Nazir 5

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ. כֵּיצַד. אָמַר, שׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִבֵּיתִי רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְיָצָא לָבָן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ:

Beth Shammai say: Hekdesh (consecration) in error is hekdesh, [deriving it from temurah (a substitute), which is hekdesh even in error, it being written (Leviticus 27:10): "And it (the offering) and its substitute shall be holy," "shall be" being expounded to include unwitting substitution along with witting substitution.] And Beth Hillel say: It is not hekdesh. [For we do not derive the beginning of hekdesh — something that does not come from the "power" of hekdesh — from something which comes from the power of hekdesh — from temurah, which is the end of hekdesh, coming from the power of a different thing which was already hekdesh.] How so? If he said: "Let the black ox that leaves my house first be hekdesh," and a white one came out. Beth Shammai say that it is hekdesh, and Beth Hillel say that it is not hekdesh.

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:

If one said:) "Let the first golden dinar that comes up in my hand be hekdesh," and a silver one came up, Beth Shammai say that it is hekdesh, and Beth Hillel say that it is not hekdesh. (If one said;) "Let the first keg of wine that comes up in my hand be hekdesh, and a keg of oil came up, Beth Shammai say that it is hekdesh, and Beth Hillel say that it is not hekdesh. [The first part (5:1) apprises us of what becomes hekdesh in itself; and here we are apprised of what becomes hekdesh in monetary value.]

מִי שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר וְנִשְׁאַל לְחָכָם וַאֲסָרוֹ, מוֹנֶה מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנָּדַר. נִשְׁאַל לְחָכָם וְהִתִּירוֹ, הָיְתָה לוֹ בְהֵמָה מֻפְרֶשֶׁת, תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. אָמְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת שֶׁתֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים בְּמִי שֶׁטָּעָה וְקָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי עֲשִׂירִי וְלָעֲשִׂירִי תְשִׁיעִי וְלָאַחַד עָשָׂר עֲשִׂירִי שֶׁהוּא מְקֻדָּשׁ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, לֹא הַשֵּׁבֶט קִדְּשׁוֹ. וּמָה אִלּוּ טָעָה וְהִנִּיחַ אֶת הַשֵּׁבֶט עַל שְׁמִינִי וְעַל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר, שֶׁמָּא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. אֶלָּא כָּתוּב שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אֶת הָעֲשִׂירִי, הוּא קִדֵּשׁ אֶת הַתְּשִׁיעִי וְאֶת אַחַד עָשָׂר:

If one vowed to be a Nazirite, and he consulted a sage, who forbade him, [i.e., if he told him that his language betokened Naziritism; and he (the vower) had not taken care not to drink wine], he counts from the time he vowed. [And we do not penalize him for having transgressed and drunk (even though, if in doubt, he should have abstained until he had consulted a sage.)] If he consulted a sage, who permitted him, [saying that his language did not betoken Naziritism] — if he had a beast set aside, it goes out and grazes with the flock. [For it was set aside in error and becomes chullin (non-sacred). In this instance Beth Shammai concede that since he is not a Nazirite, when he designated the animal as an offering for his Naziritism, he said nothing, as one who was not liable to bring a sin-offering and said: "This is for my sin-offering."] Beth Hillel asked Beth Shammai: Do you not concur in this instance, which is "hekdesh in error," that it goes out and grazes in the flock? [i.e., How does this differ from the first instance (5:1), where you say: "Hekdesh in error is hekdesh"?] Beth Shammai responded: Do you not concur that if one erred and called the ninth, the tenth; or the tenth, the ninth; or the eleventh, the tenth, that it is consecrated (as ma'aser)? [They did not feel obliged to respond with their rationale, but they challenged their (Beth Hillel's) view from the ninth and the eleventh, which were consecrated in error and which are included (as consecrated), this being derived from (Leviticus 27:32): "And all the ma'asser of cattle and sheep"]. Beth Hillel rejoined: Is it not the staff that consecrated them? [i.e., This is a Scriptural decree — that the staff consecrates the ninth and the eleventh which are close to the tenth, if he calls them "the tenth."] And what if he had erred and placed the staff on the eighth or on the twelfth — would he have done anything? [i.e., We do not learn from this that, in general, "hekdesh in error is hekdesh"; for if that were the reason, then even the eighth and the twelfth would be hekdesh.] But it is Scripture that consecrated the tenth and Scripture that consecrated the ninth and the eleventh. [i.e., It is a Scriptural decree, and we cannot derive (a general ruling) from it.]

מִי שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר וְהָלַךְ לְהָבִיא אֶת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וּמְצָאָהּ שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְנְבָה בְהֶמְתּוֹ נָזַר, הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְנְבָה בְהֶמְתּוֹ נָזַר, אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. וְזוֹ טָעוּת טָעָה נַחוּם הַמָּדִי כְּשֶׁעָלוּ נְזִירִים מִן הַגּוֹלָה וּמָצְאוּ בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ חָרֵב, אָמַר לָהֶם נַחוּם הַמָּדִי, אִלּוּ הֱיִיתֶם יוֹדְעִים שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ חָרֵב הֱיִיתֶם נוֹזְרִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא, וְהִתִּירָן נַחוּם הַמָּדִי. וּכְשֶׁבָּא הַדָּבָר אֵצֶל חֲכָמִים, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, כֹּל שֶׁנָּזַר עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, נָזִיר. וּמִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אֵינוֹ נָזִיר:

