Nazir 31a — the Talmud in English

And Beit Hillel say:

mistaken consecration—

is not consecration!

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

How

is it mistaken consecration?

And the Mishna explains three possibili

t

ies of a mistake in consecration—

a. If

a person said:

“

The black ox that comes out of my house first—

it is consecrated.”

And there came out

from his house an ox

white

first—

Beit Shammai say: Consecrated!

And in the Gemara it will be explained that it is possible to explain their words in two ways:

The first: his intention was to consecrate the

first

ox that would come out of his house before the other oxen. But he erred

in his assessment,

in that he thought that the first ox that would come out of his house would be a black ox, whereas in fact a white ox came out first.

And since he intended to consecrate the first ox, therefore his consecration takes effect upon the ox

white

that came out first, despite the fact that there was a mistake in his assessment, for he thought that the first ox would be black.

And the second way is that his consecration takes effect upon the

black ox

that came out

second,

after the white ox.

For his intention was to consecrate the

black

ox first, except that he erred in thinking that it would come out first of all the oxen, whereas in fact it came out second, after the white ox.

That is, his consecration takes effect upon the black ox despite his mistake in his assessment, in that he thought it would come out first.

And Beit Hillel say: It is not consecration,

neither the black one nor the white one.

b. If a person said:

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

And there came up

into his hand a dinar

of silver

first—

Beit Shammai say:

this is

consecrated [

and it will be explained in the Gemara whether the silver dinar that came up first is consecrated, or the gold dinar that came up into his hand afterward, as explained concerning the white and black ox].

And Beit Hillel say: It is not consecration

at all.

c.

If a person said:

“The first barrel of wine that comes up into my hand

from among the barrels,

it is consecrated!”

And there came up

into his hand a barrel

of oil

first—

Beit Shammai say:

it is

consecrated [

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

And Beit Hillel say: It does not

have the status of

consecration

at all.

And in the Gemara it will be explained what need there is for bringing all three possibilities.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

“Beit Shammai say: mistaken consecration is consecration.”

And the Gemara discusses in what Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree—

And now the Gemara assumes according to the first manner, that the intention of the one consecrating in all three cases in the Mishna was to consecrate the first one, and not specifically the black one. Rather, the one consecrating erred in his assessment of what would be first. And in this Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree: whether the mistake in his assessment of what would be first does not prevent the consecration from taking effect upon the first one [so that the white ox, or the silver dinar, or the barrel of oil will become consecrated], or whether all his consecration is nullified, since he explicitly said that he was consecrating the first black ox, and the consecration cannot take effect upon another thing.

And we raise the matter:

What is the reason of Beit Shammai?

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

And 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 a sacrifice,

from the end of consecration,

from the sanctity of a sacrifice that already exists.

And the Gemara’s intention is to the sanctity of a sacrifice of substitution, which takes effect by virtue of sanctity that already exists, and therefore it is called “the end of consecration.”

And we find concerning substitution that the substitute sacrifice becomes consecrated even when the one making the substitution erred, and from here Beit Shammai derived that mistaken consecration is consecration.

That is, a person comes to substitute [exchange] the sanctity of a sacrificial animal onto an unconsecrated animal, and says concerning the unconsecrated animal: “This unconsecrated animal shall be consecrated in place of this sacrificial animal!”—the sanctity does not leave the sacrificial animal, but the sanctity of a sacrifice is seized by the unconsecrated animal, and it is called “a sacrifice of substitution.”

And the sanctity of a sacrifice of substitution is considered the sanctity of the “end of a sacrifice,” because here there is no imposition of new sanctity, but rather a continuation of the sanctity of the sacrifice, which already exists, to the unconsecrated animal.

And from here Beit Shammai derived—

Just as substitution,

we find that its sanctity takes effect

even

if it was performed

through a mistake,

for example, if he intended to substitute a black ox for the sacrificial animal, but erred and substituted a white ox, the sanctity of a sacrifice takes effect upon the white ox—

so too

all

consecration

takes effect

even

if it was performed

through a mistake.

And

if

Beit Hillel say:

We cannot derive a mistake made at the beginning of consecration from a mistake made in consecrating a sacrifice of substitution, which is the result of an exchange, and is like a continuation of sanctity from a sacrificial animal to an unconsecrated animal.

