## Nazir Daf 31a

###### Nazir 31a:1
[Nazir 31a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/31a:1)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ. כֵּיצַד? אָמַר ״שׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִבֵּיתִי רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ״, וְיָצָא לָבָן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. ״דִּינַר זָהָב שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה בְּיָדִי רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ״, וְעָלָה שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. ״חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה בְּיָדִי רִאשׁוֹנָה הֲרֵי הִיא הֶקְדֵּשׁ״, וְעָלְתָה שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and Beit Hillel say** it is **not consecrated. How so;** what is considered an act of erroneous consecration? If one **said: A black bull that will emerge from my house first is consecrated, and a white** bull **emerged** first, **Beit Shammai say** it is **consecrated and Beit Hillel say** it is **not consecrated.** Similarly, if one said: **A gold dinar that will come up first in my hand is consecrated, and** when he reached into his pocket a dinar **of silver came up, Beit Shammai say** it is **consecrated and Beit Hillel say** it is **not consecrated.** Likewise, if one said: **A barrel of wine that will come up first in my hand** when I enter the cellar **is consecrated, and** a barrel **of oil came up** in his hand instead, **Beit Shammai say** it is **consecrated and Beit Hillel say** it is **not consecrated.**


###### Nazir 31a:2
[Nazir 31a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/31a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי — דְּיָלְפִינַן תְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִסּוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ. מָה תְּמוּרָה אֲפִילּוּ בְּטָעוּת — אַף הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֲפִילּוּ בְּטָעוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna taught that **Beit Shammai say** that **consecration** performed in error renders property consecrated, and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated. The Gemara analyzes their dispute: **What is the reason of Beit Shammai?** They maintain **that we derive** the *halakha* of **the initial** stage **of consecration from the final** stage **of consecration.** The final stage of consecration is referring to substitution, when one attempts to substitute a non-consecrated animal for a consecrated one. **Just as** an act of **substitution** takes effect **even in error,** i.e., if one meant to say that his black bull should be a substitute for his consecrated animal and he actually said: This white bull, the white bull is rendered consecrated, **so too,** the initial stage of **consecration** takes effect **even** when done **in error.**


###### Nazir 31a:3
[Nazir 31a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/31a:3)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: הָנֵי מִילֵּי תְּמוּרָה. אֲבָל אַחוֹתֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת — לָא מַחֲתִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Hillel say: This matter,** i.e., the *halakha* that consecration takes effect even when done in error, applies only to **substitution,** where there is an animal that is already fully consecrated. **However, we do not have** the initial status of **consecration descend** upon an item **in error.**


###### Nazir 31a:4
[Nazir 31a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/31a:4)

וּלְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, מָה אִילּוּ אָמַר ״הָרֵי זֶה תַּחַת זֶה לַחֲצִי הַיּוֹם״ מִי הָוְיָא תְּמוּרָה מֵהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא? אֶלָּא עַד דְּמָטֵי חֲצִי הַיּוֹם הוּא דְּהָוְיָא תְּמוּרָה. הָכִי נָמֵי לְכִי מִיגַּלְּיָא מִילְּתָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Beit Shammai,** who derive the *halakha* of the initial stage of consecration from substitution, **just as if one said,** at the start of the day: **This** animal **is** a substitute **in exchange for this** animal **in the middle of the day, would it become a substitute from that time** when he issued the statement, in opposition to his explicit statement? It would not. **Rather,** Beit Shammai certainly concede that the animal does not become consecrated as a substitute **until the middle of the day arrives,** at which point **it becomes a substitution. So too,** in the case of the mishna, the consecration should take effect **when the situation is revealed** to be in accordance with his statement, i.e., only if a black bull emerges first. Only then should the animal be rendered consecrated, but not if a white bull emerges first. Why do Beit Shammai hold that in the case of the mishna the consecration takes effect in opposition to his explicit statement?


###### Nazir 31a:5
[Nazir 31a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/31a:5)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״רִאשׁוֹן״ לִכְשֶׁיֵּצֵא רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** Beit Shammai concede that consecration does not take effect in opposition to one’s explicit statement. Rather, they maintain that it is **for this** reason that the man **states:** The black bull that will emerge from my house **first,** as he means the following: **When** the **first** black bull of all the black bulls I possess **will emerge** from my house, it will be consecrated. When Beit Shammai ruled that the bull is consecrated, they were referring to the first black bull that emerged, even if it was not the first bull that emerged, as a white bull preceded it.


