## Nedarim Daf 29b

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

הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא לְמִיתְנֵא תַּרְתֵּי. דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף לָא פָּקְעָה בִּכְדִי, קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים פָּקְעָה בִּכְדִי, אַמְּטוּ לְהָכִי תְּנָא תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵא תַּרְתֵּי? הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר: מִקְּדוּשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה לִקְדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה פָּקְעָה, מִקְּדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה לִקְדוּשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?**


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

לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּבַר פְּדָא, דְּאָמַר: לָא פָּקְעָה קְדוּשָּׁה בִּכְדִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אָמַר לָךְ בַּר פְּדָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם לֹא אָמַר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו שְׁלָמִים״ — לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם עוֹלָה הָוֵי.

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


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

מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה: ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, דִּמְקוּדֶּשֶׁת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְעַכְּלוּ הַמָּעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 29b:6
[Nedarim 29b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/29b:6)

פְּשִׁיטָא? לָא צְרִיכָא דַּהֲדַר בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 29b:7
[Nedarim 29b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/29b:7)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חוֹזֶרֶת, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Nedarim 29b:8
[Nedarim 29b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/29b:8)

אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָתָם חוֹזֶרֶת, הָכָא שָׁאנֵי — דַּאֲמִירָתוֹ לְגָבוֹהַּ כִּמְסִירָתוֹ לְהֶדְיוֹט.

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


###### Nedarim 29b:9
[Nedarim 29b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/29b:9)

יְתֵיב רַבִּי אָבִין וְרַב יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְקָא מְנַמְנֵם רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, יָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: לְבַר פְּדָא דְּאָמַר פְּדָאָן חוֹזְרוֹת וְקוֹדְשׁוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rabbi Avin and Rav Yitzḥak, 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,**