Nazir 31a (לא.) — the Talmud in English

And Beit Hillel say:

Consecration in error

is not consecration!

The reason for their dispute will be explained in the Gemara.

What

is consecration in error?

The Mishna explains three possibili

t

ies of error in consecration:

a. If

a person said:

“

The black ox that emerges from my house first—

it is consecrated.”

And

an ox

white

emerged from his house first:

Beit Shammai say: It is consecrated!

The Gemara will explain that their words can be understood in two ways:

First, he wished to consecrate the

first

ox to emerge from his house, before the other oxen. But he erred

in his assessment

in thinking that the first ox to emerge from his house would be black, whereas in fact a white ox emerged first.

Since he wished to consecrate the first ox, his consecration therefore took effect upon the ox

white

that emerged first, despite the error in his assessment, since he had thought that the first ox would be black.

The second possibility is that his consecration took effect upon the

black ox

that emerged

second,

after the white ox.

For he wished to consecrate the

black ox

first, but he erred in thinking that it would emerge first of all the oxen; in fact, it emerged second, after the white ox.

That is, his consecration took effect upon the black ox despite his error in his assessment, since he had thought that it would emerge first.

And Beit Hillel say: It is not consecrated,

neither the black ox nor the white one.

b. If a person said:

“This gold dinar that comes into my hand first—it is consecrated.”

And

a dinar

of silver

came into his hand first:

Beit Shammai say:

It is

consecrated [

The Gemara will explain whether the silver dinar that came first is consecrated, or the gold dinar that came into his hand afterward, as explained with regard to the white and black oxen].

And Beit Hillel say: It is not consecrated

at all.

c.

If a person said:

“The barrel of wine that comes into my hand first

from among the barrels,

it is consecrated!”

And

a barrel

of oil

came into his hand first:

Beit Shammai say:

It is

consecrated [

the barrel of oil or the barrel of wine, as explained in the two preceding examples].

And Beit Hillel say: It does not

acquire the status of

consecration

at all.

The Gemara will explain why it was necessary to cite all three of these possibilities.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

“Beit Shammai say: Consecration in error is consecration.”

The Gemara discusses the subject of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel:

The Gemara now assumes, according to the first possibility, that in all three cases in the Mishna the consecrator intended to consecrate the first item, and not specifically the black one. Rather, the consecrator erred in his assessment of what would be first. Their dispute concerns whether an error in his assessment of what would be first does not prevent the consecration from taking effect upon the first item [so that the white ox, the silver dinar, or the barrel of oil becomes consecrated], or whether his entire consecration is void, since he explicitly said that he was consecrating the first black ox, and consecration cannot take effect upon something else.

And we raise the question:

What is the reason of Beit Shammai?

How can his consecration take effect when all the details of his consecration were not fulfilled? He erred and assessed that the first ox would be black, and consecrated a black ox; how can the consecration take effect upon a white ox?

The Gemara explains: The reason of Beit Shammai is:

We derive the beginning of consecration,

the law of the beginning of consecration, when a person comes to consecrate an offering,

from the end of consecration,

from the sanctity of an offering that already exists.

The Gemara is referring to the sanctity of an offering of temura, which takes effect by virtue of sanctity that already exists, and is therefore called “the end of consecration.”

We find with regard to temura that the substitute offering becomes consecrated even when the one effecting the exchange erred; from here Beit Shammai derive that consecration in error is consecration.

That is, a person comes to exchange the sanctity of an offering animal for an unconsecrated animal and says concerning the unconsecrated animal: “This unconsecrated animal shall be consecrated in place of this offering animal!” The sanctity does not leave the offering animal, but the sanctity of an offering takes hold of the unconsecrated animal, and it is called “a substitute offering.”

The sanctity of a substitute offering is considered the sanctity of “the end of an offering,” since no new sanctity is being imposed here; rather, the sanctity of the offering that already exists is extended to the unconsecrated animal.

And from this Beit Shammai derive:

Just as with a substitute offering,

we find that its sanctity takes effect

even

if it was made

in error,

for example, if he intended to exchange the offering animal for a black ox but erred and exchanged it for a white ox, the sanctity of an offering takes effect upon the white ox—

so too

all

consecration

takes effect

even

if it was done

in error.

And

if

Beit Hillel say:

One cannot derive an error made at the beginning of consecration from an error made in consecrating a substitute offering, which results from an exchange and is akin to extending sanctity from an offering animal to an unconsecrated animal.

