- Intentionally naming the ninth animal as maaser beheimah
In the Mishnah on Daf 31b, Beis Shammai sought to prove that erroneous hekdesh is effective, from the fact that one who mistakenly declares a ninth or eleventh animal as “tenth” (for maaser beheimah), it becomes kadosh. Rav Nachman says: טעותו ולא כוונתו – his error makes the ninth kadosh, but not his intent, meaning, if he intentionally declares the ninth as “tenth,” it does not become kadosh. Rav Chisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna say: טעותו וכל שכן כוונתו – his error effects kedushah, and certainly his intent to do so does. Rava asked that according to Rav Nachman, why did Beis Hillel not respond in our Mishnah: מה למעשר שכן אינו קדוש בכוונה – How can you compare [hekdesh] to maaser, in which [the ninth] is not kadosh when done deliberately? Rav Shimi bar Ashi suggested that a kal vachomer could be made from maaser beheimah to hekdesh (since hekdesh is more easily created, by taking effect with intent), but retracted by pointing out: דהקדש בדעתא דמריה תלי – Hekdesh depends on the intent of the owner.
- Heter of nezirus through nolad, and nolad at the time of the Churban
The next Mishnah discusses one who declared nezirus assuming he had the animals necessary for his korbanos, and found they were stolen. If he declared nezirus before they were stolen, his nezirus remains valid because such an event is “nolad,” an unexpected development, which cannot void a vow. If it had been stolen beforehand, the nezirus is void, having been made under mistaken presumptions. The Mishnah relates that Nachum Hamadi erred in this regard: When nezirim came from outside Eretz Yisroel to bring their korbanos, and found the Beis Hamikdash destroyed, he asked them: אילו הייתם יודעין שבית המקדש חרב, הייתם נוזרים – “If you would have known the Beis Hamikdash would be destroyed, would you have declared nezirus?” and permitted them based on this heter. But when the matter came to the Chachomim, they said that only those who vowed after the Churban are permitted, but those who vowed before are not, because the Churban is an event of nolad. Rav Yosef declared that if he had been there, he would have responded that since nevi’im told them about the Churban beforehand, it is not nolad. The Gemara responds that although they knew it would be destroyed, and even knew in which year, they did not know precisely which day.
- Six people who made conflicting nezirus declarations regarding someone’s identity
The next Mishnah states: היו מהלכין בדרך ואחד בא כנגדן – People were walking on a path, and someone was approaching them, אמר אחד מהן הריני נזיר שזה פלוני – and one said, “I am a nazir that he is Ploni,” ואחד אמר הריני נזיר שאין זה פלוני – and another said, “I am a nazir that he is not Ploni,” הריני נזיר שאחד מכם נזיר – the third said, “I am a nazir that one of you is a nazir,” שאין אחד מכם נזיר – a fourth declared nezirus “that neither of you is a nazir,” ששניכם נזירים – a fifth declared nezirus “that both of you are nezirim,” שכולכם נזירים – and a sixth declared nezirus “that all five of you are nezirim.” Beis Shammai say they are all nezirim, because although surely some of them were mistaken, they hold erroneous nezirus is effective. Beis Hillel say: אינו נזיר אלא מי שלא נתקיימו דבריו – No one is a nazir except he whose words are not fulfilled. They hold only a correct nezirus is valid, and the Gemara will explain their words, which seem to say the opposite. Rebbe Tarfon says none are nezirim, because he holds that only nezirus which is clear at the time of declaration is effective.
