## Nazir Daf 32a

###### Nazir 32a:1
[Nazir 32a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:1)

וְאֶת אַחַד עָשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and the eleventh.** It is a Torah edict that the consecration takes effect with regard to those two animals. Therefore, one cannot infer from this case that an erroneous act of consecration takes effect.


###### Nazir 32a:2
[Nazir 32a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְלָא רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Whose** opinion is expressed in **the mishna,** when it rules that one whose request to dissolve his vow was rejected by a halakhic authority counts the duration of his naziriteship from the moment he took the vow, including the days on which he did not observe the *halakhot* of naziriteship in practice? The Gemara responds: It is **neither** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, nor** that of **the Rabbis.**


###### Nazir 32a:3
[Nazir 32a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:3)

דְּתַנְיָא: מִי שֶׁנָּדַר וְעָבַר עַל נְזִירוּתוֹ — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מוֹנֶה בָּהֶן אִיסּוּר כַּיָּמִים שֶׁנָּהַג בָּהֶם הֶיתֵּר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: דַּיּוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta Nedarim* 1:6): With regard to **one who took a vow** of naziriteship **and** later **transgressed his** vow of **naziriteship** by drinking wine, the halakhic authorities **do not attend to his** request to dissolve his vow, nor do they let him complete his term as a nazirite by sacrificing offerings, **unless he counted,** i.e., observed, days of the **prohibitions** of naziriteship **for the same** number of **days in which he behaved with permissiveness** concerning the restrictions of a nazirite. Only after he observes the prohibitions of naziriteship for the number of days that his observance lapsed will a halakhic authority hear his request for dissolution, or allow him to bring his offerings. **Rabbi Yosei says: Thirty days is enough for him.** He is required to observe additional days of naziriteship only if he transgressed his vow of naziriteship for thirty days or more.


###### Nazir 32a:4
[Nazir 32a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:4)

אִי רַבָּנַן, קַשְׁיָא נְזִירוּת מוּעֶטֶת. אִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, קַשְׁיָא נְזִירוּת מְרוּבָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: Which of these opinions might correspond to that of the mishna? **If** it is that of **the Rabbis,** it is **difficult** with respect to **a short naziriteship,** i.e., a standard term of naziriteship, which lasts for thirty days. The Rabbis maintain that he cannot include all the days from the time he took the vow even if his naziriteship was short. They hold that he must add days corresponding to the days that he failed to observe the *halakhot* required of a nazirite. **If** it is that of **Rabbi Yosei,** although he agrees that one who transgresses his vow of naziriteship for a short period of less than thirty days need not add to his term, it is nevertheless **difficult** with regard to **a lengthy naziriteship,** as even Rabbi Yosei rules that in such a case the individual must observe naziriteship for additional days.


###### Nazir 32a:5
[Nazir 32a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:5)

אִיבָּעֵית תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וְאִיבָּעֵית תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן. אִיבָּעֵית תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כָּאן בִּנְזִירוּת מְרוּבָּה, כָּאן בִּנְזִירוּת מוּעֶטֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish,** you can **say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, and if you wish,** you can **say** it is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.** The Gemara explains: **If you wish,** you can **say** that the mishna is in accordance with **Rabbi Yosei: Here,** the *baraita* is speaking **of a lengthy naziriteship; there,** the mishna is referring **to a short naziriteship.** In other words, the mishna refers only to one who transgresses his vow of naziriteship for less than thirty days.


###### Nazir 32a:6
[Nazir 32a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:6)

וְאִיבָּעֵית תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן: לָא תֵּימָא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנָּזַר, אֶלָּא אֵימָא כְּמִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנָּזַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish,** you can **say** that the mishna follows the opinion of **the Rabbis,** by emending its wording: **Do not say** that he must observe naziriteship **from the time that he vowed; rather, say: Like from the time that he vowed.** That is, he must count his naziriteship corresponding to the time that has elapsed since he took his vow, exactly as stated by the Rabbis.


###### Nazir 32a:7
[Nazir 32a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:7)

נִשְׁאַל לַחֲכָמִים וְהִתִּירוּהוּ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִדְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי נִשְׁמַע לִדְבֵית הִלֵּל. לָאו אָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת הָוֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא דְּלָאו שַׁפִּיר נָזַר — תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that with regard to one who **requested of the halakhic authorities and they dissolved** the vow **for him,** and he had already separated an animal for a nazirite offering, it shall go out and graze among the flock. **Rabbi Yirmeya said: From** the ruling **of Beit Shammai one can learn** a *halakha* with regard **to** the opinion **of Beit Hillel.** Is it **not** the case that **Beit Shammai say** that **an erroneous** act of **consecration is** considered **consecration,** and yet **once the matter is revealed that his vow of naziriteship** was **not right,** i.e., it has been dissolved, the animal is considered non-sacred and **shall go out and graze among** the **flock.**


