the mishna therefore teaches us that it is a halakha that is unrelated to inheritance; there is simply a tradition that a son can use the offerings for his father’s naziriteship while a daughter cannot.

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosei, or do they not disagree? If you say they disagree, do they take issue with the first clause or with the latter clause of his halakha? The Gemara suggests an answer: Come and hear the following baraita: How did the Sages say that a man can shave by using his father’s naziriteship?

With regard to one whose father was a nazirite and his father separated money for his naziriteship and died, and the son said: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that I can shave by using my father’s money, this is the one who can shave by means of his father’s money. However, if a son and his father were both nazirites, and his father separated money for his own naziriteship and died, this money is allocated for communal gift offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda said: This is the one who can shave by using his father’s money. Their emphasis of: This is the one, indicates that they disagree with Rabbi Yosei entirely. In other words, where Rabbi Yosei rules that one can use his father’s money, they maintain that he cannot do so; and conversely, in a case where Rabbi Yosei says that one cannot spend his father’s money for his nazirite offerings, the Rabbis rule that he can do so.

§ Rabba raised a dilemma: If a father has two nazirite sons, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies the sides of the dilemma: Does one say that we learned it as a halakha that a son can shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship, and therefore any son who precedes his brother and shaves using his father’s money has shaved and gained the entire sum? Or perhaps we learned this halakha from the case of inheritance, and consequently, each receives a half?

Similarly, Rava raised a dilemma: If one has two nazirite sons, a firstborn and a regular son, what is the halakha? Does one say that we learned it as a halakha that a son may shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship, and this ruling is unconnected to inheritance, and therefore he does not need to shave only in accordance with what he receives as an inheritance? Instead, either each son receives half the money, or whoever precedes the other receives the entire sum. Or perhaps it is an inheritance, and just as the firstborn takes a double portion of the estate, so too he shaves with a double portion of this money?

And if you say it is an inheritance and he shaves in accordance with the portion he receives, it is still possible that it is only with regard to non-sacred matters that a firstborn has a double portion, but with regard to consecrated property this halakha does not apply. Or perhaps, since he acquires that money, although he uses it for the purpose of shaving it is no different, i.e., it does not matter that the money is for a sacred matter.

The Gemara raises another dilemma: If his father was a permanent nazirite and he was an unspecified nazirite, or if his father was an unspecified nazirite and he was a permanent nazirite, what is the halakha? Can this son shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship? Does one say that when we learned the halakha that a son can shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship, this applies only in a case where they are both unspecified nazirites, or perhaps it is no different, and the same halakha applies even if their naziriteships are of two different kinds?

And if you say: Here, both cases are at least similar in that they involve ritually pure naziriteship, and therefore the son can make use of his father’s money, then Rav Ashi raises a different dilemma: If his father was an impure nazirite and he was a pure nazirite, or if his father was a pure nazirite and he was an impure nazirite, what is the halakha? Can the son shave using money left for his father’s naziriteship or not? No answer was found for any of these dilemmas, and the Gemara says that they shall stand unresolved.

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: Consecration that one performs in error nevertheless renders property consecrated,