The משנה says that if someone says they will be a נזיר from figs, ב"ש says they are a נזיר and ב"ה says they are not a נזיר. רבי יהודה disagrees and seems to say that even ב"ש agrees you aren’t a נזיר but you are a נדור from figs. The simple reading of all this is that ב"ה says you have no חיובים at all according to everyone. The גמרא on the next עמוד seems to concur with this as it says our משנה is not like the תנא דר' נתן who says even ב"ה agrees that the person can’t eat figs. What is surprising is that the רמב"ם in הלכות נזירות, פּרק א הל' י paskens that the person is not a נזיר but cant eat figs. So that would seem to be either paskening like ב"ש or paskening like the תנא דר' נתן’s version of ב"ה. The ראב"ד there assumes the רמב"ם is going like ר' נתן but argues with him since that is against our משנה so why would we go like a ברייתא against our משנה? However, if you look in the פּירוש המשנוית in our משנה it is clear theרמב"ם learned that this was פּשט in ב"ה in our משנה. The question on that is that our גמרא explicitly says ר' נתן is not like our משנה. The כסף משנה says he must have had the גירסא in our גמרא that ר' נתן is like our משנה. However, the קרן אורה has a different פּשט. He suggests that when the גמרא says "מתני' דלא כר' נתן" it meant the ב"ש part. In other words, ר' נתן said ב"ש holds you are נזיר ונדור whereas our משנה sounds like you are just a נזיר. However, the ב"הportion perhaps could be the same as our משנה that you aren’t a נזיר but are a נדור. Another support to theרמב"ם is the גמרא on עמוד א and in the following לישנא אחרינא on עמוד ב said ב"ה who says you have no חיובים is going like ר"ש who holds if you are not נודר כדרך הנודרים then its not a נדר. The thing is we don’t pasken that way, so that explain the רמב"ם ’s פּסק that the person is a נדור even though he wasn’t נודר כדרך הנודרים. Finally, the ירושלמי here says explicitly that the פּשט in our משנה in ב"ה is that he is a נדור but not a נזיר, so theרמב"ם may have gone like this ירושלמי since there is also such an opinion brought in the בבלי. (The ביאור הגר"א in יו"ד סימן קי"ח says that the רמב"ם paskened like the ירושלמי in most cases.)

The גמרא says on עמוד א that the reason according to ב"ש that the person is a נזירif they say they are “ a נזיר from figs” is because, as תוספות in ד"ה לאיתשולי explains, the “from figs” part is really a retraction. This is even though it was תוך כדי דיבור, as the next תוספות mentions. The reason תוך כדי דיבור doesn’t work as a retraction is because אין טעות בהקדש. The קצות החושן in סימן רנ"ה ס"ק ב points out that this means that תוך כדי דיבור is not simply a tool where the words themselves that you said can disappear if you correct them very fast. Rather, the words count fully, its just the second words make the first words to be considered a טעות. This is also reflected in theרמב"ם in הלכות שבועות, פּרק ב' הל' י"ז who says תוך כדי דיבור is considered a טועה. The שערי יושר in שער חמישי פּרק כ"ב learns a little differently. He says that within תוך כדי דיבור a person can be "מתיר נדר" for themselves, which fits better with the words of our גמרא that it is "לאיתשולי" and not the סוגיא of טעות.