then this is the reason that it was necessary for the tanna to teach two clauses: In order to emphasize that this halakha applies in both cases, as it might enter your mind to say: Inherent sanctity does not lapse on its own, but sanctity inherent in its value departs with nothing being done. Because of this, the tanna taught two clauses, to demonstrate that there is no difference between them: Both depart with nothing being done.

But if you say that this clause and that clause refer to sanctity inherent in its value, why do I need to teach two clauses? Now, it can be said that if from the stringent sanctity of the burnt-offering to the less stringent sanctity of a peace-offering, the stringent sanctity departs and the animal becomes like a peace-offering, then from the less stringent sanctity of the peace-offering to the more stringent sanctity of the burnt-offering, need this be said?

The Gemara proposes: Let us say that this baraita should be a conclusive refutation of bar Padda, who said: Sanctity does not depart with nothing being done and the trees require redemption, while the baraita demonstrates that even inherent sanctity lapses on its own?

Rav Pappa said: Bar Padda could have said to you: This is what the baraita is saying: If one says: This ox, after thirty days, is a burnt-offering, then if he does not say: From now it is a peace-offering, then after thirty days it is a burnt-offering. But when he adds: From now it is a peace-offering, the sanctity of a peace-offering takes effect upon it and does not depart with nothing being done.

This is just as it is in the case of a man who says to a woman: Be betrothed to me after thirty days with this money that I give you, that she is betrothed after thirty days. And this is so, although the money was squandered away in the meantime and does not exist at the end of thirty days, when the betrothal takes effect. Here as well, the sanctity of a burnt-offering takes effect after thirty days.

The Gemara asks: If this is what happened, then it is obvious that it is so. Why, then, does this halakha need to be taught? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where he retracted within these thirty days and did not want the animal to be consecrated at all. Although the sanctity did not actually take effect yet, he may not retract.

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that a woman who is betrothed on the condition that the betrothal takes effect after thirty days may not retract even if she changed her mind within these thirty days, and the betrothal still takes effect after thirty days. But according to the one who says that she may retract, what can be said? Why should the halakha of consecration be any different than for betrothal?

The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who says that there, in the case of betrothal, the woman may retract within thirty days, here, in the case of the burnt-offering, it is different because the legal status of one’s declaration to God is equal to that of his transfer to a common person [hedyot], where the acquisition is consummated at the time of transfer. Since God is not associated with a particular location, a verbal statement is sufficient to establish sanctity immediately. But in the case of the betrothal of a woman, it can be argued that the betrothal takes effect only at the end of thirty days.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Avin and Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi, sat before Rabbi Yirmeya, and Rabbi Yirmeya was dozing [menamnem]. While he was dozing, they sat and said: According to bar Padda, who said that if he redeems them they become consecrated again,