אין להם פדיון

then they are not subject to the possibility of redemption.

גמ׳ וליתני קדושות ואין קדושות איידי דבעי למיתנא סיפא אין להם פדיון תנא נמי רישא יש להם פדיון

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the language of the mishna: Why does the mishna utilize the wording: They have redemption and they do not have redemption? Let the mishna teach: They are consecrated and they are not consecrated, since the primary novelty is that they are consecrated, but not completely. The Gemara answers: Since it wanted to teach in the latter clause the phrase: They are not subject to the possibility of redemption, which cannot be expressed as: They are not consecrated, as they are consecrated, it taught also the first clause using the language: They are subject to the possibility of redemption.

היכי נדר אמר אמימר באומר אם אינן נקצצות היום ועבר היום ולא נקצצו אם כן למה לי למימר פשיטא לא צריכא כגון דאיכא זיקא נפישא

The Gemara elaborates: How did he take a vow? What was the precise language that he used? Ameimar said: Where he says: These saplings are like an offering if they are not cut down today, and the day passed and they were not cut down. The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need to say that they are consecrated? Isn’t it obvious that his vow takes effect? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where there is a great strong wind and he thought that they would be uprooted by the wind.

והא קתני לה גבי טלית וטלית לשריפה קיימא [אין] כגון דאיכא דליקה הכא נמי דאיכא זיקא נפישא וסלקא דעתך דמסיק אדעתיה דלא מיתנצלן ומשום הכי קא נדר קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: But isn’t this taught together with the case of a garment, indicating that the two are equivalent, and is a garment ready for burning, i. e., is it assumed that it will burn? The Gemara answers: Yes, in a case where there is a fire. The Gemara explains: Here also there is a great strong wind, and it enters your mind that one raised in his mind the possibility that the saplings will not be saved, and due to that reason he took a vow. Since in any event he assumes he will lose the saplings, perhaps he did not really intend to consecrate them. The mishna teaches us that in spite of this it is still considered a vow.

הרי נטיעות האלו קרבן כו׳ ולעולם אמר בר פדא פדאן חוזרות וקודשות פדאן חוזרות וקודשות עד שיקצצו נקצצו פודן פעם אחת ודיו ועולא אמר כיון שנקצצו שוב אין פודן

§ The mishna states that if he said: These saplings are like an offering until they are cut down, they are not subject to the possibility of redemption. The Gemara asks: And are they not subject to redemption forever? Bar Padda said: If he redeemed them, they become consecrated again, as they have not yet been cut down. If he redeemed them again, they become consecrated again, until they are cut down. Once they are cut down, he redeems them once and it is sufficient. And Ulla said: Once they are cut down one does not need to redeem them again because they are no longer consecrated.