוּ וְאִישָׁהּ יְפֵרֶנּוּ״, מָה ״יְקִימֶנּוּ״ — מִמֶּנּוּ, אַף ״יְפֵרֶנּוּ״ — מִמֶּנּוּ. וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִי כְּתִיב ״יָפֵר מִמֶּנּוּ״? וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מַקִּישׁ הֲפָרָה לַהֲקָמָה, מָה הֲקָמָה — מִמֶּנּוּ, אַף הֲפָרָה — מִמֶּנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if **he nullified** it **with regard to figs, it is not nullified until he will also nullify** the vow **for grapes.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says** that the verse **states: “Her husband may uphold it, or her husband may nullify it.” Just as** the words **“may uphold it”** [***yekimennu***] should be understood as if they read: He may uphold **part of it** [*yakim **mimmennu***], implying that if he upheld part of the vow he has upheld all of it, **so too,** the words **“he may nullify it”** [***yeferennu***] should be understood as if they read: He may nullify **part of it [***yafer **mimmennu*****]. And Rabbi Yishmael** retorts: **Is it written: He may nullify part of it,** with a *mem*, as it is written with respect to a husband who upholds the vow? **And Rabbi Akiva** replies: The verse **juxtaposes nullification to upholding; just as upholding** means **part of it, so too, nullification** means **part of it.**


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

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מַקִּישׁ הֲקָמָה לַהֲפָרָה; מָה הֲפָרָה — מַה שֶּׁהֵפֵר הֵפֵר, אַף הֲקָמָה — מַה שֶּׁקִּיֵּים קִיֵּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This** opinion, that a vow is treated as a single unit, so that the entire vow is upheld even if the husband upheld only a part of it, is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. But the Rabbis say:** The verse **juxtaposes upholding to nullification; just as** with regard to **nullification, that which he nullified he has nullified, so too,** with regard to **upholding, that which he upheld he has upheld,** but no more.


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

אָמְרָה ״קֻוֽנָּם תְּאֵנָה״, אָמַר רָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה״ לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that if a woman **said:** Tasting **a fig** and tasting a grape are ***konam*** for me, these are viewed as two separate vows. **Rava said: The mishna is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, as** Rabbi Shimon **said** that one is not liable to bring multiple offerings for taking false oaths to multiple people in the same utterance, for example, if he says: I take an oath that I do not have your item, nor yours, nor yours, **unless he states** an expression of **an oath to each and every one** of the creditors, for example by stating: I take an oath I do not have yours; I take an oath I do not have yours. Here too, only if she says: Tasting, with respect to each fruit are they viewed as two separate vows.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** ״יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְדָרִים, אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ מְפִירִין״, יָפֵר. ״יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ מְפִירִין, אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁזֶּה נֶדֶר״, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: לֹא יָפֵר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יָפֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a man’s wife or daughter took a vow and he failed to nullify the vow on the day he heard it, but afterward he said: **I know that there are vows, but I don’t know that there are those who** can **nullify** them, i.e., he was unaware of the possibility of nullifying vows, **he can nullify** the vow of his wife or his daughter on the day he learned that he can nullify vows. If, however, he said: **I know there are those who** can **nullify** vows, **but** I refrained from nullifying the vow that I heard because **I do not know that this** is considered **a vow, Rabbi Meir says he cannot nullify** the vow at this point, **but the Rabbis say** that even in this case **he can nullify** the vow on the day that he learned of his mistake.


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

**גְּמָ׳** וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״בְּלֹא רְאוֹת״, פְּרָט לַסּוֹמֵא. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסּוֹמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara **raises a contradiction** from the following *baraita*: With regard to one who kills unintentionally, the verse states: **“Without seeing”** (Numbers 35:23), which serves **to exclude a blind person** from the category of those who are exiled to a city of refuge due to having killed unintentionally, as the verse indicates that it was only in this instance that he did not see, but he is generally able to see. A blind person who kills another unintentionally is considered a victim of circumstances beyond his control. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says** the verse serves **to include a blind person** in the category of those who are exiled, as he too does not see. This shows that Rabbi Meir does not distinguish between different kinds of lack of knowledge, whereas the mishna suggests that he does accept such a distinction. The opposite is true of Rabbi Yehuda, who, unless it is otherwise indicated, is assumed to be Rabbi Meir’s disputant in all places.