Defense (of alternate text): Even if the text says she'Eini, this is not an intangible matter (on which Nedarim do not take effect), for a Mishnah (Nedarim 81b) says that if one said "I will not put straw in front of your cattle", he cannot annul. (This shows that it takes effect.)

Explanation: The case is, he gives to her food and a Ma'ah. Therefore, he need not annul, for all the excess is his.

He need not annul due to excess through working extra hard, for also that is his.

Suggestion: Perhaps he need not annul because Ein Adam Makdish Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam!

Rejection: If so, there was no need to discuss "what I produce for you." We could teach one who was Makdish his own earnings (that it does not take effect)!

Explanation: He holds that excess through working extra hard is hers, like we say below (66a).

Question: How can he annul? This is not one of the matters between him and her (that affect their relationship)!

Answer #1: It is considered between him and her, because he cannot be careful to take precisely what is proper for him, and leave what is not proper for him.

Answer #2: Also her share [of the excess through working extra hard], he has a lien on it to buy land with it, and he eats the Peros.

Question: If so, how can she vow about this, since she is Meshubad to him, for Rabanan strengthened a husband's lien, like it says below?

Answer: They strengthened [his lien] only regarding her primary earnings, which are totally his;

Here, it is his only for Peros. They did not strengthen [his lien].

Question: According to Rav, who says that a woman can tell her husband "do not feed me, and I will not work for you", why did he need to say 'lest he divorce her?' He should say 'lest she tell him "do not feed me, and I will not work for you"'!

Answer: It is not common for her to say so.

Explanation #1: Rashi's Perush is difficult, like he himself said. (Shmuel said that he should annul, but for a different reason. R. Yochanan ben Nuri holds that he must annul due to her earnings themselves, but Shmuel says that it is due to excess.)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): The Gemara answers for excess, i.e. Shmuel holds like R. Yochanan ben Nuri regarding that the excess belongs to her husband.

Afterwards, the text says "he should say that the Halachah follows the first Tana", or "the Halachah does not follow R. Akiva"!

Support: Also R. Chananel explained like this.

Explanation: There, he can forbid because one of them (the item he forbids, or the one to whom he forbids it) is in his Reshus;

Can he forbid Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam to his friend? Neither of them is in his Reshus!

One cannot forbid his friend's Peros to his friend, because both of them are not in his Reshus!

Explanation: Even though there he said "when I will buy it", and here she did not say "when I will be divorced", he holds that it is unreasonable to distinguish.

Question: She can say "do not feed me, and I will not work for you"!

Answer: We want to resolve [Shmuel] also according to Reish Lakish [who says that she cannot say so].

Explanation #1: When it is mortgaged, he cannot be Makdish it, for the power of Hekdesh cannot be Mevatel the rights of the lender, with whom it is a security.

Question: We say in Bava Metzi'a (73b) that a Nochri mortgaged a house to Rav Mari bar Rachel. The Nochri sold it to Rava. He waited 12 months, took the rent for 12 months and brought it to Rava...

Inference: The sale uprooted Rav Mari's right to live for free in the house mortgaged to him!

The sale uprooted his rights, therefore he needed to pay rent to Rava.

Answer: This is not uprooting rights. Rather, Rav Mari thought that Rava owed to him the money of the mortgage in place of the Nochri, and he did not want to live in Rava's property for free, due to Ribis;

Rava told [Mari] "I acted with you according to Nochri law." Rava did not owe to him, rather, the Nochri owes him.

Question: It says in Erchin (21a) "if the landlord was Makdish [the house], the tenant pays rent to Hekdesh";

The Gemara asked that he may not live there, for he transgresses Me'ilah. This implies that [the owner] can be Makdish it while it is rented out!

Answer: The owner cannot be Makdish the tenant's rights. Rather, [the tenant] and Hekdesh are partners in it. The house is sold, and the tenant takes the value of his rental, and the rest is Hekdesh.

However, here (when I will redeem...) we discuss one who was Makdish the entire field, even what he cannot be Makdish now.

Answer #2: Real Hekdesh takes effect on a mortgaged field, even before it is redeemed;

Explanation #2: Here we discuss one who forbids through Konam to the lender, when he will redeem it. It can be that one cannot forbid a mortgaged field through Konam, even though he can be Makdish it;

It is clear in Erchin that one can be Makdish more than he can forbid through Konam.

Support: This explains the Gemara's question above, "do we ever find something that now it is not Kadosh, and afterwards it becomes Kadosh?"

Question: What was the question? Why can't she be Makdish her earnings after she will be divorced!

Why is this different than Nichsei Melug? She can sell now for when she will be widowed or divorced!

Answer #1: Rather, surely even though she can be Makdish, just like she can sell, she cannot forbid.

Answer #2: It can be that even if she would be Makdish her hands totally to Shamayim, it would not be proper for Hekdesh to take effect like on a field;

Regarding a field, Hekdesh takes effect on the Guf ha'Sadeh (the field itself) while it is in the lender's Reshus, and automatically the Peros become Hekdesh when the Guf leaves his Reshus;

However, her hands, even if she was Makdish them to Shamayim, Hekdesh does not take effect;

Even regarding [one who said that he is Makdish] a [Kena'ani] slave, Rav said that the body is not Kadosh. All agree about a free person;

Therefore even if she was Makdish her hands totally, Hekdesh does not take effect more than one who forbids through Konam a field mortgaged to him.

Question: If so, everyone will uproot all his money from his creditor through Konam!

Answer: Chachamim did not strengthen only the husband's lien. Rather, they strengthened also a creditor's lien, like is proven below (70a);

Question: The Gemara asked "since he is Meshubad to [feed] her, how can he forbid her through a vow?" It should say that he uproots her lien through Konam!

Answer: Rather, surely they strengthened also the woman's lien.

Question: In Yevamos (66b), regarding [heirs who] spread a garment on a Mes, Rava said that the Mes acquired it (it is considered shrouds, and one may not benefit from it);

They strengthened the woman's lien (to collect her Kesuvah)!

Answer: Only regarding Konamos, they strengthened [a creditor's lien], lest one uproot his debt;

In the case in Yevamos, it became forbidden to everyone. There is no concern for this, and it uproots Shibud, just like Hekdesh does.

Question: It says in Bava Kama (90a) that slaves of Nichsei Melug do not go free, whether the husband or wife knocked out a tooth or eye, for Chachamim strengthened the husband's lien. Freedom is like Hekdesh! (It should uproot the lien.)

Answer #1: Rava holds in Yevamos (66b) like the opinion that slaves [of Nichsei Melug] go free through the wife (if she knocked out a limb), but not through the husband.

Answer #2: The husband has more acquisition (in Nichsei Melug) than the wife does, since he eats the Peros in her lifetime, like we say below (83a).

Reference: I explained this in Gitin (40b).

Implied question: Even with three, she does not do any of the Melachos mentioned in the Mishnah!

Answer: Even so, she does small tasks in the house not mentioned in the Mishnah. Also, there are guests and passersby, [mentioned] in the Gemara (61a);

When she brought in four slaves, she does not do anything.

Implied question: The Mishnah in Gitin (61b) says that a Chaver's wife may be Tochenes (grind) with an Am ha'Aretz' wife. Why didn't we ask that surely, she is not Tochenes?

Answer: Only here we ask, for it comes to teach which Melachos a wife does. It refers to the primary Melachah.

Explanation: He argues only about grinding, baking, nursing her son and similar matters, which weaken her beauty;

He agrees that she [spins] wool, for her earnings are in exchange food.

Explanation: She forbade Hana'ah of nursing to herself, for she benefits from nursing, like it says below "if he says that she will not nurse, and she says that she will nurse, we heed her, due to her pain";

Similarly, we say [about an eight month baby, which is a Nefel] "she bends over and nurses him [on Shabbos, without picking him up, for he is Muktzeh], due to danger" (she is too full of milk).

Suggestion: She forbade Hana'ah of her nursing to [her husband].

Answer: Since she has a Shibud to him, the vow does not take effect.

Explanation (cont.): They argue about the following. Beis Shamai hold that [when she vowed and he was Mekayem], he is to blame, therefore he cannot force her to nurse, i.e. to hire a wet-nurse;

Beis Hillel hold that she is to blame. He forces her to nurse. She hires a wet-nurse for him, or leaves without a Kesuvah.