Talmud Nazir (E)

DENAR CAME TO HIS HAND, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE IT SACRED?
14
 — Do you submit,
then, that a person consecrates with an ill grace? [Consider then the following: 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,’ and yet oil is superior to
wine? — That raises no difficulty, for it was taught with reference to Galilee where wine is superior
to oil. But the first clause [of our Mishnah] seems to contradict R. Hisda? — R. Hisda will reply: My
statement
15
 referred to Carmanian
16
 oxen.
 
    R. Hisda also used to say: A black ox for its hide, a red one for its flesh, a white one for
ploughing.
17
 But R. Hisda said that black [oxen] amongst white ones spoil the herd?
18
 — He said
that with reference to Carmanian oxen.
 
    MISHNAH. IF A MAN VOWS TO BE A NAZIRITE AND THEN SEEKS RELEASE FROM A
SAGE
19
 BUT IS FORBIDDEN [TO ANNUL HIS VOW], HE CAN RECKON [THE
NAZIRITESHIP] FROM THE TIME THAT THE VOW WAS MADE.
20
 IF HE SEEKS RELEASE
FROM A SAGE AND IS ABSOLVED AND HAS AN ANIMAL SET ASIDE [FOR A
SACRIFICE], IT GOES FORTH TO PASTURE WITH [THE REST OF] THE HERD.
21
 BETH
HILLEL SAID TO BETH SHAMMAI: DO YOU NOT ADMIT THAT HERE WHERE THE
CONSECRATION IS IN ERROR,
22
 [THE ANIMAL] GOES FORTH TO PASTURE WITH THE
HERD?
23
 BETH SHAMMAI REPLIED: DO YOU NOT ADMIT THAT IF A MAN IN ERROR
CALLS THE NINTH [ANIMAL], THE TENTH,
24
 OR THE TENTH THE NINTH, OR THE
ELEVENTH THE TENTH, EACH BECOMES SACRED?
25
 BETH HILLEL RETORTED: IT IS
NOT THE ROD THAT MAKES THESE SACRED,
26
 FOR SUPPOSE THAT IN ERROR HE
PLACED THE ROD UPON THE EIGHTH OR UPON THE TWELFTH, WOULD THIS HAVE
ANY EFFECT? [THE FACT IS] THAT SCRIPTURE WHICH HAS DECLARED THE TENTH TO
BE SACRED, HAS ALSO DECLARED SACRED THE NINTH
____________________
(1) Mishnah, infra 32b. q.v.
(2) Since they become nazirites whether or no their conditions are fulfilled.
(3) I.e., not from our own Mishnah, which is only apparently but not really a case of consecration in error, as explained
by R. Papa and R. Ashi.
(4) I.e., that when the man said, ‘The black bull etc.’ he was referring to a future event and not a past one.
(5) [Vocalizing 
tmh
 instead of 
tmh
]
(6) The case is now analogous to substitution in error, and Beth Shammai's reason will be that they infer consecration in
error from substitution in error.
(7) I.e., to a past event.
(8) ‘Left’ and ‘will leave’ have the same consonants in Hebrew but are pronounced differently (v. p. 112, n. 7); but in
these cases, the past has different consonants from the future and so cannot be confused with it.
(9) I.e., change the reading. Instead of 
vkgh
 read 
vkg
 and instead of 
vkg,
 read 
v,kg
.
(10) Because black oxen are inferior to white ones.
(11) Lit., ‘malevolent eye’. He does not wish anything more than he has specified to become sacred.
(12) And so white bulls must be worth less than black ones.
(13) Lit., ‘benevolent eye’.
(14) Thus he is satisfied to give a silver coin instead of a gold one, but had he consecrated with a good grace, the silver
would not become sacred.
(15) That white oxen are better than black.
(16) Carmania, a province of Persia, the oxen of which were generally employed for ploughing.
(17)  I.e., each kind is most suitable for the purpose mentioned. Thus in respect to its hide, a black ox is superior to a
white one. [V. Lewysohn, Zoologie, p. 131.]
(18) Yet here he says that their hides are superior.
(19) It is presumed that he had drunk wine in the interval.
(20) I.e., presumably, his transgression has not affected the validity of the period past.

