Nazir 31

ובית הלל אומרים אין הקדש כיצד אמר שור שחור שיצא מביתי ראשון הרי הוא הקדש ויצא לבן בית שמאי אומרים הקדש ובית הלל אומרים אינו הקדש דינר זהב שיעלה בידי ראשון הרי הוא הקדש ועלה של כסף בית שמאי אומרים הקדש ובית הלל אומרים אינו הקדש חבית של יין שתעלה בידי ראשונה הרי היא הקדש ועלתה של שמן בית שמאי אומרים הקדש ובית הלל אומרים אינו הקדש

and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated. How so; what is considered an act of erroneous consecration? If one said: A black bull that will emerge from my house first is consecrated, and a white bull emerged first, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated. Similarly, if one said: A gold dinar that will come up first in my hand is consecrated, and when he reached into his pocket a dinar of silver came up, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated. Likewise, if one said: A barrel of wine that will come up first in my hand when I enter the cellar is consecrated, and a barrel of oil came up in his hand instead, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated.

גמ׳ בית שמאי אומרים הקדש כו׳ מאי טעמייהו דבית שמאי דילפינן תחלת הקדש מסוף הקדש מה תמורה אפילו בטעות אף הקדש אפילו בטעות

GEMARA: The mishna taught that Beit Shammai say that consecration performed in error renders property consecrated, and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated. The Gemara analyzes their dispute: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? They maintain that we derive the halakha of the initial stage of consecration from the final stage of consecration. The final stage of consecration is referring to substitution, when one attempts to substitute a non-consecrated animal for a consecrated one. Just as an act of substitution takes effect even in error, i.e., if one meant to say that his black bull should be a substitute for his consecrated animal and he actually said: This white bull, the white bull is rendered consecrated, so too, the initial stage of consecration takes effect even when done in error.

ובית הלל אומרים הני מילי תמורה אבל אחותי הקדש בטעות לא מחתינן

And Beit Hillel say: This matter, i.e., the halakha that consecration takes effect even when done in error, applies only to substitution, where there is an animal that is already fully consecrated. However, we do not have the initial status of consecration descend upon an item in error.

ולבית שמאי מה אילו אמר הרי זה תחת זה לחצי היום מי הויא תמורה מההיא שעתא אלא עד דמטי חצי היום הוא דהויא תמורה הכי נמי לכי מיגליא מילתא

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, who derive the halakha of the initial stage of consecration from substitution, just as if one said, at the start of the day: This animal is a substitute in exchange for this animal in the middle of the day, would it become a substitute from that time when he issued the statement, in opposition to his explicit statement? It would not. Rather, Beit Shammai certainly concede that the animal does not become a consecrated as a substitute until the middle of the day arrives, at which point it becomes a substitution. So too, in the case of the mishna, the consecration should take effect when the situation is revealed to be in accordance with his statement, i.e., only if a black bull emerges first. Only then should the animal be rendered consecrated, but not if a white bull emerges first. Why do Beit Shammai hold that in the case of the mishna the consecration takes effect in opposition to his explicit statement.

אמר רב פפא לכך נאמר ראשון לכשיצא ראשון

Rav Pappa said: Beit Shammai concede that consecration does not take effect in opposition to one’s explicit statement. Rather, they maintain that it is for this reason that the man states: The black bull that will emerge from my house first, as he means the following: When the first black bull of all the black bulls I possess will emerge from my house, it will be consecrated. When Beit Shammai ruled that the bull is consecrated, they were referring to the first black bull that emerged, even if it was not the first bull that emerged, as a white bull preceded it.

והא שור שחור קאמר מי לא עסקינן דלית ליה אלא האי לא צריכא דאית ליה תרין תלתא ובית הלל אומרים אם כן שיצא בראשון מיבעי ליה

The Gemara asks: But he said: Black bull, and are we not dealing even with a case where he only has this one black bull? If so, the Gemara’s initial interpretation of his statement is correct: The black bull is consecrated only if it is the first to emerge, but not if a white bull precedes it. The Gemara answers: No; it is necessary to state this halakha with regard to a case where he has two or three black bulls. And Beit Hillel say: If so, i.e., if he intended to consecrate the first of his black bulls to emerge from the house, he should have said: The first black bull that will emerge from my house. Since he did not say this, he must have meant that the black bull should be consecrated only if it is the first bull of any kind to emerge.

