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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.