Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:5

משנה: הֲרֵי נְטִיעוֹת הָאֵילּוּ קָרְבָּן אִם אֵינָן נִקְצָצוֹת טַלִּית זוֹ קָרְבָּן אִם אֵינָהּ נִשְׂרֶפֶת יֵשׁ לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן. הֲרֵי נְטִיעוֹת הָאֵילּוּ קָרְבָּן עַד שֶׁיִּקָּצֵצוּ טַלִּית זוֹ קָרְבָּן עָד שֶׁתִּישָּׂרֵף אֵין לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן. MISHNAH: These orchard trees shall be qorbān if they are not cut, this garment be qorbān if it is not burned; these have redemption¹¹⁰The circumstances of the vow are explained in the Halakhah. Since neither trees nor garments can be sacrifices, by dedication they become Temple property and can be bought back from the Temple, i.e., redeemed.. These orchard trees shall be qorbān until they are cut, this garment be qorbān until it is burned; these have no redemption¹¹¹All Temple property other than sacrificial animals can be bought back from the Temple administration. But in this case, buying the property back would have no effect; immediately it would be rededicated if the trees were not cut or the garment burned..

הלכה: הֲרֵי נְטִיעוֹת הָאֵילּוּ קָרְבָּן כול׳. רָאָה קְצִיעוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ מְמַשְׁמְשִׁין וּבָאִין. רָאָה דְלֵיקָה מְמַשְׁמֶשֶׁת וּבָאָה וְאָמַר. הֲרִי נְטִיעוֹת הָאֵילּוּ קָרְבָּן אִם אֵינָן מְקֻצָּצוֹת. טַלִּית זוֹ קָרְבָּן אִם אֵינָהּ נִשְׂרֶפֶת וְנִקְרָעָה. לְמַפְרֵיעָן קָֽדְשׁוּ אוֹ מִיכָּן וְלָבֹא. מַה נְפִיק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. נֶהֱנֶה מֵהֶן. אִין תֵּימַר. לְמַפְרֵיעָן קָֽדְשׁוּ. מָעַל. אִין תֵּימַר. מִיכָּן וְלָבֹא. לֹא מָעַל. HALAKHAH: “These orchard trees shall be qorbān,” etc. If he saw the king’s cutting crew coming near¹¹²They will cut trees for public works without paying for them. The owner promises money to Heaven if he will be protected., if he saw fire coming near, and he said: These orchard trees shall be qorbān if they are not cut, this garment shall be qorbān if it is not burned or torn. Were they sanctified retroactively or only for the future¹¹³If it turns out that his property was saved, what is the exact moment when his vow becomes active. If one says from the moment he made the vow, that point in time is well defined. If one says, from the moment it is clear that his property will be spared, that moment is difficult to pin down. The question is not answered.? What is the difference? If he used them. If you say that they are sanctified retroactively, he committed larceny. If you say for the future, he did not commit larceny.

חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. פְּדָייָן חָֽזְרוּ לִקְדוּשָׁתָן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. פְּדָייָן פְּדוּיִין. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן. פָּתַר לָהּ. לִכְשֶׁיִּקָּצֵצוּ אֵין לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַה דְאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה בְּשֶׁפְּדָייָן הוּא. אֲבָל אִם פְּדָייָן אַחֵר פָּֽקְעָה מֵהֶן קְדוּשָׁתָן. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. פְּדָייָן פָּֽקְעָה מֵהֶן קְדוּשָׁתָן. וָכָא הוּא אָמַר. נִישֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר לֹא פָֽקְעוּ מִמֶּנָּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין. לֹא צוֹרְכָה דְלֹא בְּשֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ שְׁתֵּי פְרוּטוֹת אַחַת מִכְּבָר וְאַחַת לִכְשֶׁיְּגָֽרְשֶׁנָּה מָהוּ. ¹¹⁴This paragraph is copied from Kiddushin 3:5:2-7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.3.5.2-7">Qiddušin 3:5 (64a, 1. 72). Therefore “there” means here and “here” the text in Qiddušin.Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity¹¹⁵This refers to the second part of the Mishnah, where the orchard was vowed for the time before it was cut. The opinion of Ḥizqiah is that described in Nedarim 3:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.3.5.1">Note 111. In the Nedarim.28b">Babli, 28b, the opinion is ascribed to bar Pada, a contemporary of Ḥizqiah.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed¹¹⁶In the Nedarim.28b">Babli, 28b, this is the opinion of Ulla (R. Hila).. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they have been cut they do not need redemption¹¹⁷In general, we say that anything sanctified cannot become profane without some form of redemption. But in this case, the cutting of the trees or the burning of the garment is the act of profanation.. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them¹¹⁸Because he himself stated that his orchard be holy until cut down. In the Babli, 130a, this is the opinion of R. Joḥanan.. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them¹¹⁹For a third party the orchard is Temple property and becomes profane by payment of the redemption price.. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here¹²⁰In Kiddushin 3:5:2-7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.3.5.2-7">Qiddušin 3:5, where the question was raised, what is the status of a woman whose husband gives her some valuables and says that these should serve as qiddušin (preliminary marriage, cf. Yevamot 1:1:15" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.15">Yebamot 1:1, Note 63) after he will have divorced her. It is obvious that if another man gives qiddušin to a married woman to be valid once she will be divorced, those qiddušin are invalid (Kiddushin 3:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.3.5.1">Mishnah Qiddušin3:5) since the divorce depends on a third party (the husband). R. Yose holds that the husband himself can give qiddušin for after a divorce since no third party is involved. Therefore, there is no contradiction in R. Yose’s position here and there., he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot, one for the moment and one for after he has divorced her, what is the situation¹²¹In the Nedarim.30a">Babli, 30a, this is a question of R. Hoshaia.?