Talmud for Nedarim 11:4

קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה עַל פִּי אַבָּא, וְעַל פִּי אָבִיךָ, וְעַל פִּי אָחִי, וְעַל פִּי אָחִיךָ, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. שֶׁאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה עַל פִּיךָ, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא תַעְדִּיף עָלָיו יוֹתֵר מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר, יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא יְגָרְשֶׁנָּה וּתְהִי אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו:

(If she said:) "Konam that I not work for the mouth of my father," or "for the mouth of your father," or "for the mouth of my brother," or "for the mouth of your brother," he cannot annul it. [i.e., If she said: "Hekdesh ("dedicated") shall be all of my work from coming to the mouth of my father"; that is, that my father not be able to benefit from my handiwork, he cannot annul it; for these are not "things between him and her." And in this all agree, that if she forbids others from benefitting from her, her husband cannot annul it.] (If she said: "Konam,) that I not work for your mouth," he need not annul it. [For she is obligated to him. And even though hekdesh dissolves obligations, the sages strengthened her obligation to her husband, the vower not being enabled to dissolve that obligation.] R. Akiva says: He should annul it, for she might earn in addition to what reverts to him [and "hekdesh" takes effect upon that addition, it not reverting to him. He must, therefore, annul it; and the annulment is of avail, the vow entailing "things between him and her," it being impossible that the addition not become intermixed with what reverts to her husband.] R. Yochanan b. Nuri says: He should annul it, lest he divorce her and she be forbidden to return to him. [And her basic handiwork requires annulment, lest he divorce her and her obligation to her husband be dissolved, at which point the vow will take effect, and she will be forbidden to return to him. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yochanan b. Nuri. (And we are speaking of an instance where she says: "Let my hands be hekdesh to their Maker," the hands being "in the world" (so that she is not vowing in respect to "something which is not in the world"), and hekdesh "takes" upon them.]

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

HALAKHAH: “If somebody dedicates his wife’s earnings,” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, it is sanctified as his property¹⁰⁵Rebbi Meïr holds that a man means what he says (Nazir 2:1, 51d 1. 16; Babli Arakhin 5a). Since he must agree with R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian and everybody else that nobody can dedicate anything that is not under his control, he will interpret the husband’s vow not that he dedicates the future earnings of his wife but he dedicates her hands for what they will produce in the future. Since the hands do exist and the wife is required to work for him, the vow is valid.. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian says, it is profane as his property¹⁰⁶Nobody can dedicate anything that is not under his control; the husband can appropriate his wife’s work for himself as profane property.. ¹⁰⁷The following text is from Nedarim 11:4, Notes 50–53. In the Babli, 57b, different but similarly sounding explanations are given in the names of the Babylonians Rav and Samuel. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree about the excess over five tetradrachmas. He explains it in the case of one who supports his wife with food but does not give her an obolus for her needs⁵¹Since a woman divorced after the definitive marriage but before sexual relations can claim only a ketubah of a mina, it is at the end. But since she still is a virgin, it is the beginning. The definition of R. Ze‘ira leads to the construction of a self-contradictory case; it should be rejected., as we stated: “If he does not give her an obolus for her needs, what she earns is hers”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagree about the excess left after [the husband’s] death; for he explains it if he does not support her with food. But if he supports her with food, everybody agrees that it became dedicated.¹⁰⁸End of the parallel in Nedarim. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, what one states there¹⁰⁹In Babylonia. The baraita is not in the Babli. supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When was this said? If he does not feed her. But if he feeds her, everybody agrees that it was sanctified.” But is not everything a wife has subject to the husband’s claim to its yield¹¹⁰In the absence of a written contract to the contrary, the husband is the administrator of the wife’s property; he is paid for his efforts by the cash yield of the property (Mishnah 6:1). Therefore, while he has no property rights to his wife’s excess earnings, by the ketubah he has a contractual interest in the increase of property generated by these earnings since such an increase could increase the cash yield which will be his. Therefore, he should be an interested party and his vow should be recognized by both R. Meïr and R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian without restrictions. This argument is too far-fetched to merit an answer.?

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse