The Elliot B. Sit edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, presents today's daf, dedicated by Mr. Uri Nidam, may Hashem protect and sustain him, in honor of all the members of the minyan, all the members of the Daf Yomi, and in honor of the Rabbi, may he merit good deeds. May he continue to succeed, with success and blessing in all his endeavors, Amen. Today's daf is Nedarim, page 29. It is also sponsored for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther, may the spirit of Hashem rest upon him in the Garden of Eden, Amen. Additionally, today's daf is sponsored for a complete healing for Yosef ben Sarah, Shlomo ben Miriam, Shaul Chai Gavriel ben Sarah, and a newborn son of Dina. May it be Your will, E-l, to heal them, and may healing of the soul and healing of the body come swiftly, and may it be so, Amen.
We continue with the Gemara, starting from five lines from the bottom. The Gemara states, "These saplings are a korban." We learned in the Mishna that these saplings will be sanctified until they are cut. The ruling in the Mishna is that they are not redeemable. What does this mean? Here we have a fascinating machloket in the Gemara. The Gemara questions, "Are these saplings a korban forever?" If the Mishna states they are not redeemable, does that mean I can never redeem them? Why not? The language of the Mishna indicates that the saplings should be kodesh until they are cut. After I cut them, they should not have the same level of sanctity, and at some point, they should be redeemable. The timing of this is subject to debate in the Gemara, yet the Mishna definitively states that they cannot be redeemed.
The Gemara immediately responds to this question. "Forever?" The Ran comments, expressing disbelief: "How is it possible that they won't ever have redemption?" The Gemara continues with the words of Bar Padda, who states that the moment one attempts to redeem them, their sanctity returns until they are cut. If they are cut, one final redemption is sufficient, and it is over. This is the ruling of the Mishna: they cannot be redeemed before they are cut. However, once they are cut, one final redemption is sufficient to conclude the matter.
What is the reasoning behind this? The Ran explains that when Bar Padda states that redemption returns and sanctifies, he means that when the Mishna says they cannot be redeemed, it refers only to the time before they are cut. It does not imply that they will never be redeemable. In fact, they certainly have sanctity during this time, which is why the Gemara says that redemption returns and sanctifies. The point is that they do not have redemption to remove their sanctity entirely. Redemption will merely cause the sanctity to return. This is because, as stated, the saplings are considered a korban from now until they are cut. Therefore, it is as if the Mishna is saying that regardless of what one does, even if one redeems them, the sanctity will return until they are cut. After cutting, the sanctity is established, and a final redemption resolves the matter.
The Gemara presents a different opinion from Ulla, who states that once they are cut, they no longer require redemption. According to him, once they are cut, the sanctity is lifted automatically. The question now arises: Is Ulla arguing with Bar Padda regarding the time before they are cut? Does he agree with Bar Padda that before they are cut, if one redeems them, they return to sanctity? Or does he argue that even before cutting, redemption does not return them to sanctity? The Ran addresses this question, noting that Ulla holds that once they are cut, redemption is unnecessary. He believes that the sanctity only lasts until the moment of cutting, and thereafter it is lifted automatically.
The Rashba writes that Ulla does not disagree with Bar Padda regarding the time before they are cut, as everyone agrees that they cannot be redeemed before cutting. Bar Padda maintains that redemption returns the sanctity until they are cut. The only machloket arises after they are cut. According to Bar Padda, a process of redemption is necessary, while according to Ulla, it is not.
The Ran elaborates further, discussing the implications of their differing opinions. The essence of the debate centers on the nature of sanctity and redemption. Ulla asserts that the sanctity dissipates automatically upon cutting, while Bar Padda maintains that a redemption process is required to remove the sanctity. The Gemara continues to explore these positions, examining the underlying principles that guide their interpretations.
As the discussion unfolds, the Gemara presents another case regarding a person who consecrates an animal as a korban for a specified time. This scenario serves to illustrate the complexities of sanctity and redemption. The Gemara questions whether the sanctity of the animal can be lifted after the designated time without a formal redemption process. The analysis reveals that the sanctity associated with a korban is inherently linked to the intentions and declarations made by the individual consecrating it.
The final conclusion drawn from this analysis is that the nature of sanctity in these cases is not absolute; rather, it is contingent upon specific actions and declarations. The interplay between sanctity and redemption is nuanced, reflecting the broader principles of halacha that govern these matters. Ultimately, the Gemara affirms that while sanctity can be lifted, it often requires a deliberate process, highlighting the importance of intention and action in the realm of korbanot and other sacred matters.
Baruch Hashem, may we continue to learn and grow in our understanding of these profound teachings, and may they guide our actions and intentions in our daily lives, Amen.