Oops… I did it again TB Nazir 31

Today’s daf TB Nazir 31 finds Bet Shammai’s position difficult to understand and explain because even Beit Shammai agrees that a mistake nullifies a transaction. “Beit Shammai say: Consecration that one performs in error nevertheless renders property consecrated (and then the Mishna provides three examples, the first being-gg) 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” (Sefaria.org translation) Tosefot ד"ה שׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר שֶׁיָּצָא מִבֵּיתִי רִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ shows that the word “it” can be interpreted in two ways. “It” could refer to the white bull. In this case, the condition revolved around first bull to emerge. Even though a white bull emerged first it is still consecrated. Or “it” could revolve around the first black bull that emerges first. This black bull is consecrated even though it emerged after the white one.

The Gemara tries to explain Beit Shammai’s position three different times. The first attempt is saying that this case in our Mishna is comparable to transferring or substituting sanctity from one animal to another (temurah-תְּמוּרָה ). This is rejected because the two cases are not similar. In the case of temurah the original animal is already sanctified and now were just extending the sanctification to another animal. In the Mishna no bull has been sanctified yet at all.

Rav Pappa says the error lies in our understanding of Beit Shammai. They really mean the first ox that emerges from the house is consecrated and the person doesn’t really care whether it is black or white. This is really hard to read into the words of the Mishnah.

Abaye provides the third attempt. We misunderstood the story. The bull had already merged from the house. The person thought it was a black bull because he owns more significantly black bulls than white ones. Later on it turned out to be a white bull. If he would have known that it was a white one, he would have consecrated it anyway.

Of course, Beit Hillel disagrees saying that something consecrated in error is not consecrated.