###### Nazir 31a:6
[Nazir 31a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/31a:6)

וְהָא ״שׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר״ קָאָמַר, מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אֶלָּא הַאי? לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּרֵין תְּלָתָא. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אִם כֵּן, ״שֶׁיֵּצֵא בָּרִאשׁוֹן״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But he said: Black bull,** and **are we not dealing** even with a case **where he only has this** one black bull? If so, the Gemara’s initial interpretation of his statement is correct: The black bull is consecrated only if it is the first to emerge, but not if a white bull precedes it. The Gemara answers: **No;** it is **necessary** to state this *halakha* with regard to a case **where he has two** or **three** black bulls. **And Beit Hillel say: If so,** i.e., if he intended to consecrate the first of his black bulls to emerge from the house, **he should have** said: The **first** black bull **that will emerge** from my house. Since he did not say this, he must have meant that the black bull should be consecrated only if it is the first bull of any kind to emerge.


###### Nazir 31a:7
[Nazir 31a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/31a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא מִבַּרְנִישׁ לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת הוּא? הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּכַוּוֹנָה הוּא! מִשּׁוּם דְּאַטְעֲיֵיהּ לְדִיבּוּרֵיהּ קַמָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava from Barnish said to Rav Ashi,** with regard to the explanation of Rav Pappa: Is **this** case he mentioned one of **erroneous consecration? It is intentional consecration.** According to the interpretation of Rav Pappa, there is no error. He intended to consecrate the first black bull that emerged, and that is what was consecrated. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it is called an erroneous consecration **because he erred in his first statement.** His statement of consecration gave the mistaken impression that he desired to consecrate the first bull that emerges, even if it is white. In any case, Rav Pappa indicates that even Beit Shammai hold that an erroneous act of consecration does not take effect.


###### Nazir 31a:8
[Nazir 31a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/31a:8)

וְסָבְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת לָא הָוֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ? וְהָתְנַן: מִי שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר וְנִשְׁאַל לַחֲכָמִים וְהִתִּירוּ, וְהָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה מוּפְרֶשֶׁת — תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this assumption: **And** do **Beit Shammai hold** that an indisputably **erroneous** act of **consecration is not** considered an act of **consecration? But didn’t we learn** in the mishna (31b): With regard to **one who took a vow of naziriteship and** later **made a request to the halakhic authorities** to dissolve his vow, **and they dissolved** his vow, **and he had** already **separated an animal** for one of his nazirite offerings beforehand, **it shall go out and graze among the flock,** like any other non-sacred animal.


###### Nazir 31a:9
[Nazir 31a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/31a:9)

אָמְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים שֶׁהֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת הוּא, וְתֵצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר?! מִכְלָל דְּסָבְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת הָוֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Don’t you concede that** the reason for this ruling is because **it is an erroneous** act of **consecration, and** that a consecration of this kind does not take effect, and that is the reason **it shall go out and graze among** the **flock?** The same *halakha* should apply to all erroneous acts of consecration. One can learn from here **by inference that Beit Shammai hold** that an entirely **erroneous** act of **consecration is** considered **consecration,** as is evident from Beit Hillel’s question.


###### Nazir 31a:10
[Nazir 31a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/31a:10)

אֶלָּא בֵּית הִלֵּל הוּא דְּקָא טָעוּ, סָבְרִי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי מִשּׁוּם דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת הָוֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְאָמְרִי לְהוֹן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: לָאו מִשּׁוּם הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת הוּא, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּאַטְעֲיֵיהּ לְדִיבּוּרֵיהּ קַמָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is not the case; **rather, it is Beit Hillel who erred** in their understanding. **They thought** that **Beit Shammai’s reasoning** was **because an erroneous** act of **consecration is** considered **consecration,** and therefore they raised a difficulty with regard to the case of a nazirite. **And Beit Shammai said to them:** Our reasoning in the case of the black bull is **not because** it is **an erroneous** act of **consecration. Rather,** it is merely called an erroneous consecration **because he erred in his first statement,** as he actually meant to consecrate the first of his black bulls to emerge from his house.


###### Nazir 31a:11
[Nazir 31a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/31a:11)

וְסָבְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת לָא הָוֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ? תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to ask: **And** do **Beit Shammai hold** that an indisputably **erroneous** act of **consecration is not** considered **consecration? Come** and **hear** proof from the mishna (32b) that they maintain that an erroneously consecrated item is considered consecrated: If there **were** several people **walking along the way,**