holds that all the more so, one does not enter himself into uncertainty either. Therefore, uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently.

Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: In what manner did you establish the mishna that states that uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently? You established it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Say the latter clause of that mishna: If there is uncertainty with regard to firstborns, whether human firstborns, or animal firstborns, whether non-kosher firstborns, i.e., the firstborn of a donkey, or the firstborn of kosher animals, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. In other words, the priest cannot take the redemption money from the father of the child, or the animal from its owner, and conversely, if the father or owner mistakenly gave it to a priest, he does not get it back.

And it is taught in a baraita in that regard: But with regard to shearing and working these uncertain animal firstborns, they are forbidden, just like definite firstborns. This indicates a difference between the monetary issue, with regard to which it is ruled that the animal cannot be taken from the owner by the priest, and the prohibition, which applies despite the uncertainty. Evidently, even the tanna of this mishna does not hold that all uncertainties with regard to consecration are to be treated leniently.

Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: This is not difficult. Why do you compare sanctity that emerges by itself, i.e., the sanctity of a firstborn, which results from objective reality and not human intent, to sanctity that emerges by the volition of a person and is dependent on his intention? Only with regard to the latter type of sanctity can it be established that a person does not intend to consecrate an item in an uncertain manner.

Rather, if Rabbi Zeira’s answer is difficult, this is what is difficult. It is stated in that same mishna: In the case of liquid with regard to which there is uncertainty whether it became ritually impure through contact with someone who was ritually impure, the halakha is as follows: It is considered impure with regard to its being impure in and of itself, but it is considered pure with regard to its ability to render other items impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Elazar would also say in accordance with the statements of Rabbi Meir.

According to Rabbi Zeira’s assertion that the rulings of this mishna with regard to uncertainty are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, this causes a difficulty: But does Rabbi Eliezer hold that with regard to liquid of uncertain ritual status being impure, it is considered impure?

But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: By Torah law, impurity does not apply to liquids at all? Know that this is so, as Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida testified concerning a grasshopper species called eil kamtza that it is kosher, and concerning the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse that they are pure. Liquids are susceptible to ritual impurity only by rabbinic law, and liquids in the Temple were not included in this decree so as not to cause additional impurity there. Since Rabbi Eliezer holds that by Torah law liquids are not susceptible to impurity, how can it be his opinion that liquids of uncertain ritual status are considered impure?

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to Shmuel, who said that the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling that the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse are pure is that they cannot render other items impure, but they themselves are susceptible to impurity. Accordingly, liquids are susceptible to impurity by Torah law; only their ability to render other items impure is by rabbinic law. The ruling in the mishna that liquid of uncertain ritual status is considered impure is therefore consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Zeira’s answer works out well.

However, according to Rav, who said that they are actually pure, i.e., they are not susceptible to impurity, what is there to say? The mishna that is lenient with regard to uncertain naziriteship and stringent with regard to liquid of uncertain ritual status is clearly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rather, Rabbi Zeira’s answer should be rejected, and the contradiction between the mishna here, which states that unspecified vows should be treated stringently, and the mishna in tractate Teharot, which states that uncertain naziriteship should be treated leniently, should be resolved as follows: That mishna, in Teharot, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

As it is taught in a baraita that if someone says: I am hereby a nazirite if there are in this heap of grain one hundred kor, and he went to measure the heap and found that it was stolen or that it was lost and cannot be measured, Rabbi Yehuda permits him to perform actions forbidden to a nazirite, as he holds that this uncertain naziriteship does not take effect. And Rabbi Shimon prohibits him from doing so, as he maintains that it does take effect. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon is of the opinion that uncertain naziriteship is treated stringently.

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Did Rabbi Yehuda actually say that a person does not enter himself into a state of uncertainty, and therefore as long as the volume of the heap is unknown, naziriteship does not take effect? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the mishna, where Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden but in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are not familiar with the collection of the chamber. The Gemara infers: The reason it is permitted is that they are not familiar;