and one other person was approaching them, and one of those walking said: I am hereby a nazirite if this person coming toward us is so-and-so. And another one of them said: I am hereby a nazirite if this is not so-and-so, while a third member of the group said: I am hereby a nazirite if one of you two is a nazirite, and a fourth said: I am hereby a nazirite if neither of you is a nazirite, and another added: I am hereby a nazirite if both of you are nazirites. Finally, the last person said: I am hereby a nazirite if all you who spoke before me are nazirites. Beit Shammai say that they are all nazirites, as by saying: I am hereby a nazirite, they have accepted naziriteship upon themselves even if their statement turns out to be incorrect.

The Gemara analyzes this mishna: But here, it is clearly a case of an erroneous act of consecration, as the statements of some of these individuals must have been incorrect, and yet the mishna teaches that Beit Shammai maintain that they are all nazirites. The Sages say in response: In fact, in general Beit Shammai hold that an erroneous act of consecration is considered consecration, as is evident from this halakha involving nazirites. However, the particular mishna here, concerning black and white bulls, is not based on that halakha. Rather, Rav Pappa’s explanation is the correct one.

Abaye said a different explanation of the mishna: It should not enter your mind that the mishna is dealing with one who was standing in the morning and referred to a future event, i.e., that an animal will emerge from the house. Rather, with what are we dealing here? With one who is standing at noon, after the bulls had already left the house, and said: The black bull that emerged first from my house first shall be consecrated. And people said to him: A white bull emerged first. And he said to them: Had I known that a white bull emerged, I would not have said black. Therefore, the consecration was erroneous.

The Gemara asks: How can you say that the mishna deals with one who is standing at noon and is speaking of a past event? But in a subsequent example the mishna teaches: A gold dinar that will come up in my hand first shall be consecrated, which is clearly referring to a future event. The Gemara answers: You should emend the mishna and teach: A gold dinar that came up, in the past tense. The Gemara continues to ask: Didn’t the mishna state: A barrel of wine that will come up in my hand first shall be consecrated, which is also referring to the future tense. The Gemara similarly answers that one should teach in the mishna: A barrel that already came up.

§ The Gemara quotes a statement related to the case in the mishna with regard to black and white bulls. Rav Ḥisda said: A black bull among white ones is deficient, as white bulls are superior in quality, and a white patch on a black bull is a deficiency. Having stated these assessments, the Gemara returns to discuss the mishna. We learned in the mishna that if one said: The black bull that will emerge from my house first is consecrated, and a white one emerged. It entered our minds to assume that when one consecrates property to the Temple treasury he consecrates sparingly, i.e., he does not give his property that is superior in quality or value, unless he expressly says so. And yet Beit Shammai say that the white bull in this case is consecrated, which indicates that the white one is inferior in quality, which contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda.

The Gemara examines this assumption: Rather, what then? Will you say that according to the opinion of Beit Shammai one typically consecrates generously and donates his property that is superior? However, the continuation of the mishna states that if one said: The gold dinar that will come up in my hand first, and a silver one came up, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated. If Beit Shammai hold that one would have in mind to consecrate only the superior property, why would the inferior silver coin be consecrated?

The Gemara counters: Rather, what then? Does a person consecrate sparingly? Yet the subsequent example of the mishna states that if one said: A barrel of wine that will come up in my hand first, and one of oil came up, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated. But oil is preferable to wine, so why is the oil consecrated? The Gemara answers: If the problem is due to that, this is not difficult, as this mishna was taught in the Galilee, where wine is preferable to oil. Olive trees are plentiful in the Galilee, and therefore oil is cheaper than wine. Therefore, the entire mishna can be explained in accordance with the opinion that people consecrate sparingly.

The Gemara comments: In any case, the first clause of the mishna poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as it indicates that a white bull is less valuable than a black one. The Gemara answers that Rav Ḥisda could have said to you: When I said that a white one is superior, I was referring only to a Karmanian bull, a type of bull in which the white animals are superior in quality to the black ones. In all other cases black bulls are considered superior, and the mishna was referring to standard bulls.

The Gemara quotes another statement with regard to bulls: And Rav Ḥisda said with regard to bulls: A black bull is good for its hide; a red one is good for its meat; while a white bull is good for plowing. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: A black bull among white ones is deficient, which indicates that a black one is inferior in all regards? The Gemara again answers that Rav Ḥisda could reply: When I said that, I was referring only to a Karmanian bull, but not to other bulls.

MISHNA: With regard to one who took a vow of naziriteship, who then regretted his vow and stopped observing the prohibition against drinking wine, and later requested of a halakhic authority to dissolve his vow, and the authority ruled that he is bound by his vow, finding no reason to dissolve it, he counts the term of naziriteship from the time that he vowed, including the days when he acted as though the vow were dissolved. In a case where he requested of a halakhic authority to dissolve his vow and the authority dissolved it, if he had an animal separated as a nazirite offering it shall go out and graze among the flock.

On the basis of this halakha, and continuing their discussion in the previous mishna, Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Don’t you concede with regard to this case that it is an erroneous act of consecration, and yet the halakha is that it shall go out and graze among the flock? This shows that you too accept the principle that an erroneous act of consecration does not take effect. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Don’t you concede with regard to one who was separating the animal tithe from his herd, i.e., passing his animals before him single file and consecrating every tenth one as a tithe, that if he erred and called the ninth animal: Tenth; and the tenth: Ninth; and the eleventh: Tenth, that each of them is consecrated? This proves that an erroneous act of consecration does take effect.

Beit Hillel said to them: It is not the rod that consecrates it. The touch of the rod does not consecrate the animal, nor does the fact that he said: Tenth, by mistake. Not all errors cause the tithe to be consecrated, and the proof is as follows: And what would be the halakha if he had erred and placed the rod on the eighth or on the twelfth, and labeled them: Tenth? Can it be suggested that perhaps he performed anything of consequence? The halakha is that the eighth or twelfth animal cannot be consecrated as tithe. Rather, why is the ninth or eleventh animal consecrated? There is a specific reason for this halakha, as the same verse that consecrated the tenth also consecrated the ninth