Nedarim 86: Comparisons That Don't Pan Out: Konamot Are Different

Amud (a) of today’s daf focuses on a comparison between two situations involving consecration of an item.  If a person is selling a field, s/he might stipulate that the field will be consecrated when it is purchased back again at some point in the future.  The Gemara wonders whether this is analogous to a woman who vows that the work of her hands is konam for her husband in the future. 

Both situations assume that an item can be promised to have a new status in the future.  However, the rabbis point out that a woman cannot know that she will be divorced or that her husband will die before her at some point in the future.  There is no time limit.  Thus her handiwork might not be in her possession in the future, and the arrangement would be void.

Rav Ashi notes that konamot are different than other items that have not yet come into existence.  They have kidushat haguf, an inherent sanctity.   Consecrated items are either for Temple use, or they are to be sold and the monetary worth is donated to the Temple.  An item that is konam is like a consecrated item.  It can never be redeemed not can it ever become permitted.

If this is the case, when a woman vows that her handiwork is konam to her husband, is he obligated to nullify the vow immediately?  Or does the vow come into effect instantaneously and he cannot nullify her vow?

A new Mishna tells us that a man must be specific when he nullifies a vow.  He must know who took the vow – his wife or his daughter – and he must know specifically what she vowed.  Whether her vow regarded becoming a nazirite, bringing an offering, not consuming figs, or not consuming grapes, he must nullify her exact vow.  If he nullified in error, the Gemara suggests that he must nullify the vow again within a day of having learned of the actual vow taken.