Study Nazir folio 31A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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. Simil
Talmud: The Mishnah taught that Beit Shammai say that consecration performed in error renders property consecrated, and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated. The Talmud analyzes their dispute: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? They maintain that we derive the halakha of the initial stage of con
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.
The Talmud 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
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