---

(21) I.e., it ceases to be holy.
(22) Because his release shows that no sacrifice was necessary.
(23) And so no consecration in error should be effective.
(24) During tithing of cattle; cf. Lev. XXVII, 32.
(25) Thus consecration in error is effective.
(26) I.e., it is not his error in striking the wrong animal with the tithing rod that makes it sacred.

---

Talmud - Mas. Nazir 32a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 32a
AND THE ELEVENTH.
1
 
    GEMARA. Who can the author of [the first paragraph of] our Mishnah be? For it [agrees] neither
with R. Jose nor with the Rabbis. For it has been taught: If a man vows [to be a nazirite] and
transgresses a rule of his naziriteship, his case is not examined,
2
 unless he [first] observes in
[nazirite] abstinence as many days as he has passed in indulgence.
3
 R. Jose said that thirty days are
enough.
4
 Now if [the author] be the Rabbis, [the case also of] naziriteship for a long period offers
difficulty,
5
 whilst if it be R. Jose, [the case of] naziriteship for a short period offers difficulty?
6
 — It
may be maintained either that [the author] is R. Jose, or that [the authors] are the Rabbis. It may be
maintained that [the author] is R. Jose, by supposing that [the Mishnah refers] to a long period of
naziriteship [only],
7
 and [the Baraitha] to a short period of naziriteship [as well].
8
 It can also be
maintained that [the authors] are the Rabbis, in which case we must read [in the Mishnah] not,
‘FROM THE TIME THAT THE VOW WAS MADE,’
9
 but ‘equal [to the period which has elapsed]
since the vow was made.’
10
 
    IF HE SEEKS RELEASE FROM THE SAGES, AND THEY ABSOLVE HIM etc.: R. Jeremiah
said: From [the opinion of] Beth Shammai we can infer that of Beth Hillel. Do not Beth Shammai
assert that consecration in error is effective and yet when it becomes clear
11
 that the nazirite vow is
not valid, [the animal] goes forth to pasture with the herd? So too, for Beth Hillel. Although they say
that substitution in error is effective substitution, this is only true where the original consecration
remains,
12
 but where the original consecration is revoked,
13
 [the consecration resulting from] the
substitution is also revoked.
14
 
    The Master said: ‘DO YOU NOT ADMIT THAT IF HE CALLS THE NINTH THE TENTH, etc.
It has been stated: In the case of the tithe, R. Nahman said that [this is the rule only] if this is done in
error, not if it is done intentionally.
15
 R. Hisda and Rabbah b. R Huna, however, said that [it is
certainly the rule] if it is done in error, and all the more so if it is done intentionally.
16
 
    Raba said to R. Nahman: According to you who assert that [it is the rule only] if it is done in error
and not if done intentionally, when Beth Shammai asked Beth Hillel, DO YOU NOT ADMIT THAT
IF HE CALLED THE NINTH THE TENTH, THE TENTH THE NINTH, OR THE ELEVENTH
THE TENTH, THAT ALL THREE ARE SACRED? and Beth Hillel were silent,
17
 why could they
not have answered that the case of tithes is different since these
18
 cannot be made sacred
intentionally?
19
 — R. Shimi b. Ashi replied: The reason that they did not do so is because of an
afortiori argument that might be based on this [by Beth Shammai].
20
 For [Beth Shammai might have
argued that] if tithes that cannot be consecrated [out of turn] intentionally can be so consecrated in
error, then ordinary consecration that can be done intentionally should certainly take effect [in
error].
21
 This [argument], however, would be unsound, for [ordinary] consecration depends entirely
upon the intention of the owner.
22
 MISHNAH. IF A MAN VOWS TO BE A NAZIRITE AND ON
GOING TO BRING HIS ANIMAL [FOR THE SACRIFICE] FINDS THAT IT HAS BEEN
STOLEN, THEN IF HE HAD DECLARED HIMSELF A NAZIRITE BEFORE THE THEFT OF
HIS ANIMAL,
23
 HE IS [STILL] A NAZIRITE,
____________________
(1) If they are struck in error; v. infra for source.
(2) Should he desire to be released from his vow.
(3) I.e., the number of days which have elapsed between his transgression and his seeking for absolution.
(4) Tosef. Ned. I; i.e., if his period of transgression was longer than thirty days, he is made to keep a naziriteship of thirty
days, before being released.
(5)  The Mishnah allows him to reckon in all cases the days of his transgression as part of his naziriteship, whilst the
Rabbis do not do so.

---