Nazir 31b — the Talmud in English

And

there was one man

coming toward them

among the men who were walking.

And they began arguing among themselves who was the man walking toward them from a distance. One of them identified him as a certain man, and the other claimed that he was mistaken, and that this was not that certain man but another person.

And in order to strengthen their statements, each one accepted naziriteship upon himself, to show that he was certain and correct in his statement.

And one said,

the one who claimed that this was that certain man:

“I am hereby a nazirite, that

indeed this man

is

the man

so-and-so

he is, as I said.”

And the other,

the one who claimed that that man was not that certain man,

said: “I am hereby a nazirite, for

this man

is not

the man

so-and-so!”

And the third of the group said to the two disputants:

“I am hereby a nazirite, that one of you is a nazirite.”

Whereas the fourth said to the two disputants: “I am hereby a nazirite,”

“that neither of you is a nazirite.”

And the fifth said to the two disputants: “I am hereby a nazirite,”

“that both of you are nazirites.”

And the sixth said to them: “I am hereby a nazirite”

“that all of you are nazirites.”

Beit Shammai say: They are all nazirites!

For their statement does not constitute the stipulation of a condition in accepting naziriteship; rather, they all accepted naziriteship upon themselves with language expressing the correctness of their statements, and on the assumption that through this acceptance they become nazirites.

Therefore, even the one who was mistaken becomes a nazirite, despite the fact that he became a nazirite because he was certain of his statement.

And the Gemara proves:

But here, consecration

[acceptance of naziriteship, which resembles consecration, as Scripture says concerning the nazirite, “he shall be holy”]

is

for the one who was mistaken and accepted naziriteship because of his mistake,

and

nevertheless

it teaches:

Beit Shammai say,

“They are all nazirites!”

And it is thereby proven that Beit Shammai hold that mistaken consecration is consecration!

And likewise, how did Rav Pappa say, in explaining our Mishna, that Beit Shammai agree with Beit Hillel that mistaken consecration is not consecration!?

And the Gemara brings a resolution:

They said

in the study hall, to resolve the difficulty against Rav Pappa:

Indeed,

Beit Shammai hold

that

mistaken consecration is consecration.

But only

from here,

from the words of the Mishna that we have just cited, can it be proven that this is their view, in the case of the mistake explained in this Mishna.

But

from that,

from our Mishna, which deals with mistaken consecration in a different manner,

not

can it be proven that mistaken consecration in such a manner is consecration according to Beit Shammai.

For Rav Pappa had to explain our Mishna as meaning that Beit Shammai agree with Beit Hillel that mistaken consecration like the consecration in our Mishna is not consecration, since it is impossible for the white ox that came out first to become consecrated, when he explicitly said that he was consecrating a black ox!

And Beit Shammai did not use in our Mishna the expression “mistaken consecration is consecration” except as borrowed language to define the words of the one consecrating, which were stated in garbled language.

And Rav Pappa explained that the point concerning which Beit Shammai disagreed with Beit Hillel in our Mishna is the explanation of the consecrator’s words, and not the fundamental disagreement between them concerning mistaken consecration.

And Beit Shammai hold that the black ox that came out first among the black oxen becomes consecrated, because that was the intention of his words. Rather, he erred in formulating his words and used mistaken, garbled language.

And the Gemara brings another explanation, with which Abaye explained the words of Beit Shammai in our Mishna.

Abaye said: “It does not enter your mind”,

that you should establish the Mishna and the view of Beit Shammai in a case

where he stands in the morning,

standing in the morning and consecrating the ox that is about to leave his house.

Rather, here,

in our Mishna,

with what are we dealing,

what is the case? It is a case where the ox has already left his house,

where he stands at midday,

when he stood at midday, after all the oxen, the white and the black, had already left his house.

And when they left his house, he heard the sound of their hooves, and he was expert at recognizing his oxen by the sound of their hooves; but this time he mistakenly thought concerning his white ox that came out first that it was his black ox,

and

therefore

he said: “The black ox that

had already

come out

in the morning

of my house first—

let it be consecrated!”

