## Nazir Daf 20a

###### Nazir 20a:1
[Nazir 20a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/20a:1)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: מִשּׁוּם אַוֵּירָא גָּזְרוּ עָלֶיהָ? לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִשּׁוּם גּוּשָׁהּ גָּזְרוּ עָלֶיהָ, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי בִּסְתָם נְזִירוּת קָנֵיסְנָא, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: כִּי קָנֵיסְנָא — בִּתְחִילַּת נְזִירוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and Beit Hillel hold: They decreed with regard to its airspace,** and it is a severe level of ritual impurity, so he must start his naziriteship from the beginning once he arrives in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara rejects this possibility: **No,** it may be **that everyone** agrees that **they decreed** only **with regard to its earth, and** they disagree merely over the details of the penalty. **Beit Shammai hold** that **we penalize** him **with an unspecified term of naziriteship,** which is thirty days, **and Beit Hillel hold** that **when we penalize,** we require him to return **to the beginning of** his term of **naziriteship,** and he must observe the entire term of naziriteship afresh.


###### Nazir 20a:2
[Nazir 20a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/20a:2)

מַעֲשֶׂה בְּהֵילֵנִי הַמַּלְכָּה וְכוּ׳. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בְּשֶׁנִּטְמֵאת, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? אוֹ דִּלְמָא בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִטְמֵאת, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught: **An incident** occurred **with regard to Queen Helene. A dilemma was raised before them:** What is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement? Does he hold that the case was one **where she became impure** in Eretz Yisrael, but after thirty days, and not after seven years, **and** Rabbi Yehuda spoke **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai,** who hold that she was required to observe only a further thirty days upon her arrival in Eretz Yisrael, and due to her becoming impure she had to observe again her original term of naziriteship, for a total of fourteen years? **Or perhaps** the case is one **where she did not become impure** at the end of the seven years in Eretz Yisrael, **and** he ruled **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Hillel** that she had to observe an additional seven years upon her entry to Eretz Yisrael.


###### Nazir 20a:3
[Nazir 20a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/20a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: עָלְתָה לָאָרֶץ, וְהוֹרוּהָ בֵּית הִלֵּל שֶׁתְּהֵא נְזִירָה עוֹד שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים אֲחֵרוֹת וְכוּ׳. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּשֶׁנִּטְמֵאת וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, אִי הָכִי, ״רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיְתָה נְזִירָה אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה״? ״אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna: **She ascended to Eretz** Yisrael, **and Beit Hillel instructed her that she should be a nazirite for an additional seven years, etc. And if it enters your mind** that Rabbi Yehuda says that the case is one **where she became ritually impure** after observing thirty days of naziriteship following her arrival to Eretz Yisrael, **and** he spoke **in accordance with** the opinion **of Beit Shammai, if so,** why does **Rabbi Yehuda say she was a nazirite** for **only fourteen years? He should have** said **fourteen years and thirty days,** as even Beit Shammai obligate her to observe a thirty-day period of naziriteship in Eretz Yisrael. It must be that Rabbi Yehuda holds that she observed seven additional years, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and says that she did not become ritually impure.


###### Nazir 20a:4
[Nazir 20a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/20a:4)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר״, הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: כִּי נִטְמָא בְּיוֹם מְלֹאת — תֵּן לוֹ תּוֹרַת נָזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **This is also taught** in a *baraita*, that Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion cannot be established in accordance with Beit Shammai: **Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer that the verse states: “This is the law of the nazirite** when the days of his consecration are fulfilled” (Numbers 6:13). **The Torah states: When he becomes impure on the day of the completion** of his naziriteship, even if it was at the end of a lengthy term, **give him the law of** an unspecified **nazirite,** and he must observe a thirty-day term. Therefore, if she became impure at the end of those thirty days that Beit Shammai obligates her to observe, she should have been required to observe naziriteship for only thirty additional days, rather than a full seven years. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda certainly accepts the opinion of Beit Hillel, and claims that she did not become ritually impure.


###### Nazir 20a:5
[Nazir 20a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/20a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִי שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִּיתֵּי עֵדִים מְעִידוֹת אוֹתוֹ, אֵלּוּ מְעִידִים שֶׁנָּזַר שְׁתַּיִם, וְאֵלּוּ מְעִידִים שֶׁנָּזַר חָמֵשׁ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נֶחְלְקָה הָעֵדוּת — וְאֵין כָּאן נְזִירוּת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ בִּכְלַל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם, שֶׁיְּהֵא נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case of **one who had two sets of witnesses testifying about him** that he had taken a vow of naziriteship for a certain period, and **these** witnesses **testify that he took a vow of naziriteship** for **two** terms, **and these** witnesses **testify that he took a vow of naziriteship** for **five** terms. **Beit Shammai say: The testimony is divided,** i.e., the testimonies contradict each other, and since the testimonies are in conflict they are both rejected entirely **and there is no naziriteship here** at all. **And Beit Hillel say:** The testimonies are not completely in conflict with each other, as **two** terms **are included in five** terms, and the unanimous testimony, **that he is a nazirite** for **two** terms, is accepted.


###### Nazir 20a:6
[Nazir 20a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/20a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל שְׁתֵּי כִּיתֵּי עֵדִים, אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת שְׁתַּיִם, וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת חָמֵשׁ, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בִּכְלַל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם. עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ — עַל כַּת אַחַת, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר שְׁתַּיִם, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חָמֵשׁ, שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נֶחְלְקָה עֵדוּתָן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ בִּכְלַל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara comments: **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **this *tanna*, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to** the *halakha* in the case of **two sets of witnesses, one** of whom **says two** terms **and one** of whom **says five** terms, **that two** terms **are included in five** terms, and he must observe two terms of naziriteship. **With regard to what did they disagree?** They disagreed **with regard to one set** of two witnesses, **one** of whom **says two** terms **and one** of whom **says five** terms, and **that Beit Shammai say:** In that case **their testimony is divided,** as the two witnesses are in conflict and there is no testimony here at all. **And Beit Hillel say:** Since **two** terms **are included in five** terms, their testimony is in agreement with regard to two terms, and therefore he must observe two terms.


###### Nazir 20a:7
[Nazir 20a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/20a:7)

אָמַר רַב: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּמוֹנֶה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָמָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי קָאָמַר? אִילֵּימָא: אֶחָד אוֹמֵר חָמֵשׁ וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר שְׁתַּיִם וְלֹא חָמֵשׁ — הָא קָא מַכְחֲשִׁי אַהֲדָדֵי! אֶלָּא: אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אַחַת וּשְׁתַּיִם, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ אַרְבַּע חָמֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In relation to the explanation that the dispute is with regard to a single pair of witnesses, **Rav said: All concede in** a case of **counting** that the testimonies contradict each other. **Rav Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: What is he saying;** what did Rav mean by this? **If we say that** he was referring to a case where **one** witness **says:** He vowed **five** terms **and not two** terms, **and one says:** He vowed **two** terms **and not five** terms, in such a situation **they** clearly **contradict one another,** and neither of the testimonies is reliable. **Rather,** Rav is speaking of **one** witness who **says** that he heard the person in question count out only **one and two** terms when he took a vow of naziriteship, **and one says** that he heard the person in question count out only **three, four,** and **five** terms when he took a vow of naziriteship.