Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 23, 2022 | ื›ืดื˜ ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 29

Today’s daf is sponsored by Debbie Aschheim Weiss (NYC) and Racheli Weiss (Givat Shmuel) in loving memory of Sarah Yehudit Sharf A”H on her first yahrzeit. “She left the world too early. Her abounding love and commitment to Judaism and Israel left a lasting mark on many.”
The Mishna brought a case where one sanctified a sapling until it is cut. Once it is cut, it cannot be redeemed. Ulla and Bar Pada disagree about the meaning of this law. According to Bar Pada, once they are cut, one can redeem them and use them. According to Ulla, there is no need to redeem them. How could Ulla hold that the sanctity leaves them without any redeeming. Rav Hamnuna, in questioning Ulla, compares it to a married woman who needs a get to remove the sanctity of the marriage. Rava answers by distinguishing the cases as marriage is a case of inherent sanctity (k’dushat haguf) and the sapling is only sanctified for its value (k’dushat damim). Abaye questions Rava’s answer by bringing a braita to prove that even items with inherent sanctity can be removed when there is a time factor stipulated at the beginning. The Gemara answers Abaye’s difficulty but then rejects it. The braita Abaye quoted is now used to question Bar Pada’s position. Rav Papa responds on behalf of Bar Pada using a different understanding of the case in the braita. Again, they make a comparison to laws of marriage to explain this position in the braita according to the new understanding.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืœื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืžื” ืื™ืœื• ืืžืจ ืœืืฉื” ื”ื™ื•ื ืืช ืืฉืชื™ ื•ืœืžื—ืจ ืื™ ืืช ืืฉืชื™ ืžื™ ื ืคืงื ื‘ืœื ื’ื˜

Rav Hamnuna said to Ulla: Where did their sanctity go? How can the consecrated saplings become non-sacred without being redeemed? And what would happen if one said to a woman while performing betrothal: Today you are my wife and tomorrow you are not my wife? Would she exit the marriage the next day without a bill of divorce? Likewise, in the mishna, once one consecrated the saplings, how is their sanctity withdrawn without redemption?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืžื™ ืงื ืžื“ืžื™ืช ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื ืœืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื ืคืงืขื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืœื ืคืงืขื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™

Rava said to him: How do you compare sanctity inherent in its value to inherent sanctity? Sanctity inherent in its value departs with nothing being done, since it is conditional. When the condition is fulfilled and the saplings are cut, the sanctity is removed. However, inherent sanctity, which relates to an entity that itself is consecrated, e.g., a betrothed woman, does not depart with nothing being done. An action must be performed in order to remove it.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืœื ืคืงืขื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืฉื•ืจ ื–ื” ืขื•ืœื” ื›ืœ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืฉืœืžื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืขื•ืœื” ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืฉืœืžื™ื ืืžืื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืคืงืขื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™

Abaye said to him: And does inherent sanctity not depart with nothing being done? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that if one said: This ox is a burnt-offering for all of thirty days and after thirty days it is a peace-offering, for all of thirty days it is a burnt-offering and after thirty days it is a peace-offering. One can ask: Why is this so? These offerings are examples of inherent sanctity, and it departs with nothing being done. After thirty days, it is transformed into a peace-offering without any action being taken.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื“ืžื™

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where one did not consecrate the animal as a burnt-offering or peace-offering but rather he said that he was consecrating it for its monetary value, with which to purchase a burnt-offering or peace-offering. Therefore, there was no inherent sanctity.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืขื•ืœื” ื•ืžืขื›ืฉื™ื• ืฉืœืžื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื—ื“ื ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื•ื—ื“ื ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause: If he said that after thirty days it should be a burnt-offering, and from now until thirty days it should be a peace-offering, his words are binding. Granted, if you say that one clause is referring to inherent sanctity and one clause is referring to sanctity inherent in its value,

ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืœืชื ื ืœืžื™ืชื ื ืชืจืชื™ ื“ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืœื ืคืงืขื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื ืคืงืขื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืืžื˜ื• ืœื”ื›ื™ ืชื ื ืชืจืชื™

then this is the reason that it was necessary for the tanna to teach two clauses: In order to emphasize that this halakha applies in both cases, as it might enter your mind to say: Inherent sanctity does not lapse on its own, but sanctity inherent in its value departs with nothing being done. Because of this, the tanna taught two clauses, to demonstrate that there is no difference between them: Both depart with nothing being done.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื ืชืจืชื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืœืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืงืœื” ืคืงืขื” ืžืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืงืœื” ืœืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

But if you say that this clause and that clause refer to sanctity inherent in its value, why do I need to teach two clauses? Now, it can be said that if from the stringent sanctity of the burnt-offering to the less stringent sanctity of a peace-offering, the stringent sanctity departs and the animal becomes like a peace-offering, then from the less stringent sanctity of the peace-offering to the more stringent sanctity of the burnt-offering, need this be said?