And his intention was not specifically for the black one, but for any ox among his oxen; rather, he mistakenly identified it, by the sound of its hooves, as though it were his black ox that had come out first.

And they said to him:

It was not the black ox that came out first, but a

white

ox; it is this one that

came out,

came out first.

And he said to them,

the consecrator:

“Had I known that the

white ox

came out

first,

I would not have said

that the

black

one should be consecrated; rather, the white one.”

And this mistake resembles the mistake explained in the Mishna below, concerning one who was walking on the road and mistakenly identified the man walking toward him as a certain man, and said, “I am hereby a nazirite that this is that certain man,” concerning which case as well Beit Shammai said that mistaken consecration is consecration.

And Abaye’s gain in his resolution is that the consecration does not take effect contrary to his words.

For only if he consecrates in the morning, before the oxen leave, is there significance to his words that he is consecrating specifically a black ox that comes out first, since he is not a prophet who knows which ox will come out first; and if he says this formulation, he said it specifically, and it is impossible for the white ox that came out first to become consecrated.

But if he says this after the oxen have come out, because he mistakenly identified the sound of the white ox’s hooves as though it were the sound of the black ox’s hooves, and therefore said that he was consecrating the black ox, his words do not mean that he specifically wants to consecrate the black one; rather, he said this because he mistakenly assumed that this was the black one, but even if it were white he would consecrate it. Therefore Beit Shammai hold that in such a case mistaken consecration is consecration. This is similar to one who substitutes a sacrificial animal for an unconsecrated ox, and mistakenly thought that he was making the substitution with a black ox, and it turned out to be a white ox: the sanctity of a substitute offering takes effect upon this ox.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against Abaye’s explanation:

“But can you say

that the tanna in our Mishna is dealing with a case

where he stands at midday,”

where he is standing at midday, after the oxen have left his house, and in his consecration he refers to an ox that has already left?

And it teaches

in the second case, later in the Mishna:

“This gold dinar that will rise,”

in the future tense.

And the Gemara resolves:

Teach

that you should recite in the Mishna in the past tense:

“that rose.”

And likewise the Gemara raises a difficulty from the third case:

“A barrel of wine that will rise,”

in the future tense.

And it resolves in the same matter:

Teach

“

“

that rose,”

in the past tense. And now the Gemara brings a statement of Rav Hisda concerning a black ox and a white ox.

Rav Hisda said: “A black one,”

a black ox found

in

the midst of

a white one,

a herd of white oxen,

is impaired,

it reduces the value of the entire herd, since a herd consisting entirely of white oxen is sold at a higher price.

A spot

of white,

white, found

in

an ox whose color is

black,

black,

is impaired,

it reduces its value, since a white spot on a black ox indicates a blemish in the ox.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against this statement from our Mishna:

We learned:

He said,

“The black one that comes out of my house first is consecrated,”

and a white one came out; it is consecrated according to the words of Beit Shammai.

It enters our mind,

the Gemara now assumes, that a person

when

he

consecrates

an item that can be interpreted in two ways, as a superior item or an inferior item,

with “

a grudging eye”

he

consecrates. That is, he keeps the superior item for himself and consecrates the inferior item. And this is a dispute between tannaim in tractate Bava Batra [72a].

it—he keeps the superior item for himself and consecrates the inferior one. This is a dispute between tannaim in tractate Bava Batra [72a].

And

if here

Beit Shammai said,

that the white ox, which according to Rav Hisda is superior to the black ox,

is consecrated!

But since he consecrates with a grudging eye, it is impossible to explain his words as meaning that he consecrates the white ox, and that his intention was not specifically for the black ox; so why does his consecration take effect according to Beit Shammai, in light of Rav Hisda’s statement!?

But rather, what

if you say, in order to resolve this, that the assumption concerning one who consecrates something that has two possible interpretations is that

with a generous eye

he

consecrates,

and he intended to consecrate even a white ox that came out first.

If so, the continuation of the Mishna will be difficult for you:

“A gold dinar that will rise into my hand first, and there rose”

a

silver one—

Beit Shammai say: It is consecrated.