אמר ליה רבא מברניש לרב אשי האי הקדש בטעות הוא הקדש בכוונה הוא משום דאטעייה לדיבוריה קמא

Rava from Barnish said to Rav Ashi, with regard to the explanation of Rav Pappa: Is this case he mentioned one of erroneous consecration? It is intentional consecration. According to the interpretation of Rav Pappa, there is no error. He intended to consecrate the first black bull that emerged, and that is what was consecrated. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it is called an erroneous consecration because he erred in his first statement. His statement of consecration gave the mistaken impression that he desired to consecrate the first bull that emerges, even if it is white.

וסברי בית שמאי הקדש בטעות לא הוי הקדש והתנן מי שנדר בנזיר ונשאל לחכמים והתירו והיתה לו בהמה מופרשת תצא ותרעה בעדר

In any case, Rav Pappa indicates that even Beit Shammai hold that an erroneous act of consecration does not take effect. The Gemara questions this assumption: And do Beit Shammai hold that an indisputably erroneous act of consecration is not considered an act of consecration? But didn’t we learn in the mishna (31b): With regard to one who took a vow of naziriteship and later made a request to the halakhic authorities to dissolve his vow, and they dissolved his vow, and he had already separated an animal for one of his nazirite offerings beforehand, it shall go out and graze among the flock, like any other non-sacred animal.

אמרו בית הלל לבית שמאי אי אתם מודים שהקדש בטעות הוא ותצא ותרעה בעדר מכלל דסברי בית שמאי הקדש בטעות הוי הקדש

The mishna continues: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Don’t you concede that the reason for this ruling is because it is an erroneous act of consecration, and that a consecration of this kind does not take effect, and that is the reason it shall go out and graze among the flock? The same halakha should apply to all erroneous acts of consecration. One can learn from here by inference that Beit Shammai hold that an entirely erroneous act of consecration is considered consecration, as is evident from Beit Hillel’s question.

אלא בית הלל הוא דקא טעו סברי טעמייהו דבית שמאי משום דהקדש בטעות הוי הקדש ואמרי להון בית שמאי לאו משום הקדש בטעות הוא אלא משום דאטעייה לדיבוריה קמא

The Gemara answers: This is not the case; rather, it is Beit Hillel who erred in their understanding. They thought that Beit Shammai’s reasoning was because an erroneous act of consecration is considered consecration, and therefore they raised a difficulty with regard to the case of a nazirite. And Beit Shammai said to them: Our reasoning in the case of the black bull is not because it is an erroneous act of consecration. Rather, it is merely called an erroneous consecration because he erred in his first statement, as he actually meant to consecrate the first of his black bulls to emerge from his house.

וסברי בית שמאי הקדש בטעות לא הוי הקדש תא שמע היו מהלכין בדרך

The Gemara continues to ask: And do Beit Shammai hold that an indisputably erroneous act of consecration is not considered consecration? Come and hear proof from the mishna (32b) that they maintain that an erroneously consecrated item is considered consecrated: If there were several people walking along the way,

ואחד בא כנגדן ואמר אחד הריני נזיר שזה פלוני ואחד אמר הריני נזיר שאין זה פלוני הריני נזיר שאחד מכם נזיר שאין אחד מכם נזיר ששניכם נזירים שכולכם נזירים בית שמאי אומרים כולם נזירים

and one other person was approaching them, and one of those walking said: I am hereby a nazirite if this person coming toward us is so-and-so. And another one of them said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is not so-and-so, while a third member of the group said: I am hereby a nazirite if one of you two is a nazirite, and a fourth said: I am hereby a nazirite if neither of you is a nazirite, and another added: I am hereby a nazirite if both of you are nazirites. Finally, the last person said: I am hereby a nazirite if all you who spoke before me are nazirites. Beit Shammai say that they are all nazirites, as by saying: I am hereby a nazirite, they have accepted naziriteship upon themselves even if their statement turns out to be incorrect.

