Nedarim 138

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

— Come and hear [a solution] from the controversy of R. Meir and R. Jose; For we learnt: [If one declares,] 'This [animal] be a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering,' it is a substitute for a burnt-offering [only]; this is R. Meir's view. But R. Jose ruled: If that was his original intention,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To declare it a substitute for both. ');">¹</span>

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 ר"מ נמי מודה דהפרה חלה

since it is impossible to pronounce both designations simultaneously, his declarations are valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 33; He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy. This is interpreted as meaning that if an animal he dedicated for a particular sacrifice, e.g., a peace-offering, and then a second substituted for it, both are holy, the second having exactly the same holiness as the first. Now, R. Meir rules that if he declares it a substitute for two other consecrated animals in succession, only the first declaration is valid, and the second disregarded. But R. Jose maintains that if the second statement was not added as an afterthought, but formed part of the original intention, the whole is valid. Consequently, the animal must be sold, and the money expended half for a burnt-offering and half for a peace-offering. ');">²</span>

בעי רבה קיים ומופר ליכי בבת אחת מהו ת"ש דאמר רבה כל דבר שאינו בזה אחר זה אפי' בבת אחת אינו

Now, even R. Meir asserted [that the second statement is disregarded] only because he did not say, 'Let the first not be valid unless the second take effect'; but here that he declared, 'but the confirmation be not valid unless the annulment has operated,' even R. Meir admits that the annulment is valid.

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

Rabbah propounded: What [if he declares], 'It be confirmed unto thee and annulled to thee simultaneously?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Or, if he said at one and the same time 'It be confirmed and annulled to thee']. ');">³</span> — Come and hear: For Rabbah said: Whatever is not [valid] consecutively, is not valid even simultaneously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one marries two sisters in succession, the second marriage is obviously invalid; hence, if one makes a simultaneous declaration of marriage to two sisters, such declaration is entirely null, v. Kid. 50b. Thus here too, since they could not both take effect if pronounced in succession, they are null when pronounced simultaneously. It is therefore as though he has not spoken at all, and he remains at liberty to confirm or annul the vow, as he pleases. ');">⁴</span> Rabbah propounded: What [if he declares], 'It be confirmed to thee to-day? Do we rule, it is as though he had said to her, 'but it be annulled unto thee to-morrow' [by implication], or perhaps he in fact did not declare thus?