תָּא שְׁמַע מִפְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. דִּתְנַן: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אִם לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּין מִתְּחִלָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִקְרוֹת שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאֶחָד – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna ( Temura 25b): If one said about an animal: This is hereby a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering, the halakha is that it becomes a substitute only for a burnt-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who holds that one’s initial statement is determinant. And Rabbi Yosei says: If this is what he intended from the outset, that it should be a substitute for both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, then since it is impossible to give it two names at once and he could not have said burnt-offering and peace-offering simultaneously, his statement is effective, and the animal is a substitute for both of them at once. Similarly, it is possible for him to intend to both ratify and nullify the vow and the vow is nullified, despite the fact that his first statement was to ratify it.

וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קָאָמַר דְּלָא אֲמַר ״לָא תֵּיחוּל זוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה זוֹ״, אֲבָל הָכָא, דַּאֲמַר ״לָא תֵּיחוּל הֲקָמָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה הֲפָרָה״ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר נַמִי מוֹדֶה דַּהֲפָרָה חָלָה.

The Gemara adds: And even Rabbi Meir says that the first part of one’s statement is determinant only where he did not state: This will not take effect unless this also takes effect. Here, however, where he expressly said: The ratification of the vow will not take effect unless the nullification takes effect, even Rabbi Meir concedes that the nullification takes effect.

בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים וּמוּפָר לֵיכִי בְּבַת אַחַת״, מַהוּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ.

Rabba further asks: If he said: It is ratified and nullified for you simultaneously, what is the halakha ? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rabba himself said: Any two halakhic statuses that one is not able to implement sequentially are not realized even when one attempts to bring them about simultaneously. Since one cannot ratify a vow and subsequently nullify it, one can also not ratify and nullify a vow simultaneously.

בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים לֵיכִי הַיּוֹם״ מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַר לָהּ ״מוּפָר לֵיכִי לְמָחָר״, אוֹ דִּלְמָא הָא לָא אֲמַר לָהּ?

Rabba raises another dilemma: If one says to his wife or daughter: Your vow is ratified for you today, what is the halakha ? Do we say that he is like one who said to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow? Or perhaps, since he did not explicitly say to her that the vow is nullified, it remains in force.