###### Nazir 32a:8
[Nazir 32a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:8)

לְבֵית הִלֵּל נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמְרִי תְּמוּרָה בְּטָעוּת הָוְיָא תְּמוּרָה — הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ לְעִיקַּר הֶקְדֵּשׁ. אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּמִיתְעֲקַר עִיקַּר הֶקְדֵּשׁ — אִיתְעֲקַר נָמֵי תְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya continues: **According to** the opinion of **Beit Hillel as well, even though** they **say** that **a substitution** of a consecrated animal for another performed **in error is** a valid **substitute, this applies** only **when the initial consecration,** i.e., the consecration of the first animal, **is** in effect, in which case a substitution can take place. **However,** in a situation **where the initial consecration has been uprooted,** i.e., a halakhic authority dissolved the vow pertaining to the first consecration, the first animal is no longer consecrated, and therefore the **substitute is also uprooted,** i.e., the animal remains non-sacred.


###### Nazir 32a:9
[Nazir 32a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:9)

אָמַר מָר: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים שֶׁאִילּוּ קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי עֲשִׂירִי כּוּ׳. אִיתְּמַר: מַעֲשֵׂר, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: טָעוּתוֹ, וְלֹא כַּוּוֹנָתוֹ. רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמְרִי: טָעוּתוֹ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן כַּוּוֹנָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Master said** in the mishna: **Don’t you concede with regard to one who called the ninth** animal: **Tenth,** that it is consecrated? It **was stated** that *amora’im* engaged in a dispute concerning this point. With regard to the animal **tithe, Rav Naḥman said:** It is consecrated in the above manner only if it resulted from **his error, but not** from **his intentional** declaration. If the owner was aware that it was the ninth animal and called it: Tenth, on purpose, his consecration is ineffective. **Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: His error** consecrates the animal, **and all the more so his intentional** declaration, i.e., if he called the ninth or eleventh animals: Tenth, in full knowledge that they were not the tenth.


###### Nazir 32a:10
[Nazir 32a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ טָעוּתוֹ וְלֹא כַּוּוֹנָתוֹ, דְּקָאָמְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים שֶׁאִילּוּ קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי עֲשִׂירִי, וְלָעֲשִׂירִי תְּשִׁיעִי, וְלָאַחַד עָשָׂר עֲשִׂירִי, שֶׁשְּׁלָשְׁתָּן מְקוּדָּשִׁין? וְאִישְׁתִּיקוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to Rav Naḥman: According to your** opinion, **that you say** it is only **his error** that consecrates the ninth animal **and not his intentional** declaration, consider **that Beit Shammai said** the following **to Beit Hillel** in the mishna as proof that erroneous consecration is valid: **Don’t you concede that if he called the ninth: Tenth; the tenth: Ninth; and the eleventh: Tenth, that all three are consecrated? And Beit Hillel were silent** in face of this question.


###### Nazir 32a:11
[Nazir 32a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:11)

לֵימְרוּ לְהוֹן: מָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁכֵּן אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בְּכַוּוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, according to your opinion, **let** Beit Hillel **say to** Beit Shammai: While it is correct that an erroneous act of consecration takes effect with regard to animal tithe, one cannot learn the *halakha* of other types of consecration from there, as **what** is unique **about tithe is that it is not consecrated** if his declaration concerning the wrong animal was **intentional,** whereas other types of consecration are typically the result of a purposeful act. Since other types of consecration take effect with intent, an erroneous act of consecration is not considered consecration.


###### Nazir 32a:12
[Nazir 32a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:12)

אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּלָא אָמְרִי לְהוֹן, דְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא: מָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בְּכַוּוֹנָה — קָדוֹשׁ בְּטָעוּת, הֶקְדֵּשׁ, שֶׁקָּדוֹשׁ בְּכַוּוֹנָה — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: This is the reason that** Beit Hillel **did not say** that answer **to** Beit Shammai, as one can argue in the opposite manner, by saying **that it is an *a fortiori*** inference: **If tithe, which is not consecrated** when he acts **intentionally,** is nevertheless **consecrated** if he acted **erroneously;** with regard to other types of **consecration, which are consecrated intentionally,** is it **not all the more so** that an act of erroneous consecration should render an item consecrated?


###### Nazir 32a:13
[Nazir 32a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:13)

וְלָא הִיא, דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּדַעְתָּא דְמָרֵיהּ תְּלֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **And this is not so,** as this *a fortiori* inference is flawed, **as consecration depends on the intention of the owner,** and therefore it cannot apply when done in error. By contrast, the animal tithe is not consecrated through the intention of its owner but merely by counting, as every tenth animal is consecrated.


###### Nazir 32a:14
[Nazir 32a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/32a:14)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִי שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר, וְהָלַךְ לְהָבִיא אֶת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ, וּמְצָאָהּ שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְנְבָה בְּהֶמְתּוֹ נָזַר — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who took a vow of naziriteship and went to bring his animal** which he set aside for his nazirite offering **and discovered that it was stolen,** and due to the need to separate an additional animal now regrets having taken his vow, **if he took a vow of naziriteship before his animal was stolen, he is a nazirite,** as a vow cannot be dissolved as the result of a later event.