Nedarim 173

והא גבי קרעים דכתיב על על דכתיב (שמואל ב א, יב) על שאול ועל יהונתן בנו

But what of the rents [for the dead], concerning which, <i>for&nbsp;… for&nbsp;…</i> is written, viz., [<i>Then David took hold on his clothes and rent them&nbsp;…</i>] for <i>Saul and</i> for <i>Jonathan his son</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Sam. I, 11f. The repetition of 'for' implies that he made a rent for each specifically. ');">¹</span>

ותניא אמרו לו מת אביו וקרע ואחר כך נמצא בנו יצא ידי קריעה

yet it was taught: If he was informed that his father had died, and he rent [his garments], and then it was discovered that it was his son, he has fulfilled the duty of rending?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it appears from the verse quoted that the rent must be for a particular person; the same then should hold good of annulment of vows. ');">²</span>

אמרי לא קשיא הא בסתם והא במפרש

— I will tell you: there is no difficulty. The one [teaching] refers to an unspecified action; the other to a specified one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Baraitha means that he rent his garment without specifying for whom (v. Tosaf.), but in the Mishnah he explicitly designated the wrong person. ');">³</span>

והתניא אמרו לו מת אביו וקרע ואחר כך נמצא בנו לא יצא ידי קריעה אמרו לו מת לו מת וכסבור אביו הוא וקרע ואחר כך נמצא בנו יצא ידי קריעה

And it was taught [likewise]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], v. note 6. ');">⁴</span>

רב אשי אמר כאן בתוך כדי דבור כאן לאחר כדי דבור

If he was informed that his father had died, and he rent his garments, and then it was discovered to be his son, he did not fulfil the duty of rending. If he was told that a relation of his had died, and thinking that it was his father, he rent [his garments], and then it was discovered to be his son, he fulfilled the duty of rending.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus if he had explicitly rent his garments for the wrong person, his obligation is unfulfilled; but not if his error was a mental one only. [Some texts omit the last clause. The Baraitha just cited is thus regarded as contradictory to the first. On this reading [H] (v. n. 5) introduces a question and is to be rendered 'But was it not taught'. V. Asheri, 4a.) ');">⁵</span>

הא דקאמרת יצא ידי קריעה שנמצא בנו בתוך כדי דבור הא דאמרת לא יצא ידי קריעה לאחר כדי דבור

R. Ashi said: The one means [that he realised his error] within the period of an utterance;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., almost immediately after he rent his garments, within the time that it would take to make an utterance, e.g., a greeting, v. Nazir 20b. ');">⁶</span>

והתניא מי שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו ונתעלף וכמדומה שמת וקרע ואחר כך מת לא יצא ידי קריעה אמר ר' שמעון בן פזי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא לא שנו אלא שמת לאחר כדי דיבור אבל בתוך כדי דיבור כדבור דמי

the other, [that he realised it] after the period of an utterance. ([Thus:] Your ruling that his duty of rending is fulfilled holds good when it is discovered to be his son within the period of an utterance, whilst your ruling that his obligation remains unfulfilled is [if he learnt it] after such period of an utterance.)7 And it was taught likewise: If one has all invalid in his house, who falls into a swoon and appears to be dead, and he rends his garments, and then he [the invalid] dies, his duty of rending is unfulfilled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he was alive when the garments were rent, that rending is invalid. ');">⁸</span>

והילכתא תוך כדי דבור כדבור דמי חוץ ממגדף ועובד עבודת כוכבים ומקדש ומגרש

Said R. Simeon b. Pazzi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi on the authority of Bar Kappara. This was taught only if he died after the period of an utterance; but [if he died] within the period of an utterance, he need not rend his garments again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So the text as emended by BaH. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אמרה קונם תאנים וענבים אלו שאני טועמת קיים לתאנים כולו קיים הפר לתאנים אינו מופר עד שיפר אף לענבים אמרה קונם תאנה שאני טועמת וענבה שאני טועמת הרי אלו שני נדרים

Now, the law is that [that which follows an action] within the period of an utterance is as [though it were simultaneous with] the utterance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence cancelling or modifying the action, as the case may be. ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מני מתניתין רבי ישמעאל דתניא (במדבר ל, יד) אישה יקימנו ואישה יפרנו אמרה קונם תאנים וענבים אלו שאני טועמת קיים לתאנים כולו קיים

except in the case of blasphemy, idolatry, betrothal and divorce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one commits blasphemy or practises idolatry, and immediately, within the period of utterance, retracts, his retraction is unavailing. If a woman accepts kiddushin or a divorce, and immediately thereafter withdraws her consent, such withdrawal is invalid. ');">¹¹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF SHE VOWS, 'KONAM, IF I TASTE THESE FIGS AND GRAPES, AND HE [THE HUSBAND] CONFIRMS [THE VOW] IN RESPECT OF FIGS, THE WHOLE [VOW] IS CONFIRMED; IF HE ANNULS IT IN RESPECT OF FIGS, IT IS NOT ANNULLED, UNLESS HE ANNULS IN RESPECT OF GRAPES TOO. IF SHE VOWS, 'KONAM IF I TASTE FIGS' AND 'IF I TASTE GRAPES', THEY ARE TWO DISTINCT VOWS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And each can be annulled or confirmed without the other. ');">¹²</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Who is the author of our Mishnah? — R. Ishmael. For it was taught: Her husband may confirm it, or her husband may make it void:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 14. ');">¹³</span> If she vows, 'Konam, if I taste these figs and grapes', and he [the husband] confirms [the vow] in respect of figs, the whole vow is confirmed;