Nedarim 87B

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 nullified it with regard to figs, it is not nullified until he will also nullify the vow for grapes. This is the statement of R' Yishmael. R' Akiva says that the verse states: “Her husband may uphold it, or her husband may nullify it.” Just as the words “may uphold it” [yekimennu] should be understood as if they read: He may uphold part of it [yakim mimmennu], implying that if he upheld part of the vow he has upheld all of it, so too, the words “he may nullify it” [yeferennu] should be understood as if they read: He may nullify part of it [yafer mimmennu]. And R' Yishmael retorts: Is it written: He may nullify part of it, with a mem, as it is written with respect to a husband who upholds the vow? And R' Akiva replies: The verse juxtaposes nullification to upholding; just as upholding means part of it, so too, nullification means part of it.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן: זו דברי רבי ישמעאל ורבי עקיבא, אבל חכמים אומרים: מקיש הקמה להפרה; מה הפרה ⁠— מה שהפר הפר, אף הקמה ⁠— מה שקיים קיים.

R' Ḥiyya bar Abba said that R' Yoḥanan said: This opinion, that a vow is treated as a single unit, so that the entire vow is upheld even if the husband upheld only a part of it, is the statement of R' Yishmael and R' Akiva. But the Rabbis say: The verse juxtaposes upholding to nullification; just as with regard to nullification, that which he nullified he has nullified, so too, with regard to upholding, that which he upheld he has upheld, but no more.

אמרה ״קונם תאנה״, אמר רבא: מתניתין רבי שמעון היא. דאמר: עד שיאמר ״שבועה״ לכל אחד ואחד.

The Mishnah teaches that if a woman said: Tasting a fig and tasting a grape are konam for me, these are viewed as two separate vows. Rava said: The Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon, as R' Shimon said that one is not liable to bring multiple offerings for taking false oaths to multiple people in the same utterance, For example: if he says: I take an oath that I do not have your item, nor yours, nor yours, unless he states an expression of an oath to each and every one of the creditors, for example by stating: I take an oath I do not have yours; I take an oath I do not have yours. Here too, only if she says: Tasting, with respect to each fruit are they viewed as two separate vows.