Se ela dissesse: "Konam, que não provarei estes figos e uvas", se ele fez com que (o voto) significasse figos, tudo isso significa. Se ele o anulou por figos, ele não será anulado até que ele também anule por uvas. [O motivo: (Números 30:14): "Seu marido yekimmenu" ("Seu marido fará com que ela permaneça.") "Yakim mimenu" ("Ele fará com que parte dela permaneça.") Quando ele causa parte de ele fica, ele faz com que tudo fique. Mas "yeferenu" ("Ele deve anulá-lo") não pode ser exposto assim, de modo que não haja anulação até que ele anule tudo. Esta é uma opinião individual e não é a halachá, estando a halachá de acordo com os sábios, que dizem: Ficar em pé é semelhante à anulação, a saber: Assim como na anulação, o que ele anulou é anulado, e o que ele não fez anular não é anulado (não sendo possível expor "yeferenu" como anulação parcial), assim fazendo com que permaneça. O que ele fez ficar de pé, fica de pé; e o que ele não fez resistir, não resistiu. (Pois "yekimmenu" também não é exposto como confirmação parcial, sendo o caminho da Escritura escrevê-lo assim.) E mesmo que seja a absolvição (hatarah) de um sábio, dizemos: "Se alguém é absolvido de parte de um juro que ele está absolvido de tudo ", com a anulação do marido e do pai, não é assim.] Se ela dissesse:" Konam, que não provarei figos e que não provarei uvas ", estas são dois votos.
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
קיים לתאנים כולו קיים כו' (he confirmed the vow regarding figs, the whole is deemed confirmed) – and the reason, as it is written (Numbers 30:14): “[Every vow and every sworn obligation of self-denial] may be upheld by her husband [or annulled by her husband,” he will uphold from it, that when he upholds part of it, he upholds all of it. But, (ibid.,) “annulled [by her husband],” one cannot expound as such, for it is not annulled until he annuls all of it. But these are the words of an individual opinion, and is not Halakha, but the Halakha is according to the Sages who sate that one makes an analogy on the principle common in both, making an analogy between הקמה/upholding and הפרה/nullifying/absolving. Just as regarding absolution, what he absolved, he absolved, and what he didn’t absolve, he didn’t absolve, for there is no expounding from annulling/יפרנו (Numbers 30:14), partial annulment, even upholding – what he upheld heupheld, and what he didn’t uphold, he didn’t uphold, and from יקימנו/upheld [by her husband] (Numbers 30:14),also, we don’t expound partial upholding, but it is the manner of Scripture to write like this. But even though the declaring permitted by a Sage we state that a vow that was partially permitted, all of it was permitted, but the absolution of the husband and the father is not like this.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Introduction
This mishnah teaches that a vow that has been partially annulled is not annulled at all.
We should note that this is a different rule than that which we saw with regard to the releasing of vows done by a sage. There we saw that according to Rabbi Akiva a vow that has been partially released is fully released (9:6). According to the Talmud, Rabbi Akiva disagrees with our mishnah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
If she vows, “Konam these figs and grapes which I taste”, and he [the husband] confirms [the vow] in respect of figs, the whole [vow] is confirmed; In the cases in this mishnah, the woman vows not to have figs and grapes. If the husband confirms part of the vow, the whole vow is confirmed. After he has confirmed it, he can no longer annul it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
If he annuls it in respect of figs, it is not annulled, unless he annuls in respect of grapes too. However, if he annuls part of the vow, the whole vow is not annulled and she is still forbidden in respect to that which he annulled. In this case, she would be forbidden to have both figs and grapes. For the vow to be annulled he must annul the whole vow.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
If she vows, “Konam the figs that I taste and these grapes that I taste”, they are two distinct vows. In this case the mishnah considers it as if she had taken two vows. Therefore, if he annuls the vow with respect to figs, that vow is annulled and she may have figs but she may not have grapes.
