(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nedarim, 29


QUESTIONS: The Mishnah (28a-28b) states that when one declares that his "saplings will be Hekdesh until they are cut down," the saplings become Hekdesh and cannot be redeemed with Pidyon, which means that if one redeems them before they are cut down, they revert to Hekdesh. In the Gemara, Bar Pada and Ula argue with regard to the status of the saplings after they are cut down. According to Bar Pada, they remain Hekdesh until they are redeemed (Pidyon). According to Ula, their Kedushah leaves by itself as soon as they are cut down.

The Gemara asks that according to Ula, it should be possible for a man to be Mekadesh a woman for one day by saying, "I am Mekadesh you for today, but not for tomorrow." How, though, can this be? We know that there is no such thing as Kidushin becoming absolved by itself; Kidushin needs a Get to become absolved! Rava answers that Kidushin is Kedushas ha'Guf, while the case in the Mishnah that Ula is discussing is Kedushas Damim. Kedushas ha'Guf, like Kidushin, does not leave by itself.

The Gemara rejects Rava's answer, but it never gives any other answer in its place. The Rishonim discuss in what way the Gemara answers the question on Ula. Some Rishonim say that according to Ula, indeed a person *could* make Kidushin that lasts for only one day and goes away by itself without a Get.

The RAN, though, suggests another answer. The Ran explains that indeed a person could make a Kedushas ha'Guf for a limited period of time that goes away by itself. However, when a person makes a temporary Kedushas ha'Guf, such a Kedushah (or Kinyan) that is made temporarily is called only a "Kinyan Peros" (in that it affects only the "produce" (Peros) of the item, and not the essence of the item itself). The Ran explains then in the case of Kidushin, we do not find that a person can effect a "Kinyan Peros" with a woman, and therefore Kidushei Ishah for a limited period of time does not exist and cannot take effect. In contrast, there *is* such a thing as being Makdish an item as Hekdesh with Kedushas Damim. Hence, one may also be Makdish an item with Kedushas ha'Guf for a limited period of time.

The Ran's words are difficult to understand for a number of reasons.

First, while it is true that a person could be Makdish an object with Kedushas Damim, a person *cannot* be Makdish an animal that is fit to be a Korban itself (i.e. it is not a Ba'al Mum) with Kedushas Damim, like the Gemara says in Temurah (11b) and like the Ran himself cites. The Gemara in Temurah says that if an animal itself is fit to be a Korban, it cannot become Kadosh with Kedushas Damim, but it must be brought itself as a Korban. Since the Beraisa, according to the Gemara's conclusion of Ula's opinion, is referring to an animal that has no blemish that the person is being Makdish and thus it cannot be made Kadosh with Kedushas Damim, why can he make it Kadosh for a limited period of time? (KEREN ORAH; see also CHAZON ISH 71:30.)

Second, in the case of the Beraisa, the person who was Makdish the animal did not mention Kedushas Damim at all. He said that he wants the animal to be an Olah. Hence, even if an animal fit to be a Korban *could* become Kadosh with Kedushas Damim, here the person did not say that he wants it to be Kedushas Damim! How, then, can his statement create Kedushas Damim? (AYALES HA'SHACHAR)

Third, the animal which the Beraisa discusses becomes an Olah (or Shelamim) right now and after thirty days its status changes. By saying that the animal is an Olah for the first thirty days, the Beraisa is implying that it is possible to offer it upon the Mizbe'ach during that time. According to the Ran, though, who says that a temporary Kedushah is only Kedushas Damim, how can one offer the animal as a full-fledged Korban if it is only Kadosh with Kedushas Damim?

(a) One way to explain the Ran is that when the Gemara in Temurah says that the animal automatically becomes Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf when one is Makdish it to be a Kedushas Damim when the animal is actually fit to be brought as a Korban itself, the Gemara does not mean that it is as if the person declared the animal to be Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf, since the person, after all, only said that it should be Kadosh with Kedushas Damim. The Gemara means that when a person is Makdish it with Kedushas Damim, the animal first becomes Kadosh with Kedushas Damim, and then the Kedushah automatically spreads and expands to fill whatever space it can fill. That is, the Kedushas Damim spreads out to become Kedushas ha'Guf since the animal is fit to be a Korban itself. Therefore, when a person is Makdish an animal as an Olah for only thirty days, he is really giving it only Kedushas Damim, a temporary Kedushah. However, that temporary Kedushah of Kedushas Damim automatically expands to become a Kedushas ha'Guf.

