Is Shmuel really contradicting himself? TB Nedarim 85-6

We learned in massekhet Ketubot that the ketubah is a contract between husband and wife. The husband is obligated to provide food and shelter amongst other things for his wife and the wife is obligated to work and bring in a specified sum money which she will give to her husband. He holds a lien against the works of her hands. Whether or not  the wife is able to sanctify latent and potential produce of her hands (מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹלָם) will be the discussion of the two dappim TB Nedarim 85-6.

Mishnah “If she said: I will not produce anything for you (i.e. her husband-gg), including the work that she is obligated to do for him according to the terms of her marriage contract, as that is konam for me, her husband need not nullify the vow at all. It is automatically void, since she is obligated to perform those tasks.

“Rabbi Akiva says: He should nevertheless nullify the vow, as perhaps she will exceed the required amount of work and do more for him than is fitting for him to receive. If she does more than the fixed amount of work that a woman is obligated to perform for her husband, the vow will be valid with respect to the excess to which he is not entitled, and he might inadvertently come to benefit from something that is forbidden to him.

“Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri also says that he should nullify the vow, but for a different reason: Perhaps he will one day divorce her, at which point the vow will take effect and she will then be forbidden to him forever, i.e., he will be unable to remarry her, lest he come to benefit from her labor.” (Sefaria.org translation)

When it comes to a person consecrating an entity that has not yet come into the world (מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹלָם), Shmuel seems to be contradicting himself. Concerning Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri’s above position: “Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Shmuel maintains that a person can consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world? According to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, her vow is valid with respect to things she will do after her divorce, even though at present she is not divorced and she has not yet produced anything.” (Sefaria.org translation)

But we know that Shmuel holds hold that person can’t consecrate an entity that is not yet come into the world from the Gemara TB Ketubot 58b. “If one consecrates his wife’s earnings, 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, Rabbi Meir says the surplus becomes consecrated property, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar says that it is non-sacred. And Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 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.” (Sefaris.org translation)

After a lot of attempts to reconcile the two Gemara’s  provides an acceptable solution “Rather, Rav Ashi said that this is the reason Shmuel ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: Although a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world, konamot are different. They are stringent and take effect in all cases, as their prohibited status is considered akin to inherent sanctity. When one person prohibits another from deriving benefit from a particular item by means of a konam, the forbidden item is treated as if it has inherent sanctity. It cannot be redeemed and can never become permitted. Because of its severity, a woman can forbid her handiwork to her husband by means of a konam, even though she is obligated to hand over the fruits of her labor to him.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Nevertheless, the sanctification of the object (hekdash- הֶקְדֵשׁ) doesn’t begin until after the marriage is dissolved even though hekdash stops the husband’s lien. I find it very interesting that the rabbis strengthened the lien until after the divorce even though according to Torah law it no longer exists. Rabbis have the power to meet the challenges of the world around them. Unfortunately too many Orthodox rabbis refuse to wield the power they have to solve the problems that modern Jews have. Although I don’t always agree with the decisions of the Rabbinical Assembly’s law committee, I know that they are sincere in their efforts to solve these problems. I am proud that I am a Conservative rabbi because of their efforts.