Nazir

GEMARA. BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT CONSECRATION, etc.: Beth Shammai's reason is that they compare original consecration  with secondary consecration.  Just as substitution, even when made in error, is effective,  so [original] consecration, even when made in error, is effective. Beth Hillel, however, contend that this is true only of substitution,  but that no consecration in error can take effect in the first instance. But suppose, according to Beth Shammai, someone says, 'This [animal] is to replace that [one] at midday,' it would surely not become a substitute [immediately] from that moment, but only when midday arrives, and so here too, [surely, consecration should not take effect] until the condition [under which it was made] becomes realized?  — R. Papa replied: The reason that [the word] 'FIRST' was mentioned by him was [simply] to indicate that one [of his black oxen] which should emerge first.  — But the text says, 'the black bull,' and surely it contemplates the case where he may have only the one?  — In the case considered, he is assumed to have two or three.  Beth Hillel, however, contend that if this [was his intention]  it should have said, '[The black hull] that leaves earliest.'  — Raba of Barnesh  said to R. Ashi; Is this [called] consecration in error? It is surely intentional consecration?  — [He replied:] Quite so, but [it is called consecration in error] because at first the expression he used gave a wrong impression. Is it indeed Beth Shammai's opinion that consecration in error is not effective consecration?  Have we not learnt: If a man, who vows to be a nazirite, sets aside an animal [for the sacrifice], and [then] applies to the Sages [for absolution from his vow] and they release him, [the animal] goes forth and pastures with the flock.  Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: Do you not admit that this is a case of consecration in error,  and yet [the animal] goes forth and pastures with the flock?  Whence  it follows [does it not] that Beth Shammai hold consecration in error to be effective? — No; Beth Hillel were mistaken. They took the reason for Beth Shammai's view  to be that consecration in error is effective, but the latter replied that [the consecration is effective] not because it was consecration in error, but because at first the expression he used gave a wrong impression. But is it Beth Shammai's opinion that consecration in error is not effective? Come [then] and hear: If [some people] were walking along the road