Nedarim 28b (כח:) — the Talmud in English

These

have no redemption

, that is: no redemption is effective for them, for even if the owners themselves redeem them and they become non-sacred, they immediately become sacred again.

The amoraim in the Gemara disagree: Did their sanctity indeed lapse once they are cut down, as he said, or perhaps “sanctity does not lapse without cause [gratuitously, without compensation],” and they become non-sacred only through redemption, like other objects possessing kedushat damim?

Gemara:

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the wording of our Mishna, in which the tanna taught: “They have redemption”:

And let the tanna teach

the wording: “

They are sacred

,” since this is the tanna’s primary intention

!? And we answer:

Since he needed to teach in the latter clause

[since the tanna needed to state in the latter clause]:

“These saplings are an offering until they are cut down;

they have no redemption

,” for they are certainly sacred, but redemption is ineffective in preventing the sanctity from returning and taking effect upon them—

therefore

he also taught

in the

first clause: “

They have redemption

,” even though the tanna’s primary intention is to say that they are sacred.

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

And we ask:

How did he formulate the vow

, how was his vow concerning the saplings formulated!? That is: How did he make the consecration contingent upon the cutting down of the saplings? If you interpret it literally, that he made his consecration contingent upon cutting them down without specifying a time, then they would never become sacred, since saplings are ultimately destined to be cut down

!? He said

—

Ameimar explained:

Our Mishna is dealing

with

one who

says: “

These saplings are an offering

if they are not cut down today

,” and they become sacred if

the day passes and

they indeed

are not cut down.

The Gemara asks:

If so, why does he need

the tanna

to state

this law, when it is

obvious

!? And we answer:

It is necessary

—our Mishna is needed to teach that the consecration takes effect only

in a case where there is a powerful wind

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

Before the Gemara has completed its answer, it proves that this is indeed the case under discussion, for:

And it teaches this

also

with regard to the cloak

, which he consecrated if it is not burned,

and

since

a cloak is destined to be burned

[it is destined for burning, just as saplings are liable to be cut down one day], why would it occur to its owner to consecrate it if it is not burned!?

Rather, the Mishna is certainly dealing, with regard to the cloak,

with a case where there is

now a

fire

threatening the cloak’s survival, and therefore the owners make the consecration contingent upon its not being burned—

And

here too

, with regard to the saplings, our Mishna is dealing with a case

where there is

now a

powerful wind.

The Gemara concludes its answer, explaining what the novel element is, even when the saplings and the cloak are in danger of being destroyed:

And it might have entered our minds—

I would have said, had the tanna not taught us otherwise—

that the owner concludes

the owner of the saplings and the cloak

in his mind

, that is, it is clear to the owner of the saplings

that they will not be saved

[that they will not be saved] from the wind or the fire,

and

only

for that reason did he vow

, and he did not resolve to consecrate them should they in fact be saved; and if so, I would have said that the consecration does not take effect.

Therefore,

he teaches us

the tanna that if the saplings and the cloak are saved, they are sacred.

We learned in the Mishna:

“These saplings are an offering

until they are cut down”—or if he said—“This cloak is an offering until it is burned”; they have no redemption”:

The Gemara asks:

And

is it so that

forever

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

!? He said

—

Bar Padda explained:

If the owners redeem them

, the owners who consecrated the saplings or the cloak, they become non-sacred and their redemption money assumes their sanctity,

and they become sacred again

. And if the owners then

redeem them

again, they once more

become sacred again

, and so forever,

until they are cut down

; but once

they have been cut down, he redeems them once, and that is sufficient.

That is:

a. What we learned, “They have no redemption,” applies not forever, but only until they are cut down. This is the answer to the Gemara’s question: “And forever?”

b. Do not say that what we learned, “They have no redemption,” means that if they are redeemed they do not become non-sacred at all, and the money does not assume sanctity as in ordinary redemption. Rather, it means that the owners’ redemption is not effective in making them entirely non-sacred: if he redeems them, their sanctity is transferred to the money, and they immediately become sacred again. This is because the intention of his words when he said, “until they are cut down,” was to say: Until they are cut down, these saplings will remain sacred forever, and even if I immediately redeem them from their consecration, they will become sacred again

. c. Do not say that because he said “until they are cut down,” implying that after they are cut down they will no longer be sacred at all, the saplings indeed become non-sacred.

This is not so, for he cannot remove the sanctity from them without redemption, since “sanctity does not lapse without cause.” Therefore, even after they are cut down they require redemption like other objects possessing kedushat damim, and once he redeems them they become non-sacred and will not become sacred again.

And Ulla

disagreed with the third element of Bar Padda’s statement, and

said:

Since he said “until they are cut down,” which also implies that after they are cut down they become non-sacred, therefore

once

they have been cut down, he no longer redeems them, because “sanctity does lapse without cause” when the one who consecrated the object initially imposed sanctity only for a limited time.

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