This new Kedushas ha'Guf does not have the normal laws of Kedushas ha'Guf, since it stems from a Kedushas Damim. The Kedushas Damim must exit in order to maintain the Kedushas ha'Guf. The moment that the Kedushas Damim is removed, the Kedushas ha'Guf falls away as well. *This* type of Kedushas ha'Guf -- which falls off automatically because the Kedushas Damim pulls it off -- *can* be temporary without it being merely Kedushas Damim. The only time that a temporary Kedushah must be a Kedushas Damim is when the Kedushah was originally made to last for only a limited amount of time. This temporary Kedushah that spreads out automatically to become Kedushas ha'Guf is not a Kedushas ha'Guf that was made for a specific, limited time; it is a Kedushas Damim that spreads out automatically in order to become a Kedushas ha'Guf that will remain forever. What removes that Kedushah is the removal of the Kedushas Damim. In this sense, the Kedushah is similar to the Kidushin of a woman whom a man married not for a specific, limited period of time, but forever, and then that Kidushin was removed with a Get. Even though the Kidushin was made with no time limit and thus it should remain forever, since something external (the Get) is removing it afterwards it can still be a Kedushas ha'Guf even though it only lasts a certain amount of time. The same applies to this Korban. This Korban is Kadosh with Kedushas Damim and then it automatically becomes Kadosh with a permanent Kedushas ha'Guf, but when the Kedushas Damim is removed, the Kedushas ha'Guf is removed along with it.

(b) However, from the Ran's words (in DH Iy Amrit Besheleima), it seems like the Ran understands that the Beraisa is saying that the Kedushas ha'Guf itself falls away automatically after thirty days, and not that the Kedushas Damim falls away and pulls with it the Kedushas ha'Guf. The Ran seems to be learning that the animal was actually made Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf from the beginning, but that it is only a temporary Kedushas ha'Guf. Why, then, should there be any Kedushas ha'Guf altogether? If the Kedushah is temporary, it must be a Kedushas Damim, since an item cannot be made Kadosh with a temporary Kedushas ha'Guf!

Therefore, it seems that there is another approach which we can suggest in order to understand the words of the Ran.

A close examination of the statement of the Ran shows that the Ran does not write that a temporary Kedushas ha'Guf *is* Kedushas Damim, but rather that it is "*called*" Kedushas Damim. The Ran might mean that there are three different types of Kedushah or Kinyan: Kedushas ha'Guf, Kedushas Damim, and Kedushas ha'Guf l'Zman (temporary Kedushas ha'Guf), which is a type of Kedushah in between Kedushas Damim and Kedushas ha'Guf. The Ran is pointing out that Kedushas ha'Guf l'Zman is not just a shorter Kedushas ha'Guf, but rather that it is a qualitatively weaker Kedushas ha'Guf. At the same time, though, it is still a stronger Kedushah than a Kedushas Damim.

The Ran proves from the Gemara in Gitin (46a) that this Kedushas ha'Guf l'Zman is "called" Kedushas Damim, meaning that it is not a full-fledged Kedushas ha'Guf. The Gemara in Gitin says that when a person buys a field during the time that the laws of Yovel are practiced, the purchase lasts only until the Yovel year, and therefore the purchase is compared to a "Kinyan Peros." The Gemara says that according to the view that Bikurim is not brought from a field that someone owns with a "Kinyan Peros," the purchaser of the field in the times of Yovel does not bring Bikurim from his field. The reason for this might be because the obligation of Bikurim is only for someone who has a full Kinyan ha'Guf on a field. If the Kinyan is anything less than that, whether it is a Kinyan Peros (comparable to Kedushas Damim) or Kinyan ha'Guf l'Zman (comparable to Kedushas ha'Guf l'Zman), we do not find that he is obligated to bring Bikurim. The same applies to Kidushin of a woman. The Torah describes Kidushin as the Kinyan ha'Guf of a woman; anything less than that -- wehether it is Kedushas Damim or Kedushas ha'Guf l'Zman -- will not suffice to make Kidushin.

In the case of being Makdish an animal as a Korban, though, the Ran is suggesting that although a person cannot be Makdish an unblemished animal as Kedushas Damim, he *could* be Makdish it as Kedushas ha'Guf l'Zman. The reason for this is because Hekdesh is not limited to something that is Kadosh with an absolute Kedushas ha'Guf. The concept of Hekdesh applies elsewhere -- in the case of other animals that cannot be brought as Korbanos themselves -- even to make Kedushas Damim. The only reason that this animal cannot be made into Kedushas Damim is because it is able to be brought on the Mizbe'ach, and therefore one cannot make it Kadosh with a lesser Kedushah than the Kedushah for which it is it to have. If it is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf l'Zman, though, then since it is a Kedushas ha'Guf, it enables the animal to be brought on the Mizbe'ach. Even though it is not as strong of a Kedushah as a normal, permanent Kedushas ha'Guf, it is the same Kedushah as Kedushas ha'Guf with regard to what will be done with it. The Ran is suggesting that, therefore, an unblemished animal is not limited to becoming Kadosh with a permanent Kedushas ha'Guf, but rather one may make it a Kedushas ha'Guf l'Zman as well. The only thing one may not do is to make the animal Kadosh with Kedushas Damim, since doing so will deprive the Mizbe'ach of that animal.

This answers all of the questions. The Ran is not suggesting that the person is making the animal a Kedushas Damim, but rather a Kedushas ha'Guf, but it is a weaker type of Kedushas ha'Guf than that which would last forever.


Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,