Nazir 20a (כ.) — the Talmud in English

And Beit Hillel maintain:

the ritual impurity that the Sages decreed regarding the atmosphere of the land of the nations

because of its soil [

clods of earth ]

they decreed upon it,

and one becomes impure only when it casts its tent over it.

And if so, there is concern that people might err regarding this impurity, which is of rabbinic origin, and come to be lenient even with Torah-level impurity, counting only thirty days as invalidating the naziriteship. Therefore, the Sages said that all the days of his naziriteship that were spent in a state of impurity do not count for him, as with corpse impurity, which is of Torah origin.

And we reject this:

No,

not as you explained the reason for Beit Hillel's view—that they hold, “They decreed it because of its soil,” and therefore the Sages feared that people might come to be lenient even with Torah-level impurity. Rather:

Everyone—including Beit Hillel—

maintains:

They decreed it because of its atmosphere,

and everyone knows that it is rabbinic in origin, so they will not come to be lenient with Torah-level impurity.

Rather, they disagreed concerning the fundamental law:

And Beit Shammai maintain:

Since the impurity is rabbinic,

in ordinary naziriteship—

which is thirty days—only

do we penalize

him.

And Beit Hillel maintain:

Even though the impurity is rabbinic,

when do we impose the penalty? At the beginning of the naziriteship.

We learned in the Mishna:

There was an incident involving Queen Helena

and so on. Rabbi Yehuda said: She was a nazirite for only fourteen years:

They raised a dilemma:

What was Rabbi Yehuda's view, and how did the incident occur according to his position?

Was the incident—in Rabbi Yehuda's view—

when she became impure

at the end of the thirty days that she added to observe in Eretz Yisrael,

in accordance with Beit Shammai?

That is: Rabbi Yehuda maintains in accordance with Beit Shammai that she needed to observe only thirty days in Eretz Yisrael. When she became impure during those thirty days, she invalidated all the naziriteship that she had accepted upon herself. These were the fourteen years that she observed: seven outside Eretz Yisrael and seven as a period of invalidation.

Or perhaps

according to Rabbi Yehuda the incident occurred

without her becoming impure

at all,

and

the fourteen years were

in accordance with Beit Hillel [

that is, according to the view of Beit Hillel ], since she had to complete all her naziriteship in Eretz Yisrael. It follows that she observed fourteen years of naziriteship.

Come and hear

from the wording of our Mishna:

She went up to Eretz Yisrael, and Beit Hillel instructed her to be a nazirite for another seven years,

and at the end of the seven years she became impure. It follows that she was a nazirite for twenty-one years. Rabbi Yehuda said: She was a nazirite for only fourteen years.

And if it enters your mind

that the incident occurred

when she became impure, in accordance with Beit Shammai—

If so,

how do we understand what we learned: “

Rabbi Yehuda says: She was a nazirite for only fourteen years,”

for

fourteen years and thirty days

should have been required

for the tanna to say,

that is, seven years outside Eretz Yisrael, thirty days that she observed in Eretz Yisrael, and seven years of invalidation. [

It was taught

also so: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, for the verse states, “This is the law of the nazirite.”

The Torah said: If he became impure on the day his term was complete, give him the law of a nazirite].

Mishna:

If a person had two sets of witnesses testifying against him

that he had undertaken several naziriteships, each the duration of ordinary naziriteship, and the two sets disagreed concerning the number of naziriteships he had accepted upon himself:

These—

the witnesses of the first set—

testify that he undertook two.

And these—

the witnesses of the second set—

testify that he undertook five,

at the same time that the first witnesses say that he undertook two naziriteships.

Beit Shammai say: The testimony is divided

and there is no

obligation of

naziriteship

at all.

And Beit Hillel say: Included within five [

the naziriteships stated by one set ]

are two [

stated by the other set ]; that is, the testimony does not conflict in its entirety, but conflicts only with regard to the additional three naziriteships. Therefore, it is proper

that he be a nazirite for two,

with regard to which both sets agree.

Gemara:

The Mishna,

our Mishna, which presents the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning two sets of witnesses that contradicted one another,

is unlike this tanna

of the beraita:

For it was taught: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning two sets of witnesses,

one of which

says: Two

and the other

says: Five, for included within five are two,

and he must observe two naziriteships, in accordance with Beit Hillel's position according to the tanna of our Mishna.

Rather,

with regard to what did they disagree,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel?

With regard to one set

of witnesses, whose two witnesses contradicted one another concerning the number of naziriteships that he had accepted upon himself:

One

of the witnesses

says: Two,

he accepted upon himself.

And one

of the witnesses

says: Five,

naziriteships he accepted upon himself.

For Beit Shammai say: Their testimony is divided,

the testimony of the two, and there is no testimony here at all.

And Beit Hillel say: Included within five [

stated by one witness ]

are two [

stated by the other witness ]; consequently, he is obligated to observe two naziriteships.

Rav said: Everyone agrees in a case where he enumerates,

that their testimony is divided, as he proceeds to explain.

Rav Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: What is he saying,

Rav? That is, what does “enumerates” mean?

If you say:

For example,

one

of the witnesses

says,

explicitly:

Five

naziriteships this person accepted upon himself,

and not two.

And

the

one

of the witnesses

says,

explicitly:

Two

he accepted upon himself,

and not five.

In that case, it is impossible to say that

they contradict

one another [

they contradict one another ], and it is obvious that their testimony is divided; Rav would not need to teach us this.

Rather,

this is the interpretation of “he counts”:

One

of the witnesses

says: “One and two”

periods of naziriteship he accepted upon himself.

And one

of the witnesses

says: “Three, four, five”

periods of naziriteship he accepted upon himself.