גְּמָ׳ סַבְרוּהָ מַאי לַחוּלִּין לָא לְחוּלִּין לֶיהֱוֵי אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן GEMARA: They assumed: What is the meaning of the term laḥullin? The individual is saying: It shall not [la] be non-sacred [ḥullin] but rather it should have the status of an offering.
מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין אִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר לֵית לֵיהּ מִכְּלָל לָאו אַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ הֵן דִּתְנַן רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר כׇּל תְּנַאי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כִּתְנַאי בְּנֵי גָד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן אֵינוֹ תְּנַאי The Gemara says: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If you say it is that of Rabbi Meir, he does not hold that from a negative statement you can infer a positive statement. As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Meir says that any condition that is not like the condition of the sons of the tribe of Gad and the sons of the tribe of Reuben, when Moses gave them land on the eastern bank of the Jordan River (see Numbers 32:29–30), is not a valid condition. Moses phrased the agreement as a double condition, stating that if they would join the other tribes in battle they would receive their inheritance on the eastern bank of the Jordan River, and if not, they would not receive that territory. Because Rabbi Meir holds that only a condition expressed in this manner is valid, it is clear that he holds that one may not infer a negative statement from a positive one or vice versa.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא אֵימָא סֵיפָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר הָאוֹמֵר יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא Rather, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara challenges this statement: Say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: One who says that an item shall be considered Jerusalem has not said anything. From the fact that the latter clause is stated by Rabbi Yehuda, it is clear that the first clause is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
כּוּלֵּהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי שֶׁרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר הָאוֹמֵר יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם The Gemara responds: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this is what it is teaching: Although one who declares an item to be like Jerusalem has taken a vow rendering it forbidden, one who says that an item shall be considered Jerusalem has not taken a vow. This is as Rabbi Yehuda says, that one who says that an item shall be considered Jerusalem has not said anything, since this expression has no meaning.
וְכִי אָמַר כִּירוּשָׁלַיִם לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִי מִיתְּסַר וְהָתַנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר הָאוֹמֵר כִּירוּשָׁלַיִם לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיִּדּוֹר בְּדָבָר הַקָּרֵב בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם The Gemara asks: When one says that an item should be like Jerusalem, is it prohibited according to Rabbi Yehuda? Isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One who says that an item shall be considered like Jerusalem has not said anything unless he vows by means of an item that is sacrificed in Jerusalem. Consequently, the first clause of the mishna, which states that one has vowed if he declares an item to be like Jerusalem, cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא וּתְרֵי תַּנָּאֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה The Gemara responds: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and the mishna and baraita express the opinions of two tanna’im in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.