Nedarim 29b (כט:) — the Talmud in English

One

of the clauses of the beraita deals with

the sanctity of the body, and one

of the clauses of the beraita deals with

the sanctity of

blood.

This is why the tanna needed to teach two cases:

it is understandable that the tanna needed to state two clauses—

For

if he had not stated the other clause,

it might have entered your mind to say:

only

the sanctity of value lapses without cause,

but

the sanctity of the body does not lapse without cause.

And

for this reason

that is why

he taught two

clauses, so that we necessarily understand from the repetition that even the sanctity of the body lapses without cause.

But if you say: Both this and that—

the first clause and the final clause—deal with

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

Perhaps you will say: The first clause is not comparable to the final clause, since in the first clause he initially consecrated the ox as an olah and afterward as a shelamim, whereas in the final clause he initially consecrated it as a shelamim and afterward as an olah. But this is not a reason that the tanna should need to state the final clause as well, since we would know this from the first clause, for:

Now, if it can be said that from a greater sanctity

namely, the sanctity of an olah, which is kodshei kodashim,

to a lesser sanctity

namely, that of a shelamim, which is kodashim kalim,

it lapses

the sanctity—

from a lesser sanctity to a greater sanctity, need it be stated!?

Rather, necessarily, one of the clauses of the beraita deals with the sanctity of value, and the other with the sanctity of the body; and the tanna teaches us that both the sanctity of value and the sanctity of the body lapse without cause.

Shall we say that this will be

this beraita

a refutation of Bar Padda, who said: Sanctity does not lapse without cause,

since it is evident from the beraita that even the sanctity of the body lapses without cause!?

Rav Pappa said: Bar Padda could say to you

the following explanation of the beraita:

The first clause of the beraita—“This ox is an olah for thirty days and after thirty days a shelamim; for thirty days an olah, and after thirty days a shelamim”—deals with the sanctity of value, for example, when he redeemed it after thirty days; the sanctity of the shelamim that he imposed upon it then takes effect after the redemption,

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—

And

this is what

the tanna means in the second sentence:

If he had not

said

“

from now a shelamim,”

then

after thirty days

indeed

it would be an olah; that is, the sanctity of the olah ought to take effect after thirty days, since by saying “an olah after thirty days” the sanctity of the olah should indeed take effect after thirty days—and this is what the tanna said: “After thirty days an olah.” The tanna then adds an explanation: And why does this sanctity of the olah not take effect? Because he said “and from now a shelamim,” and it is the spreading of the sanctity of the shelamim that prevents it from taking effect. He has thereby taught you: The sanctity of the body of the shelamim does not lapse without cause.

Why, in fact, is the sanctity of the olah fit to take effect after thirty days if he had not said “from now a shelamim”? Why do we not say that since his statement did not take effect to consecrate it immediately as an olah, it should not take effect even after a period of time?

The reason is as follows:

For it is as

the law of

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

decay and destruction of

the money

has occurred, and it is no longer present when the betrothal takes effect.

We have therefore learned: Even though the betrothal did not take effect today, it takes effect later; likewise here, even though the consecration did not take effect immediately at that time, it takes effect later. The Gemara objects: But

it is obvious

that his statement now is fit to impose the sanctity of the olah later, just as betrothal takes effect after thirty days. I would know on my own that if the sanctity of the olah does not take effect, it is only because the sanctity of the shelamim does not lapse, and the tanna need not teach us all this!?

And we answer:

The beraita is necessary

to teach us not that the sanctity of the olah 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.

from consecrating the ox as an olah after thirty days. I might have said that since he retracted, even without the preceding sanctity of the shelamim the sanctity of the olah is not fit to take effect. For this reason, the tanna needed to say that his retraction is ineffective; had he not said “from now a shelamim,” the sanctity of the olah would have taken effect, were it not for the fact that the sanctity of the shelamim prevents it from taking effect, since it does not lapse without cause ; A. This has been explained according to the Ran, and as appears from his words, that the primary novelty of the beraita is not that the sanctity of the olah takes effect after thirty days, but that the sanctity of the shelamim does not lapse without cause. However, this requires explanation: Why did the tanna need to formulate the case as one in which he retracted, creating room for the mistaken thought that the reason is that retraction is effective? He should have formulated the case without retraction, and we would understand that the reason must be that the sanctity of the shelamim does not lapse without cause. B. The Ran resolved, based on the Gemara’s answer here, his question cited in the earlier note: Why did the tanna need to teach that consecration after thirty days takes effect, when we already learned all this from the first clause? The Ran answered that the final clause deals with a case in which the consecrator retracted, as the Gemara concludes here; this was not taught by the first clause, which does not deal with retraction. We learned in the Mishna in Kiddushin 58b: “One who says to a woman: ‘Behold, you are betrothed to me after thirty days,’ and another came and betrothed her within the thirty days—she is betrothed to the second.”

And in the Gemara there, 59a, it states:

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

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: She can retract; speech comes and nullifies speech.

Reish Lakish said: She cannot retract; speech does not come and nullify speech.

And we object:

This works out

if we explain that the beraita deals with a case in which he retracted, but his retraction is ineffective—

according to the one who says

she cannot retract

within the period to say, “I do not wish to become betrothed.” Therefore, here too, he cannot retract.

But according to the one who says

she can retract

in the case of betrothal,

what can be said!?

For it necessarily follows that the beraita deals with a case in which he did not retract, since if he had retracted, the sanctity would indeed not take effect because of his retraction, and there would be no need for the sanctity of the shelamim 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 shelamim prevents it from taking effect!?

And we answer: It is in fact a case in which he retracted, but his retraction is ineffective, because

even according to the one who says

Rabbi Yoḥanan—

there

in the case of betrothal after thirty days,

she can retract

within the thirty days—

here

in the case of 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.

Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rabbi were sitting

[they were sitting]

before Rabbi Yirmeya,

[before]

and Rabbi Yirmeya was dozing.

And

these

amoraim

said: According to Bar Padda,

who said

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

redeemed them,

they

become consecrated again.