For

these words—that mistaken consecration is effective—apply to

that consecration in error is effective in

substitution,

where the sanctity of the sacrifice already exists, and by its power the substitute animal becomes consecrated. Therefore, even if there was a mistake in the substitution, in that he intended to substitute a black ox but erred and substituted a white ox, nevertheless the sanctity continues and takes effect upon the white ox despite the mistake.

But to bring down consecration,

to impose sanctity initially,

through a mistake—

we do not bring it down!

We have no possibility of imposing sanctity initially when there is a mistake in his consecration.

And now the Gemara challenges Beit Shammai: how do they בכלל compare the mistake in consecration here with the mistake in substitution?

For concerning substitution, the mistake was only in his assessment in his heart: he thought of making the substitution with a black ox, but erred and made the substitution with a white ox. But the sanctity did not take effect contrary to his speech; rather, it took effect exactly as he said, upon the white ox.

Whereas here Beit Shammai said that the consecration should take effect upon the white ox, contrary to his explicit speech that he consecrated a black ox! And the Gemara brings proof that in substitution itself we find a distinction between a mistake that occurred in his assessment and a mistake that occurred in his speech, and in substitution itself we say that it is impossible for sanctity to take effect contrary to his speech—

And according to Beit Shammai,

behold,

what, just as

if

he said

concerning the unconsecrated animal: “

This is

a sacrifice

in place of

a sacrifice

this,”

but the substitution should not take effect immediately, but only afterward,

at the

time of

midday—

would it take effect—would the status of a sacrifice of

an offering brought in

substitution

take effect immediately,

from this time, from the time when he made the substitution!?—Certainly not!

the moment when he made the exchange? Certainly not!

Rather,

necessarily,

until it arrives,

until the time of

midday

only then

is it a substitution!

That is, surely the sanctity of the substitution does not take effect upon the unconsecrated animal immediately, contrary to his speech, but rather it takes effect only at the time that he set for it, at midday.

And if so,

here too, concerning one who consecrates the first black ox that will come out of his house, it is impossible for his consecration to take effect differently from what he himself established.

Rather,

when the matter becomes revealed, only in a case when it becomes clear that his speech is indeed fulfilled, that the black ox came out first, only then does his consecration take effect, as he said in his speech.

But if a white ox came out first, it is impossible for sanctity to take effect upon it, contrary to his speech, in which he said “black ox.”

And therefore the Gemara brings an entirely different explanation of the words of Beit Shammai, which does not at all resemble substitution, and establishes their words in a completely different manner—

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

Rav Pappa said:

Their reason of Beit Shammai is that when he said, “The black ox that comes out of my house first, it is consecrated,” he intended to consecrate the first black ox that would come out of his house, and not the white ox, despite its coming out of his house first.

And

for this it was said

in his speech, “

first”—

when the first black ox comes out,

the

first

black ox, before the other black oxen come out, will be the first ox that comes out first among the blacks—consecrated.

And if a white ox came out first of his house, this has no connection at all to his vow, for according to Rav Pappa’s explanation of the words of Beit Shammai, he did not consecrate the first ox that would come out of his house, but rather the first black ox that would come out of his house.

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

And before the Gemara continues to bring in what Beit Hillel disagreed with them, the Gemara wonders: how is it possible to explain his words as meaning that his intention was to consecrate the first black ox that would come out before the other black oxen?

But,

behold, “

black ox”

he said.

And

are we not dealing—does the Mishna not also deal with a case

the Mishna is also discussing a case

where he has only this one,

where the one consecrating has only this black ox, in which case it is impossible to explain the continuation of his words, “that comes out of my house first,” as meaning the first black ox to come out first among the other black oxen, since he has only one black ox!

And the Gemara answers:

It is not necessary;

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

where he has two or three,

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

And now the Gemara continues to explain, according to Rav Pappa, in what Beit Hillel disagreed with Beit Shammai’s explanation of the intention of the one consecrating. For according to Rav Pappa’s words, their dispute is not at all concerning the law of mistaken consecration; rather, Beit Shammai also maintain that consecration does not take effect contrary to his speech, and they merely explain that this was his speech—

And Beit Hillel,

disagree and

say: If so,

if this was the intention of his speech, to consecrate the first black ox that would come out before the other black oxen, the one consecrating should not have said, “that comes out of my house first,” whose simple meaning is that he is consecrating the first ox that comes out of his house.

