פירוש על נזיר 5:3

מי שנדר בנזיר – in a language that resembled it for him that he was not a Nazirite.

If a man vowed to be a nazirite and then asked a sage [to be released from his vow] but [the sage] bound him [to his vow] he counts [the naziriteship] from the time that the vow was made.
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.

ונשאל לחכם – and who said to him that there is something in that this language formulation of the language of Naziriteship, and he was not careful from drinking wine,

מונה משעה שנדר – and we don’t fine him that he transgressed and drank wine, even though, from doubt, it is prohibited, he should have separated himself until he would seek and ask a Sage.

נשאל לחכם והתירו – who said to him that there is nothing in this language of the language of Naziriteship.

תצא ותרעה בעדר – for setting aside [an animal] by error is a vain talk but it should become non-holy and in this, the School of Shammai agrees for since he is not a Nazirite when he states that it [i.e., the animal] should go for the sacrifices of the Nazirite, and he didn’t say anything, like a person who is not liable for a sin-offering and states: “behold, this is for my sin-offering.”

אי אתם מודים בזה שהוא הקדש טעות – and what is the difference from the beginning of the chapter (i.e., Mishnah 1), when you (i.e., the School of Shammai) stated that [an act of] consecration done in error is binding [i.e., consecrated]?

אמרו להם בית שמאי – they were not anxious to respond t them the essence of their reasoning, but they spoke to them in accordance with their own words “from the ninth and the eleventh that they consecrated in error and we extend the scope/include from (Leviticus 27:32): “All tithes of he herd or flock – [of all that passes under the shepherd’s staff, every tenth one – shall be holy to the LORD].”

אמרו להם ב"ה לא השבט קדשו – to be read [as a question – in astonishment], meaning to say, the decree of the Biblical verse is that the ninth and the eleventh which are near the tenth, the staff sanctifies them, if he called them “the tenth,” and we do not derive from this merely that an act of consecration made in error is consecrated, for were it not for this reason because of an act of consecration made in error, if so, then even the eighty and the twelfth also [would be included], but rather because the Biblical verse that sanctified the tenth, etc., and it is the decree of the Biblical verse (that the tenth one, approximately, would be sanctified) and we don’t derive anything from this.