Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 22, 2015 | 讟壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Nazir 31

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 砖讜专 砖讞讜专 砖讬爪讗 诪讘讬转讬 专讗砖讜谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讛拽讚砖 讜讬爪讗 诇讘谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讛拽讚砖 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 砖讬注诇讛 讘讬讚讬 专讗砖讜谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讛拽讚砖 讜注诇讛 砖诇 讻住祝 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讛拽讚砖 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 砖转注诇讛 讘讬讚讬 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讛拽讚砖 讜注诇转讛 砖诇 砖诪谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讛拽讚砖

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.

讙诪壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讬诇驻讬谞谉 转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 诪住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 转诪讜专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟注讜转 讗祝 讛拽讚砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟注讜转

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.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 转诪讜专讛 讗讘诇 讗讞讜转讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 诇讗 诪讞转讬谞谉

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.

讜诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 转讞转 讝讛 诇讞爪讬 讛讬讜诐 诪讬 讛讜讬讗 转诪讜专讛 诪讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讗诇讗 注讚 讚诪讟讬 讞爪讬 讛讬讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讻讬 诪讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 专讗砖讜谉 诇讻砖讬爪讗 专讗砖讜谉

Rav Pappa said: Beit Shammai concede that consecration does not take effect in opposition to one鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 砖讜专 砖讞讜专 拽讗诪专 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专讬谉 转诇转讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诐 讻谉 砖讬爪讗 讘专讗砖讜谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讘专谞讬砖 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讛拽讚砖 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讟注讬讬讛 诇讚讬讘讜专讬讛 拽诪讗

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.

讜住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讛转谞谉 诪讬 砖谞讚专 讘谞讝讬专 讜谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘讛诪讛 诪讜驻专砖转 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讜转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 诪讻诇诇 讚住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖

The mishna continues: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Don鈥檛 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鈥檚 question.

讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讟注讜 住讘专讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛讜谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讟注讬讬讛 诇讚讬讘讜专讬讛 拽诪讗

The Gemara answers: This is not the case; rather, it is Beit Hillel who erred in their understanding. They thought that Beit Shammai鈥檚 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.

讜住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖 转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱

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,

讜讗讞讚 讘讗 讻谞讙讚谉 讜讗诪专 讗讞讚 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讝讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗讞讚 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讝讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讞讚 诪讻诐 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 谞讝讬专 砖砖谞讬讻诐 谞讝讬专讬诐 砖讻讜诇讻诐 谞讝讬专讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讜诇诐 谞讝讬专讬诐

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.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讻讜诇诐 谞讝讬专讬诐 讗诪专讬 住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖 讛讻讗 诇讗

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鈥檚 explanation is the correct one.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽讗讬诐 讘爪驻专讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗讬诐 讘讟讬讛专讗 讜讗诪专 砖讜专 砖讞讜专 砖讬爪讗 诪讘讬转讬 专讗砖讜谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讘谉 谞驻拽 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 讗讬 讛讜讛 讬讚注谞讗 讚诇讘谉 谞驻拽 诇讗 讗诪专讬 砖讞讜专

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.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚拽讗讬诐 讘讟讬讛专讗 注住讬拽 讜讛拽转谞讬 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 砖讬注诇讛 转谞讬 砖注诇讛 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 砖转注诇讛 转谞讬 砖注诇转讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讜讻诪讗 讘讞讬讜专讗 诇拽讬讗 讞讬讜专讗 讘讗讜讻诪讗 诇拽讬讗 转谞谉 砖讞讜专 砖讬爪讗 诪讘讬转讬 专讗砖讜谉 讛拽讚砖 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 讻讬 诪拽讚讬砖 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讜讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖

搂 The Gemara quotes a statement related to the case in the mishna with regard to black and white bulls. Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 砖讬注诇讛 讘讬讚讬 专讗砖讜谉 讜注诇讛 讻住祝 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖

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?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 砖转注诇讛 讘讬讚讬 专讗砖讜谉 讜注诇讛 砖诇 砖诪谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讜讛讗 砖诪谉 注讚讬祝 诪讬讬谉 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讙诇讬诇讗 砖谞讜 讚讞诪专讗 注讚讬祝 诪诪砖讞讗

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.

