Nedarim 86b — the Talmud in English

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

another answer to reconcile the contradiction in Shmuel's words.

Ordinary consecrated property cannot be compared to konamot, because

konamot are different, for they are like kedushat ha-guf.

That is, the konam is like “intrinsic sanctity,” like a sacrifice, whose sanctity is on account of its being a sacrifice and not on account of its belonging to consecrated property. It is not like sanctity of value, which results only from the monetary belonging of the object to consecrated property.

And this is like Rava's [statement],

For Rava said, with regard to consecrated property—

if a person mortgaged his ox to his creditor, and afterward consecrated the ox with intrinsic sanctity.

And

leaven—

if a person mortgaged his leaven to a gentile on account of his debt, and afterward Passover passed over it and the leaven became forbidden in benefit.

And manumission—

if a person mortgaged his slave to his creditor,

and afterward manumitted his slave.

They remove [the object] from the power of a lien—

the lien is removed through this.

And we learned from Rava's words that intrinsic sanctity has sufficient power to remove a lien. Therefore, the woman can forbid the work of her hands to her husband even though she is subject to a lien in his favor, 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 because of

“Perhaps he will divorce her”?

After all, her husband ought to annul it in any event, so that the vow should not take effect! And we answer:

Teach—

the words of the Mishna should be taught as follows:

The husband ought to annul the vow so that it should not take effect.

And furthermore—

even if you say that the Sages strengthened the husband's lien on the work of her hands, and this is not removed through the konam, nevertheless the husband ought to annul the vow, because

perhaps he will divorce her

and then the vow will take effect.

Mishna:

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 as a nazirite, and he thought that she had vowed a sacrifice (

that is, she vowed and forbade a certain thing upon herself as though it were a sacrifice), or

she vowed a sacrifice, and he thought that she had vowed as a nazirite.

And likewise if

she vowed concerning figs, and he thought that she had vowed concerning grapes,

or

she vowed concerning grapes, and he thought that she had vowed concerning figs,

and he annulled the vow.

The annulment does not take effect, and

he must return and annul.

Gemara:

Does this mean—

the Gemara considers explaining the reason for the Mishna as being because of

the

meaning of the verse

“He shall invalidate her” is specifically so

and the annulment must specifically be for the sake of that vow and for the sake of that woman who vowed.