ืœื™ืžื ืชื™ื”ื•ื™ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ื‘ืจ ืคื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืคืงืขื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™

The Gemara proposes: Let us say that this baraita should be a conclusive refutation of bar Padda, who said: Sanctity does not depart with nothing being done and the trees require redemption, while the baraita demonstrates that even inherent sanctity lapses on its own?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืœืš ื‘ืจ ืคื“ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื ืœื ืืžืจ ืžืขื›ืฉื™ื• ืฉืœืžื™ื ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืขื•ืœื” ื”ื•ื™

Rav Pappa said: Bar Padda could have said to you: This is what the baraita is saying: If one says: This ox, after thirty days, is a burnt-offering, then if he does not say: From now it is a peace-offering, then after thirty days it is a burnt-offering. But when he adds: From now it is a peace-offering, the sanctity of a peace-offering takes effect upon it and does not depart with nothing being done.

ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉื” ื”ืชืงื“ืฉื™ ืœื™ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื“ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ืชืขื›ืœื• ื”ืžืขื•ืช

This is just as it is in the case of a man who says to a woman: Be betrothed to me after thirty days with this money that I give you, that she is betrothed after thirty days. And this is so, although the money was squandered away in the meantime and does not exist at the end of thirty days, when the betrothal takes effect. Here as well, the sanctity of a burnt-offering takes effect after thirty days.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: If this is what happened, then it is obvious that it is so. Why, then, does this halakha need to be taught? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where he retracted within these thirty days and did not want the animal to be consecrated at all. Although the sanctity did not actually take effect yet, he may not retract.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื” ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that a woman who is betrothed on the condition that the betrothal takes effect after thirty days may not retract even if she changed her mind within these thirty days, and the betrothal still takes effect after thirty days. But according to the one who says that she may retract, what can be said? Why should the halakha of consecration be any different than for betrothal?

ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืชื ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ื”ื›ื ืฉืื ื™ ื“ืืžื™ืจืชื• ืœื’ื‘ื•ื” ื›ืžืกื™ืจืชื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜

The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who says that there, in the case of betrothal, the woman may retract within thirty days, here, in the case of the burnt-offering, it is different because the legal status of oneโ€™s declaration to God is equal to that of his transfer to a common person [hedyot], where the acquisition is consummated at the time of transfer. Since God is not associated with a particular location, a verbal statement is sufficient to establish sanctity immediately. But in the case of the betrothal of a woman, it can be argued that the betrothal takes effect only at the end of thirty days.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื•ืงื ืžื ืžื ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื•ืงืืžืจื™ ืœื‘ืจ ืคื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ืคื“ืืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจื•ืช ื•ืงื•ื“ืฉื•ืช

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Avin and Rav Yitzแธฅak, son of Rabbi, sat before Rabbi Yirmeya, and Rabbi Yirmeya was dozing [menamnem]. While he was dozing, they sat and said: According to bar Padda, who said that if he redeems them they become consecrated again,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 29-35 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue discussing the power of the spoken word. When someone makes a vow against benefiting from...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 29: Is There a Grace Period for a Vow?

More on the consecrated trees... If they're consecrated until they're felled. What does that time stipulation do to the neder?...

Nedarim 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 29

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืœื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืžื” ืื™ืœื• ืืžืจ ืœืืฉื” ื”ื™ื•ื ืืช ืืฉืชื™ ื•ืœืžื—ืจ ืื™ ืืช ืืฉืชื™ ืžื™ ื ืคืงื ื‘ืœื ื’ื˜

Rav Hamnuna said to Ulla: Where did their sanctity go? How can the consecrated saplings become non-sacred without being redeemed? And what would happen if one said to a woman while performing betrothal: Today you are my wife and tomorrow you are not my wife? Would she exit the marriage the next day without a bill of divorce? Likewise, in the mishna, once one consecrated the saplings, how is their sanctity withdrawn without redemption?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืžื™ ืงื ืžื“ืžื™ืช ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื ืœืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื ืคืงืขื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืœื ืคืงืขื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™

Rava said to him: How do you compare sanctity inherent in its value to inherent sanctity? Sanctity inherent in its value departs with nothing being done, since it is conditional. When the condition is fulfilled and the saplings are cut, the sanctity is removed. However, inherent sanctity, which relates to an entity that itself is consecrated, e.g., a betrothed woman, does not depart with nothing being done. An action must be performed in order to remove it.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืœื ืคืงืขื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืฉื•ืจ ื–ื” ืขื•ืœื” ื›ืœ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื•ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืฉืœืžื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืขื•ืœื” ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืฉืœืžื™ื ืืžืื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืคืงืขื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™