But you said, in order to resolve the difficulty, that he consecrates with a generous eye; and according to this, it is impossible to interpret his words as meaning that he intended to consecrate even a silver dinar that would rise first.

And necessarily, he consecrates with a grudging eye. And now the difficulty according to Rav Hisda returns: how is it possible to interpret his words as meaning that he intended to consecrate even a white ox, when according to Rav Hisda it is superior to a black ox, and clearly he did not intend to consecrate it!?

But the Gemara proves from the continuation of the Mishna that it is impossible to say that he consecrates with a grudging eye—

But rather, what

will you say, that

with a grudging eye

he

consecrates—

But there is the case of one who consecrated

“a barrel of wine that will rise into my hand first,” and a barrel of oil rose—

Beit Shammai say: It is consecrated.

But oil is superior to wine,

and if he consecrates with a grudging eye, how can his words be interpreted as agreeing to consecrate even oil, when he said wine!?

And the Gemara rejects this difficulty:

If it is because of this—

it is not difficult!

This law of our Mishna

was taught in the Galil,

we taught it concerning one who consecrated a barrel of wine in the Galil, and a barrel of oil came into his hand, since in the Galil there is an abundance of oil,

for wine is superior to oil,

and wine there is more expensive than oil.

And it follows that even if we say that he consecrates with a grudging eye, nevertheless, if he said “wine” and oil came into his hand, his intention included oil as well, since he said this in the Galil, a place where oil is inferior to wine.

But according to this, that he consecrates with a grudging eye, the

first clause,

where he said “black ox” and a white one came out,

is difficult according to Rav Hisda,

who said that a white ox is superior to a black one; and since he consecrates with a grudging eye, how can his consecration take effect upon the white one when he said “black”!?

Rav Hisda can say to you

a resolution:

When I said

that a white ox is superior to a black one, it was only

with an ox of Karmana,

with oxen from the place called Karmana. But our Mishna speaks of oxen generally, excluding those oxen, and among them there is no superiority of the white over the black.

And

further

Rav Hisda said

concerning oxen:

An ox

black,

black—is superior

for its hide,

for its hide, since its hide is superior to that of the other oxen.

Red,

red—is

for its flesh.

Its flesh is superior to that of the others.

White,

white—it is excellent

for plowing,

for plowing with it.

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from other words that Rav Hisda said:

But did Rav Hisda not say: “A black one,”

a black ox mixed

in

a herd of oxen

white,

white,

is impaired,

it reduces the value of the entire herd of white oxen!?

But if the black one is superior for its hide and the white one is excellent for plowing, they are equal in value; so why did Rav Hisda say that mixing the black one into the herd of white ones reduces the value of the entire herd?

And Rav Hisda resolves:

When I said

that the white one is superior to the black one, it was

with an ox

an ox

of Karmana

only.

Mishna:

a.

One who vowed to be a nazirite,

but did not observe the laws of a nazirite, rather drank wine,

and

afterward

asked a Sage

whether the language with which he accepted naziriteship upon himself was language that obligates naziriteship,

and he prohibited him,

the Sage confirmed for him that the language with which he accepted his naziriteship was valid language of naziriteship—

He

counts

the days of his naziriteship

from the time that he vowed

to be a nazirite, despite the fact that until now he treated the conduct of naziriteship lightly.

b.

He asked a Sage

about his naziriteship, whether the language with which he accepted naziriteship was language of naziriteship,

and he permitted him,

the Sage, because his language did not constitute acceptance of naziriteship—

And

he had an animal set aside

for a nazirite offering; since his naziriteship was uprooted, as it became clear that it was not naziriteship, its consecration from the animal was also uprooted. Therefore

it goes out and grazes in the herd,

together with his other animals, since it became clear that it is entirely unconsecrated.

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai:

But

if

you do not

agree with this,

that a Sage permitted him his naziriteship because there was a mistake in his language, and he had an animal set aside for a nazirite offering,

that it is mistaken consecration, and it should go out and graze in the herd?

It is clear that even according to you this animal is an unconsecrated animal, despite the fact that he consecrated it, since it has now become clear that he consecrated it by mistake, for he was not a nazirite, and mistaken consecration is not consecration. If so, why do you disagree with us in the preceding Mishna and say that mistaken consecration takes effect!?

