Nedarim 29b — the Talmud in English

One

of the sections of the beraita deals with

the sanctity of the body, and one

of the sections of the beraita deals with

the sanctity of ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page") monetary value.

This is why the tanna needed to teach two

It is therefore understandable that the tanna needed to teach two sections -

For

if he had not taught the other section,

it might have entered your mind to say:

only

the sanctity of monetary value expires without anything

, but

the sanctity of the body does not expire without anything -

And

for this reason

[because of this]

he taught two

sections, for through the duplication we necessarily understand that even with the sanctity of the body, the sanctity expires without anything.

But if you say: both this and that -

the first section and the final section - deal with

the sanctity of monetary value, why do I need to teach two

[for what purpose did the tanna duplicate his ruling]!?

Perhaps you will say: the first section is not comparable to the final section, for in the first section he initially consecrated the ox as an elevation-offering, and afterward as a peace-offering, whereas in the final section he initially consecrated it as a peace-offering and afterward as an elevation-offering; this, however, is not a reason that the tanna should need to teach the final section as well, since from the first section we would know this, because:

Now, if it can be said from a more stringent sanctity

namely, the sanctity of an elevation-offering, which is most sacred offerings

to a less stringent sanctity

namely, peace-offerings, which are lesser sanctity offerings

expires

the sanctity -

from a less stringent sanctity to a more stringent sanctity, is it necessary to say so!?

Rather, it is necessarily the case that one of the sections of the beraita deals with the sanctity of monetary value, and the other with the sanctity of the body, and the tanna teaches us that both the sanctity of monetary value and the sanctity of the body expire without anything.

Let us say that it shall be

this beraita

a refutation of Bar Padda, who said: sanctity does not expire without anything

, for it is evident from the beraita that even the sanctity of the body expires without anything!?

Rav Pappa said: Bar Padda can say to you

to explain the beraita:

On the contrary, the intention of the beraita is to inform us that the sanctity of the elevation-offering does not take effect, because since within the time required for speech he said that it should have the sanctity of a peace-offering, the sanctity of the peace-offering takes effect in such a way that it does not expire after thirty days, and prevents the sanctity of the elevation-offering from taking effect afterward , [and it teaches us: the sanctity of a peace-offering does not expire without anything].

whereas the final clause of the beraita—“After thirty days an olah, and from now a shelamim; after thirty days an olah, and from now a shelamim” —indeed deals with the sanctity of the body. However, the beraita does not mean—as we initially thought—that the sanctities actually take effect as he stated. Rather: On the contrary, the intention of the beraita is to teach us that the sanctity of the olah does not take effect. Since, within the period of toch kedei dibbur, he stated that it should have the sanctity of a shelamim, the sanctity of the shelamim takes effect in such a manner that it does not lapse after thirty days, and it prevents the sanctity of the olah from taking effect afterward , thereby teaching us: The sanctity of a shelamim does not lapse without cause. And so that we should not say: The reason the sanctity of the olah does not take effect after thirty days is not that the sanctity of the shelamim preceded it, because “sanctity does not lapse without cause,” but rather that his statement is entirely ineffective in imposing sanctity upon it after thirty days, since a statement that is ineffective immediately is also ineffective after a period of time—

И чтобы мы не сказали: причина, по которой святость всесожжения не вступает в силу после тридцати дней, состоит не в том, что ей предшествует святость мирного приношения и что «святость не прекращается сама собой», а в том, что его высказывание вообще не способно придать ей святость после тридцати дней, поскольку высказывание, не способное вступить в силу немедленно, не способно вступить в силу и позднее

And so that we should not say: the fact that the sanctity of the elevation-offering does not take effect after thirty days is not because of the sanctity of the peace-offering that preceded it, and because “sanctity does not expire without anything,” but because his statement is entirely ineffective in imposing sanctity upon it after thirty days, for a statement that is ineffective immediately is likewise ineffective after a time

And

this is what the tanna said

in the second sentence:

if he had not

said

“from now

a peace-offering”

, then

after thirty days

indeed

it would be an elevation-offering

, meaning: it would properly be the case that the sanctity of the elevation-offering would take effect after thirty days, because through saying “after thirty days an elevation-offering,” the sanctity of the elevation-offering should indeed take effect after thirty days—and this is what the tanna said: “after thirty days an elevation-offering”; and the tanna adds to explain: then for what reason does this sanctity of the elevation-offering not take effect? Because he said “and from now a peace-offering,” and the spreading of the sanctity of the peace-offering is what prevents it from taking effect. You have therefore been taught: the sanctity of the body of a peace-offering does not expire without anything.

