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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 22, 2015 | ื”ืณ ื‘ืชืžื•ื– ืชืฉืขืดื”

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 Likewise, in the mishna, once one consecrated the saplings, how is their sanctity withdrawn without redemption?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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

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