DOES KEDUSHAH VANISH? [Kedushah :vanishing]
(Ula): (Starting in Nisan, Korbanos Tzibur must be bought from the Shekalim collected for the coming year.) When Nisan comes, remaining lambs bought for the Tamid (daily offering) are redeemed Tam (without a blemish).
Question (Rav Chisda): Did the Kedushah vanish? (Why can they be redeemed Tam?!)
Counter-question (Rabah - Mishnah): If Ketores (incense) was not used before Nisan, we redeem it on money owed to workers. We give the Ketores to the workers, and buy it back using the new Shekalim.
Answer (Rav Chisda): Ketores has only Kedushas Damim (monetary Kedushah), therefore its Kedushah vanishes.
Nedarim 28a (Mishnah): If one said 'these saplings are Hekdesh until they are uprooted' or 'this Talis is Hekdesh until it is burned', they cannot be redeemed.
Question: Are they always Hekdesh?
Answer #1 (Bar Pada): No matter how many times they are redeemed before they are uprooted, they become Hekdesh again. Once they are uprooted, if they are redeemed, they become Chulin.
Answer #2 (Ula): Once they are cut, one need not redeem them.
Question (Rav Hamnuna): To where did the Kedushah go? If a man told a woman 'today you are my wife, but tomorrow you are not', does she cease to be his wife without a Get?!
Answer (Rava): Kedushas Damim can vanish, unlike Kedushas ha'Guf (intrinsic Kedushah), which cannot vanish.
Objection (Abaye): Also Kedushas ha'Guf can vanish!
(Beraisa): If one said 'this ox is an Olah for 30 days. After 30 days, it is a Shelamim', for 30 days it is an Olah; after that, a Shelamim.
Answer (Rava): The case is, he said that the value of the ox should be for an Olah.
Question (Seifa): (If he said) 'after 30 days, this ox is an Olah. From now, it is a Shelamim' (his words are fulfilled)?
Granted, if one clause discusses Kedushas Damim and one discusses Kedushas ha'Guf, the Tana needed to teach that both of them vanish. However, if both discuss Kedushas Damim, why are both needed?
If a severe Kedushah (an Olah) can vanish, to be replaced by a light Kedushah (a Shelamim), all the more so, a light Kedushah can vanish, to be replaced by a severe Kedushah!
Suggestion: This refutes Bar Pada, who says that even Kedushas Damim cannot vanish.
Rejection (Rav Papa): No. He can explain the Beraisa to say that had he not said 'It is a Shelamim from now', it would be an Olah after 30 days. This is like one who tells a woman 'you will be Mekudeshes to me after 30 days.' The Kidushin takes effect, even if the money is consumed in the meantime.
Kesuvos 59a - Contradiction: Shmuel rules that if a wife vowed 'what my hands produce is Konam (Asur like a Korban) to your mouth', he should annul it, lest he divorce her and be unable to remarry her. He also rules that Hekdesh does not take effect on something not yet in the world!
Answer (Rav Ashi): Konamos are different. They are like Hekdesh ha'Guf' ha'Guf, like Rava taught:
(Rava): The following uproot a lien: (the collateral was made) Hekdesh, the Isur of Chametz, and freedom (the collateral was a slave).
Erchin 23b (Mishnah): If Reuven owed a Kesuvah or debt and was Makdish his property, his creditor may not take it from Hekdesh. Rather, the redeemer redeems it (and adds a Dinar), to pay the debt.
It says "the redeemer redeems" due to R. Avahu's reason, lest people say that Hekdesh becomes Chulin without redemption.
Yevamos 66b: A woman brought a silk cloak into the marriage. It was written in the Kesuvah. When he died, the orphans spread it on the corpse.
Rava: It gets the status of shrouds (it is buried with the Mes).
Even though Rava said that the Halachah follows Rav Yehudah (she has the right to reclaim it), until then, it belongs to her husband;
(Rava): Freedom, Chametz and Hekdesh uproot liens.
Rambam (Hilchos Erchin 14:7): If one owed (a Kesuvah or) debts with documents, and he was Makdish his property, his creditor may not take it from Hekdesh, for Hekdesh uproots the lien. Rather, when Hekdesh sells the property and it becomes Chulin, the creditor collects, for his lien remains.
Rebuttal (Ra'avad): Hekdesh did not uproot the lien. The redemption is a token amount, for R. Avahu's reason, lest people say that Hekdesh becomes Chulin without redemption. Only Kedushas ha'Guf, e.g. Konamos or things put on a Mes (to be shrouds) uproot liens.
Magid Mishneh (Hilchos Malveh 18:7): The Rambam holds that all Hekdesh, even Kedushas Damim, uproots liens. The Ra'avad and all the Meforshim disagree. Really, Kedushas Damim does not uproot liens.