Abaye said to him: And does inherent sanctity not depart with nothing being done? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that if one said: This ox is a burnt-offering for all of thirty days and after thirty days it is a peace-offering, for all of thirty days it is a burnt-offering and after thirty days it is a peace-offering. One can ask: Why is this so? These offerings are examples of inherent sanctity, and it departs with nothing being done. After thirty days, it is transformed into a peace-offering without any action being taken.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื“ืžื™

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where one did not consecrate the animal as a burnt-offering or peace-offering but rather he said that he was consecrating it for its monetary value, with which to purchase a burnt-offering or peace-offering. Therefore, there was no inherent sanctity.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืขื•ืœื” ื•ืžืขื›ืฉื™ื• ืฉืœืžื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื—ื“ื ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื•ื—ื“ื ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause: If he said that after thirty days it should be a burnt-offering, and from now until thirty days it should be a peace-offering, his words are binding. Granted, if you say that one clause is referring to inherent sanctity and one clause is referring to sanctity inherent in its value,

ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืœืชื ื ืœืžื™ืชื ื ืชืจืชื™ ื“ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืœื ืคืงืขื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื ืคืงืขื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืืžื˜ื• ืœื”ื›ื™ ืชื ื ืชืจืชื™

then this is the reason that it was necessary for the tanna to teach two clauses: In order to emphasize that this halakha applies in both cases, as it might enter your mind to say: Inherent sanctity does not lapse on its own, but sanctity inherent in its value departs with nothing being done. Because of this, the tanna taught two clauses, to demonstrate that there is no difference between them: Both depart with nothing being done.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื ืชืจืชื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืœืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืงืœื” ืคืงืขื” ืžืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืงืœื” ืœืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

But if you say that this clause and that clause refer to sanctity inherent in its value, why do I need to teach two clauses? Now, it can be said that if from the stringent sanctity of the burnt-offering to the less stringent sanctity of a peace-offering, the stringent sanctity departs and the animal becomes like a peace-offering, then from the less stringent sanctity of the peace-offering to the more stringent sanctity of the burnt-offering, need this be said?

ืœื™ืžื ืชื™ื”ื•ื™ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ื‘ืจ ืคื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืคืงืขื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™

The Gemara proposes: Let us say that this baraita should be a conclusive refutation of bar Padda, who said: Sanctity does not depart with nothing being done and the trees require redemption, while the baraita demonstrates that even inherent sanctity lapses on its own?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืœืš ื‘ืจ ืคื“ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื ืœื ืืžืจ ืžืขื›ืฉื™ื• ืฉืœืžื™ื ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ืขื•ืœื” ื”ื•ื™

Rav Pappa said: Bar Padda could have said to you: This is what the baraita is saying: If one says: This ox, after thirty days, is a burnt-offering, then if he does not say: From now it is a peace-offering, then after thirty days it is a burnt-offering. But when he adds: From now it is a peace-offering, the sanctity of a peace-offering takes effect upon it and does not depart with nothing being done.

ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉื” ื”ืชืงื“ืฉื™ ืœื™ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื™ื•ื ื“ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ืชืขื›ืœื• ื”ืžืขื•ืช

This is just as it is in the case of a man who says to a woman: Be betrothed to me after thirty days with this money that I give you, that she is betrothed after thirty days. And this is so, although the money was squandered away in the meantime and does not exist at the end of thirty days, when the betrothal takes effect. Here as well, the sanctity of a burnt-offering takes effect after thirty days.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: If this is what happened, then it is obvious that it is so. Why, then, does this halakha need to be taught? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where he retracted within these thirty days and did not want the animal to be consecrated at all. Although the sanctity did not actually take effect yet, he may not retract.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื” ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that a woman who is betrothed on the condition that the betrothal takes effect after thirty days may not retract even if she changed her mind within these thirty days, and the betrothal still takes effect after thirty days. But according to the one who says that she may retract, what can be said? Why should the halakha of consecration be any different than for betrothal?

ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืชื ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ื”ื›ื ืฉืื ื™ ื“ืืžื™ืจืชื• ืœื’ื‘ื•ื” ื›ืžืกื™ืจืชื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜

The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who says that there, in the case of betrothal, the woman may retract within thirty days, here, in the case of the burnt-offering, it is different because the legal status of oneโ€™s declaration to God is equal to that of his transfer to a common person [hedyot], where the acquisition is consummated at the time of transfer. Since God is not associated with a particular location, a verbal statement is sufficient to establish sanctity immediately. But in the case of the betrothal of a woman, it can be argued that the betrothal takes effect only at the end of thirty days.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื•ืงื ืžื ืžื ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื•ืงืืžืจื™ ืœื‘ืจ ืคื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ืคื“ืืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจื•ืช ื•ืงื•ื“ืฉื•ืช

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Avin and Rav Yitzแธฅak, son of Rabbi, sat before Rabbi Yirmeya, and Rabbi Yirmeya was dozing [menamnem]. While he was dozing, they sat and said: According to bar Padda, who said that if he redeems them they become consecrated again,

Scroll To Top