For

this applies

that consecration in error is effective in

a substitute offering,

because the sanctity of the offering already exists, and by virtue of it the substitute animal becomes consecrated. Therefore, even when there was an error in the exchange—he intended to exchange for a black ox but erred and exchanged for a white ox—the sanctity nevertheless continues and takes effect upon the white ox despite the error.

But, my sister, consecration,

to impose sanctity [that is, to impose it initially]

in error—

we do not impose it!

We have no possibility of imposing sanctity initially when there is an error in his consecration.

The Gemara now challenges Beit Shammai: How can they at all compare the error in consecration here with the error in temura?

In temura, the error concerned only his assessment: he thought to exchange for a black ox but erred and exchanged for a white ox. Yet the sanctity did not take effect contrary to his words; it took effect exactly as he said, upon the white ox.

Here, however, Beit Shammai say that the consecration should take effect upon the white ox contrary to his explicit words, in which he consecrated a black ox! The Gemara presents proof that even with regard to temura itself we distinguish between an error that occurred in his assessment and an error that occurred in his speech, and with regard to temura itself we say that sanctity cannot take effect contrary to his words:

And according to Beit Shammai,

then

what,

just as

if he said

the one effecting the exchange concerning the unconsecrated animal:

“This

offering

in place of

offering

this,”

but the exchange should not take effect immediately; rather, it should take effect afterward,

at the

time of

midday—

would it take effect—would the status of the

an offering brought in

substitute offering take effect

immediately,

from this time, from the time he effected the exchange? Certainly not!

the moment when he made the exchange? Certainly not!

Rather,

necessarily,

until it arrives,

until the time of

midday comes;

only then

will it be a substitute offering!

That is, it is certainly not the case that the sanctity of the substitute offering takes effect upon the unconsecrated animal immediately, contrary to his words; rather, it takes effect only at the time he designated for it, at midday.

And if so,

here too, in the case of one who consecrates the first black ox to emerge from his house, his consecration cannot take effect other than as he himself designated.

Rather,

when the matter becomes clear, only when it becomes clear that his statement has indeed been fulfilled—that the black ox emerged first—will his consecration take effect, as he said.

But if a white ox emerged first, it cannot become consecrated, contrary to his words, in which he said “a black ox.”

Therefore, the Gemara offers an entirely different explanation of Beit Shammai’s words, one that does not resemble temura at all and establishes their words in a completely different manner:

Indeed, the sanctity did not take effect upon the white ox that emerged first, but upon the black ox that emerged second; this ox is considered “first” among the other black oxen that emerged after it.

Rav Pappa said:

The reason of Beit Shammai is that when he said, “The black ox that emerges from my house first is consecrated,” he intended to consecrate the first black ox to emerge from his house, and not the white ox, despite the fact that the white ox emerged from his house first.

And

for this reason it was stated

in his words,

“first”:

when

the first black ox

first

emerges, before the other black oxen emerge, the ox that is first—that emerges first among the black oxen—is consecrated.

If a white ox emerged first from his house, this is entirely unrelated to his vow, since according to Rav Pappa’s explanation of Beit Shammai, he did not consecrate the first ox to emerge from his house; rather, he consecrated the first black ox to emerge from his house.

Accordingly, there is no error at all in his consecration; rather, according to Beit Shammai, this is how we explain his words.

Before the Gemara proceeds to explain the subject of Beit Hillel’s dispute with them, the Gemara asks: How can his words be explained as meaning that he intended to consecrate the first black ox to emerge before the other black oxen?

But

surely

“a black ox”

he said.

And

is it not the case

that the Mishna also deals with a case

in which he has only this one,

in which the consecrator has only this black ox? In that case it is impossible to explain the continuation of his words, “that emerges from my house first,” as referring to the first black ox to emerge before the other black oxen, since he has only one black ox!

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary—

according to Rav Pappa, we are forced to say that our Mishna speaks only of a case

in which he has two or three,

that is, he has two or three black oxen and intended to consecrate the first among them.

The Gemara now continues to explain, according to Rav Pappa, the subject of Beit Hillel’s dispute with Beit Shammai’s explanation of the consecrator’s intention. For according to Rav Pappa, their dispute is not at all concerning the law of consecration in error; even Beit Shammai maintain that consecration cannot take effect contrary to his words, and they merely explain that this was the meaning of his words:

And Beit Hillel,

disagree and

say: If so,

if this was the meaning of his words—to consecrate the first black ox to emerge before the other black oxen—the consecrator should not have said, “that emerges from my house first,” whose plain meaning is that he consecrates the first ox to emerge from his house.

