Talmud Nazir (E)

(16) And there is no distinction between the kind of naziriteship undertaken.
(17) And he had set aside money to buy the sacrifices required for purification (v. Hum. VI, 10), and then died.
(18) I.e., may the son use the money towards the sacrifices he must offer on completing his naziriteship.
(19) And he had set aside money for the sacrifices and then died.
(20) I.e., may the son use the money towards the sacrifices of an unclean nazirite.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 31a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 31a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 31a
BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT IT IS NOT EFFECTIVE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE
SAYS, THE BLACK BULL THAT LEAVES MY HOUSE FIRST SHALL BE SACRED,’ AND A
WHITE ONE EMERGES, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE IT SACRED, BUT BETH HILLEL SAY
THAT IT IS NOT SACRED. [OR IF HE SAYS,] ‘THE GOLD DENAR THAT COMES INTO MY
HAND FIRST SHALL BE SACRED, AND A SILVER DENAR CAME TO HIS HAND BETH
SHAMMAI DECLARE IT SACRED, WHILST BETH HILLEL SAY THAT IT IS NOT SACRED.
[AGAIN, IF HE SAYS,] ‘THE CASK OF WINE THAT I COME ACROSS FIRST SHALL BE
SACRED,’ AND HE COMES ACROSS A CASK OF OIL, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE IT
SACRED, BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT IT IS NOT SACRED.
 
    GEMARA. BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT CONSECRATION, etc.: Beth Shammai's reason is
that they compare original consecration
1
 with secondary consecration.
2
 Just as substitution, even
when made in error, is effective,
3
 so [original] consecration, even when made in error, is effective.
Beth Hillel, however, contend that this is true only of substitution,
4
 but that no consecration in error
can take effect in the first instance.
 
    But suppose, according to Beth Shammai, someone says, ‘This [animal] is to replace that [one] at
midday,’ it would surely not become a substitute [immediately] from that moment, but only when
midday arrives, and so here too, [surely, consecration should not take effect] until the condition
[under which it was made] becomes realized?
5
 — R. Papa replied: The reason that [the word]
‘FIRST’ was mentioned by him was [simply] to indicate that one [of his black oxen] which should
emerge first.
6
 — But the text says, ‘the black bull,’ and surely it contemplates the case where he may
have only the one?
7
 — In the case considered, he is assumed to have two or three.
8
 Beth Hillel,
however, contend that if this [was his intention]
9
 it should have said, ‘[The black hull] that leaves
earliest.’
10
 — Raba of Barnesh
11
 said to R. Ashi; Is this [called] consecration in error? It is surely
intentional consecration?
12
 — [He replied:] Quite so, but [it is called consecration in error] because
at first the expression he used gave a wrong impression.
13
 
    Is it indeed Beth Shammai's opinion that consecration in error is not effective consecration?
14
Have we not learnt: If a man, who vows to be a nazirite, sets aside an animal [for the sacrifice], and
[then] applies to the Sages [for absolution from his vow] and they release him, [the animal] goes
forth and pastures with the flock.
15
 Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: Do you not admit that this is a
case of consecration in error,
16
 and yet [the animal] goes forth and pastures with the flock?
17
Whence
18
 it follows [does it not] that Beth Shammai hold consecration in error to be effective? —
No; Beth Hillel were mistaken. They took the reason for Beth Shammai's view
19
 to be that
consecration in error is effective, but the latter replied that [the consecration is effective] not because
it was consecration in error, but because at first the expression he used gave a wrong impression.
20
 
    But is it Beth Shammai's opinion that consecration in error is not effective? Come [then] and hear:
If [some people] were walking along the road
____________________
(1) Consecration of a profane object.
(2)  Lit., ‘final consecration’. If anyone substitutes a profane animal for one already sacred, the substitution is not
effective, but the profane animal becomes sacred too (v. Lev. XXVII, 20). Substitution is termed ‘secondary

---

consecration’.
(3) V. Tem. 27a.
(4) Since one animal was already sacred.
(5)  But not where the stipulation was not fulfilled, as, e.g., a white bull emerged and not a black one. Thus the
comparison with substitution is not borne out.
(6) R. Papa rejects the explanation of Beth Shammai's opinion given above, and says that even on Beth Shammai's view,
it is the black bull that emerges first which becomes sacred. In other words we do not set aside his statement because a
white bull emerged first, as ‘FIRST’ may be understood as applying to the black oxen only (Tosaf.).
(7) In which case, he could not mean ‘the first of the black bulls.’
(8) I.e., unless he has two or three black bulls, the question of one bull becoming sacred does not arise.
(9) Viz., that the first black bull to emerge should become sacred, irrespective of whether others came out before it.
(10) [
iuatrc tmha
 ‘at first’, which may also denote the first (black bull) that leaves.]
(11) [Near Sura, v. Obermeyer. Die Landschaft Babylonien, p. 296.]
(12) For on R. Papa's view, he intended to make the first black bull to emerge sacred.
(13) For he appears to mean that the black bull must come out before any other bull.
(14) As is maintained by R. Papa.
(15) I.e., it ceases to be holy.
(16) For when he consecrated the animal he believed himself liable, whilst his subsequent release showed that he was
not.
(17) Infra 31b.
(18) From Beth Hillel's remark.
(19) That the first black bull is sacred.
(20) I.e., he really meant that bull to be sacred, but appeared to be saying something else.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 31b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 31b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 31b
and [saw] someone coming towards them, and one said, ‘I declare myself a nazirite if it is
So-and-so,’ whilst another said, ‘I declare myself a nazirite if it is not So-and-so,’ [and a third man,]
‘I declare myself a nazirite if one of you is a nazirite, [a fourth, ‘I declare myself a nazirite] if neither
of you is a nazirite, [a fifth, ‘I declare myself a nazirite] if both of you are nazirites,’ [and a sixth, ‘I
declare myself a nazirite] if all of you are nazirites,’ Beth Shammai say that all [six] of them are
nazirites.
1
 Now this is a case of consecration in error,
2
 and yet [the Mishnah] teaches that all of them
are nazirites? — From this it certainly follows that Beth Shammai are of the opinion that
consecration in error is effective, but not from the other.
3
 
    Abaye said: You should not assume that [the declaration] was made in the morning.
4
 We speak
here of a case where it was already midday, and he then said, ‘The black bull that left my house first
[to day] shall be sacred,’
5
 and when informed that a white one left [first], he remarked, ‘Had I known
that a white one left, I should not have said black.’
6
 But how can you say that it refers to what took
place at midday,
7
 seeing that the text reads: THE GOLD DENAR THAT COMES?
8
 — Read, ‘that
has come.’
9
 [But the text also reads,] THE CASK OF WINE THAT I COME ACROSS?
8
 — Read,
‘that I came across.
9
 
    R. Hisda said: Black [oxen] amongst white [ones] spoil the herd.
10
 White [patches] on black
[oxen] are a blemish.
 
    We have learnt: [IF SOMEONE SAYS,] ‘THE BLACK BULL THAT IS THE FIRST TO LEAVE
MY HOUSE [SHALL BE SACRED,’ AND A WHITE ONE EMERGES, BETH SHAMMAI
DECLARE] IT SACRED. Now when a person consecrates, he does so with an ill grace,
11
 and yet
Beth Shammai say that [the white bull] is sacred?
12
 Do you suggest then that a person consecrates
with a good grace?
13
 [If so, how can we explain the following clause: IF HE SAYS,] ‘THE GOLD
DENAR THAT COMES INTO MY HAND FIRST [SHALL BE SACRED],’ AND A SILVER

---