And Beit Shammai did not answer them their question, because in this case he was not a nazirite, and consequently he cannot set aside a nazirite offering. Whereas Beit Shammai spoke of a place where mistaken consecration can take effect.

But on the other hand,

Beit Shammai said to them

to Beit Hillel a counter-question, that we find mistaken consecration taking effect in animal tithe. And from this one can learn concerning every mistaken consecration:

Animal tithe is performed by bringing all the lambs into the pen and opening the opening of the pen in such a way that only one lamb can leave through the opening. The lambs then leave one by one through the opening, and the person counting the lambs holds in his hand a rod whose top has red paint. When he reaches ten in his counting, he lowers the rod with the red paint onto the lamb counted by him as the tenth, and marks its back with the red paint on the top of the rod.

The lamb that comes out tenth becomes animal tithe even if he did not call it “tenth,” and even if he called it by another number, it becomes tenth, since it passed tenth “under the rod.”

And the Torah innovated concerning animal tithe that if there was a mistake in his counting, as will be explained below in the Mishna, and he called the ninth or the eleventh “tenth,” sanctity also takes effect upon them, although they do not become animal tithe.

And the tannaim disputed in tractate Bekhorot [60a–b] what sanctity takes effect upon them.

And Beit Shammai argued to Beit Hillel that from there it is proven that mistaken consecration is consecration.

But

if

you do not

agree concerning one who

comes to tithe his herd, and passes his animals one by one under the rod, and for the tenth he strikes with the rod whose top has red paint, and calls it tithe,

that

if he

mistook

in his counting and accidentally skipped the number nine,

and called the

lamb that came out

ninth

by the name

“tenth,”

and

immediately remembered his mistake, that he had skipped the number nine, and wanted to correct his counting.

But now he erred in the halakha and thought that he had to correct his skipping of the number nine by counting the next animal to come out as number nine.

And so he indeed did, counting the lamb that came out after it as number nine [although in truth it was the tenth lamb that came out under the rod], and it follows that he called

the

tenth

lamb

by the name

“ninth.”

And in light of this mistake, he continued to err, and he made the lamb that came after it animal tithe [although in truth it was the eleventh lamb to come out under the rod].

And

he

called the

lamb that came out

eleventh

by the name

“tenth.”

And it follows that throughout his sequence of mistakes, he mistakenly called two lambs “tenth” [the ninth and the eleventh], whereas he called the actual tenth “ninth”—

“for it is consecrated!”

That is, the actual tenth is consecrated with animal tithe sanctity, since it is the one that came out tenth, and it makes no difference how he called it.

Whereas the actual ninth and the actual eleventh, which he mistakenly called “tenth,” become consecrated with sacrificial sanctity, concerning which the tannaim disputed in tractate Bekhorot.

And this law is learned from the innovation of the verse [in tractate Bekhorot 60b], and Beit Hillel also agree with it. And it is thereby proven that mistaken consecration is consecration, as Beit Shammai say!

Beit Hillel said to them

to Beit Shammai: This is not mistaken consecration!

For

it was not the rod

that the person counting the lambs mistakenly raised over the ninth lamb, and afterward over the eleventh lamb, and mistakenly called them “tenth,”

that consecrated

the ninth lamb and the eleventh lamb with sacrificial sanctity!

And proof of the matter is that it is not the consecrator’s mistake that brings about the sacrificial sanctity, as you say, because mistaken consecration is consecration. For—

And what if he made a mistake

the counter

and placed the rod upon

the lamb that came out

eighth, and upon

the lamb that came out

twelfth, and called them by the name “tenth,”

perhaps did he accomplish anything

with his words

!?

Certainly he accomplished nothing, since the Torah did not innovate in animal tithe a general law that mistaken consecration is consecration.

Rather,

the

Scripture wrote that it consecrates

the lamb

the

that passes

tenth

even if they did not count it as tenth [that is, Scripture innovated that it is consecrated with animal-tithe sanctity even if the person counting the lambs did not count it as tenth, but erred and called it ninth]—