Nedarim 174

הפר לתאנים אינו מופר עד שיפר אף לענבים דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר הרי הוא אומר אישה יקימנו ואישה יפרנו מה יקימנו ממנו אף יפרנו ממנו ורבי ישמעאל מי כתיב יפר ממנו ורבי עקיבא מקיש הפרה להקמה מה הקמה ממנו אף הפרה ממנו

but if he annulled it in respect of figs, it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [a. Either the whole vow; or b. the part he did not annul (Ran); v. p. 880, n. 5.] ');">¹</span> is not annulled, unless he annuls in respect of the grapes too: this is R. Ishmael's opinion. R. Akiba said: Behold, it is written, her husband may [yekimennu] confirm it or her husband may annul it [yeferenu]: just as yekimennu implies mimmennu [part of it],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yekimennu is taken as a contraction of yakim mimmenu, 'he shall confirm part of it'. ');">²</span>

אמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן זו דברי רבי ישמעאל ור' עקיבא אבל חכמים אומרים מקיש הקמה להפרה מה הפרה מה שהפר הפר אף הקמה מה שקיים קיים

so yeferenu means part thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though yeferenu itself cannot bear that meaning, it is nevertheless so rendered by analogy with yekimennu. Hence if he annulled part thereof, the entire vow is annulled. ');">³</span> And R. Ishmael?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he justify his view? ');">⁴</span>

אמרה קונם תאנה אמר רבא מתני' רבי שמעון היא דאמר עד שיאמר שבועה לכל אחד ואחד

— Is it then written, he shall annul [part] thereof? And R. Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And how does he dispose of this objection? ');">⁵</span> — Annulment is assimilated to confirmation: just as confirmation [denotes a part] thereof, so annulment too [denotes a part] thereof. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: These are the views of R. Ishmael and R. Akiba. But the Sages maintain: Confirmation is assimilated to annulment: just as in the case of annulment, that which he annulled is void, so also in respect to confirmation, that which he confirmed is confirmed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On this reading, the Sages regard it as axiomatic that part of a vow can be annulled, and by analogy rule likewise for confirmation. Hence the statement of the Mishnah, that if he annulled the vow in respect of figs it is not annulled, must mean that the vow is not entirely void; the conflict in the Baraitha must also be interpreted on the same lines. But in the Tosefta it appears that if one annulled only part thereof the entire vow remains valid. Consequently the reading of some editions is preferable: But the Sages maintain, just as in the case of annulment, even that part which he annulled is not void, so is confirmation too — even that which he confirmed is not confirmed (Ran). ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> יודע אני שיש נדרים אבל איני יודע שיש מפירין יפר יודע אני שיש מפירין אבל איני יודע שזה נדר ר' מאיר אומר לא יפר וחכמים אומרים יפר

IF SHE VOWS, 'KONAM, IF I TASTE FIGS' [AND 'IF I TASTE GRAPES, etc.']. Raba said: Our Mishnah agrees with R. Simeon, who ruled: He must say 'I swear' to each one separately.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 211, n. 3; so here too, only if she says 'If I taste' for each separately, is it regarded as two distinct vows. ');">⁷</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. [IF THE HUSBAND DECLARES,] 'I KNOW THAT THERE WERE VOWS, BUT DID NOT KNOW THAT THEY COULD BE ANNULLED', HE MAY ANNUL THEM [NOW]. [BUT IF HE SAYS:] 'I KNOW THAT ONE CAN ANNUL, BUT DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS WAS A VOW,' R. MEIR RULED: HE CANNOT ANNUL IT, WHILST THE SAGES MAINTAIN: HE CAN ANNUL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 79a for notes. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ורמינהו (במדבר לה, כג) בלא ראות פרט לסומא דברי רבי יהודה רבי מאיר אומר לרבות את הסומא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But the following contradicts this: [Or if he smote him with any stone, wherewith a man may die,] seeing him not [… then the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 23f. ');">⁹</span> this excludes a blind man;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is not exiled to the refuge cities for manslaughter. ');">¹⁰</span> that is R. Judah's view. R. Meir said: It is to include a blind person!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. XIX, 5, it is stated, as when a man goeth into a wood with his neighbour, etc. This implies that the unwitting murderer must have known where his victim was, but that he killed him unintentionally. If, however, he did not know of his presence, the law of exile is inapplicable. Now a blind person does not see his victim, nevertheless, owing to the greater keenness of his other faculties he senses the presence of the victim, though not knowing exactly where he is. R. Judah maintains that the partial knowledge of the blind is regarded as full knowledge, and would be sufficient for the law to operate. Consequently, when Scripture states, 'seeing him not', which implies that he might however have seen him, it must teach the exclusion of the blind. R. Meir's view is that partial knowledge is in itself not regarded as complete knowledge; hence, without any verse one would assume that a blind person is excluded. Consequently, 'seeing him not' cannot exclude the blind, since for that no verse is necessary, but must be translated, 'though not seeing him', i.e., though unable to see him, and the verse extends the law to the blind. Thus this contradicts the Mishnah, for there R. Meir rules that since he possessed the partial knowledge that a husband can annul vows, he is regarded as having possessed the complete knowledge, and therefore cannot annul after the day of hearing. Likewise R. Judah here is opposed to the Sages in the Mishnah, by whom R. Judah is meant, when they are in opposition to R. Meir (Rashi). Ran, Asheri and Tosaf. give different interpretations. ');">¹¹</span> —