If she derived benefit from him before Passover and went to visit her father after Passover, she is liable for violating the prohibition of: He shall not profane his word (Numbers 30:3), as the condition was fulfilled and she violated the vow retroactively. If the husband vowed: Benefit from me is konam for you until the Festival if you go to your father’s house from now until Passover, then if she went to his house before Passover, it is prohibited for her to derive benefit from him until the Festival, and it is permitted for her to go to her father’s house after Passover, as that time period is not included in his stipulation.

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: For one who says to his wife: Your handicraft is konam upon me, or it is konam upon my mouth, or it is konam to my mouth, it is prohibited to benefit from her handicraft. Yishmael, a man of Kefar Yamma, and some say, a man of Kefar Dima, raised a dilemma with regard to an onion that one uprooted during the Sabbatical Year, which was therefore sanctified with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, and he then planted it during the eighth year, and its growths that developed in the eighth year exceeded its principal original Sabbatical-Year onion. And this is the dilemma that he raised: Its eighth-year growth is permitted, and its Sabbatical-Year principal is prohibited. Since its growth exceeded its principal, do those permitted growths neutralize the prohibition of the onion, or do they not? Yishmael came and raised the dilemma before Rabbi Ami, and he did not have an answer readily available.

Yishmael came and raised the dilemma before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who resolved it for him from that which Rabbi Ḥanina Terita’a said that Rabbi Yannai said: With regard to an onion of teruma that one planted, if its growths exceeded its principal, it is permitted. Here too, the eighth-year growth should neutralize the prohibition of the Sabbatical-Year onion. Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say it was Rabbi Zerika who said to Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: Did the Master abandon the opinion of two Sages and conduct himself in accordance with the opinion of one Sage?

The Gemara asks: Who are they, the two Sages who disagree with his opinion? The Gemara answers: It is as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a young vine within three years of its planting, whose fruits are orla and forbidden, that one grafted onto an old, permitted vine, and there were fruits on the younger vine, even though the younger vine added two hundred times the number of fruits that were there when it was grafted, and those additional fruits are permitted because they draw their nourishment from the older vine, the fruit that was on the younger vine before it was grafted is forbidden. Although, in principle, when the permitted part of the mixture is two hundred times the forbidden orla, the prohibition is neutralized, in this case, the prohibition is not neutralized, as the forbidden fruit was there from the outset.

And Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: With regard to an onion that one planted in a vineyard, creating a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard, and then the vineyard was uprooted, and most of the onion grew in a permitted manner, it is forbidden. Apparently, both Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yonatan disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, and therefore, there is no clear resolution to the dilemma.

Yishmael then came and raised the dilemma before Rabbi Ami, who resolved it for him from that which Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a litra of onions that one tithed, and then he sowed a field with the entire litra of onions, when the field yields the crop, it is tithed according to the entire crop. Although some of the onions that he sowed were already tithed, he is obligated to tithe them because the volume of the growths exceeds the volume of the original onions and the entire crop has untithed status. Apparently, those growths neutralize the prohibition of the primary, original, tithed onions.

The Gemara rejects that resolution: There is no proof from the ruling in the case of the litra of onions, as perhaps it is different when the ruling is a stringency. Perhaps, due to the concern that the growths neutralize the prohibition of the original, the ruling is that he must tithe the entire crop. However, there is no proof that the same would be true in cases where the ruling is a leniency, e.g., to neutralize the prohibition of the Sabbatical Year or teruma.

Rather, proof may be cited from this source; as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: