Ketubot 59B

״שדה זו שמשכנתי לך, לכשאפדנה ממך ⁠— תיקדש״, דקדשה.

This field that I mortgaged to you and from whose produce you are benefiting will be consecrated when I redeem it from you. The halakha is that it is consecrated, since the field itself was not transferred to another’s ownership.

מתקיף לה רב שישא בריה דרב אידי: מי דמי? התם, בידו לפדותה. הכא, אין בידה לגרש עצמה! הא לא דמיא אלא לאומר לחבירו ״שדה זו שמשכנתי לך לעשר שנים, לכשאפדנה ממך ⁠— תיקדש״, דקדשה.

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to this: Is it comparable? There, in the case where he mortgaged the field, it is in his power to redeem it, whereas here, with regard to a woman who renders her earnings prohibited to her husband, it is not in her power to divorce herself from her husband. This is only comparable to one who says to another: This field that I have mortgaged to you for 10 years will be consecrated when I redeem it from you. The halakha is that it is consecrated. Similarly, in this case, despite the fact that her earnings belong to her husband, when she will be divorced they will revert to her, and since her hands have always belonged to her, she can consecrate her earnings.

מתקיף לה רב אשי: מי דמי? התם, לעשר שנים מיהא בידו לפדותה. הכא, אין בידה לגרש עצמה לעולם.

Rav Ashi objects to this: Is it comparable? There, after 10 years in any case it will be in his power to redeem it, whereas here, with regard to a woman, it is never in her power to divorce herself from her husband. Consequently, there is no way for her to consecrate her future earnings.

אלא, אמר רב אשי: קונמות קא אמרת? שאני קונמות, דקדושת הגוף נינהו, וכדרבא. דאמר רבא: הקדש, חמץ ושחרור ⁠— מפקיעין מידי שיעבוד.

Rather, the contradiction between the two rulings of Shmuel must be resolved in a different manner. Rav Ashi said: Did you speak about konamot? Konamot are different, since they are a type of inherent sanctity, and therefore the konam can take effect on an item that is subjugated to another person, in accordance with the halakha articulated by Rava. As Rava said: Consecration, the prohibition of leavened bread on Passover, and the liberation of a slave can all abrogate a lien on property. If property was mortgaged to another person, and then the owner consecrated it, or if leavened bread was mortgaged and Passover arrived and it became prohibited to benefit from it, or if a slave was mortgaged and then liberated by his owner, the lien is abrogated. Since konam is a form of consecration, it can take effect on an item even when it is subjugated to another when the owner prohibited it, similar to the case of mortgaged property.