וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ כֵּיצַד אָמַר שׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר שֶׁיָּצָא מִבֵּיתִי רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְיָצָא לָבָן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ דִּינַר זָהָב שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה בְּיָדִי רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְעָלָה שֶׁל כֶּסֶף בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה בְּיָדִי רִאשׁוֹנָה הֲרֵי הִיא הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְעָלְתָה שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ: 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. Similarly, if one said: A gold dinar that will come up first in my hand is consecrated, and when he reached into his pocket a dinar of silver came up, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated. Likewise, if one said: A barrel of wine that will come up first in my hand when I enter the cellar is consecrated, and a barrel of oil came up in his hand instead, Beit Shammai say it is consecrated and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated.
גמ׳ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים הֶקְדֵּשׁ כו׳ מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי דְּיָלְפִינַן תְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִסּוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ מָה תְּמוּרָה אֲפִילּוּ בְּטָעוּת אַף הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֲפִילּוּ בְּטָעוּת GEMARA: The mishna taught that Beit Shammai say that consecration performed in error renders property consecrated, and Beit Hillel say it is not consecrated. The Gemara analyzes their dispute: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? They maintain that we derive the halakha of the initial stage of consecration from the final stage of consecration. The final stage of consecration is referring to substitution, when one attempts to substitute a non-consecrated animal for a consecrated one. Just as an act of substitution takes effect even in error, i.e., if one meant to say that his black bull should be a substitute for his consecrated animal and he actually said: This white bull, the white bull is rendered consecrated, so too, the initial stage of consecration takes effect even when done in error.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים הָנֵי מִילֵּי תְּמוּרָה אֲבָל אַחוֹתֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת לָא מַחֲתִינַן 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.
וּלְבֵית שַׁמַּאי מָה אִילּוּ אָמַר הָרֵי זֶה תַּחַת זֶה לַחֲצִי הַיּוֹם מִי הָוְיָא תְּמוּרָה מֵהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא אֶלָּא עַד דְּמָטֵי חֲצִי הַיּוֹם הוּא דְּהָוְיָא תְּמוּרָה הָכִי נָמֵי לְכִי מִיגַּלְּיָא מִילְּתָא The Gemara 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 from that time when he issued the statement, in opposition to his explicit statement? It would not. Rather, Beit Shammai certainly concede that the animal does not become a consecrated as a substitute until the middle of the day arrives, at which point it becomes a substitution. So too, in the case of the mishna, the consecration should take effect when the situation is revealed to be in accordance with his statement, i.e., only if a black bull emerges first. Only then should the animal be rendered consecrated, but not if a white bull emerges first. Why do Beit Shammai hold that in the case of the mishna the consecration takes effect in opposition to his explicit statement.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר רִאשׁוֹן לִכְשֶׁיֵּצֵא רִאשׁוֹן 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 all the black bulls I possess will emerge from my house, it will be consecrated. When Beit Shammai ruled that the bull is consecrated, they were referring to the first black bull that emerged, even if it was not the first bull that emerged, as a white bull preceded it.
וְהָא שׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר קָאָמַר מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אֶלָּא הַאי לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּרֵין תְּלָתָא וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אִם כֵּן שֶׁיֵּצֵא בָּרִאשׁוֹן מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ The Gemara asks: But he said: Black bull, and are we not dealing even with a case where he only has this one black bull? If so, the Gemara’s initial interpretation of his statement is correct: The black bull is consecrated only if it is the first to emerge, but not if a white bull precedes it. The Gemara answers: No; it is necessary to state this halakha with regard to a case where he has two or three black bulls. And Beit Hillel say: If so, i.e., if he intended to consecrate the first of his black bulls to emerge from the house, he should have said: The first black bull that will emerge from my house. Since he did not say this, he must have meant that the black bull should be consecrated only if it is the first bull of any kind to emerge.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא מִבַּרְנִישׁ לְרַב אָשֵׁי הַאי הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּכַוּוֹנָה הוּא מִשּׁוּם דְּאַטְעֲיֵיהּ לְדִיבּוּרֵיהּ קַמָּא Rava from Barnish said to Rav Ashi, with regard to the explanation of Rav Pappa: Is this case he mentioned one of erroneous consecration? It is intentional consecration. According to the interpretation of Rav Pappa, there is no error. He intended to consecrate the first black bull that emerged, and that is what was consecrated. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it is called an erroneous consecration because he erred in his first statement. His statement of consecration gave the mistaken impression that he desired to consecrate the first bull that emerges, even if it is white.
וְסָבְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת לָא הָוֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְהָתְנַן מִי שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר וְנִשְׁאַל לַחֲכָמִים וְהִתִּירוּ וְהָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה מוּפְרֶשֶׁת תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר In any case, Rav Pappa indicates that even Beit Shammai hold that an erroneous act of consecration does not take effect. The Gemara questions this assumption: And do Beit Shammai hold that an indisputably erroneous act of consecration is not considered an act of consecration? But didn’t we learn in the mishna (31b): With regard to one who took a vow of naziriteship and later made a request to the halakhic authorities to dissolve his vow, and they dissolved his vow, and he had already separated an animal for one of his nazirite offerings beforehand, it shall go out and graze among the flock, like any other non-sacred animal.
אָמְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים שֶׁהֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת הוּא וְתֵצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר מִכְלָל דְּסָבְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת הָוֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ The mishna continues: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Don’t you concede that the reason for this ruling is because it is an erroneous act of consecration, and that a consecration of this kind does not take effect, and that is the reason it shall go out and graze among the flock? The same halakha should apply to all erroneous acts of consecration. One can learn from here by inference that Beit Shammai hold that an entirely erroneous act of consecration is considered consecration, as is evident from Beit Hillel’s question.
אֶלָּא בֵּית הִלֵּל הוּא דְּקָא טָעוּ סָבְרִי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי מִשּׁוּם דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת הָוֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְאָמְרִי לְהוֹן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לָאו מִשּׁוּם הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת הוּא אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּאַטְעֲיֵיהּ לְדִיבּוּרֵיהּ קַמָּא The Gemara answers: This is not the case; rather, it is Beit Hillel who erred in their understanding. They thought that Beit Shammai’s reasoning was because an erroneous act of consecration is considered consecration, and therefore they raised a difficulty with regard to the case of a nazirite. And Beit Shammai said to them: Our reasoning in the case of the black bull is not because it is an erroneous act of consecration. Rather, it is merely called an erroneous consecration because he erred in his first statement, as he actually meant to consecrate the first of his black bulls to emerge from his house.
וְסָבְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּטָעוּת לָא הָוֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ תָּא שְׁמַע הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ The Gemara continues to ask: And do Beit Shammai hold that an indisputably erroneous act of consecration is not considered consecration? Come and hear proof from the mishna (32b) that they maintain that an erroneously consecrated item is considered consecrated: If there were several people walking along the way,