Beit Hillel’s language in the Mishna is difficult as he says “The one whose words do not come to be is a nazir.” Shouldn’t it be the opposite? Rav Yehuda suggests changing the language to read “The one whose words come true.” Abaye leaves the original language and suggests that Beit Hillel is referring to a case where one switched one’s original statement and added to it that even if the opposite is true, they will still become a nazir. The Mishna is then teaching that we follow the end of the person’s statement. If the person they were betting on turned around, the tanna kama rules that none of them become a nazir. The Gemara infers that if we identify who it is, the one whose statement came true is a nazir. According to whose opinion is this?