תרי תנאי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יהודה.
The Talmud answers: The baraita and the Mishnah in tractate Nedarim are two tanna’im and they disagree with regard to the opinion of R' Yehuda concerning whether or not he holds that Jerusalem itself was sanctified.
Study Kiddushin folio 54B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
תרי תנאי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יהודה.
The Talmud answers: The baraita and the Mishnah in tractate Nedarim are two tanna’im and they disagree with regard to the opinion of R' Yehuda concerning whether or not he holds that Jerusalem itself was sanctified.
אמר עולא משמיה דבר פדא, אומר היה רבי מאיר: הקדש במזיד – מתחלל, בשוגג – אין מתחלל. ולא אמרו בשוגג מתחלל אלא לענין קרבן בלבד. וכי מאחר דאין מתחלל, קרבן במאי מחייב?!
Ulla said a different opinion in the name of bar Padda: R' Meir would say: Consecrated property is desacralized if misused intentionally; it is not desacralized if misused unwittingly. And they said that consecrated property that is misused unwittingly is desacralized only with regard to an offering, i.e., the one who misused it is liable to bring a guilt-offering for his action, but the property remains consecrated. The Talmud asks: But since it is not desacralized when misused unwittingly, for what reason is he rendered liable to bring an offering, as the action had no effect?
אלא כי אתא רבין פריש משמיה דבר פדא, אומר היה רבי מאיר: הקדש במזיד – מתחלל, בשוגג – אין מתחלל. ולא אמרו בשוגג מתחלל אלא לענין אכילה בלבד.
Rather, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he explained it this way in the name of bar Padda: R' Meir would say: Consecrated property is desacralized if misused intentionally; it is not desacralized if misused unwittingly. And they said that consecrated property that is misused unwittingly is desacralized only with regard to eating. If one ate consecrated food, thereby consuming it completely, he is liable to bring an offering. If he merely misused consecrated money it retains its sanctity and is not desacralized, and he is not liable to bring an offering.
אמר רב נחמן אמר רב אדא בר אהבה: הלכה כרבי מאיר במעשר הואיל וסתם לן תנא כותיה, והלכה כרבי יהודה בהקדש הואיל וסתם לן תנא כותיה.
§ Rav Naḥman says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir with regard to second tithe in that it is considered consecrated, as the tanna taught us an unattributed Mishnah in accordance with his opinion. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda with regard to consecrated property, as the tanna taught us an unattributed Mishnah in accordance with his opinion.
Text data via Sefaria: William Davidson Edition - English and William Davidson Edition - Vocalized Aramaic, CC-BY-NC; edition provenance: Koren. Display terminology has been modernized for readability.