## Nedarim Daf 29a

###### Nedarim 29a:1
[Nedarim 29a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/29a:1)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא: קְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁבָּהֶן לְהֵיכָן הָלְכָה? וּמָה אִילּוּ אָמַר לְאִשָּׁה ״הַיּוֹם אַתְּ אִשְׁתִּי וּלְמָחָר אִי אַתְּ אִשְׁתִּי״, מִי נָפְקָא בְּלָא גֵּט?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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day **without a bill of divorce?** Likewise, in the mishna, once one consecrated the saplings, how is their sanctity withdrawn without redemption?


###### Nedarim 29a:2
[Nedarim 29a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/29a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִי קָא מְדַמֵּית קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים לִקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף? קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים פָּקְעָה בִּכְדֵי, קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף לָא פָּקְעָה בִּכְדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 29a:3
[Nedarim 29a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/29a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף לָא פָּקְעָה בִּכְדִי? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״שׁוֹר זֶה עוֹלָה כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וּלְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם שְׁלָמִים״ — כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם עוֹלָה, לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם שְׁלָמִים. אַמַּאי? קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף נִינְהוּ, וּפָקְעָה בִּכְדִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him:** And does **inherent sanctity not depart with nothing** being done? **But isn’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.


###### Nedarim 29a:4
[Nedarim 29a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/29a:4)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דְּאָמַר לִדְמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 29a:5
[Nedarim 29a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/29a:5)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם עוֹלָה, וּמֵעַכְשָׁיו שְׁלָמִים״. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא חֲדָא בִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, וַחֲדָא בִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,**