Nazir 31b (לא:) — the Talmud in English

And

there was one man

who came opposite them

of the people walking.

They began arguing among themselves about who the man walking toward them from a distance was. One of them identified him as a certain man, while the other claimed that he was mistaken, and that this was not that man but someone else.

To reinforce their statements, each one accepted nazirite status upon himself, demonstrating that he was certain and correct in what he said.

And one said,

the one who claimed that this was that certain man:

I hereby become a nazirite, for

indeed, this man

is

the man

in question

as I said.

And the other,

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

said: I hereby become a nazirite, for this is not

the man

who is

the man

in question!

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

I hereby become a nazirite, for one of you is a nazirite.

The fourth said to the two disputants: I hereby become a nazirite,

for neither one of you is a nazirite.

The fifth said to the two disputants: I hereby become a nazirite,

for both of you are nazirites.

And the sixth said to them: I hereby become a nazirite

for all of you are nazirites.

Beit Shammai say: They are all nazirites!

For their statements do not constitute the stipulation of a condition in accepting nazirite status. Rather, they all accepted nazirite status in language expressing the correctness of their statements, assuming that through this acceptance they would become nazirites.

Therefore, even the one who was mistaken becomes a nazirite, despite having undertaken nazirite status because he was certain of his statement.

And the Gemara proves this:

But here, consecration [

the acceptance of nazirite status, which is comparable to consecration, as the verse says of a nazirite: “He shall be holy”]

is

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

and

nevertheless

it teaches:

Beit Shammai say,

They are all nazirites!

It follows that Beit Shammai hold that mistaken consecration is valid!

And likewise, how could Rav Pappa say, in explaining our Mishna, that Beit Shammai concede to Beit Hillel that mistaken consecration is not valid!?

And the Gemara presents a resolution:

They said

in the beit-midrash, in answer to the difficulty raised against Rav Pappa:

Indeed,

Beit Shammai hold

that

mistaken consecration is valid.

But only

from here,

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

But

from that,

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

not

can it be proven that mistaken consecration of that kind is valid according to Beit Shammai.

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

And Beit Shammai did not use the expression “mistaken consecration is valid” in our Mishna except as an borrowed expression to define the consecrator’s words, which were phrased incorrectly.

Rav Pappa explained that the point of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in our Mishna concerns the interpretation of the consecrator’s words, and not their fundamental dispute concerning mistaken consecration.

Beit Shammai hold that the black ox that emerged first among the black oxen becomes consecrated, because this was the intent of his words. He merely erred in formulating them and used mistaken, confused language.

The Gemara brings another explanation, offered by Abaye for the statement of Beit Shammai in our Mishna.

Abaye said: It cannot enter your mind

to establish the Mishna and the position of Beit Shammai as referring to a case

where he was standing in the morning,

standing in the morning and consecrating the ox that was about to emerge from his house.

Rather, here,

in our Mishna,

with what are we dealing?

With a case where the ox had already left his house,

where he was standing at midday,

standing at midday, after all the oxen, both the white and the black, had already left his house.

As they left his house, he heard the sound of their hooves. He was familiar with recognizing his oxen by the sound of their hooves; but this time he mistakenly thought that his white ox, which had emerged first, was his black ox,

and

therefore

he said: The black ox that has already

emerged

from my house first

in the morning

shall be

consecrated!

He did not specifically have the black ox in mind, but any ox among his oxen. He merely mistakenly identified it by the sound of its hooves as though it were his black ox, which had emerged first.

And they said to him:

It was not the black ox that emerged first, but a

white ox;

it is the one that

emerged,

that emerged first.

And the consecrator said to them,

the consecrator:

Had I known that the

white ox

emerged,

emerged first,

I would not have said,

I would not have said that the

black

should be consecrated; rather, the white one.

This mistake resembles the mistake described below in the Mishna, concerning one who was walking on the road, mistakenly identified the person walking toward him as a certain man, and said, “I hereby become a nazirite, for this is that certain man.” There too, Beit Shammai said that mistaken consecration is valid.

The advantage of Abaye’s resolution is that the consecration does not take effect contrary to his words.

For only if he consecrates the ox in the morning, before the oxen emerge, do his words signify that he specifically consecrates the black ox that emerges first. After all, he is not a prophet who knows which ox will emerge first; therefore, when he uses this formulation, he certainly says it deliberately, and it is impossible for the white ox that emerges first to become consecrated.

