Commentary for Nazir 5:3
מִי שֶׁנָּדַר בְּנָזִיר וְנִשְׁאַל לְחָכָם וַאֲסָרוֹ, מוֹנֶה מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנָּדַר. נִשְׁאַל לְחָכָם וְהִתִּירוֹ, הָיְתָה לוֹ בְהֵמָה מֻפְרֶשֶׁת, תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. אָמְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת שֶׁתֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים בְּמִי שֶׁטָּעָה וְקָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי עֲשִׂירִי וְלָעֲשִׂירִי תְשִׁיעִי וְלָאַחַד עָשָׂר עֲשִׂירִי שֶׁהוּא מְקֻדָּשׁ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, לֹא הַשֵּׁבֶט קִדְּשׁוֹ. וּמָה אִלּוּ טָעָה וְהִנִּיחַ אֶת הַשֵּׁבֶט עַל שְׁמִינִי וְעַל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר, שֶׁמָּא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. אֶלָּא כָּתוּב שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אֶת הָעֲשִׂירִי, הוּא קִדֵּשׁ אֶת הַתְּשִׁיעִי וְאֶת אַחַד עָשָׂר:
If one vowed to be a Nazirite, and he consulted a sage, who forbade him, [i.e., if he told him that his language betokened Naziritism; and he (the vower) had not taken care not to drink wine], he counts from the time he vowed. [And we do not penalize him for having transgressed and drunk (even though, if in doubt, he should have abstained until he had consulted a sage.)] If he consulted a sage, who permitted him, [saying that his language did not betoken Naziritism] — if he had a beast set aside, it goes out and grazes with the flock. [For it was set aside in error and becomes chullin (non-sacred). In this instance Beth Shammai concede that since he is not a Nazirite, when he designated the animal as an offering for his Naziritism, he said nothing, as one who was not liable to bring a sin-offering and said: "This is for my sin-offering."] Beth Hillel asked Beth Shammai: Do you not concur in this instance, which is "hekdesh in error," that it goes out and grazes in the flock? [i.e., How does this differ from the first instance (5:1), where you say: "Hekdesh in error is hekdesh"?] Beth Shammai responded: Do you not concur that if one erred and called the ninth, the tenth; or the tenth, the ninth; or the eleventh, the tenth, that it is consecrated (as ma'aser)? [They did not feel obliged to respond with their rationale, but they challenged their (Beth Hillel's) view from the ninth and the eleventh, which were consecrated in error and which are included (as consecrated), this being derived from (Leviticus 27:32): "And all the ma'asser of cattle and sheep"]. Beth Hillel rejoined: Is it not the staff that consecrated them? [i.e., This is a Scriptural decree — that the staff consecrates the ninth and the eleventh which are close to the tenth, if he calls them "the tenth."] And what if he had erred and placed the staff on the eighth or on the twelfth — would he have done anything? [i.e., We do not learn from this that, in general, "hekdesh in error is hekdesh"; for if that were the reason, then even the eighth and the twelfth would be hekdesh.] But it is Scripture that consecrated the tenth and Scripture that consecrated the ninth and the eleventh. [i.e., It is a Scriptural decree, and we cannot derive (a general ruling) from it.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Nazir
English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir
If he asked a sage [to be released from his vow] and he released him, if he had an animal set aside [for a sacrifice], it goes forth to pasture with [the rest of] the herd.
Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: do you not admit that here where the consecration is in error, [the animal] goes forth to pasture with the herd?
Beth Shammai said to them: do you not admit that if a man in error calls the ninth [animal], the tenth, or the tenth the ninth, or the eleventh the tenth, each is consecrated?
Beth Hillel said to them: it is not the staff that makes these consecrated. For suppose that by mistake he placed the staff upon the eighth or upon the twelfth, would this have any effect? Rather Scripture which has consecrated the tenth, has also declared consecrated the ninth and the eleventh.
This whole mishnah contains an argument between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel over consecration in error.
Section one: If a person makes a nazirite vow, he may ask a sage to be released from his vow, just as he can ask a sage to be released from any vow. However, if the sage refuses to release him from his vow, then he must observe his naziriteship, and the naziriteship is counted from the beginning.
Sections two and three: If he asked the sage and the sage released him, then his animal that he set aside to be used for his sacrifice, is not considered to be consecrated. Beth Hillel considers this to be a precedent for all cases of mistaken consecration. In this case the person made a nazirite vow and then separated an animal to be used as a sacrifice. Later, he told a sage that the vow was mistaken and the sage agreed. Hence the animal was consecrated also by mistake. The fact that it is not consecrated, and may go back and join the herd, proves to Beth Hillel that something consecrated by mistake is not consecrated.
Section four: Beth Shammai retorts with their own precedent to prove that something consecrated by mistake is consecrated. Animals must be tithed (like produce), every tenth animal going to the priest (Leviticus 27:32). This is done by passing all of the animals under a staff and counting them. The tenth animal that passes under the staff is consecrated. If a person accidentally calls the ninth animal the tenth, or the eleventh animal the tenth, both the ninth and eleventh animals are consecrated (as is the actual tenth animal). This proves that things consecrated by mistake are consecrated.
Section five: Beth Hillel refutes this proof. The staff placed on the animals is not what consecrates them in general, rather the Torah consecrates them, or dictates that the tenth animal is consecrated. To prove that the staff does not consecrate them, Beth Hillel points out that if one calls the eighth animal the tenth, or the twelfth animal the tenth, they are not consecrated. Rather the Torah stated that the tenth animal is consecrated, and also stated (through a midrash: do not look for this in the verse itself), that if one places the staff on the ninth or the eleventh, that they are consecrated. However, one should not use this as a precedent for other cases to prove that all things consecrated by mistake are consecrated.