והא הכא הקדש בטעות הוא וקתני כולם נזירים אמרי סברי בית שמאי הקדש בטעות הוי הקדש הכא לא

The Gemara analyzes this mishna: But here, it is clearly a case of an erroneous act of consecration, as the statements of some of these individuals must have been incorrect, and yet the mishna teaches that Beit Shammai maintain that they are all nazirites. The Sages say in response: In fact, in general Beit Shammai hold that an erroneous act of consecration is considered consecration, as is evident from this halakha involving nazirites. However, the particular mishna here, concerning black and white bulls, is not based on that halakha. Rather, Rav Pappa’s explanation is the correct one.

אביי אמר לא קא סלקא דעתך דקאים בצפרא אלא הכא במאי עסקינן דקאים בטיהרא ואמר שור שחור שיצא מביתי ראשון ליהוי הקדש ואמרו ליה לבן נפק ואמר להון אי הוה ידענא דלבן נפק לא אמרי שחור

Abaye said a different explanation of the mishna: It should not enter your mind that the mishna is dealing with one who was standing in the morning and referred to a future event, i.e., that an animal will emerge from the house. Rather, with what are we dealing here? With one who is standing at noon, after the bulls had already left the house, and said: The black bull that emerged first from my house first shall be consecrated. And people said to him: A white bull emerged first. And he said to them: Had I known that a white bull emerged, I would not have said black. Therefore, the consecration was erroneous.

ומי מצית אמרת דקאים בטיהרא עסיק והקתני דינר של זהב שיעלה תני שעלה חבית של יין שתעלה תני שעלתה

The Gemara asks: How can you say that the mishna deals with one who is standing at noon and is speaking of a past event? But in a subsequent example the mishna teaches: A gold dinar that will come up in my hand first shall be consecrated, which is clearly referring to a future event. The Gemara answers: You should emend the mishna and teach: A gold dinar that came up, in the past tense. The Gemara continues to ask: Didn’t the mishna state: A barrel of wine that will come up in my hand first shall be consecrated, which is also referring to the future tense. The Gemara similarly answers that one should teach in the mishna: A barrel that already came up.

אמר רב חסדא אוכמא בחיורא לקיא חיורא באוכמא לקיא תנן שחור שיצא מביתי ראשון הקדש קא סלקא דעתין כי מקדיש בעין רעה מקדיש ואמרי בית שמאי הוי הקדש

§ The Gemara quotes a statement related to the case in the mishna with regard to black and white bulls. Rav Ḥisda said: A black bull among white ones is deficient, as white bulls are superior in quality, and a white patch on a black bull is a deficiency. Having stated these assessments, the Gemara returns to discuss the mishna. We learned in the mishna that if one said: The black bull that will emerge from my house first is consecrated, and a white one emerged. It entered our minds to assume that when one consecrates property to the Temple treasury he consecrates sparingly, i.e., he does not give his property that is superior in quality or value, unless he expressly says so. And yet Beit Shammai say that the white bull in this case is consecrated, which indicates that the white one is inferior in quality, which contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda.

ואלא מאי בעין יפה מקדיש דינר של זהב שיעלה בידי ראשון ועלה כסף בית שמאי אומרים הקדש

The Gemara examines this assumption: Rather, what then? Will you say that according to the opinion of Beit Shammai one typically consecrates generously and donates his property that is superior? However, the continuation of the mishna states that if one said: The gold dinar that will come up in my hand first, and a silver one came up, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated. If Beit Shammai hold that one would have in mind to consecrate only the superior property, why would the inferior silver coin be consecrated?

