Kommentar zu Nazir 5:2
דִּינַר זָהָב שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה בְיָדִי רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְעָלָה שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה בְיָדִי רִאשׁוֹנָה הֲרֵי הִיא הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְעָלְתָה שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ:
Wenn einer sagte :) "Lass den ersten goldenen Dinar, der in meiner Hand auftaucht, Hekdesh sein", und ein silberner kam, sagte Beth Shammai, dass es Hekdesh ist, und Beth Hillel sagt, dass es kein Hekdesh ist. (Wenn einer sagte;) "Lass das erste Fass Wein, das in meiner Hand kommt, Hekdesh sein, und ein Fass Öl kam hoch, Beth Shammai sagt, dass es Hekdesh ist, und Beth Hillel sagt, dass es nicht Hekdesh ist Der erste Teil (5: 1) informiert uns darüber, was an sich zu Hekdesh wird, und hier erfahren wir, was in Geldwert zu Hekdesh wird.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Nazir
English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir
[If he says,] “The cask of wine that comes into may hand first shall be consecrated,” and a cask of oil came into his hand: Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated.
This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, where we learned that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel debate the status of something that was consecrated based on a mistaken premise. Today’s mishnah is very similar to yesterday’s and quite simple to understand. A question that we might ask is why the mishnah brings three examples to illustrate one principle rather than sufficing with one. I shall discuss this below.
As stated above, the mishnah is quite simple to understand, both cases dealing with a person who consecrated an item assuming that it would be different than it actually was.
One reason that the mishnah may have continued to bring examples of this debate is that the previous mishnah was about an ox, an animal that can be sacrificed on the altar, while section one of this mishnah is about money, which is not put directly onto the altar. We might have thought that the debate between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not exist if the consecrated item was a denar, which must be used to purchase something which then can be sacrificed. The first section of our mishnah teaches that the debate exists even if the item consecrated is not sacrificable.
In the second case, the person thought that he was going to consecrate a cask of wine which is cheaper than a cask of oil. We might have thought that in this case, Beth Shammai would agree that the cask of oil is not consecrated since he surely did not intend to give something of this value to the Temple. The mishnah teaches that even so, the item is consecrated. According to Beth Shammai, people are generous in their gifts to the Temple, and are willing to give even a greater portion of their property than they might have stated. Whether this is wishful thinking on their part or not, the principle of Beth Shammai, that property consecrated under a mistaken principle is consecrated, still holds even in this case.