Ran (DH Kesuvos 24a DH v'Ika): Rashi explains 'Konamos are different. They are like Hekdesh ha'Guf' to mean that just like one cannot redeem a Korban, one cannot redeem Konamos to permit them. Therefore, it is like Kedushas ha'Guf to uproot liens. The Gemara says that Chametz uproots liens. The same applies to all Isurei Hana'ah, e.g. putting a garment on a Mes to be shrouds.
Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 15:7): If one said 'the value of this cow is an Olah for 30 days, and afterwards it is for an Olah', or vice-versa, his words are fulfilled. If he offers its value within 30 days, he brings like he vowed, and if he offers its value after 30 days, he brings like he vowed.
Rebuttal (Ra'avad): If he sold it within 30 days, it already received Kedushas Olah. If he offers it after 30 days, how is Kedushas Olah uprooted?! Rather, surely, we redeem the cow onto an animal or coins for the needs of an Olah, and afterwards we offer a Shelamim. It seems that we redeem for any amount. If you will say that Kedushas Damim vanished, I answer that Bar Pada disagrees. We are stringent about a Safek Isur. Bar Pada explains the Beraisa to say that he said 'this cow is a Shelamim for 30 days', or 'after 30 days, it is a Shelamim.' (In the latter case) he did not mention any Kedushah now at all. His words are fulfilled even if he retracted within 30 days. Rav Papa, who is Basra, explains the Beraisa this way according to Bar Pada. Also, we hold that if one was Makdish a male for its value (to buy an Olah), it itself is offered for an Olah. This shows that even when one says 'for its value', it gets Kedushas ha'Guf.
Kesef Mishneh: The Mefaresh ('Rashi') in Nedarim explains that Ula was refuted. The Halachah follows Bar Pada, like Rav Papa explained. The Ran (in Nedarim) explains that Rava is refuted. If Kedushas ha'Guf cannot vanish, the Beraisa must discuss only Kedushas Damim, and there is no need for two clauses. Rav Hamnuna asked that if Kedushah can vanish, one can say 'today you are my wife, tomorrow you are not.' Rava's answer, that Kidushin is like Kedushas ha'Guf, which does not vanish, is wrong. Rather, a wife is unlike Kedushas ha'Guf, for Kidushin cannot be half-way, but something can be Hekdesh for a fixed time. It seems that the Rambam holds that Rava did not answer, and the Gemara did not say that he is refuted, for he saw no need to answer (why two cases are needed). Perhaps the entire Beraisa is one clause! Whether he said 'this ox is an Olah for 30 days. After 30 days, it is a Shelamim', or 'after 30 days, this ox is an Olah. From now, it is a Shelamim', his words are fulfilled. Alternatively, saying 'this ox is an Olah for 30 days. After 30 days, it is a Shelamim', is like saying 'after 30 days, this ox is an Olah. From now, it is a Shelamim.' Since the latter Kedushah is greater, the first Kedushah vanishes. A support for the Rambam is that everyone (Ula, Rav Hamnuna, Bar Pada and Rava) argues with Abaye, who says that even Kedushas ha'Guf can vanish. Only Bar Pada says that Kedushas Damim cannot vanish. Rav Papa explained how Bar Pada learns the Beraisa, but it seems that he himself disagrees. The Ra'avad rules like Bar Pada. He says, if you will say that Kedushas Damim vanishes (like Rava, who is Basra), I answer that Rav Papa, who is also Basra, explains the Beraisa like Bar Pada, and he himself agrees. Therefore, it is a Safek Isur, so we must be stringent to say that Kedushah cannot vanish. Therefore, we redeem the cow onto an animal or coins for the needs of an Olah, and afterwards we offer a Shelamim. The Ra'avad leans to say that the redemption is for any amount, like Shmuel (Bava Metzia 57a). He was not certain, for perhaps Shmuel discusses only Bedek ha'Bayis. Also, perhaps Shmuel said so only b'Di'eved. The Ra'avad holds that we are lenient here, for if we require the full value, perhaps one will not fulfill his vow.
Nimukei Yosef (Yevamos 22b Sof Dibur Rishon): The Ri says that Chachamim strengthened a creditor's lien, lest the debtor vow to forbid his property to him. They did not do so regarding shrouds, for it is not common, and for the honor of the Mes.
Shulchan Aruch (CM 117:7): Isur Hana'ah uproots a lien, just like Kedushas ha'Guf does. If a silk garment was put on a Mes with intent that it be buried with him, a creditor cannot collect from it.
SMA (22): The Shulchan Aruch omitted the law that Hekdesh uproots liens, for nowadays there is no Kedushas ha'Guf.