Study Nedarim folio 85B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
הרי זו עושה ואוכלת. והמותר — רבי מאיר אומר: הקדש, רבי יוחנן הסנדלר אומר: חולין. ואמר שמואל: הלכה כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר. אלמא אין אדם מקדיש דבר שלא בא לעולם.
she may work and sustain herself from her earnings, as the consecration is ineffective. And with regard to the surplus earnings, i.e., if she produced more than she needs for her sustenance, R' Meir says the surplus becomes consecrated property, whereas R' Yoḥanan HaSandlar says that it is non-sacred. And Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yoḥanan HaSandlar. Apparently, Shmuel’s opinion is that a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world, and therefore a man cannot consecrate earnings that his wife will produce only in the future.
וכי תימא: כי קאמר הלכה כרבי יוחנן בן נורי — על העדפה הוא דקאמר.
And if you would say that when Shmuel is saying that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri he was saying only that the halakha is such with regard to the surplus, there is a difficulty. One might say that since R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri disagrees with R' Akiva, he apparently maintains that a woman’s surplus earnings belong to her husband, and therefore she cannot render them forbidden to him through a vow, and it is only with respect to this point that Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri. If this is the case, there is no contradiction between his ruling here and his ruling in Ketubot that the halakha with regard to one who consecrates his wife’s earnings is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yoḥanan HaSandlar.
לימא: הלכה כרבי יוחנן בן נורי בהעדפה. אי נמי: הלכה כתנא קמא. אי נמי: (אין) הלכה כרבי עקיבא!
But if so, let Shmuel clearly say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri with regard to the surplus. Alternatively, he could have said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who also maintains that the surplus belongs to the husband. Alternatively, he could have said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva, who asserts that the surplus belongs to the wife.