Study Nedarim folio 86B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Rather, Rav Ashi said that this is the reason Shmuel ruled in accordance with the opinion of R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri: Although a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world, konamot are different. They are stringent and take effect in all cases, as their prohibited status is
As Rava said: Consecration of an item to the Temple, becoming subject to the prohibition of leavened bread on Passover, and the emancipation of a slave abrogate any lien that exists upon them. The lien on that property does not prevent the consecration, the prohibition of leavened bread, or the eman
The Talmud asks: If so, why do I need R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri’s stated reason: Perhaps he will one day divorce her? If the woman’s konam abrogates the husband’s lien, the prohibition should take effect immediately. The Talmud answers: Teach that the vow takes effect right away, which is why the husband
Mishnah: If a man’s wife took a vow and he thought that it was his daughter who had taken a vow, or if his daughter took a vow and he thought that it was his wife who had taken a vow, or if his wife vowed to be a nazirite and he thought that she had vowed to bring an offering, or if she vowed to
Talmud: With regard to the Mishnah’s ruling that if a man’s wife took a vow, but he thought that it was his daughter who had taken the vow and he nullified the vow, he must nullify the vow a second time, the Talmud asks: Is this to say that the phrase “But if her husband disallowed her [otah]” (Num