Nazir

The question was asked: Do the Rabbis differ from R. Jose or not;  and if it should be decided that they differ, whether with the first clause [only] or with the subsequent clause also?  Come and hear: In what circumstances was it said that a man may poll at the expense of his father's naziriteship? Where his father who had been a nazirite set apart money for [the sacrifices of] his naziriteship and died, and [the son then] said, 'I declare myself a nazirite on condition that I may poll with my father's money,' he [the son] is permitted to poll with his father's money. But where both he and his father were nazirites together, and his father set apart money for [the sacrifices of] his naziriteship and died, the money is to be used for freewill-offerings. The above is the opinion of R. Jose.  R. Eliezer,  R. Meir and R. Judah said: Just such a one may poll with his father's money. Rabbah raised the problem: Suppose [the nazirite] has two sons, both nazirites,  what is the law? Did the tradition state [simply] that there is a halachah,  so that the one who was first [to become a nazirite] may poll, or did it state [that the son may use the money because it is his] inheritance and so they divide it? Raba raised the problem: Suppose [the sons were] the firstborn  and another, what would the law be? Was the tradition received as a halachah and [the first-born] is therefore not entitled to receive for polling the same proportion as he receives [of the rest of the estate], or is [the money for the nazirite sacrifices, part of his] inheritance, and just as he takes a double portion there, so also is it with the [money for] polling? Should it be decided that [the money for the nazirite sacrifices is part of] the inheritance, so that [the first-born] receives for polling in proportion to what he receives [of the rest of the estate], does [the first-born] receive a double portion only when [the money] is profane, but not when it becomes sacred,  or is there no difference, seeing that he has acquired [a double portion] for polling? Suppose his father was a life-nazirite  and he an ordinary nazirite, or his father an ordinary nazirite and he a life-nazirite, what would the law be?  Was the halachah received only with regard to ordinary naziriteships,  or is there no difference? Should it be decided that [such is the case] here [because] both the naziriteships  were discharged in ritual purity,  [then] R. Ashi raised a [further] problem. Suppose his father were an unclean nazirite  and he a clean nazirite,  or his father were a clean nazirite  and he an unclean nazirite,  what would be the law? The problem was unsolved. MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT CONSECRATION IN ERROR IS [EFFECTIVE] CONSECRATION,