Study Nedarim folio 29B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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. Becau
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
The Talmud 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?
Rav Pappa said: Bar Padda could have said to you: This is what the baraita is saying: If one says: This ox, after 30 days, is a burnt-offering, then if he does not say: From now it is a peace-offering, then after 30 days it is a burnt-offering. But when he adds: From now it is a peace-offering, t
This is just as it is in the case of a man who says to a woman: Be betrothed to me after 30 days with this money that I give you, that she is betrothed after 30 days. And this is so, although the money was squandered away in the meantime and does not exist at the end of 30 days, when the betrothal t