Beth Shammai mówi: Hekdesh (konsekracja) w błędzie to hekdesh, [wywodząca się z temurah (substytut), który jest hekdesz nawet w błędzie, jest napisane (Księga Kapłańska 27:10): „I to (ofiara) i jej substytut będzie święty, „będzie” wykładany jako obejmujący nieświadome zastąpienie wraz z zastępowaniem dowcipnym.] A Beth Hillel mówi: To nie jest hekdesz. [Albowiem nie wywodzimy początku hekdeszu— coś, co nie pochodzi z „mocy” hekdeszu — z czegoś, co pochodzi z mocy hekdeszu —z temurah, który jest końcem hekdeszu, pochodzącym z mocy innej rzeczy, która już była hekdeszem.] Jak to? Gdyby powiedział: „Niech czarny wół, który pierwszy wyjdzie z mojego domu, będzie hekdeszem”, i wyszedł biały. Beth Shammai mówi, że to hekdesh, a Beth Hillel mówi, że to nie jest hekdesh.
Bartenura on Mishnah Nazir
בית שמאי אומרים הקדש טעות הקדש – for we derive it from the exchange of one sacrificial animal for another, which is, even by mistake/error, as it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “the thing vowed and its substitute shall be holy,” and we expound/interpret it to include something done inadvertently like something done willfully.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir
Introduction
This chapter deals with a person who made a nazirite vow based on a mistaken premise. The chapter is introduced by two mishnayoth which discuss cases where one mistakenly consecrated property to the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nazir
וב"ה אומרים אינו הקדש – that we don’t learn the beginning of consecration is a matter that does not come from the power of consecration from the exchange of one sacrificial animal for another, which is the end of consecration which comes from the power of another thing that was consecrated.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir
Beth Shammai says: something consecrated in error is consecrated; But Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated. This section outlines the basic debate, which shall be illustrated in the next section, and in the following mishnah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir
How is this so? If someone says, “The black bull that leaves my house first shall be consecrated,” and a white one comes out, Beth Shammai says: it is consecrated, But Beth Hillel says: it is not consecrated. According to Beth Shammai, the white bull is consecrated. When he said “the black bull” he meant the “first bull” but he assumed it would be a black one. Since “something consecrated in error is consecrated”, he must give the white bull to the Temple. Beth Hillel says that it is not consecrated, for he made a mistake in assuming that it would be a black bull.
