Nedarim 86b (פו:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

Another answer to resolve the contradiction in Shmuel's statements.

Ordinary consecration cannot be compared to konamot, because

konamot are analogous to kedushat haguf.

That is, a konam is like kedushat haguf, as in the case of a sacrifice, whose sanctity derives from its being a sacrifice and not from its financial affiliation with the consecrated property. It is not like kedushat damim, which derives solely from the item's monetary affiliation with the consecrated property.

And this is analogous to the statement of Rava,

as Rava said: With regard to consecrated property—

if a person placed his ox under lien to his creditor, and afterward consecrated the ox with kedushat haguf.

And

leaven—

if a person placed his leaven under lien to a gentile for a debt, and afterward Passover passed and the leaven became prohibited in benefit.

And emancipation—

if a person placed his slave under lien to his creditor,

and afterward emancipated his slave.

remove the item from the lien—

the lien is removed through this act.

We learn from Rava's statement that kedushat haguf has sufficient power to remove a lien. Therefore, a woman can prohibit her handiwork to her husband even though she is under lien to him, since through the konam the husband's lien is removed.

And we raise an objection:

If so, why do I need

why must we say that the reason for the annulment is

lest he divorce her?

In any event, her husband should annul the vow so that it will not take effect! And we answer:

Teach—

the wording of the Mishna should be revised as follows:

The husband may annul the vow so that it will not take effect.

Furthermore—

even if you say that the Sages reinforced the husband's lien on her handiwork, and it is not removed through the konam, nevertheless the husband may annul the vow, because

lest he divorce her

and the vow will then take effect.

Mishna:

If his wife vowed, and he thought

the husband

that his daughter had vowed,

or

his daughter vowed, and he thought that his wife had vowed,

and likewise if

she vowed to be a nazirite, and he thought that she had vowed with regard to a sacrifice (

that is, she vowed and prohibited a particular item to herself as though it were a sacrifice), or

she vowed with regard to a sacrifice, and he thought that she had vowed to be a nazirite.

And likewise if

she vowed with regard to figs, and he thought that she had vowed with regard to grapes,

or

she vowed with regard to grapes, and he thought that she had vowed with regard to figs,

and he annulled the vow.

The annulment is ineffective, and

he must annul it again.

Gemara:

Is it to say—

the Gemara intends to explain the reason for the Mishna as being that

the

meaning of the verse

“He shall prevent her” is specifically this

and the annulment must specifically be for that vow and for that woman who uttered the vow.