专讬砖讗 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讘转讜专讗 讚拽专诪谞讗讬

The Gemara comments: In any case, the first clause of the mishna poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, as it indicates that a white bull is less valuable than a black one. The Gemara answers that Rav 岣sda 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讜讻诪讗 诇诪砖讻讬讛 住讜诪拽讗 诇讘砖专讬讛 讞讬讜专讗 诇专讚讬讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讜讻诪讗 讘讞讬讜专讗 诇拽讬讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讘转讜专讗 讚拽专诪讜谞讗讬

The Gemara quotes another statement with regard to bulls: And Rav 岣sda 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鈥檛 Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda could reply: When I said that, I was referring only to a Karmanian bull, but not to other bulls.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞讚专 讘谞讝讬专 讜谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讗住专讜 诪讜谞讛 诪砖注讛 砖谞讚专 谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讛转讬专讜 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘讛诪讛 诪讜驻专砖转 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专

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.

讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 讛拽讚砖 讟注讜转 砖转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讘诪讬 砖讟注讛 讜拽专讗 诇转砖讬注讬 注砖讬专讬 讜诇注砖讬专讬 转砖讬注讬 讜诇讗讞讚 注砖专 注砖讬专讬 砖讛讜讗 诪拽讜讚砖

On the basis of this halakha, and continuing their discussion in the previous mishna, Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Don鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 讛砖讘讟 拽讬讚砖讜 讜诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讟注讛 讜讛谞讬讞 讗转 讛砖讘讟 注诇 砖诪讬谞讬 讜注诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 砖诪讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘 砖拽讬讚砖 讛注砖讬专讬 讛讜讗 拽讬讚砖 讛转砖讬注讬

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

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 31

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 31

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 砖讜专 砖讞讜专 砖讬爪讗 诪讘讬转讬 专讗砖讜谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讛拽讚砖 讜讬爪讗 诇讘谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讛拽讚砖 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 砖讬注诇讛 讘讬讚讬 专讗砖讜谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讛拽讚砖 讜注诇讛 砖诇 讻住祝 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讛拽讚砖 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 砖转注诇讛 讘讬讚讬 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讛拽讚砖 讜注诇转讛 砖诇 砖诪谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讛拽讚砖

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.

讙诪壮 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讬诇驻讬谞谉 转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 诪住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 转诪讜专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟注讜转 讗祝 讛拽讚砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟注讜转

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.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 转诪讜专讛 讗讘诇 讗讞讜转讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 诇讗 诪讞转讬谞谉

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.

讜诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 转讞转 讝讛 诇讞爪讬 讛讬讜诐 诪讬 讛讜讬讗 转诪讜专讛 诪讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讗诇讗 注讚 讚诪讟讬 讞爪讬 讛讬讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讻讬 诪讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 专讗砖讜谉 诇讻砖讬爪讗 专讗砖讜谉

Rav Pappa said: Beit Shammai concede that consecration does not take effect in opposition to one鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 砖讜专 砖讞讜专 拽讗诪专 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专讬谉 转诇转讗 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诐 讻谉 砖讬爪讗 讘专讗砖讜谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讘专谞讬砖 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讛拽讚砖 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讟注讬讬讛 诇讚讬讘讜专讬讛 拽诪讗

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.

讜住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讛转谞谉 诪讬 砖谞讚专 讘谞讝讬专 讜谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘讛诪讛 诪讜驻专砖转 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讜转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 诪讻诇诇 讚住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖

The mishna continues: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Don鈥檛 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鈥檚 question.

讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讟注讜 住讘专讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛讜谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讟注讬讬讛 诇讚讬讘讜专讬讛 拽诪讗

The Gemara answers: This is not the case; rather, it is Beit Hillel who erred in their understanding. They thought that Beit Shammai鈥檚 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.

