Nedarim 69b — the Talmud in English

Come and hear,

this question may be resolved from a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei.

As we learned

in tractate Temura [25b]:

A person who had before him two offerings, an elevation-offering and a peace-offering, and wished to substitute them with an unconsecrated animal. [The law is that when one substitutes an offering with an unconsecrated animal, the sanctity of the offering takes effect upon the unconsecrated animal, but the offering itself remains in its sanctity], and he said within the time of speech, regarding the unconsecrated animal standing before him, in these words:

This is the substitute of an elevation-offering, the substitute of a peace-offering—

meaning that with one unconsecrated animal he substituted both the elevation-offering and the peace-offering—

then

the animal

this

becomes

the substitute of an elevation-offering,

because he said “elevation-offering” first, and the sanctity of an elevation-offering took effect upon it immediately; and once the sanctity of an elevation-offering took effect upon it, the sanctity of a peace-offering cannot take effect upon it.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And Rabbi Yosei says: If this was his intention,

that the unconsecrated animal should be both an elevation-offering and a peace-offering,

from the outset

the sanctity of an elevation-offering did not take effect upon it immediately when he said “elevation-offering.”

For

since it is impossible to pronounce two designations

of an elevation-offering and a peace-offering

at once,

as he intended to pronounce them,

his words stand,

and both the sanctity of an elevation-offering and the sanctity of a peace-offering took effect upon this animal. Therefore, this animal shall graze until a blemish occurs in it; then they may redeem it and sell it, and with half of its value they shall bring an elevation-offering, and with the second half they shall bring a peace-offering.

And their dispute concerns the question of what the consecrator intended by placing the elevation-offering before the peace-offering:

According to Rabbi Meir, his intention was to stipulate and say: Let the substitute of the elevation-offering take effect, and afterward let the substitute of the peace-offering take effect. And since the substitute of the elevation-offering already took effect first, the substitute of the peace-offering can no longer take effect upon it.

Whereas according to Rabbi Yosei, since it is impossible to say both of them at once, there is no particular significance to his having placed the elevation-offering before the peace-offering, and his intention is that both of them should take effect at once; and both the sanctity of the elevation-offering and the sanctity of the peace-offering took effect upon the animal. And the animal shall be sold, and with the money for half of it they shall purchase an elevation-offering, and with the money for half of it a peace-offering.

And in light of this dispute, our uncertainty may be resolved.

According to Rabbi Yosei, there is no particular precedence to the matter that he placed first in his speech, since it is impossible to say both of them at once. Likewise here, there is no precedence for upholding over annulment because he placed the upholding before the annulment.

And since he explicitly stipulated and gave precedence to the annulment over the upholding—the annulment takes effect.

And even Rabbi Meir did not say

that there is intention and precedence for that which he placed first in his speech

except

in the case of substitution,

where he did not

stipulate and

say

“This shall not take effect unless that takes effect,”

and therefore we must assume that he intended to give precedence to that which he placed first in his speech.

But here, where

he stipulated and

said

explicitly:

“The upholding shall not take effect unless the annulment takes effect,”

one may say that even

Rabbi Meir likewise agrees that the annulment takes effect,

because the precedence given by the one performing the annulment is to the annulment.

Rabba raised a problem:

If he said, within the time of speech, this wording:

It is upheld and annulled for you.

That is, he included and said that both the upholding and the annulment should take effect

at once—

what

is the halakha? Since both cannot take effect, should one say that the upholding takes effect [because it preceded], or, since he revealed his intention that both should take effect at once, and neither precedes the other, does nothing take effect?

Come and hear

to resolve the uncertainty from a principle that Rabba stated:

For Rabba said

regarding a man who betroths two sisters at once [and betrothal cannot take effect in both of them, since a person cannot betroth a woman and her sister; and since he betrothed both of them at once, it is impossible to know which of them is betrothed and which is not]:

Any matter that cannot

take effect

one after the other—

even at once it cannot

take effect at all!

And since he cannot betroth the two sisters one after the other, betrothal did not take hold in either of them, since he betrothed them at once; and there is not even a doubt of betrothal in them.

And the same law applies to our matter: this principle stands.

And since the upholding and the annulment cannot take effect one after the other [because if the annulment takes effect, there is no vow and there is nothing to uphold; and if the upholding takes effect, the vow is upheld and there is no longer any possibility of annulling it], therefore nothing can take effect if he annuls and upholds at once.

Rabba raised a problem:

If he said

It is upheld for you today.

That is, his upholding applies only for today—

what

is the halakha?

And this uncertainty includes two uncertainties:

The first: Does such upholding prevent him from annulling tomorrow?

And the second: If we say that this upholding does not prevent him from annulling tomorrow, does this wording include an annulment for tomorrow?

Do we say

that by saying “today,” it is

as though he said to her: It is annulled for you tomorrow?

Or perhaps, he did not say to her

explicitly that it is annulled tomorrow, and this is not included within his wording.