And why, in truth, is the sanctity of the elevation-offering fit to take effect after thirty days if he had not said “from now a peace-offering,” and do we not say: since his statement did not take effect to consecrate it immediately as an elevation-offering, it will not take effect even after a time

because it is as -

because this law is like the law of -

one who says to a woman: “Be consecrated to me after thirty days,” for she is consecrated, even though

[a term of digestion and destruction]

the money

and it is not present when the betrothal takes effect.

We have learned: even though the betrothal did not take effect today, it takes effect after a time, and here too, even though the consecration did not take effect immediately at its time, it takes effect after a time. The Gemara objects: but

it is obvious

that his statement now is fit to impose the sanctity of an elevation-offering after a time, and just as in betrothal the betrothal takes effect after thirty days, I would know on my own that if the sanctity of the elevation-offering does not in fact take effect, this is only because the sanctity of the peace-offering does not expire, and the tanna did not need to inform us all this!?

And we answer:

it is necessary

for the beraita to inform us that the reason is not that the sanctity of the elevation-offering is entirely unfit to take effect after thirty days, but rather in a case

where he retracted

[he retracted] from consecrating the ox as an elevation-offering after thirty days—for I might have said that since he retracted, even without the sanctity of the peace-offering that preceded it, the sanctity of the elevation-offering is not fit to take effect; for this reason the tanna needed to say that his retraction is ineffective for him, whereas if he had not said “from now a peace-offering,” the sanctity of the elevation-offering would have taken effect, were it not that the sanctity of the peace-offering is what prevents it from taking effect, since it does not expire without anything.

We learned in the Mishna in Kiddushin 58b: “One who says to a woman: ‘Behold, you are consecrated to me after thirty days,’ and another came and consecrated her within thirty days—she is consecrated to the second.”

And in the Gemara there, 59a, it is stated:

If another did not come and consecrate her [within thirty days], and she retracted, what is the law?

Rabbi Yohanan said: She may retract; speech comes and nullifies speech.

Resh Lakish said: She may not retract; speech does not come and nullify speech.

And we ask:

this is satisfactory

to explain that the beraita deals with a case where he retracted, but his retraction is ineffective for him—

according to the one who says

[Resh Lakish]: “One who says to a woman, ‘Be consecrated to me after thirty days,’” she is consecrated and

may not retract

within the period to say, “I do not want to become consecrated,” and therefore here too he cannot retract.

But according to the one who says

[Rabbi Yohanan] that in betrothal

she may retract

in the case of betrothal,

what can be said!?

For necessarily the beraita deals with a case where he did not retract, since if he retracted, the sanctity would indeed not take effect because of his retraction, and there would be no need for the sanctity of the peace-offering to prevent it from taking effect.

If so, we would know on our own that the reason the sanctity does not take effect after thirty days is only that the sanctity of the peace-offering prevents it from taking effect!?

And we answer: it is always when he retracted, and his retraction is not effective for him, because

even according to the one who says -

Rabbi Yohanan -

there

in betrothal after thirty days:

she may retract

within thirty days -

here

with regard to consecration

it is different,

since

his statement to the Most High

is

like his transfer to an ordinary person,

and he can no longer retract.

They were sitting

[they were sitting]

Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Yitzhak bar Rabbi, before

[before]

Rabbi Yirmeya, and Rabbi Yirmeya was dozing.

And

they sat

these amoraim

and said: for Bar Padda

who said

[above, at the beginning of the sugya, in the explanation of our Mishna]: one who says, “These saplings are an offering until they are cut down,” and

redeemed them,

behold, these

become consecrated again.