Rejection: No, all hold that it is not money.
Answer #2: They argue about gifts that have not yet been separated. (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds that it is as if they were separated. Therefore, it is as if the thief stole Chulin from the owner, and tithes that belong to Kohanim and Leviyim. Rebbi holds that it is as if they were not separated).
Objection: If Tovas Hana'ah is not money, even if it is as if the gifts were not separated, the thief should pay only for the Chulin!
Answer #3: Rebbi fines the thief, and makes him pay more than just the value of the Chulin, to discourage theft. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds that the owner receives only the value of the Chulin. This is a stringency to discourage people from delaying giving tithes.
Answer #4 (Rava): (One Tana taught the entire Mishnah. He holds that Tovas Hana'ah is money.) The reason why Kohanim and Leviyim may take against his will (in the Reisha) is because tithes must be given to them;
Because he forbade Kohanim and Leviyim from benefiting from him, he may not give to them. He forfeits his Tovas Hana'ah, so any Kohen or Levi may take the appropriate tithe.
A VOW ABOUT SOMETHING NOT YET IN THE WORLD
(Mishnah): If a woman forbade, to her father, father-in-law, brother or brother-in-law, what she will earn, her husband cannot annul the vow;
If she forbade her earnings to her husband, he need not annul (the vow is void anyway);
R. Akiva says, he should annul it, lest she earn more than required;
R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, he should annul it, lest he divorce her, and the vow would prevent him from remarrying her.
(Gemara - Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Nuri.
Inference: Shmuel holds that a man can make Hekdesh (which has the same law as forbidding through a vow) something that is not yet in the world.
Contradiction (Mishnah): If one was Makdish his wife's earnings, she works and eats (what she produces);
R. Meir says, any excess (earnings) is Hekdesh;
R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar says, it is Chulin.
(Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar.
Inference: Shmuel holds that one cannot be Makdish something that is not yet in the world.
Suggestion: Shmuel meant that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Nuri (only) regarding the excess (it is not Hekdesh).
Rejection: If so, Shmuel should have said that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Nuri regarding extra earnings!
Alternatively, he should have said that the Halachah does not follow R. Akiva (for Shmuel holds that the vow need not be annulled, for it does not forbid excess earnings nor after divorce)!
Or, he should have said that the Halachah follows the first Tana (who says he need not annul)!
Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): One cannot ask a question from Konamos to Hekdesh. Konamos are different!
Since a person can forbid his friend's property to himself via Konam, he can also forbid something that is not yet in the world.
Objection (Abaye): Granted, a person can forbid his friend's property to himself via Konam, since he can forbid his property to his friend;
Will we say that a person can forbid something not in the world to his friend? A person cannot forbid his friend's property to his friend!
Answer #2 (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): The case is, she said 'my hands are Hekdesh to their Maker.' Her hands are in the world.
Question: When she says this, they do not become Hekdesh. They are obligated to work for her husband!
Answer #1: She said 'when I will be divorced.'
Question: Right now, she is not divorced! Do we ever find that something does not become Hekdesh now, and it becomes Hekdesh later?