If one vowed to be a Nazirite and went to bring his beast and found that it had been stolen, [When he made the vow, he (assumed that) he had beasts, and it was on the basis of this assumption that he vowed, intending his Nazirite offerings to come from these beasts. And he went and found that they had been stolen, so that he regretted having vowed to be a Nazirite] — If he had vowed before his beast were stolen, he is a Nazirite [And the sage cannot absolve him of his vow with this "opening," for it is "nolad" (something "born" after the vow), and "nolad" cannot be used as an opening.], and if he had vowed after his beast were stolen, he is not a Nazirite. [If he said: "Had I known that it had been stolen, I would not have vowed, this is an opening, and the sage can absolve him of the vow.] And Nachum Hamadi fell into this error when the Nazirites came up from the exile and found that the Temple had been destroyed. [They had vowed before the Temple had been destroyed, and he absolved them, and the sages said to him that this was nolad, which may not be used as an opening. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] Nachum Hamadi said to them: "Had you known that the Temple had been destroyed, would you have vowed?" They answered in the negative, and he absolved them. And when the sages were apprised of it, they said to him: Everyone who vowed Naziritism before the Temple had been destroyed is a Nazirite. (Everyone who vowed Naziritism) after the Temple had been destroyed is not a Nazirite.

הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאֶחָד בָּא כְנֶגְדָּן, אָמַר אֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה פְלוֹנִי, וְאֶחָד אָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין זֶה פְלוֹנִי, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֶחָד מִכֶּם נָזִיר, שֶׁאֵין אֶחָד מִכֶּם נָזִיר, שֶׁשְּׁנֵיכֶם נְזִירִים, שֶׁכֻּלְּכֶם נְזִירִים, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים כֻּלָּם נְזִירִים. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ נָזִיר אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַיְּמוּ דְבָרָיו. וְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָזִיר:

If they were walking on the road, and someone came towards them, and one of them said: "I shall be a Nazirite if that man is so and so"; and the other said: "I shall be a Nazirite if that man is not so and so"; "I shall be a Nazirite if one of you is a Nazirite"; "if one of you is not a Nazirite"; "if both of you are Nazirites"; "if all of you are Nazirites" — Beth Shammai say: They are all Nazirites [even those whose words were not fulfilled. For just as hekdesh in error is hekdesh, so Naziritism in error is Naziritism.] Beth Hillel say: Only one whose words are fulfilled is a Nazirite. And R. Tarfon says: Not one of them is a Nazirite, [R. Tarfon holding there is no Naziritism without distinctness, i.e., without its being clear at the time of his vow that he is becoming a Nazirite. And in all of the above instances, he does not know at the time of his vow whether it will be as he says. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Tarfon.]

הִרְתִּיעַ לַאֲחוֹרָיו, אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, יֹאמַר, אִם הָיָה כִדְבָרַי, הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר חוֹבָה. וְאִם לָאו, הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר נְדָבָה:

If he drew back, [If the one coming towards them went back, so that it was not known who it was], he is not a Nazirite. [Not one of them is a Nazirite, for one does not place himself in a position of doubt, it being assumed at the time of the vow that if there is no clear determination the vow does not obtain.] R. Shimon says: He must say: "If it were as I said, I am a Nazirite by obligation; if not, I am a Nazirite by election." [R. Shimon is consistent with his view that in an instance of doubt as to whether one is or is not a Nazirite, the stringent option must be followed. And what is their remedy? (For they cannot bring an offering in doubt.) Each one must stipulate that if it is not as he vowed, he is a Nazirite by election. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]

רָאָה אֶת הַכּוֹי וְאָמַר, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּה, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה אֵינוֹ חַיָּה, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה בְהֵמָה, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין זֶה בְהֵמָה, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּה וּבְהֵמָה, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין זֶה לֹא חַיָּה וְלֹא בְהֵמָה, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֶחָד מִכֶּם נָזִיר, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין אֶחָד מִכֶּם נָזִיר, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שֶׁכֻּלְּכֶם נְזִירִים, הֲרֵי כֻלָּם נְזִירִים:

If he saw a koi, and he said: "I am a Nazirite if that is an animal"; "I am a Nazirite if that is not an animal"; "I am a Nazirite if that is a beast"; "I am a Nazirite if that is not a beast"; "I am a Nazirite if that is an animal and a beast"; "I am a Nazirite if that is neither animal nor beast"; "I am a Nazirite if one of you is a Nazirite"; "I am a Nazirite if none of you is a Nazirite"; "I am a Nazirite if you are all Nazirites" — they are all Nazirites. [If six men saw a koi, and one of them said: "I shall be a Nazirite if that is an animal"; the second: "I shall be a Nazirite if that is not an animal"; the third: "I shall be a Nazirite if that is a beast"; the fourth: "I shall be a Nazirite if that is not a beast"; the fifth: "I shall be a Nazirite if that is an animal and a beast"; the sixth: "I shall be a Nazirite if that is neither animal nor beast" — and then three other men came and one of them said to these six: "I shall be a Nazirite if one of you is a Nazirite"; the second: "I shall be a Nazirite if one of you is not a Nazirite"; the third: "I shall be a Nazirite if you are all Nazirites" — all are Nazirites, the first six and the last three. According to Beth Shammai, they are definite Nazirites, for Naziritism in error is Naziritism. And according to Beth Hillel, they are Nazirites "by doubt," because there is a doubt as to whether a koi is a beast or an animal or a distinctive creature.]