Rather, “black ox

that comes out first

of my house”— —

he should have said!

This is what the one consecrating should have said.

For only with such wording is it possible to establish his words as Beit Shammai said, that he consecrates the first black ox that comes out “first,” at the beginning, before the other black oxen.

But since he said, “the black ox that comes out of my house first,” it is impossible to establish the words of the one consecrating in accordance with the words of Beit Shammai.

And therefore Beit Hillel maintain that with such wording his consecration does not take effect at all, for he consecrated a black ox that came out of his house first, and no black ox came out of his house first; rather, a white ox came out first, which he did not consecrate.

Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi, in astonishment,

concerning this explanation of Rav Pappa in our Mishna:

Is

this

consecration, “

mistaken consecration,”

it

called?

For such a consecration—

is intentional consecration!

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

Rav Ashi answered him:

Indeed so,

indeed this is not mistaken consecration.

Rather, what Beit Shammai said, that it is “mistaken consecration,” is an expression used metaphorically.

when Beit Shammai called it “a mistaken consecration,” they were using a borrowed expression.

And they used this metaphorical expression

because he confused his initial speech.

For the continuation of his speech is defective and gives room for a mistake in understanding the beginning of his speech. And therefore Beit Shammai used in their wording “mistaken consecration,” although in truth it is intentional consecration.

For the beginning of his speech was, “black ox that comes out.” And if he had spoken in corrected wording, he would have continued by saying, “first from my house.”

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

And 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. And since there is an aspect of confusion in the continuation of his words, Beit Shammai called it “mistaken consecration,” which, as stated, is a metaphorical expression.

And we have learned from this that according to Rav Pappa, Beit Shammai agree with Beit Hillel that mistaken consecration is not consecration.

And the Gemara wonders about this:

And

for

do Beit Shammai maintain

that

mistaken consecration is not consecration!?

But we learned below [31b]:

below [31b]:

One who vowed to be a nazir,

to be a nazir,

and

afterward

asked the Sages

about his naziriteship [the intention here is not asking about the vow and the annulment by a sage, but rather that he accepted his naziriteship in wording that is not fit for accepting naziriteship],

and they permitted

him his naziriteship, for they told him that this is indeed not the wording of naziriteship, and it now became clear that he had never been a nazir.

And he had an animal set apart

for the sacrifice of a nazir—

the animal shall go out,

for it has now become clear that it is not consecrated with the sanctity of a sacrifice,

and it shall graze

together with the other unconsecrated animals

in the herd.

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Is it so,

is it not the case that

you agree that

the consecration of this animal

is mistaken consecration, and

nevertheless you say here, like us, that

the animal shall go out,

the animal that was consecrated through a mistake,

and shall graze in the herd

with the unconsecrated animals, since according to our view mistaken consecration is not consecration?

And if so, why do you not agree with our words also concerning one who consecrates the black ox that comes out of my house first, and a white one comes out, where we say that mistaken consecration is not consecration, whereas you disagree with us concerning this law and maintain that mistaken consecration is consecration?

And

from this

you learn

that Beit Shammai maintain

in our Mishna that

mistaken consecration is consecration!

And the Gemara answers:

Rather,

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

It is Beit Hillel who erred

in understanding the words of Beit Shammai—

For Beit Hillel

maintain that

the reason of Beit Shammai

in our Mishna is

because mistaken consecration is consecration, and therefore they argued with them in the following Mishna: why do they agree with their words concerning a nazir who asked about his naziriteship, that mistaken consecration does 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 mistaken consecration.

Rather,

we used the expression “mistaken consecration” as a metaphor,

because he confused his initial speech,

for in the continuation of his speech he distorted the beginning of his wording [“black ox”]; instead of continuing to say “that comes out of my house first,” he said, “that comes out of my house first.”

But the Gemara still wonders about Rav Pappa’s novel explanation of the words of Beit Shammai—

And

for it is possible to say that

Beit Shammai maintain

like Beit Hillel, that

mistaken consecration is not consecration, and here they used only a metaphorical expression—

Come and hear

a proof from a Mishna below [32b] that Beit Shammai maintain that mistaken consecration is indeed consecration—for we learned: A group of people who

were walking on the road.