Nedarim 29a — the Talmud in English

He said

he raised an objection

to Rav Hamnuna

to Ulla, who holds: “Sanctity lapses with the passage of time”:

And is it so that

where has the sanctity that was in them gone—that is to say: Is there sanctity that lapses from an offering without redemption, even if the one who consecrated them initially consecrated them for a limited time!?

!?

And

after all,

what if a man said

a

to a woman: “

Today you are my wife, and tomorrow you are not my wife,” that is, “Be my wife until tomorrow”—

that is, “Be my wife until tomorrow”—

would she leave

tomorrow

without a bill of divorce!?

Surely it is obvious that [the marriage] does not lapse, and so too with the sanctity of a consecrated offering: the consecration never lapses except through the equivalent of redemption.

Rava said to Rav Hamnuna

to Rav Hamnuna:

Are you comparing [

that is, are you saying to compare ]

sanctity of value

which is the subject under discussion in our Mishna and in Ulla’s words,

to sanctity of the body

namely, a woman’s betrothal!?

After all, one must distinguish and say:

Sanctity of value

indeed

lapses with the passage of time,

as Ulla said, whereas

sanctity of the body does not lapse with the passage of time,

as you brought proof from a woman’s betrothal.

Abaye said

to Rava that he upheld Ulla’s words only because Ulla was speaking of sanctity of value; but with regard to sanctity of the body, he agrees with Rav Hamnuna that sanctity does not lapse with the passage of time:

And

is it actually the case that

sanctity of the body does not lapse with the passage of time!?

And it was taught in a beraita:

One who says: “

This ox shall be an elevation-offering for thirty days, and after thirty days”

shall be

a peace-offering—

The ox became consecrated

for thirty days

with the

sanctity of an elevation-offering, and after thirty days

the sanctity of an elevation-offering lapsed from it, and it became consecrated with the sanctity of

a peace-offering.

And

according to your words:

Why!?

After all,

it is sanctity of the body, and

how did

it lapse

from it

with the passage of time!?

Rava said to Abaye:

Here, with what are we dealing

in that beraita?

With one who said “

for its value,” that is, he did not consecrate it with sanctity of the body as an elevation-offering or a peace-offering; rather, he consecrated it for the value of an elevation-offering or a peace-offering, and sanctity of value indeed lapses with the passage of time.

He did not consecrate it with the inherent sanctity of an elevation-offering or a peace-offering; rather, he consecrated it for the monetary value of an elevation-offering or a peace-offering, and monetary sanctity can indeed lapse automatically after a specified period.

And according to Bar Peda, who says that even sanctity of value does not lapse with the passage of time, this beraita will be explained as referring to a case where he redeemed the ox—which had been consecrated for the value of an elevation-offering—after thirty days, and the consecration that he initially made, that the ox should become a peace-offering after thirty days, took effect after thirty days, as he had said.

The Gemara raises an objection to the explanation of the beraita, that it is dealing with “sanctity of value”:

If so, say the latter clause

of that beraita: One who says: “This ox shall be

after thirty days”

shall be

an elevation-offering, and from now

until thirty days it shall be

a peace-offering”— [

this is the law, that

after thirty days

it is

an elevation-offering, and from now

until thirty days it is

a peace-offering ]”.

If it is acceptable to you

to explain the repetition of the law in the first clause and the latter clause of the beraita: