Explanation: Ula disagrees with him, and says that after they are uprooted, they do not need Pidyon, for Kedushah vanishes bi'Chdi;

Therefore, according to Ula, he did not say 'until they are uprooted' to teach that even if they are redeemed, they return to their Kedushah until they are uprooted;

Rather, he says that they are Kodesh until that time. From that time and onwards, the Kedushah will vanish.

Implied question: Why didn't Ula argue explicitly on what Bar Pada said, that if he redeemed them, they become Kodesh again?

Answer: He did not need to [argue with it], for Bar Pada himself said so only because he holds that even after they are uprooted, they need Pidyon, like I explained;

Since Ula argues with him about this law, and says that once they were uprooted, we do not [need to] redeem them, automatically he argues with his (Bar Pada's) entire teaching.

According to Ula, when the Mishnah says that they have no Pidyon, this itself comes to teach that one who is Makdish a matter until a known time, from that time and onwards the Kedushah vanishes, and it does not need Pidyon.

Support (R. Moshe Kartavi, for himself): The Yerushalmi makes the argument of Bar Pada and Ula dependent on the argument of Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan;

Citation (Yerushalmi): Chizkiyah says, if he redeemed them, they return to their Kedushah. R. Yochanan says, if he redeemed them, they are redeemed.

Citation (cont.) Question: Our Mishnah is unlike R. Yochanan. It says that they have no Pidyon!

Citation (cont.) Answer: It means that when they are uprooted, they have no Pidyon, i.e. they do not need Pidyon.

Inference: They argue about both of them.

Support: Below, Bar Pada says that, if he redeemed them, they return to their Kedushah. This implies that only Bar Pada says so, but Ula does not agree.

Consequence: Therefore, we cannot derive from here to monetary laws.

Even if you will say that the Halachah follows Bar Pada, since R. Yochanan (30a) teaches according to his opinion, and said "this is only if he redeemed them..."

Even so, he said so only about Hekdesh, because Kedushah does not vanish bi'Chdi. However, monetary laws [are different], since surely monetary acquisition vanishes bi'Chdi.

Source: We say (Bava Basra 137a) that if one said "my property is to you (David), and after you to Ploni, Ploni receives only what David left over. However, he does receive what David left over! David's rights in the property vanish bi'Chdi;

Also here, when he said "my field is acquired to you until I go to Yerushalayim", from when he goes to Yerushalayim, [the recipient's] rights vanish bi'Chdi.

Consequence: If so, why should we say that when he said "until I ascend", he intended that even if he buys them back, the recipient will return to own them?!

Surely, we should not say so, since we can explain his words simply, to say that he intended to be Makneh to him only until he goes to Yerushalayim, but no longer. These are his (R. Moshe Kartavi's) words.

Support: Even the Rashba was hesitant about his law, to say that it is only regarding one who was Makdish, because Hekdesh takes effect through Kedushah of the mouth and mere words;

The same applies to one who said "this land is for Aniyim until I go to Yerushalayim." Saying [for Tzedakah] is like Mesirah (handing it over).

Distinction: It does not apply to a standard Kinyan (not to the poor). How could he acquire?!

Even if he said 'from now', he can transfer ownership only through money, a document or Chazakah;

Money, a document or Chazakah done for this first sale or gift, when he (the seller or giver) buys it back, the acquisition of these [Kinyanim] already lapsed. With what will [the recipient] acquire [again]?!

Explanation: He holds that Kedushah does not vanish bi'Chdi.

Question: Granted, based on what I explained in our Mishnah that we discuss proper Hekdesh, we can ask this;

However, according to my other Perush, that [the Mishnah] discusses Konamos, how could he think that Konamos do not vanish bi'Chdi?

A Mishnah below (57a) says that [if one said "Konam] you will not benefit from me until Pesach if you go to your father's house before Sukos", if she went before Pesach, she may not benefit until Pesach.

Inference: After Pesach, the Isur vanishes automatically. So R. Yonah asked.

Answer (R. Yonah): This is only regarding Konam Perati (which forbids to individuals) like there, which takes effect only on his wife. Therefore, the Isur is weak, and it vanishes bi'Chdi;

However, Konam Kelali, like our Mishnah of these saplings, forbids them to everyone;

Just like it is strong, and is Tafis Pidyono (it transfers its Isur to what is used to redeem it) like Hekdesh, like R. Meir said below (35a), we likewise hold that it is severe, and does not vanish bi'Chdi.

Possibility #1: It is possible that Abaye, who asked this, argues also about one who says to a woman "today you are my wife, and tomorrow you are not my wife", that tomorrow she leaves without a Get.

Possibility #2: Or, perhaps even though Abaye holds that even Kedushas ha'Guf vanishes bi'Chdi, if one says so to a woman, he agrees that tomorrow she may not leave without a Get;

This is because every Kinyan that is not permanent is called Kinyan Peros alone, like is proven from Gitin (48a), regarding one who sells a field at a time that Yovel applies.

Therefore, regarding Hekdesh, since surely Hekdesh Damim that is not permanent can take effect on property, it is proper that also Kedushas ha'Guf can take effect for a limited time only;

Even if that Kedushah were only Kedushas Damim, we find Kedushas Damim regarding Hekdesh. (Keren Orah - indeed, it is only Kedushas Damim. (The Ran means that he tried to make it Kedushas ha'Guf; it gets only Kedushas Damim - PF.))

However, regarding a woman, if she is not his wife forever, he did not acquire Kinyan ha'Guf, and we do not find Kinyan Damim regarding a woman, she cannot be his wife only for a set time.

Every case like this is not Kinyan ha'Guf.

Support #1: The Yerushalmi proves like this. R. Avahu said in the name of R. Yochanan [if one said] "this is an Olah for 30 days", for all 30 days it is an Olah. After 30 days, it becomes Chulin automatically;

Citation (Yerushalmi): [If one said] "you are Mekudeshes [to me] for 30 days", she is Mekudeshes.

Citation (cont.): What is the difference between Hekdesh and a woman? We find that Hekdesh leaves (Kedushah) without Pidyon, but we do not find that a woman leaves without a Get.

Citation (cont.): Where do we find that Hekdesh leaves without Pidyon? We find this according to everyone regarding a bought field.

Inference: Even according to the opinion that Kedushas ha'Guf vanishes bi'Chdi, he agrees about a woman.

Support #2: This is reasonable, for above we asked so simply (i.e. it is so obvious) that if one says to a woman ['today you are my wife, but not tomorrow, she needs a Get!] This implies that no one disagrees. The Rashba said so.

Explanation: E.g. it was a Ba'al Mum;

If it was Tam, even if he said li'Dmei, it gets Kedushas ha'Guf, for we hold that one who is Makdish a Tam animal for Bedek ha'Bayis, it does not leave the Mizbe'ach (we offer it).

Explanation #1: Some say that this answer is for Rava, who holds that Kedushas Damim vanishesbi'Chdi, but this is still difficult for Bar Pada, for he holds that even Kedushas Damim does not vanish bi'Chdi.

Explanation #2: Some say that this answers even for Bar Pada. Since we discuss one who was Makdish for Damim, Bar Pada establishes it when he redeemed it, and therefore after 30 days Kedushas Shelamim takes effect on it.

Question: If so, this is obvious!

Answer: It seems that the Hava Amina was that since at the time he said "after 30 days Shelamim", it was not proper for this to take effect, for Kedushas Olah does not vanish bi'Chdi...

Therefore, we should say that even after he redeemed the Kedushas Olah, Kedushas Shelamim does not take effect;

The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. Kedushas Shelamim is suspended. When it finds place to take effect, it takes effect.

