Nedarim 87: Rending Garments; Splitting Vows

The rabbis wonder whether we can learn anything applicable from the halachot regarding the rending of garments upon learning that one is in mourning.  One might rend his garment upon learning that a close relative died.  Different halachot apply if one learns that it was his father but he thought his son had died; if one learns that it was his son but he thought his father had died.   So we know that specificity matters. 

Timing matters as well.  For example, if a person rends his garment immediately after learning that his father died and then, within the time it takes to speak a three-word sentence, he learns that it was his son who died, he need not rend his clothing again.    Another example involves a similar situation.  If a person saw someone faint – fall into a coma, perhaps – and believed that victim had died, he might rend his clothing immediately.  If the person in fact died very shortly after that moment of rending one’s clothing, the clothing need not be torn again.

We learn that a short pause is considered to be like dibur damei, continuous speech.   Continuous speech allows us to immediately retract what we have just said – whether that is a vow, an insult, a promise – whatever.  Except for four things:  blasphemy or idol worship – which are both punished by death by stoning – and betrothal or divorce – which are both impossible to retract without paying out the ketuba.

A new Mishna teaches us two separate rules.  First, if a woman says that grapes and figs are konam for her and her husband only ratifies one of those fruits, the entire vow is ratified.  If he only nullifies one of those fruits, his nullification is void unless he includes both fruits.  Thus nullification of a vow must be specific to each part of that vow.  However, the second part of this Mishna says that if a woman says that tasting a fig and tasting a grape are konam for me, each fruit is a separate vow requiring individual nullification.

The rabbis argue about the importance of using the word ‘tasting’ twice verses using  the word ‘konam’ twice.

We learn a new Mishna at the end of amud (b).  A man might say that he has learned that his wife or daughter has made vows but he does not know whether or not he can nullify them because they might not require nullification, because he does not know how to nullify them, or because he believes it is too late to nullify them.  Rabbi Meir says that he cannnot nullify these vow.  The rabbis disagree and say that he can nullify these vows on the day that he understand that they can nullify them.

The Gemara notes that in Numbers (25:33), we learn that a person who is blind is excused from punishment for killing someone accidentally.  Rabbi Yehuda teaches this based on the words “not seeing” in that verse.  Rabbi Meir disagrees, saying that a blind person is not different from anyone else, and if he kills someone accidentally, he too should be exiled. 

The Gemara uses this to prove that Rabbi Meir does not distinguish between different types of lack of knowledge.