ואלא מאי בעין רעה מקדיש חבית של יין שתעלה בידי ראשון ועלה של שמן בית שמאי אומרים הקדש והא שמן עדיף מיין אי משום הא לא קשיא בגלילא שנו דחמרא עדיף ממשחא

The Gemara counters: Rather, what then? Does a person consecrate sparingly? Yet the subsequent example of the mishna states that if one said: A barrel of wine that will come up in my hand first, and one of oil came up, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated. But oil is preferable to wine, so why is the oil consecrated? The Gemara answers: If the problem is due to that, this is not difficult, as this mishna was taught in the Galilee, where wine is preferable to oil. Olive trees are plentiful in the Galilee, and therefore oil is cheaper than wine. Therefore, the entire mishna can be explained in accordance with the opinion that people consecrate sparingly.

רישא קשיא לרב חסדא אמר לך רב חסדא כי אמרי בתורא דקרמנאי

The Gemara comments: In any case, the first clause of the mishna poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as it indicates that a white bull is less valuable than a black one. The Gemara answers that Rav Ḥisda could have said to you: When I said that a white one is superior, I was referring only to a Karmanian bull, a type of bull in which the white animals are superior in quality to the black ones. In all other cases black bulls considered superior, and the mishna was referring to standard bulls.

ואמר רב חסדא אוכמא למשכיה סומקא לבשריה חיורא לרדיא והאמר רב חסדא אוכמא בחיורא לקיא כי אמרי בתורא דקרמונאי

The Gemara quotes another statement with regard to bulls: And Rav Ḥisda said with regard to bulls: A black bull is good for its hide; a red one is good for its meat; while a white bull is good for plowing. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: A black bull among white ones is deficient, which indicates that a black one is inferior in all regards? The Gemara again answers that Rav Ḥisda could reply: When I said that, I was referring only to a Karmanian bull, but not to other bulls.

מתני׳ מי שנדר בנזיר ונשאל לחכם ואסרו מונה משעה שנדר נשאל לחכם והתירו היתה לו בהמה מופרשת תצא ותרעה בעדר

MISHNA: With regard to one who took a vow of naziriteship, who then regretted his vow and stopped observing the prohibition against drinking wine, and later requested of a halakhic authority to dissolve his vow, and the authority ruled that he is bound by his vow, finding no reason to dissolve it, he counts the term of naziriteship from the time that he vowed, including the days when he acted as though the vow were dissolved. In a case where he requested of a halakhic authority to dissolve his vow and the authority dissolved it, if he had an animal separated as a nazirite offering it shall go out and graze among the flock.

אמרו בית הלל לבית שמאי אי אתם מודים בזה שהוא הקדש טעות שתצא ותרעה בעדר אמר להן בית שמאי אי אתם מודים במי שטעה וקרא לתשיעי עשירי ולעשירי תשיעי ולאחד עשר עשירי שהוא מקודש

On the basis of this halakha, and continuing their discussion in the previous mishna, Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Don’t you concede with regard to this case that it is an erroneous act of consecration, and yet the halakha is that it shall go out and graze among the flock? This shows that you too accept the principle that an erroneous act of consecration does not take effect. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Don’t you concede with regard to one who was separating the animal tithe from his herd, i.e., passing his animals before him single file and consecrating every tenth one as a tithe, that if he erred and called the ninth animal: Tenth; and the tenth: Ninth; and the eleventh: Tenth, that each of them is consecrated? This proves that an erroneous act of consecration does take effect.

אמרו להם בית הלל לא השבט קידשו ומה אילו טעה והניח את השבט על שמיני ועל שנים עשר שמא עשה כלום אלא כתוב שקידש העשירי הוא קידש התשיעי

Beit Hillel said to them: It is not the rod that consecrates it. The touch of the rod does not consecrate the animal, nor does the fact that he said: Tenth, by mistake. Not all errors cause the tithe to be consecrated, and the proof is as follows: And what would be the halakha if he had erred and placed the rod on the eighth or on the twelfth, and labeled them: Tenth? Can it be suggested that perhaps he performed anything of consequence? The halakha is that the eighth or twelfth animal cannot be consecrated as tithe. Rather, why is the ninth or eleventh animal consecrated? There is a specific reason for this halakha, as the same verse that consecrated the tenth also consecrated the ninth