Nedarim 86a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rabbi Ila said:

Indeed, it is possible to prohibit something such that it takes effect only after some time.

And the proof for this is:

And what if

a person

says to his fellow: “This field, which I am selling to you, when I take it back from you,

[when I purchase it back from you],

consecrate it

[it shall be consecrated],

does

[is it the case that]

it not become consecrated?

Is it not logical to say that a person can consecrate his field at the time when he is selling it, in such a manner that the consecration will take effect afterward? And if so, the same is true in the case under discussion: the woman can prohibit her hands in such a manner that it will take effect after she is divorced.

And we challenge this:

Rabbi Yirmeya challenged it:

Are they comparable—

how can you compare the two laws?

Is it not the case that when he consecrated a field and said:

“This field, which I am selling to you,”

the consecration took effect

because now it is in his possession.

The field is still under his authority, and it is in his power to consecrate it now; therefore, this is not considered something that has not yet come into the world.

But

a woman—

is it the case that

she has the power to consecrate

now

the product of her hands?

Is she not unable to consecrate it now, since she is subordinated to her husband? And if so, the vow cannot take effect after the divorce, since this is something that has not yet come into the world.

And he brings proof to resolve this issue from another place.

This is not comparable—

the case under discussion should not be compared

except to

a person who

says to his fellow: “This field that I

already

sold to you—when I take it back from you, consecrate it

[it shall be consecrated],

for in this manner

does

[is it the case that]

it become consecrated?

For this is certainly something that has not yet come into the world, since the field is not under his authority,

and the same is true in the case under discussion: the woman cannot prohibit the product of her hands after she is divorced, since at present the product of her hands is not under her authority; and this is something that has not yet come into the world.

Rav Pappa challenged it—

Rav Pappa rejects the reasoning of Rabbi Yirmeya.

Are they comparable—

how can you compare the two laws?

For it is specifically

in the case of a sale

[that is, a sale] that we say that the consecration does not take effect,

since

the matter is conclusive—

for this field, at the time when he consecrates it, is not entirely under his authority, and he has no right whatsoever in it; therefore, this is considered something that has not yet come into the world.

But

in the case of a woman, does

[is it the case that]

the matter become conclusive?—

Is the woman not entirely subordinate to her husband, rather, she is subordinated to her husband? Therefore, the product of her hands is not considered something that has not yet come into the world, for it is under her authority. Rather, as long as the marriage continues, it is subordinated to the husband; but after she is divorced, the prohibition of the vow takes effect upon it.

And he brings proof to resolve this issue from another place.

This is not comparable—

the case under discussion should not be compared

except to

a person who

says to his fellow: “This field that I mortgaged to you

[that I subordinated to you against my debt]

, when I redeem it from you, consecrate it

[it shall be consecrated],

for in this manner

does

[is it the case that]

it not become consecrated?

Is it not certain that this is considered something that has already come into the world, since the field is in fact his already now, except that it is subordinated? Therefore, the owner of the field can consecrate it now in such a manner that it will take effect after the subordination ends.

And the same is true in the case under discussion: the woman can prohibit the product of her hands now in such a manner that it will take effect after she is divorced, since it is hers already now, except that it is subordinated to the husband; and this is considered something that has come into the world.

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, challenged it—

Rav Shisha rejects the reasoning of Rav Pappa.

Are they comparable—

how can you compare the two laws?

For it is specifically with regard to a

field

that is mortgaged that we say that the consecration takes effect,

since

it is in his power

of the owner of the field

to redeem it

and return the field to his authority,

and therefore this is not considered something that has not yet come into the world.

But

a woman—

is it the case that

she has the power to get divorced?

And if so, the divorce is considered something that has not yet come into the world.

And he brings proof to resolve this issue from another place.

This is not comparable—

this case should not be compared

except to one who says to his fellow: “This field that I mortgaged to you for ten years—when I redeem it from you, consecrate it

[it shall be consecrated],

for in this manner

does

[is it the case that]

it not become consecrated?

And this law should be compared to the case under discussion: just as we see with regard to the field that, although he cannot redeem the field, nevertheless, since the body of the field is his, he can consecrate it, and this is considered something that exists in the world, so too, a woman can consecrate and prohibit the product of her hands, since it is hers, and it is considered something that exists in the world.

Rav Ashi challenged it—

Rav Ashi rejects the reasoning of Rav Shisha.

Are they comparable—

how can you compare the two laws?

For it is specifically with regard to the mortgaged field that the consecration takes effect,

since

there, it is bounded—

there is a fixed term for the subordination, and after the fixed ten years the field will return to him; therefore, he can consecrate it.

But

a woman, does

[is it the case that]

she have a fixed term?—

Does she not have no fixed term for her marriage? And if so, the divorce is considered something that has not yet come into the world.