But if he says this after the oxen have emerged, because he mistakenly identified the sound of the white ox’s hooves as the sound of the black ox’s hooves, and therefore said that he was consecrating the black ox, his words do not signify that he specifically wants to consecrate the black one. Rather, he said this because he mistakenly assumed that it was the black one; had it been white, he would also have consecrated it. Therefore, Beit Shammai hold that in such a case mistaken consecration is valid. This resembles one who exchanged a consecrated offering for an unconsecrated ox, mistakenly thinking that he was exchanging it for a black ox, and it turned out to be a white ox: the sanctity of a substitute offering takes effect upon that ox.

And the Gemara challenges Abaye’s explanation:

But can you say

that the tanna of our Mishna is dealing with a case

where he was standing at midday,

dealing with one who was standing at midday, after the oxen had left his house, and whose consecration refers to an ox that had already emerged?

And it teaches

in the second case, later in the Mishna: “

The gold dinar that will emerge,”

using the future tense.

And the Gemara answers:

Teach

the Mishna using the past tense: “

that emerged.”

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

A barrel of wine that will emerge,”

using the future tense.

And it answers in the same manner:

Teach

“

that emerged,”

using the past tense.

The Gemara now brings a statement of Rav Ḥisda concerning a black ox and a white one.

Rav Ḥisda said: A black ox

found

among

a herd of

white oxen

decreases the value of the entire herd,

is detrimental,

reducing the value of the entire herd, since a herd consisting entirely of white oxen sells for a higher price.

A spot

of white

white, found

on

an ox whose color is

black,

black,

is detrimental,

reducing its value, since a white spot on a black ox indicates a defect in the ox.

And the Gemara challenges this statement from our Mishna:

We learned:

He said, “

The black ox that emerges from my house first is consecrated,”

and a white ox emerged; according to Beit Shammai, it is consecrated.

It might have entered our mind

that the Gemara is now assuming that a person

when

he

consecrates

something that can be interpreted in two ways, as something superior or something inferior,

with “

a begrudging eye”

he

consecrates

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 say

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

is consecrated!

But since he consecrates with a begrudging eye, it is impossible to interpret his words as meaning that he consecrates the white ox and does not specifically intend the black ox. Why, then, does his consecration take effect according to Beit Shammai, in light of Rav Ḥisda’s statement!?

Rather, what

might you say in response: that the assumption is that one who consecrates something whose words can be interpreted in two ways

with a generous eye

he

consecrates,

intending to consecrate even a white ox that emerges first?

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

“The gold dinar that will emerge first for me, and there emerged

a

silver”—

Beit Shammai say: It is consecrated.

Yet you said, in order to resolve the difficulty, that he consecrates with a generous eye; accordingly, it is impossible to interpret his words as meaning that he intended to consecrate even a silver dinar that emerged first.

It must therefore be that he consecrates with a begrudging eye. The difficulty according to Rav Ḥisda consequently returns: How can his words be interpreted as intending to consecrate even a white ox, when according to Rav Ḥisda it is superior to a black ox, and he clearly 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 begrudging eye—

Rather, what

might you say, that

with a begrudging eye

he

consecrates—

But in the case of one who consecrates

“a barrel of wine that will emerge first for me, and there emerged oil”—

Beit Shammai say: It is consecrated.

But oil is superior to wine,

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

The Gemara rejects this difficulty:

If it is because of this—

it is not difficult!

This ruling of our Mishna

was taught in the Galilee,

where it was taught in the case of one who consecrated a barrel of wine in the Galilee and a barrel of oil emerged, since there is an abundance of oil in the Galilee,

for wine is superior to oil,

and wine there is more expensive than oil.

It follows that even if we say that he consecrates with a begrudging eye, when he said “wine” and oil emerged, he intended the oil as well, since he said this in the Galilee, where oil is inferior to wine.

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

first part,

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

is difficult for Rav Ḥisda,

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

Rav Ḥisda could say to you

the following answer:

When I said

that a white ox is superior to a black one, I said this only

with regard to an ox of Carmania.

I said this concerning oxen from the place called Carmania. But our Mishna discusses oxen generally, excluding those oxen; among the others, the white one is not superior to the black one.

And

further,

Rav Ḥisda said

concerning oxen:

An ox

that is black

is superior

for its hide,

because its hide is better than that of the other oxen.

A red one,

red,

for its flesh.

Its flesh is better than that of the others.

A white one,

white, is excellent

for plowing,

for plowing with it.

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another statement of Rav Ḥisda:

But Rav Ḥisda said: A black ox,

a black ox mixed

with

a herd of oxen

that are white,

white,

is detrimental,

reducing the value of the entire herd of white oxen!

But if the black ox is superior for its hide and the white one is excellent for plowing, they are equal in value. Why, then, did Rav Ḥisda say that mixing a black ox into a herd of white oxen reduces the value of the entire herd?

