Nedarim 28b — the Talmud in English

These are

without redemption

, that is: no redemption is effective for them, for even if the owners themselves redeem them and they emerge to unconsecrated status, they immediately return and become consecrated.

And the amoraim disputed in the Gemara: whether their consecration indeed lapses when they are cut down, as he said, or perhaps “consecration does not lapse bekhדי [without cause, without compensation],” and they do not emerge to unconsecrated status except through redemption, like other consecration of monetary value.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “These saplings are an offering if they are not cut down,” etc.; they have redemption:

The Gemara is astonished at the wording of our Mishna, in which the tannai taught: “They have redemption”:

And let him teach

the tannai the wording: “

Consecrated

,” for that is the principal intention of the tannai!?

And we answer:

Since he needed to teach in the latter clause

[since the tannai needed to teach in the latter clause]: “

These saplings are an offering until they are cut down,

they are without redemption,”

for they are certainly consecrated, but redemption is not effective to prevent the consecration from returning and applying to them—

therefore

he also taught

in the

first clause: “

They have redemption,”

even though the principal intention of the tannai is to say that they are consecrated.

We learned in the Mishna: “These saplings are an offering if they are not cut down; this garment is an offering if it is not burned”:

And we ask:

How did he vow

what was the content of his vow regarding the saplings!? That is: how did he make the consecration conditional upon cutting down the saplings? For if you interpret it according to its simple meaning, that he made his consecration dependent on cutting down in general, then they will never become consecrated, for the saplings will eventually be cut down!?

He said

and explained,

Ameimar:

Our Mishna deals

with

one who

says: “

These saplings are an offering

if they are not cut down today,”

and they are consecrated if

the day passed and

indeed they

were not cut down.

The Gemara is astonished:

If so, why does he need

the tannai

to say

this law? For

it is obvious!?

And we answer:

It is necessary;

our Mishna needed to teach us that his consecration takes effect only

when there is a strong wind

[a strong wind was blowing in the world], and there is a concern that the saplings will break and be cut down—

And before the Gemara finished its answer, the Gemara proves that this is the situation with which we are dealing, for:

And it teaches it

also

regarding a garment

which he consecrated if it is not burned,

and

since

a garment is destined for burning

[it is destined for burning, like saplings that are fit to be cut down one day], would it occur to its owner to consecrate it if it is not burned!?

Rather certainly, regarding a garment the Mishna deals

with, for example, when there is

now a

fire

that endangers the garment’s existence, and therefore the owners make the consecration dependent on the condition that it not be burned—

And

here too

regarding saplings, our Mishna deals with a case such as

when there is

now a

strong wind.

And the Gemara concludes its answer, to explain what the novelty in the matter is, even if the saplings and the garment are in danger of continuing to exist:

And it might have entered our minds—

I would have said, were it not that the tannai taught us otherwise—

that he concludes

the owner of the saplings and the garment

in his mind, that is: it is clear to the owner of the saplings

that they will not be saved

from being saved

[that the saplings and the garment will not be saved from the wind or the fire],

and

only

for that reason did he vow, and he did not have firm intention to consecrate them if they would in fact be saved; and if so, I would have said that the consecration would not take effect.

, and he did not have a firm intention to consecrate them if they were in fact saved; if so, one might have said that the consecration does not take effect.

Therefore:

he teaches us

the tannai that if the saplings and the garment were saved, they are consecrated.

We learned in the Mishna:

“These saplings are an offering”

until they are cut down—or he said—“This garment is an offering until it is burned”; they are without redemption:

The Gemara is astonished:

And

is it so that

forever

they will not have redemption? For he said, “until they are cut down”!?

He said

and explained,

Bar Padda:

If he redeemed them,

the owners who consecrated the saplings or the garment, they emerge to unconsecrated status and their redemption takes their place, and

they return and become consecrated;

and if he again

redeemed them,

the owners, they are again

returning and becoming consecrated,

and so forever

until they are cut down,

but from the time they

are cut down, he redeems them once, and that suffices.

That is:

a. This that we learned: “They are without redemption” does not apply forever, but only until they are cut down; and this is the answer to the Gemara’s astonishment: “And forever?”

b. Do not say that this which we learned, “They are without redemption,” means that if they redeem them, they do not emerge to unconsecrated status at all, and the money does not take hold in consecration as with ordinary redemption. Rather, it means that the owners’ redemption is not effective to bring them completely to unconsecrated status: if he redeems them, their consecration is profaned and is transferred to the money, and immediately they return and become consecrated, because the intent of his words when he said “until they are cut down” is to say: until they are cut down, these saplings shall forever be consecrated, and even if I return and redeem them from the consecration, they will return and become consecrated.

c. Do not say that since he said “until they are cut down,” which implies that after they are cut down they will no longer be consecrated at all, the saplings indeed emerge to unconsecrated status.

This is not so, for it is not within his power to remove the consecration from them without redemption, because “consecration does not lapse bekhדי”; therefore even after they are cut down they require redemption like other consecration of monetary value, and once he redeems them, they emerge to unconsecrated status and will not again become consecrated.

And Ulla

disagreed with the third part of Bar Padda’s words, and

said:

Since he said “until they are cut down,” which also implies that after they are cut down they emerge to unconsecrated status, therefore

since

they have been cut down, he no longer redeems them, because “consecration lapses bekhדי” if initially the one who consecrated applied consecration only for a period of time.

, because “sanctity does cease without a cause” when the one who consecrated the property initially imposed sanctity only for a limited period.