Rather, “the black ox

that emerges first

from my house”—

he should have said!

This is what the consecrator should have said.

Only with such wording can his words be understood as Beit Shammai explain them: that he consecrates the first black ox to emerge “first,” before the other black oxen.

But since he said, “the black ox that emerges from my house first,” it is impossible to interpret the consecrator’s words as Beit Shammai do.

Therefore, Beit Hillel maintain that with such wording his consecration does not take effect at all, since he consecrated a black ox that emerged first from his house, and no black ox emerged first from his house; rather, a white ox emerged first, and he did not consecrate that ox.

Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi, challenging him

concerning this explanation of Rav Pappa’s account of our Mishna:

But is

this

consecration, called

“consecration in error,”

really

called that?

Such a consecration is

consecration with intention!

For there was no error at all in his consecration; rather, Beit Shammai establish his words as meaning that he intended to consecrate the first black ox among the other black oxen, and indeed this ox became consecrated!

Rav Ashi answered him:

That is also so;

indeed, this is not consecration in error.

Rather,

when Beit Shammai said that it is “consecration in error,” this is a borrowed expression.

They used this borrowed expression

because his initial statement was rendered misleading.

His subsequent words are malformed and allow the beginning of his statement to be misunderstood. Therefore, Beit Shammai used the expression “consecration in error,” although in truth it is consecration with intention.

For the beginning of his statement was, “a black ox that emerges.” If he had used the proper wording, he would have continued, “first from my house.”

Rather, he reversed the order of the words and said, “from my house first.”

According to Beit Shammai, we can establish the meaning of his words as being that he intended to consecrate only the first ox among the black oxen. Since his subsequent words contain an element of misleading ambiguity, Beit Shammai called it “consecration in error,” which, as stated, is a borrowed expression.

We thus learn that according to Rav Pappa, Beit Shammai agree with Beit Hillel that consecration in error is not consecration.

The Gemara asks about this:

And

do

Beit Shammai maintain

that

consecration in error is not consecration!?

But we learned

below [31b]:

One who vowed to be a nazirite,

to be a nazirite,

and

afterward

asked the Sages

about his nezirut [this does not refer here to asking about the vow and obtaining its annulment from a sage; rather, he accepted nezirut upon himself using wording that is not appropriate for accepting nezirut],

and they released

him from his nezirut, telling him that this is indeed not the wording of nezirut, and it thereby became clear that he had never been a nazirite.

And he had an animal set aside

for the nazirite offering—

the animal shall leave,

as it has now become clear that it is not sanctified with the sanctity of an offering,

and it shall graze

together with the other unconsecrated animals

in the herd.

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Do

you not

agree that

the consecration of this animal

is consecration in error, and

nevertheless you say here, as we do, that the animal consecrated in error

shall leave

and

shall graze in the herd

with the unconsecrated animals, since in our opinion consecration in error is not consecration?

If so, why do you not also agree with our position concerning one who consecrates a black ox that emerges from his house first, and a white ox emerges, in which we say that consecration in error is not consecration, whereas you disagree with us in this law and maintain that consecration in error is consecration?

And

from this

you learn

that Beit Shammai maintain

in our Mishna that

consecration in error is consecration!

The Gemara answers:

Rather,

this is how Rav Pappa’s words should be explained:

It was Beit Hillel who erred

in understanding Beit Shammai’s words.

For Beit Hillel

thought that

the reason of Beit Shammai

in our Mishna was

because consecration in error is consecration, and therefore they challenged them in the following Mishna: Why do they agree with their position concerning a nazirite who asked about his nezirut, that consecration in error did not take effect upon the animal?

And Beit Shammai said to them

to Beit Hillel: The reason for our words is

not because it is consecration in error.

Rather,

we used the expression “consecration in error” as a borrowed expression,

because his initial statement was rendered misleading,

since in his subsequent statement he corrupted the beginning of his wording [“a black ox”]; instead of continuing and saying, “that emerges first from my house,” he said, “that emerges from my house first.”

But the Gemara still challenges Rav Pappa’s novel explanation of Beit Shammai’s words:

And

it can be said that

Beit Shammai maintain

like Beit Hillel, that

consecration in error is not consecration, and here they used only a borrowed expression—

Come and hear

a proof from a Mishna below [32b] that Beit Shammai maintain that consecration in error is indeed consecration: It was taught: A group of people

were traveling on the road.