בית שמאי אומרים הקדש טעות הקדש – for we derive it from the exchange of one sacrificial animal for another, which is, even by mistake/error, as it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “the thing vowed and its substitute shall be holy,” and we expound/interpret it to include something done inadvertently like something done willfully.

וב"ה אומרים אינו הקדש – that we don’t learn the beginning of consecration is a matter that does not come from the power of consecration from the exchange of one sacrificial animal for another, which is the end of consecration which comes from the power of another thing that was consecrated.

דינר זהב– the first segment of the Mishnah comes to teach us with something that has attained the holiness of the object but here (i.e., in the latter segment of the Mishnah) it comes to teach us with something that has sanctified the holiness of the money.

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

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.

מי שנדר בנזיר – and at the time that he took the vow [of becoming a Nazirite], he had the animals [for the sacrifice] and with the knowledge/intention that it was for this purpose he made the vow that he would offer up his sacrifices from those animals, and he went and found that they had been stolen and on account of this, regretted that he took the vow of becoming a Nazirite.

אם עד שלא נגנבו בהמותיו נדר, הרי זה נזיר – and a Sage should not absolve him through this opening for retracting a vow (i.e., suggesting reasons which, if known at the time, would have prevented the person from making the vow), for it was a novel incident changing the aspects of a vow and eventually nullifies it, and we don’t open with a novel incident.

ואם לאחר שנגנבו נדר – and he stated: “had I known that they would be stolen, I would not have made this vow, this is an opening that the Sage could annul.

הריני נזיר שזה איש פלוני – “if this [person] who is walking towards me is so-and-so, I am a Nazirite,” and the second [person] says, “if this [person walking towards me] is not so-and-so, I am not a Nazirite.

כולם נזירים – and even those whose words were not confirmed/fulfilled, for just as a consecration done in error is a consecration, so also, Naziriteship [vowed] in error is Naziriteship (in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai as found in Tractate Nazir, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1).

ר"ט אומר אין אחד מהם נזיר – for Rabbi Tarphon holds that there is no Naziriteship other than for a distinct and solemn specification of a vow (without a doubt – see Tosefta Nazirut, Chapter 3, Halakha 18 and Talmud Nazir 34a in the words of Rabbi Yehuda quoting Rabbi Tarphon), meaning to say, that it is clear and known to him at the time of his vow that he will be a Nazirite and all of these [examples mentioned in our Mishnah], it was not known to him at the time of his vow that it will be according to his declaration, and the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Tarphon.

הרתיע לאחוריו – the person who had come towards them was startled and moved backward and it was not known who it was.

אינו נזיר – not a single one of them is a Nazirite, for no one protested for himself regarding a doubt, and his intention was at the time of the vow that if the matter did not come to clarity, that his words would not be worth anything.

ר' שמעון אומר כו' – Rabbi Shimon, according to his reasoning, who said that a doubtful case of Naziriteship is [dealt with] stringently and what is their remedy, for it is impossible o bring a sacrifice out of doubt, but rather, each person needs to make a condition and state that if it is not according to his statement, he should be a Nazirite out of free will, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

ראה את הכוי six people who saw the bearded dear or antelope/Koy and one of them said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if this is a beast of chase,” and the second said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if it is not a beast of chase,” and the third said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if it is of the genus of cattle,” and the fourth said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if it is not of the genus of a cattle,” and the fifth said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if this is a beast of chase and a genus of cattle,” and the sixth said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if this is neither a beast of chase or of the genus of cattle,” and three others came in a general way and one of them said to those other six: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if one of you is a Nazirite,” and the second said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if none of you are a Nazirite,” and the third said: “Behold, I am a Nazirite if all of you are Nazirites,” all of them are Nazirites – the first six and the latter three. According to the School of Shammai, they are definitive Nazirites, for a Naziriteship in error is a Nazirite. But according to the School of Hillel, they are doubtful Nazirites because the bearded dear or antelope/Koy is doubtfully of the genus of cattle and doubtfully a beast of chase and doubtfully a creature of its own.