Yevamot 93a — the Talmud in English

For we learned:

A woman who said to her husband:

“A konam that what I make be for your mouth”,

that is: the work of my hands that I will do—behold, it is forbidden to you as hekdesh, from benefiting from it [konam: it is a designation for an offering, and it is the expression by which vows are made]—

the husband

need not annul

it for her, for even without his annulment her vow does not take effect, since she is obligated to him with regard to the work of her hands. And this is like one who says to his fellow: “Your produce shall be forbidden to you as a konam,” for the vow does not take effect, since the produce does not belong to the one who made the vow.

Rabbi Akiva says: He shall annul

the husband!

He may, and he must annul it, for although the woman is obligated to him with regard to the work of her hands, there is concern

lest she produce more for him

with the work of her hands

more than what is fitting for him.

And she can forbid the surplus to her husband, since she is not obligated to do for him except according to the measure established by the Sages [and this is explained in Tractate Ketubot].

And it is proven from here that although the woman has not yet done anything, and the work of her hands does not yet exist in the world, nevertheless she can forbid it as a konam.

For according to Rabbi Akiva, a person transfers ownership of a thing that has not yet come into the world.

And if so, it is impossible to interpret the Mishna “One who betroths a woman” according to Rabbi Akiva, since according to his view all those cases taught in the Mishna are betrothed, even though they are “a thing that has not yet come into the world.”

And we answer:

But it was stated concerning it: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: When she says

the woman

“Let my hands be consecrated to their Maker,”

to the Holy One, blessed is He, who made them.

That is, she forbids the husband benefit from her hands, since

hands—

do exist in the world

[they exist in the world], and this is not transferring ownership of a thing that has not yet come into the world.

And once the proof that Rabbi Akiva holds that a person transfers ownership of a thing that has not yet come into the world has been rejected, we can again interpret the Mishna in which we taught that betrothal does not take effect with a yevama, and one who betroths her before she performs halitza is like one who betroths a thing that has not yet come into the world—as the view of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that betrothal does not take effect with a yevama.

And it disagrees with

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who interprets Rabbi Akiva’s words according to the view that a person does not transfer ownership of a thing that has not yet come into the world—

for he disagrees with

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who holds, according to Rabbi Akiva’s view, that a person does transfer ownership of a thing that has not yet come into the world.

For Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rav Huna—

holds

that according to Rabbi Akiva a person transfers ownership of a thing that has not yet come into the world, as he proceeds to explain—

holds

like Rav,

from whom Rav Huna learned his position.

And Rav [holds] like Rabbi Yannai, and Rabbi Yannai like Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Ḥiyya like Rabbi, and Rabbi like Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov like Rabbi Akiva—

for Rabbi Akiva

said—

a person transfers ownership of a thing that has not yet come into the world!

And now the Gemara explains the source for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement concerning the view of all these, that a person transfers ownership of a thing that has not yet come into the world:

Rav Huna—

what is it?

Where do we find that he holds this?

For it was stated: One who sells the produce of a palm tree—

which has not yet come into the world—

to his fellow:

Rav Huna said:

The acquisition takes effect—when the produce comes into the world.

And therefore:

Before it comes into the world, he

can retract,

for the acquisition has not yet taken effect.

But

once it comes into the world,

the acquisition takes effect, and thereafter he

cannot retract.

And Rav Naḥman said: Even once it has come into the world, he can retract,

for a person does not transfer ownership of a thing that has not yet come into the world, and his acquisition does not take effect.

Rav Naḥman said:

Although I hold that the seller can retract even once it has come into the world, nevertheless—

I concede: If he snatched and ate, he

is not compelled to return it!

I concede that if the buyer ate from the produce before the seller retracted, the seller cannot take from the buyer what he ate, for as long as he did not retract, he waived the buyer’s eating, and even though he waived it in error, since he did not know that he could retract, it is nevertheless a waiver.

Rav—

Where do we find that he holds this?

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: One who says to his fellow: “This field that I am acquiring

[that he is about to acquire]—

when I acquire it, it is acquired by you from now” —

This

has acquired.

Although at the time he sold the field, the field was not his, such that he could sell it, and this is like transferring ownership of a thing that has not yet come into the world.

Rav [holds] like Rabbi Yannai, and

Rabbi Yannai like Rabbi Ḥiyya—

For Rabbi Yannai had a tenant farmer who would bring him a basket

a full vessel

of produce every Sabbath eve

[Rabbi Yannai’s tenant farmer was accustomed to bringing Rabbi Yannai a vessel with produce from the field every Sabbath eve].

That day it grew late for him and he did not come

[on one of the Sabbath eves the tenant farmer delayed], and there was concern that he would arrive on Shabbat, and Rabbi Yannai would not be able to separate terumot and tithes from the produce, since one does not tithe on Shabbat.

He took

Rabbi Yannai’s own tevel produce, and

tithed from the produce of his household—

for them.

Rabbi Yannai took from the tevel produce in his possession and tithed for the produce of the tenant farmer, which he was destined to bring him, while it was still in the tenant farmer’s possession.

He came

Rabbi Yannai

before Rabbi Ḥiyya,

to ask whether his tithe was effective, for this is like transferring ownership of a thing that has not yet come into the world, since today he cannot tithe his tenant farmer’s produce.

He said to him,

Rabbi Ḥiyya to Rabbi Yannai:

You acted well,

in tithing, even though it is a thing that has not yet come into the world!

Because

it was taught:

It is written: “You shall surely tithe all the produce of your seed that comes forth from the field year by year. And you shall eat before the Lord your God the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil—

so that you may learn to fear the Lord

your God all the days.”

“All the days”—

these are Sabbaths and Festivals!

You learn that you must take care that the delight of Shabbat not be nullified because of the rectification of tevel; rather, rectify it.

But

for what halakhic purpose,

for what matter did the verse come to warn you not to nullify the delight of Shabbat because of the rectification of tevel?

If you say, to tithe

on Shabbat

and eat

[in order to eat], and not be concerned because of the prohibition of lifting terumot and tithes on Shabbat—

But

was a verse needed to permit moving

that is rabbinic?

For the prohibition against lifting terumot and tithes on a Festival is only a rabbinic shevut, which is akin to the labor of “rectifying a vessel,” and the verse need not permit it!