Nedarim - Daf 86

  • Various cases of being makdish a field for after one buys it back

The Gemara had said that a woman can make a neder to forbid her hands to her husband for after her divorce. Her hands, although obligated to her husband, are in existence, and such a neder can be set to take effect in the future. Rebbe Illa substantiates this by comparing it with one who says, "שדה זו שאני מוכר לך לכשאקחנה ממך תקדש" - “This field which I am selling to you will become hekdesh when I buy it back,” which is effective. Rebbe Yirmiyah objected that it is not analogous, since the field is currently fully in his possession to be makdish now, and it is rather like a case where he said about a sold field that it should be hekdesh when he repurchases it, which is not effective. To this, Rav Pappa protested that the field is completely out of his possession, whereas the woman’s hands are in her possession, albeit obligated to her husband. Rather, it is like a pledged field (where the lender may take its fruits) where the borrower declares it should be hekdesh and then he redeems it, which is effective. This comparison (and the next) is also rejected, because it is within the power of the borrower to redeem it (as opposed to the woman who cannot divorce herself).

  • הקדש חמץ ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שעבוד

Rav Ashi finally answers that a konam is able take effect on her hands, even while they are obligated to her husband. Konam, which cannot become permitted through redemption, is similar to a hekdesh of    קדושת הגוף - physical sanctity, about which Rava taught: הקדש חמץ ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שעבוד – Hekdesh, chametz, and freeing a slave release property from a lien. For example, if one designated his ox to be collected for a loan, and subsequently declared it a korban, the hekdesh removes the lien from the ox and the loan must be collected from elsewhere. The Gemara asks that if it is so that a neder should take effect immediately, why did Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri advise revoking the neder “for perhaps he will divorce her”? The neder should immediately remove the husband’s right to his wife’s hands? The Gemara says that the Mishnah should be read: ועוד, שמא יגרשנה – And furthermore, perhaps he will divorce her. The Ran explains that this addresses the possibility that the Rabbis strengthened the husband’s rights beyond the law and disabled the konam from releasing his rights. Even if so, she might be divorced and the neder will take effect then (since fundamentally it could have taken effect now).

  • A hafarah based on a mistaken identity of the vower or object of the neder, is not valid

The next Mishnah states: נדרה אשתו וסבור שנדרה בתו – If his wife vowed, and he thought that his daughter vowed, or the reverse, נדרה בנזיר וסבור שנדרה בקרבן – or she vowed nezirus and he thought she prohibited something like a korban, or the reverse, נדרה מתאנים וסבור שנדרה מן הענבים – or she vowed from figs and he thought she vowed from grapes, or the reverse, הרי זה יחזור ויפר – his hafarah is invalid and he must revoke it again. A hafarah made under incorrect information, either about who made the neder or what the neder was about, is not valid. The Gemara on the following Daf will discuss the parameters of this halachah.