Explanation: The Seifa was taught to reveal about the Reisha, lest we say that only Kedushas Damim vanishes bi'Chdi, but Kedushas ha'Guf does not vanish;

Therefore, it taught two clauses, to teach that even Kedushas ha'Guf vanishes bi'Chdi.

However, you hold that Kedushas ha'Guf does not vanish bi'Chdi, and you establish it to discuss Kedushas Damim. Why are there two clauses?

Rava is refuted. Surely this teaches that even Kedushas ha'Guf vanishes bi'Chdi;

Therefore, Rava should not have answered to Rav Hamnuna "you cannot compare Kedushas ha'Guf to Kedushas Damim", which connotes that he holds that Kedushas ha'Guf of Hekdesh does not vanish, like Kedushas ha'Guf of a woman;

Rather, he should have said that a woman is unlike Hekdesh, because there is no half-marriage, like I wrote above (in DH Amar Lei Abaye);

However, there is Hekdesh for a set time, and even Kedushas ha'Guf vanishes bi'Chdi. Therefore, Rav Hamnuna's challenge is not [difficult], for this Beraisa supports Ula;

Since the Beraisa proves that even Kedushas ha'Guf vanishes, all the more so Kedushas Damim does. Therefore, we suggested that it refutes Bar Pada, who says that Kedushah does not vanish;

I.e. since you are forced to say that the Beraisa discusses even Kedushas ha'Guf, this is difficult for Bar Pada. He cannot establish it to be when he redeemed them, for Kedushas ha'Guf has no Pidyon.

However, if we could have established both [clauses] to discuss Kedushas Damim, this would not be difficult for him. We could establish them to be through Pidyon.

Explanation: He comes to answer the Seifa. The Reisha is like we initially understood. Really, he said 'for its value.' You cannot challenge Bar Pada [who holds that even Kedushas Damim does not vanish bi'Chdi], for he establishes it through Pidyon;

However, we answer that the Seifa means that hs 'after 30 days it is an Olah, and from now it is Shelamim.' After 30 days it is an Olah like his words, if he did not say 'from now it is Shelamim.'

Explanation (cont.): This teaches two matters. Firstly, when he said only "after 30 days it is an Olah", it takes effect. We do not say that since it is not Kadosh now, also later [it is not Kadosh].

This is wrong. Rather, also later it takes effect, just like one who says to a woman...

Explanation (cont.): It teaches also that only when he did not say 'from now it is Shelamim', after 30 days it is an Olah, but when he said 'from now it is Shelamim', after 30 days it is not an Olah. We learn several matters from this;

Inference #1: Kedushas ha'Guf does not vanish bi'Chdi.

Inference #2: Do not say that this is only for severe Kedushah of an Olah. This is wrong. Rather, even light Kedushah of a Shelamim does not vanish.

This is why it discussed when the first Kedushah is Shelamim, and not when it is Olah, similar to the Reisha.

Inference #3: Also, do not say that this is only when he said "this ox is a Shelamim all 30 days", for in such a case Kedushas Shelamim spreads, for nothing inhibits it;

Rather, it is even when he put on it Kedushas Olah afterwards. One might have thought that it takes effect, for such a case is not called vanishing bi'Chdi;

Just the contrary! The latter Kedushah is greater. It goes from light Kedushah to severe Kedushah.

Inference #4: Once Kedushas Shelamim took effect on this animal, it found Kedushas Olah inhibiting it from spreading after 30 days;

One might have thought that in such a case the animal gets Kedushas Shelamim only until 30 days;

The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. Even in such a case, Kedushas Shelamim does not vanish bi'Chdi.

Inference #5: Also, we do not say that this is only when Kedushas Shelamim preceded Kedushas Olah, e.g. he said "for all 30 days it is a Shelamim. After 30 days, it is an Olah";

In such a case, it is proper that Kedushas Shelamim spreads;

Rather, it is even when he first said "after 30 days it is an Olah";

One might have thought that Kedushas Shelamim finds room only for 30 days, and does not take effect more than this;

The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. Since Toch Kedei Dibur he said 'from now it is a Shelamim', Kedushas Shelamim takes effect, and there is no room for Kedushas Olah to take effect at all.