Rav Ḥisda answers:

When I said

that the white one is superior to the black one, I meant

with an ox

an ox

of Carmania

only.

Mishna:

a.

One who vowed to be a nazirite,

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

and

afterward

asked a sage

whether the language with which he accepted nazirite status was language that obligates nazirite status,

and he prohibited him,

the sage confirmed that the language with which he accepted nazirite status was a valid formulation of a nazirite vow—

he

counts

the days of his nazirite status

from the time he vowed,

despite having until then treated the conduct of nazirite status lightly.

b.

He asked a sage

about his nazirite status, whether the language with which he accepted it was language constituting nazirite status,

and he permitted him,

the sage permitted him because his wording did not constitute acceptance of nazirite status—

and

if he had an animal set aside

for a nazirite offering, since his nazirite status was annulled, as it became clear that it was not nazirite status, the consecration of the animal is also annulled. Therefore,

it shall leave and graze with the herd,

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

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai:

But

do

you not

agree in this case,

where a sage permitted his nazirite status because there was a mistake in his wording, and he had an animal set aside for a nazirite offering,

that it is mistaken consecration, and it shall leave and graze with the herd?

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

Beit Shammai did not answer their question, because in this case he was not a nazirite and consequently could not set aside a nazirite offering. Beit Shammai, however, were speaking of a case in which the mistaken consecration could take effect.

But on the other hand,

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel

a counter-question: We find that mistaken consecration takes effect in the case of animal tithe. This teaches a principle concerning all mistaken consecration:

Animal tithe is performed by placing all the lambs in a pen and opening the pen so that only one lamb can leave through the opening. The lambs then leave one by one, and the person counting them holds a staff with red paint at its tip. When he reaches ten in his count, he lowers the staff with the red paint onto the lamb counted as the tenth, marking its back with the red paint from the tip of the staff.

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

The Torah introduced the rule concerning animal tithe that if there was a mistake in the 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.

The tannaim disputed in tractate Bekhorot [60a–b] which sanctity takes effect upon them.

Beit Shammai argued to Beit Hillel that this proves that mistaken consecration is valid.

But

do

you not

agree concerning one who

comes to tithe his herd, passing his animals one by one beneath the staff, striking the tenth with the staff bearing red paint and calling it animal tithe,

that

if he

erred

in his counting and mistakenly skipped the number nine,

and called the

lamb that emerged

ninth by the name

“

tenth”?

And

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

But he then erred in the halakha, thinking that he had to correct his having skipped the number nine by counting the next animal to emerge as number nine.

And that is indeed what he did: he counted the lamb that emerged afterward as number nine [although in truth it was the tenth lamb to pass beneath the staff], and it turned out that he called

the

tenth

lamb

by the name “

ninth.”

As a result of this mistake, he continued to err, and he designated the next lamb as animal tithe [although in truth it was the eleventh lamb to pass beneath the staff].

And

he called

the

lamb that emerged

eleventh by the name “

tenth.”

tenth.”

Thus, throughout his sequence of mistakes, he mistakenly called two lambs “tenth”—the ninth and the eleventh—while he called the true tenth “ninth”—

and it is consecrated!

That is, the true tenth is consecrated with the sanctity of animal tithe, since it was the one that emerged tenth, and it makes no difference what he called it.

The true ninth and the true eleventh, which he mistakenly called “tenth,” become consecrated with the sanctity of an offering; the tannaim disputed this matter in tractate Bekhorot.

This law is derived from the novel implication of the verse [in Bekhorot 60b], and Beit Hillel also concede it. It follows from here that mistaken consecration is valid, as Beit Shammai say!

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai:

This is not mistaken consecration!

For

it was not the staff

that the person counting the lambs mistakenly lowered onto the ninth lamb and afterward onto the eleventh lamb, calling them “tenth,”

that consecrated

the ninth and eleventh lambs with the sanctity of an offering!

The proof that it is not the consecrator’s mistake that imposes the sanctity of an offering, as you say, because mistaken consecration is valid, is the following—

And what if he erred

the counter

and placed the staff upon

the lamb that emerged

eighth, and upon

the lamb that emerged

twelfth,

calling them “tenth”;

would he have done anything

through his words!?

Certainly he would have done nothing, since the Torah did not introduce a general rule concerning animal tithe that mistaken consecration is valid.

Rather,

the

verse states that it consecrated

the lamb

that

passes

tenth,

even if it was not counted as the tenth [that is, the verse teaches that it is consecrated with the sanctity of animal tithe even if the person counting the lambs did not count it as the tenth, but mistakenly called it the ninth]—