Reference 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.]