Study Gittin folio 39A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir, who says: A person does not make a statement of consecration for naught. If one declared an item consecrated, even if he did not use the correct formulation, his statement is inter
The Talmud comments: This too stands to reason, as it teaches in the latter clause of the baraita: And so too, a freeman who consecrated himself works and is sustained from his labor, as he consecrated only his monetary value and he did not consecrate his body. Granted, if you say that this baraita
Rather, if you say that it is the opinion of the Rabbis, granted, the first clause of the baraita that deals with one who consecrates his slave is understood, as his slave exists primarily for monetary value. It is logical that when the owner consecrates him he intends to consecrate his monetary va
The Talmud suggests: Let us say that this dispute with regard to one who consecrates his slave is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. A baraita taught: With regard to one who consecrates his slave, if one then makes use of the slave, there is no misuse of property consecrated to the Temple. Ra
The Talmud asks: And how can you understand that to be their dispute? If that were the case, then these expressions of: One misuses property consecrated to the Temple, and: There is no misuse of property consecrated to the Temple, are not the correct expressions. They should have used these express