## Nedarim Daf 85b

###### Nedarim 85b:1
[Nedarim 85b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/85b:1)

הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹשָׂה וְאוֹכֶלֶת. וְהַמּוֹתָר — רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הֶקְדֵּשׁ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר אוֹמֵר: חוּלִּין. וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר. אַלְמָא אֵין אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**she may work and sustain** herself from her earnings, as the consecration is ineffective. **And** with regard to **the surplus** earnings, i.e., if she produced more than she needs for her sustenance, **Rabbi Meir says** the surplus becomes **consecrated** property, whereas **Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar says** that it is **non-sacred. And Shmuel said** that **the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar. Apparently,** Shmuel’s opinion is that **a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not** yet **come into the world,** and therefore a man cannot consecrate earnings that his wife will produce only in the future.


###### Nedarim 85b:2
[Nedarim 85b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/85b:2)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: כִּי קָאָמַר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי — עַל הַעֲדָפָה הוּא דְּקָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **when** Shmuel **is saying** that **the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri he was saying** only that the *halakha* is such **with regard to the surplus,** there is a difficulty. One might say that since Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, he apparently maintains that a woman’s surplus earnings belong to her husband, and therefore she cannot render them forbidden to him through a vow, and it is only with respect to this point that Shmuel said that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. If this is the case, there is no contradiction between his ruling here and his ruling in *Ketubot* that the *halakha* with regard to one who consecrates his wife’s earnings is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar.


###### Nedarim 85b:3
[Nedarim 85b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/85b:3)

לֵימָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי בְּהַעֲדָפָה. אִי נָמֵי: הֲלָכָה כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא. אִי נָמֵי: (אֵין) הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if so, **let** Shmuel clearly **say:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri with regard to** the **surplus. Alternatively,** he could have said that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **the first *tanna*,** who also maintains that the surplus belongs to the husband. **Alternatively,** he could have said that the ***halakha* is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** who asserts that the surplus belongs to the wife.


###### Nedarim 85b:4
[Nedarim 85b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/85b:4)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: שָׁאנֵי קוּנָּמוֹת, הוֹאִיל וְאָדָם אוֹסֵר פֵּירוֹת חֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו, אוֹסֵר נָמֵי דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹלָם עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Yosef said** that the apparent contradiction between Shmuel’s rulings can be resolved in the following manner: Although one cannot consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world, ***konamot* are different; since a person can prohibit to himself another’s produce** by means of a *konam*, even though one cannot consecrate another’s produce to the Temple, **he can also prohibit to himself an entity that has not yet come into the world.** With regard to consecration, however, a person cannot dedicate to the Temple treasury something that is not currently in his possession, and he cannot consecrate an entity that has not yet entered the world, either.


###### Nedarim 85b:5
[Nedarim 85b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/85b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא אָדָם אוֹסֵר פֵּירוֹת חֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָדָם אוֹסֵר פֵּירוֹתָיו עַל חֲבֵירוֹ. אֶלָּא יֶאֱסוֹר דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹלָם עַל חֲבֵירוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר פֵּירוֹת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל חֲבֵירוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him:** This is no proof at all. **Granted, a person can prohibit another’s produce to himself, since a person can prohibit his** own **produce to another. But** does it follow that **he can** also **prohibit an entity that has not** yet **come into the world to another person,** seeing **that a person cannot prohibit another’s produce to** that **other** person, as he has jurisdiction neither over the produce nor over the person to whom he wishes to prohibit it? Yet in the mishna here the woman prohibits her future earnings, which do not yet exist, to another person, i.e., her husband.


###### Nedarim 85b:6
[Nedarim 85b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/85b:6)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: בְּאוֹמֶרֶת ״יִקְדְּשׁוּ יָדַי לְעוֹשֵׂיהֶן״, דְּיָדַיִם הָא אִיתַנְהוּ בָּעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:** Here the mishna is dealing **with** a woman who **says: My hands are consecrated to the One Who made them.** Therefore, the case does not involve the issue of an entity that has not yet come into the world, **as** her **hands are** already **in the world.**


###### Nedarim 85b:7
[Nedarim 85b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/85b:7)

וְכִי אָמְרָה הָכִי — קָדְשָׁה? וְהָא מְשַׁעְבְּדָן יְדַיהּ לְבַעַל! דְּאָמְרָה: לְכִי מִגָּרְשָׁה. הַשְׁתָּא מִיהַת לָא מִגָּרְשָׁה, וּמִמַּאי דְּכִי אַמְרַהּ הָכִי מַהְנְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this interpretation: **And if she said** her vow **like this, are they consecrated** and forbidden? **But aren’t her hands pledged to her husband,** to do the work she is obligated to perform for him? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a woman **who said:** The vow will take effect **when I become divorced.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **She is not divorced now in any event, and from where** is it learned **that when she says** her vow **like this,** the vow **is effective?** How is it learned that she can consecrate something in such a manner that it will become consecrated only in the future?