Torah Community Connections

Week 76 - Tuesday - 8 May 2001

NAZIR: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 1

Bet Shammai say, hekdesh in error is hekdesh, and Bet Hillel say, It is not hekdesh. How so? If one said, "The black ox that leaves my house first is hekdesh"; and a white one came out - Bet Shammai say, It is hekdesh, and Bet Hillel say, It is not hekdesh.

Kehati

As was already taught in Tractate Nedarim, there is a general rule that applies to vows that the declaration and mind of the person undertaking the vow must be in agreement, i.e., the person taking the vow must have in his heart that which his lips express. And if he declared a vow without intent, either unintentionally (shegagah) or erroneously, this is an "erroneous vow," and it does not take effect. We have already explained that nezirut and hekdesh, the act of consecrating, are types of vows. We find, however, regarding the law of temurah (exchanging one animal for another), which is one of the vows of hekdesh, that every exchange takes effect, even if declared erroneously, as it is written, "and if he change it at all, then both it and its substitute for which it is changed shall be holy" (Lev. 27:33), which was expounded by the Sages as follows: "shall be" -whether unintentionally or intentionally (mezid), for if he had intended to say, "This beast should be in exchange for an olah," and he said, "This beast should be in exchange for shelamim," his declaration is valid. In our mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagree whether or not we learn hekdesh from that of temurah.
This chapter deals with erroneous nezirut, hence two mishnayot which deal with erroneous hekdesh are mentioned first (Tosafot).

Bet Shammai say, Hekdesh in error - if one consecrated something erroneously, as will be explained in this mishnah, below, it - is hekdesh - the Gemara explains their reasoning: they learn the "primary hekdesh" from "final hekdesh," i.e., the law regarding hekdesh, which a person consecrates initially, is as that of temurah, which is called "final hekdesh," because its sanctity is derived from another sanctified object - "just as temurah, even erroneously [is valid], so too hekdesh, even erroneously [is valid]." and Bet Hillel say, It - erroneous hekdesh, is not hekdesh - for according to Bet Hillel, we do not derive hekdesh from temurah; the sanctity of temurah is the result of another hekdesh which was consecrated in the proper manner, therefore even erroneous temurah is valid. In the case of initial hekdesh, however, erroneous hekdesh is not valid. How so -what is the case of erroneous hekdesh, regarding which Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagree? If one - who consecrates, said, "A black ox that leaves my house first is hekdesh"; and a white one - a white ox, came out - emerged from his house first. The Gemara explains, in its conclusion, that this refers to a case in which the consecrator has only one black ox; therefore, we cannot interpret his words as meaning that he consecrates the first of the black oxen that will emerge from his house, he rather intended to consecrate whatever ox would emerge first and he said, "black ox," only because he erroneously thought that the black ox would come out first from his house, and it would be hekdesh. Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel therefore disagree as follows: Bet Shammai say, It - the white ox that emerged first, is hekdesh - even though he erroneously thought that the black one would come out first, nevertheless since he consecrated in his vow the first ox, hekdesh takes effect on the ox which emerged first, even if it is a white one, for erroneous "hekdesh is considered hekdesh"; and Bet Hillel, say, It is not hekdesh - since he said, "black," he intended to consecrate only a black ox, when it would emerge first, and since a white one came out, it is not hekdesh, for erroneous "hekdesh is not considered hekdesh."

NAZIR: CHAPTER 5: MISHNAH 2

"The gold dinar that will come into my hand first is hekdesh": and one of silver came - Bet Shammai say, hekdesh; and Bet Hillel say, It is not hekdesh. "The cask of wine that will come into my hand first is hekdesh": and one of oil came - Bet Shammai say, hekdesh; and Bet Hillel say, It is not hekdesh.

Kehati

This mishnah is a continuation of the preceding mishnah, and it continues to bring examples of erroneous hekdesh, regarding which Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagree. For in the previous mishnah, the disagreement was about one who consecrated an ox, which is fit to be offered on the altar, and therefore the animal itself is consecrated; this mishnah teaches that Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai disagree even regarding items which are not fit to be offered on the altar, and whose sanctity pertains to their monetary value.

If a person says, "The gold dinar that will come into my hand first is hekdesh": and one - a dinar, of silver came - into his hand first, and not a gold dinar, as he had said in his vow; this then is an erroneous hekdesh, Bet Shammai say, The silver dinar that came into his hand first is Hekdesh - since he intended to consecrate whichever dinar would come into his hand first, but he erroneously thought that a gold dinar would come first, and erroneous hekdesh is a valid hekdesh; and Bet Hillel say, It is not hekdesh - for he intended to consecrate only the gold dinar that would come to his hand first; since a silver dinar came into his hand first, it is not hekdesh.

And similarly, if he said, "The cask of wine that will come into my hand first is hekdesh": and one - a barrel, of oil came - into his hand first, and this is a case of erroneous hekdesh, Bet Shammai say - The cask of oil that came into his hand first is Hekdesh - for erroneous hekdesh is a valid hekdesh; and Bet Hillel say, It is not hekdesh - for erroneous hekdesh is not a valid hekdesh.

The Gemara explains that although there is a rule concerning hekdesh that "One who consecrates does so generously," i.e., we evaluate the intention of the person consecrating, that he meant to consecrate the best of his property, nevertheless, regarding an erroneous hekdesh, whether he erroneously thought that the best of his property would come into his hand first, or he thought this about the worst of his property, Bet Hillel always hold that erroneous hekdesh is not valid hekdesh.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives