Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Hamnuna questions Ula, who holds 'Kedushah Pak'ah Bichdi'. He asks whether if a man betroths a woman for today but not for tomorrow - the Kidushin will also fall away automatically tomorrow (when in reality, we all know that it will not)?

(b) According to those who interpret 'Korban' in our Mishnah as Konem, Rabeinu Yonah reconciles Rav Hamnuna's Kashya with the Mishnah in ha'Noder min ha'Yerek 'she'At Nehenis Li Ad ha'Pesach Im Teilchi le'Veis Avich Ad ha'Chag ... ' where it is clear that Konamos do fall away automatically - by restricting the latter to a Konem P'rati, but not to a Konem K'lali, which has the Din of Hekdesh (according to Rebbi Meir, as we explained earlier).

(c) Rava answers Rav Hamnuna's Kashya on Ula by differentiating between the case in our Mishnah, which is Kedushas Damim (and which can fall away automatically) - and Kidushei Ishah, which is Kedushas ha'Guf (and cannot).

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that in a case where someone declares an ox to be an Olah for thirty days and then a Shelamim - the animal is indeed an Olah for thirty days, and then it becomes a Shelamim.

(b) Abaye, drawing from this Beraisa - proves that even Kedushas ha'Guf can fall away automatically, querying Rava's previous answer (and certainly Rav Hamnuna).

(c) This does not mean however that if a man betroths a woman for today but not for tomorrow, the Kidushin will fall away automatically tomorrow - because, unlike Hekdesh, which has a branch called Kedushas Damim (which can certainly fall away), there is no Kedushas Damim by Kidushei Ishah, and even Abaye agrees that it cannot fall away.

(d) The Rashba proves this - from Rav Hamnuna's Kashya 'u'Mah Ilu Amar le'Ishah ha'Yom At Ishti ... ', clearly taking it for granted that the Kidushin will not fall away according to anybody.

(a) Rava repudiates Abaye's Kashya - by establishing the Beraisa of Olah and Shelamim, where the Noder said 'li'Demei' (turning it into Kedushas Damim).

(b) The Tana must then be speaking about a Ba'al Mum - because it is forbidden to declare an unblemished animal (that is fit to go on the Mizbei'ach) Kedushas Damim.

(c) Some say that this answer will only conform with Rava, who holds that 'Kedushas Damim Pak'ah Bichdi', but not with bar Pada. Others explain that even bar Pada will explain the Beraisa by Kedushas Damim, and it speaks when he actually redeemed the animal. The Chidush of the Beraisa is - that otherwise, we might have thought that since, at the time he declared the animal a Shelamim in thirty days time, it was not fit to become a Shelamim (seeing as it was already an Olah - whose Kedushah does not fall away automatically), it will not become a Shelamim even after he has redeemed it, either.

(d) The Kedushas Shelamim in fact, takes effect - because, seeing as the Kedushas Olah can be redeemed, the Kedushas Shelamim takes effect, hovering in the air as it were, waiting for the Kedushas Olah to be removed.

(a) The Seifa of the Beraisa, where he reversed the order (placing the Kedushas Shelamim first and Kedushas Olah in thirty days time) - rules that there too, the Kedushas Shelamim takes effect immediately, and the Kedushas Olah after thirty days.

(b) Abaye then asks on Rava from the Seifa - because, according to him, why is the Seifa needed at all? If in the Reisha, where he changed from a more stringent Kedushah (an Olah which is Kodshei Kodshim) to a lesser one (a Shelamim, which is only Kodshim Kalim), the second Kedushah nevertheless takes effect, how much more so in the Seifa, where he changed from a lesser Kedushah to a more stringent one.

(c) According to Abaye - we need the Seifa (which speaks in a case of Kedushas Damim) to teach us that the Reisha speaks by Kedushah ha'Guf.

5)

(a) Rav Papa explains the Seifa 'le'Achar Sheloshim Yom Olah, u'Me'achshav Shelamim', according to bar Pada - as if it was two statements, 'Le'Achar Sheloshim Yom Olah' (if he did not add 'u'Me'achshav Shelamim'); 'u'Me'achshav Shelamim (ve'Lo Olah)'.

(b) The source for ...

1. ... the first Halachah 'Le'Achar Sheloshim Yom Olah' - is the case in Kidushin of a man who betroths a woman now for after thirty days, where the Kidushin is effective, even though the money has all been spent by then.
2. ... the second Halachah 'u'Me'achshav Shelamim (ve'Lo Olah)' is - 'Lo Pak'ah Kedushah Bichdi'.

(c) We answer the Kashya on the first Limud (from Kidushin) 'Peshita' - that even if he wants to retract from the Kedushas Olah before the thirty days are up, he is unable to.

(a) In the case of Kidushin, the woman remains Mekudeshes even though, when the thirty days expire, the money has all been spent, as we explained earlier. Had the man betrothed the woman with a Sh'tar, and the Sh'tar tore before the expiry-date - when would not be betrothed.

(b) We nevertheless ask 'Peshita', despite the fact that the Hekdesh took place through mere words, which are no longer in existence at the end of the thirty-day period (and therefore comparable to Kidushei Sh'tar) - because in this regard we are already aware of the fact that Hekdesh is different because of the principle 'Amiraso li'Gevo'ah ki'Mesiraso le'Hedyot' (a declaration of words has the power of a Kinyan).

(c) We conclude that, even according to those who maintain that in the case of Kidushin, the woman can retract during the thirty-day period, she will not be able to do so in our case (of Hekdesh) - because the principle 'Amiraso li'Gevo'ah ki'Mesiraso le'Hedyot' is effective even in this regard too.

(a) The Tana switches cases in the Seifa, placing Shelamim before Olah - to teach us that 'Lo Pak'ah Kedushah Bichdi' extends even to Kodshim Kalim.

(b) We can also learn from the sequence in the Seifa - that 'Lo Pak'ah Kedushah Bichdi' applies, not only in a straight case of an Olah or a Shelamim that one is Makdish for thirty days, but even if the current Kedushah is a lesser one and there is a more stringent Kedushah waiting to take effect (even though one may have thought that this is not considered 'Bichdi', but an extension of the initial Kedushah).

(c) We might even have gone so far as to say - that the Shelamim should not take effect now, so as to leave room for the Olah to take effect in thirty days time.

(d) And the Tana inverts the case, placing 'le'Achar Sheloshim Olah before 'u'me'Achshav Shelamim' - to teach us that, even then, the Shelamim takes effect immediately, and the principle 'Lo Pak'ah Kedushah Bichdi' applies.

(a) The Noder cannot retract before the thirty day expiry-date, despite the fact that he specified that the Hekdesh is to take place only in thirty days time - because 'Amiraso li'Gevo'ah ki'Mesiraso le'Hedyot' does not just mean that the Hekdesh takes place later, as per specification (as we believed until now), but that it takes place from now as if he said 'Me'achshav'.

(b) This explanation has a practical application with regard to Tzedakah - because now, someone who decicates a Sela to Tzedakah in thirty days time, is not permitted to retract even before the thirty days have expired.

(c) According to the Rashba, the current Sugya goes only according to Bar Pada, but not according to Abaye and Rava - in whose opinion 'Amiraso li'Gevo'ah ki'Mesiraso le'Hedyot' means only from the specified date and not Me'achshav (just as we leearned until now), in which cas, the Noder can retract within the thirty days.

(d) The Rashba even suggests reconciling Rava with the Beraisa, even if the Reisha and the Seifa speak about Kedushas Damim - because, even though the Reisha constitutes a bigger Chidush than the Seifa, the Tana is making use of the (not so popular) principle 'Zu, ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu'.