Commentary for Nedarim 170:7

וכי אמרה הכי קדשה והא משעבדן ידיה לבעל דאמרה לכי מגרשה השתא מיהת לא מגרשה וממאי דכי אמרה הכי מהניא

are different: since a man can interdict his neighbour's fruit to himself, he can prohibit to himself the non-existent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in real consecration one cannot consecrate his neighbour's property. ');">⁷</span> Said Abaye to him: It is proper that one may prohibit his neighbour's fruit to himself, since he can forbid his own fruit to his neighbour: but shall he forbid the non-existent to his neighbour, seeing that he cannot interdict his neighbour's fruit to his neighbour!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye objects that the analogy is defective. For in both cases cited by R. Joseph. viz., prohibiting his neighbour's produce and prohibiting the non-existent to himself, there is when vowing one element of the vow under his control — himself. But if a woman interdicts her earnings to her husband, neither her husband nor her future earnings are in her control when she vows. ');">⁸</span> — But, said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, it means that she vowed, 'My hands be consecrated in respect of what they may produce';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that whatever my hands produce shall be forbidden. ');">⁹</span> [the vow is valid even after divorce,] because her hands are already in existence. But if she vowed thus, would they be consecrated [and forbidden]? surely her hands are pledged to her husband.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the vow cannot take immediate effect, it cannot become effective after divorce. ');">¹⁰</span> She vowed, 'When he divorces me.' But now at least she is not divorced: how then do you know that such a declaration is valid?

Explore commentary for Nedarim 170:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.