讜住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖 转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱

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,

讜讗讞讚 讘讗 讻谞讙讚谉 讜讗诪专 讗讞讚 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讝讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗讞讚 讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讝讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 砖讗讞讚 诪讻诐 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讻诐 谞讝讬专 砖砖谞讬讻诐 谞讝讬专讬诐 砖讻讜诇讻诐 谞讝讬专讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讜诇诐 谞讝讬专讬诐

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.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讻讜诇诐 谞讝讬专讬诐 讗诪专讬 住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛拽讚砖 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖 讛讻讗 诇讗

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鈥檚 explanation is the correct one.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽讗讬诐 讘爪驻专讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗讬诐 讘讟讬讛专讗 讜讗诪专 砖讜专 砖讞讜专 砖讬爪讗 诪讘讬转讬 专讗砖讜谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讘谉 谞驻拽 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 讗讬 讛讜讛 讬讚注谞讗 讚诇讘谉 谞驻拽 诇讗 讗诪专讬 砖讞讜专

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.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚拽讗讬诐 讘讟讬讛专讗 注住讬拽 讜讛拽转谞讬 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 砖讬注诇讛 转谞讬 砖注诇讛 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 砖转注诇讛 转谞讬 砖注诇转讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讜讻诪讗 讘讞讬讜专讗 诇拽讬讗 讞讬讜专讗 讘讗讜讻诪讗 诇拽讬讗 转谞谉 砖讞讜专 砖讬爪讗 诪讘讬转讬 专讗砖讜谉 讛拽讚砖 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 讻讬 诪拽讚讬砖 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讜讗诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛拽讚砖

搂 The Gemara quotes a statement related to the case in the mishna with regard to black and white bulls. Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讚讬谞专 砖诇 讝讛讘 砖讬注诇讛 讘讬讚讬 专讗砖讜谉 讜注诇讛 讻住祝 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖

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?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 砖转注诇讛 讘讬讚讬 专讗砖讜谉 讜注诇讛 砖诇 砖诪谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讜讛讗 砖诪谉 注讚讬祝 诪讬讬谉 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘讙诇讬诇讗 砖谞讜 讚讞诪专讗 注讚讬祝 诪诪砖讞讗

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.

专讬砖讗 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讘转讜专讗 讚拽专诪谞讗讬

The Gemara comments: In any case, the first clause of the mishna poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, as it indicates that a white bull is less valuable than a black one. The Gemara answers that Rav 岣sda 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讜讻诪讗 诇诪砖讻讬讛 住讜诪拽讗 诇讘砖专讬讛 讞讬讜专讗 诇专讚讬讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讜讻诪讗 讘讞讬讜专讗 诇拽讬讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬 讘转讜专讗 讚拽专诪讜谞讗讬

The Gemara quotes another statement with regard to bulls: And Rav 岣sda 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鈥檛 Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda could reply: When I said that, I was referring only to a Karmanian bull, but not to other bulls.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞讚专 讘谞讝讬专 讜谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讗住专讜 诪讜谞讛 诪砖注讛 砖谞讚专 谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讛转讬专讜 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘讛诪讛 诪讜驻专砖转 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专

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.

讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 讛拽讚砖 讟注讜转 砖转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 讘诪讬 砖讟注讛 讜拽专讗 诇转砖讬注讬 注砖讬专讬 讜诇注砖讬专讬 转砖讬注讬 讜诇讗讞讚 注砖专 注砖讬专讬 砖讛讜讗 诪拽讜讚砖

On the basis of this halakha, and continuing their discussion in the previous mishna, Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Don鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 讛砖讘讟 拽讬讚砖讜 讜诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讟注讛 讜讛谞讬讞 讗转 讛砖讘讟 注诇 砖诪讬谞讬 讜注诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 砖诪讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘 砖拽讬讚砖 讛注砖讬专讬 讛讜讗 拽讬讚砖 讛转砖讬注讬

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

Scroll To Top