Nedarim 87a — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

But with regard to tearing garments

[the obligation to tear garments over the dead], for if two or three relatives died for him, we derive that he must tear twice from

as it is written

twice

“over, over,” as it is written: “over Saul and over Jonathan his son.”

And if so, also with regard to tearing garments one should learn from the fact that it is written, “over Saul and over Jonathan,” that one must tear specifically for that dead person, and if he tore for another dead person, he has not fulfilled the obligation of tearing.

And it was taught

not so:

They told him, “His father died,” and he tore, and afterward it was found

that the dead person was

his son; he has fulfilled the obligation of tearing,

and he need not return and tear?

And we answer:

They said: It is not difficult. This one is an unspecified case, and that one is an expressly specified case —

our Mishna is speaking of a case in which he specified that he was annulling this vow, and therefore, if it became clear that he had erred, the annulment did not take effect upon the other vow.

But with regard to tearing garments, it is speaking of a case in which he tore without specification and did not specify for whom he was tearing; therefore, he fulfilled the obligation of tearing even when it became clear that the dead person was his son and not his father.

And the Gemara brings a beraita that supports this answer:

And it was taught: They told him, “His father died,” and he tore, and afterward his son was found [to have died]; he has not fulfilled the obligation of tearing.

But if

they told him, “Someone close to him has died,” and he thought it was his father, and he tore, and afterward his son was found [to have died], he has fulfilled the obligation of tearing.

And it follows that the beraita distinguishes between a case in which he tore without specification and merely thought that it was his father, and a case in which he tore expressly for his father.

Rav Ashi said —

another answer to settle the Gemara’s objection:

Here it is within kdei dibbur; here it is after kdei dibbur,

and the Gemara explains the answer:

That which you said, “He has fulfilled the obligation of tearing,”

even when

it was found

that the dead person was

his son

and not his father, is speaking of a case in which he learned of it

within kdei dibbur

from the time of the tearing.

And

that which you said, “He has not fulfilled the obligation of tearing,”

is speaking of a case in which he learned of it

after kdei dibbur

from the time of the tearing.

And accordingly, also in our Mishna, which says that the annulment and the upholding are not effective when he does not know what the vow is or who the woman making the vow is, it is speaking of a case in which he learned of this after kdei dibbur. But if he learned of it within kdei dibbur, the annulment is effective.

And the Gemara brings a beraita that supports this answer:

And it was taught: One who has a sick person in his house, and he fainted. And he thought that he had died, and he tore, and afterward he died; he has not fulfilled the obligation of tearing.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Kappara:

They taught this only when he died after kdei dibbur, but within kdei dibbur, it is considered speech

and he fulfilled the obligation of tearing.

And the halakha is:

Within kdei dibbur, it is considered speech,

Except for one who reviles —

a person who violated the prohibition against reviling the Name of God, and retracted within kdei dibbur, his retraction is not effective to save him from punishment.

And one who worships idolatry —

a person who said to an idol, “You are my god,” and retracted within kdei dibbur; his retraction is not effective to save him from punishment.

And one who betroths, and one who divorces —

if he betrothed a woman or divorced her, and retracted within kdei dibbur, his retraction is not effective to annul the betrothal or the divorce.

Mishna:

She said: “Konam, these figs and grapes that I

taste,”

and

the husband upheld

the

figs; the whole is upheld —

the entire vow is upheld, and she is forbidden also to the grapes.

But if he

annulled the figs

only,

it is not annulled

the portion concerning the grapes

until he also annuls the grapes.

She said: “Konam, a fig that I taste, and a grape that I taste”; these are two vows.

And it is possible to annul one of them and uphold the other.

Gemara:

Whose is our Mishna? —

Rabbi Ishmael’s —

our Mishna is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Ishmael.

For it was taught: “Her husband shall uphold it, and her husband shall annul it.”

From here, if

she said: “Konam, these figs and grapes that I taste,”

and

the husband upheld

the

figs; the whole is upheld —

the entire vow is upheld, and even the vow concerning the grapes is upheld.