Explanation: We do not say that the text of the Beraisa is mistaken. Rather, it means as follows. One who said "after 30 days it is an Olah; and from now it is Shelamim", it is proper that after 30 days it is an Olah;

However, since he said 'from now it is a Shelamim', this inhibits Kedushas Olah from taking effect, because Kedushas Shelamim does not vanish bi'Chdi;

Suggestion: We say that Kedushas Shelamim spreads, because his words "after 30 days it is an Olah" have no effect...

Because Kedushas Olah does not take effect now, also after 30 days it does not take effect, and [the reason is] not because Kedushas Shelamim does not vanish.

Rejection: This is wrong. Had he not said "from now it is a Shelamim", it would be an Olah after 30 days;

Therefore, surely the reason why we say now that it is not an Olah is because Kedushas Shelamim does not vanish bi'Chdi. So it seems to me. I learned it from Perushim of many Rishonim.

Question: What is the Chidush of the Seifa, that after 30 days it helps? The Reisha teaches this. All 30 days it is an Olah, and afterwards it is a Shelamim!

Answer: From the Reisha, one might have thought that this is only when he did not retract. The Seifa teaches that even if he retracted [during the 30 days], he cannot retract, like we conclude.

Gemara: This is like one who tells a woman...

Explanation: Just like there, even though Kedushah does not take effect now, it takes effect later, also here, even though Kedushah does not take effect now, it takes effect later.

Explanation: It is obvious that it helps, like there. Why did the Tana need to teach this?

Question: What was the question that this is obvious? Just the contrary, this is a big Chidush! Here is different. There, even though the coins were consumed, there is against her a lien of the money;

It says there in Kidushin (59a) "these coins are not like a loan, and not like a deposit. Therefore, she is Mekudeshes;

Strengthening of question: If one was Mekadesh with a document and it became torn before 30 days, she is not Mekudeshes, because when the Kidushin [should] take effect, there is no document;

Also here, he is Makdish with mere speech. When the Hekdesh [should] take effect, there is no speech!

Answer: [The Makshan] relies on the conclusion. We say that saying [to give to] Hash-m (i.e. being Makdish) is like Mesirah (handing over) to a person;

Therefore, it is obvious that saying [to give] to Hash-m is no worse than Kidushei Kesef of a woman. Therefore, he asks that this is obvious!

Gemara: This is fine for the opinion that she may not retract [during the 30 days].

Explanation: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this in Kidushin (59a).

Explanation: Therefore, even according to the opinion that there she can retract, here he cannot retract.

Question: Even if it is like Mesirah, why can't he retract? Hekdesh did not take effect until 30 days;

Granted, we say in Kesuvos (82a) and [Bava] Metzi'a [that if one said] "do Meshichah on this cow, and do not acquire it until 30 days", if [after 30 days] it is in the swamp (Reshus ha'Rabim), he did not acquire. If it is in his Chatzer, he acquired;

Note: In the margin, it says that there is no source in Bava Metzi'a. Hagahos Ben Aryeh says that it alludes to Bava Metzi'a 34a, which gives two explanations of how a Shomer acquires the Kefel. It says that they differ about an animal that was in a swamp just before it was stolen, for it cannot be acquired there.

That is only when he did not retract in between. However, if he retracted in between, surely even if it is in his Chatzer, he can retract, since he did not acquire until 30 days.

Also regarding Hekdesh, which is like Mesirah, since it does not take effect now, why can't he retract?

Answer: When we say that it is like Mesirah to a person, this refers to a real Kinyan of a person. It is as if he said "from now and after 30 days", i.e. he cannot retract.