Comentario sobre 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:
Si uno prometía ser nazareo, y consultaba a un sabio, quien lo prohibía, [es decir, si le decía que su lenguaje engendraba el naziritismo; y él (el vower) no se había preocupado de no beber vino], cuenta desde el momento en que lo prometió. [Y no lo penalizamos por haber transgredido y bebido (aunque, en caso de duda, debería haberse abstenido hasta haber consultado a un sabio).] Si consultó a un sabio, quién lo permitió, [diciendo que su idioma no betoken naziritismo]—si tenía una bestia apartada, se apaga y pasta con el rebaño. [Porque se dejó de lado por error y se convierte en chullin (no sagrado). En este caso, Beth Shammai admite que, dado que no es un nazareo, cuando designó al animal como una ofrenda por su naziritismo, no dijo nada, ya que no era responsable de traer una ofrenda por el pecado y dijo: "Esto es para mi ofrenda por el pecado "]. Beth Hillel le preguntó a Beth Shammai: ¿No estás de acuerdo en este caso, que es" hekdesh en error ", que sale y pasta en el rebaño? [es decir, ¿Cómo difiere esto de la primera instancia (5: 1), donde dices: "Hekdesh en error es hekdesh"?] Beth Shammai respondió: ¿No estás de acuerdo en que si uno erró y llamó al noveno, al décimo; o el décimo, el noveno; o el undécimo, el décimo, que está consagrado (como ma'aser)? [No se sintieron obligados a responder con su justificación, pero desafiaron su punto de vista (de Beth Hillel) desde el noveno y el undécimo, que fueron consagrados por error y que están incluidos (como consagrados), esto se deriva de (Levítico 27: 32): "Y todos los ma'asser de ganado vacuno y ovino"]. Beth Hillel se reincorporó: ¿no es el personal que los consagró? [es decir, este es un decreto bíblico— que el personal consagra el noveno y el undécimo, que están cerca del décimo, si los llama "el décimo"]. ¿Y si hubiera cometido un error y hubiera colocado el bastón en el octavo o el duodécimo? —¿Habría hecho algo? [es decir, no aprendemos de esto que, en general, "hekdesh en error es hekdesh"; porque si esa fuera la razón, incluso el octavo y el duodécimo serían hekdesh.] Pero es la Escritura la que consagró el décimo y la Escritura que consagró el noveno y el undécimo. [es decir, es un decreto bíblico, y no podemos derivarlo (una decisión general) de él.]
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.