Nedarim 58

היינו דאיצטריך ליה לתנא למיתנא תרתי דסלקא דעתך אמינא קדושת הגוף לא פקעה בכדי קדושת דמים פקעה בכדי אמטו להכי תנא תרתי

hence the Tanna must teach both [clauses], because I would think that monetary consecration can automatically cease, but not so bodily sanctity; hence both are rightly taught. But if you maintain that the two refer to monetary consecration, why teach them both? If a higher sanctity can automatically give way to a lower sanctity, Surely it is superfluous to state that a lower sanctity can be replaced by a higher one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The burnt-offering has a higher sanctity than a peace-offering. ');">¹</span>

אלא אי אמרת אידי ואידי קדושת דמים למה לי למיתנא תרתי השתא יש לומר מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה פקעה מקדושה קלה לקדושה חמורה צריכא למימר

Shall we say that this is a refutation of Bar Pada, who maintained that sanctity cannot cease automatically? — Said R. Papa, Bar Pada can answer thus: The text is defective,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is Rashi's reading, but is absent from the versions of Asheri, Ran, and Tosaf. ');">²</span>

לימא תיהוי תיובתא דבר פדא דאמר לא פקעה קדושה בכדי

and this is its meaning: If he did not say, 'let this be a peace — offering from now, it remains a burnt-offering after thirty days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text is thus to be reconstructed: If one says, 'Let this ox be a burnt-offering for thirty days, and from now and after thirty days a peace-offering': it is a burnt-offering for the first thirty days, and a peace-offering after that. But if he did not say, 'Let it be a peace-offering from now and after thirty days', but merely, 'let it be a burnt-offering for thirty days; and a peace-offering afterwards'; it remains a burnt-offering after thirty days. In the former case, the sanctity pertaining to the burnt-offering automatically ceases, because that of the peace-offering is potentially concurrent therewith and extends beyond it; but in the latter case, the sanctity cannot automatically cease (Rashi). Ran, Asheri and Tosaf. explain it differently. ');">³</span>

אמר רב פפא אמר לך בר פדא הכי קאמר אם לא אמר מעכשיו שלמים לאחר ל' יום עולה הוי

This may be compared to the case of one who says to a woman, 'Be thou betrothed unto me after thirty days'; she becomes betrothed [then], even though the money [of betrothal] has been consumed [in the meanwhile].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So here too. When the second sanctity is not imposed concurrently with the first, the latter, on the completion of the thirty days, is similar to the money, which though consumed in the meanwhile, is nevertheless effective in betrothing the woman; so also the first sanctity remains though the period has been 'consumed'. ');">⁴</span>

מידי דהוה האומר לאשה התקדשי לי לאחר ל' יום דמקודשת ואף על פי שנתעכלו המעות

But is this not obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is taught that only when the second sanctity runs concurrently with the first does it take effect after thirty days, it is self-evident that if it is not imposed concurrently, the first sanctity remains after the period. ');">⁵</span>

פשיטא לא צריכא דהדר ביה

— This is necessary only [to teach that] where he supplemented his first declaration [it is still ineffective].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if after declaring. 'this ox be a burnt-offering for thirty days and after that let it be a peaceoffering' (in which case, as we have seen, it remains a burnt-offering), he made a supplementary statement, 'let it be a peace-offering from now and after thirty days', it will still remain a burnt-offering after that period, because this statement from now' must be made at the outset. Now, if only the first clause had been taught. viz., that if he imposed the second sanctity concurrently with ');">⁶</span>

הניחא למאן דאמר אינה חוזרת אלא למאן דאמר חוזרת מאי איכא למימר

Now that is well on the view that she [the woman] cannot retract;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the interval and become betrothed to another man. So here too, unless the second sanctity was at the outset imposed concurrently with the first, the force of the latter remains. ');">⁷</span>

אפילו למאן דאמר התם חוזרת הכא שאני דאמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט

but on the view that she can retract, what can be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So here too by analogy, even if the second sanctity was not imposed concurrently with the first, it should cancel the first after the thirty days. ');">⁸</span>

יתיב רבי אבין ורב יצחק ברבי קמיה דרבי ירמיה וקא מנמנם רבי ירמיה יתבי וקאמרי לבר פדא דאמר פדאן חוזרות וקודשות

— Even according to that view, this case is different, because a verbal promise to God is as actual delivery in secular transactions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the declaration, 'this ox be a burnt-offering for thirty days', has more force than a normal promise affecting the interests of man only. but is regarded as though thereby the animal had actually been made into a burnt-offering. and therefore that sanctity, even though imposed for a limited period, remains after it, unless another was imposed concurrently therewith. ');">⁹</span> R. Abin and R. Isaac b. Rabbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read with MS.M 'b. Joseph'.] ');">¹⁰</span> were sitting before R. Jeremiah, who was dozing. Now they sat and stated: According to Bar Pada, who maintained that they revert to their sanctity,