Nazir 20a — the Talmud in English

And Beit Hillel hold:

the impurity that the Sages decreed upon the airspace of the Land of the Nations

because of the earth

[the clods of earth]

they decreed upon it, and

he is impure only when he overshadowed it.

And if so, there is concern that they will come to err concerning this impurity, thinking that it is of Torah origin, and they will come to be lenient with regard to Torah impurity, to invalidate only thirty days; and therefore the Sages said that all the days of his Nazirite term that were [spent] in impurity do not count for him, as with corpse impurity of Torah origin.

And we reject [this]:

No,

not as you explained the reason of Beit Hillel, that they hold, “They decreed it because of the earth,” and therefore the Sages were concerned lest they come to be lenient even with Torah impurity, but rather:

Everyone—

and Beit Hillel as well—hold:

They decreed it because of the airspace, and

everyone knows that it is rabbinic and will not come to be lenient with Torah impurity.

Rather, they disagreed concerning the fundamental law:

And Beit Shammai hold:

since the impurity is rabbinic,

with an ordinary Nazirite term—

which is thirty days—only

I penalize

him.

And Beit Hillel hold:

although the impurity is rabbinic,

when I penalize, it is at the beginning of naziriteship.

We learned in the Mishna:

It happened with Queen Helena

and so forth. Rabbi Judah said: She was a nazirite only for fourteen years:

It was asked of them,

what was Rabbi Judah’s view, and how was the event according to his position:

Was the event—in Rabbi Judah’s view—

when she became impure

at the end of the thirty days that she added to observe in the Land of Israel,

and according to Beit Shammai.

That is to say: Rabbi Judah holds like Beit Shammai, that she needed to observe only thirty days in the Land of Israel; and when she became impure during those thirty days, she invalidated all the naziriteship that she had accepted upon herself. These are the fourteen years for which she observed: seven outside the Land and seven of invalidation.

Or perhaps

according to Rabbi Judah the event was

when she did not become impure

at all,

and

the fourteen years are

according to Beit Hillel

[that is, according to the view of Beit Hillel], for she needed to complete all her naziriteship in the Land of Israel, and it follows that she observed fourteen years of naziriteship.

Come and hear

from the wording of our Mishna:

She went up to the Land, and Beit Hillel instructed her that she should be a nazirite for another seven years,

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

And if it enters your mind

that the event was

when she became impure and according to Beit Shammai—

If so,

how do we learn: “

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

when

fourteen years and thirty days

should have been required

for the tanna to say,

namely, seven years outside the Land, thirty days during which she observed in the Land, and seven years of invalidation.

It was taught

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

The Torah said: When he became impure on the day his term is completed, give him the law of a nazirite].

Mishna:

One who had two groups of witnesses testifying concerning him

that he undertook several naziriteships, each one the measure of an ordinary naziriteship, and the two groups disagreed concerning the number of naziriteships that he accepted upon himself:

These—

the witnesses of the one group—

testify that he undertook two.

And these—

the witnesses of the second group—

testify that he undertook five,

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

Beit Shammai say: The testimony is divided

and there is here no

obligation of

naziriteship

at all.

And Beit Hillel say: Included within five [

the naziriteships stated by the one group]

are two [

stated by the second group], that is, the disagreement does not encompass all the testimony, but only the three additional naziriteships; and therefore it is right that:

He should be a nazirite for two,

about which both groups agree.

Gemara:

The Mishna,

our Mishna, which presents the disagreement of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning two groups of witnesses who contradicted one another,

is not like this tanna

of the beraita:

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

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

in which

one says two

and

the other says five, that included within five are two, and he must observe two naziriteships, as Beit Hillel say according to the tanna of our Mishna.

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

Rather,

concerning what did they disagree,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel?

Concerning one group

of witnesses, in which the two witnesses contradicted one another concerning the number of naziriteships that he 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 the one witness]

are two [

stated by the second witness], and he is liable for two naziriteships.

Rav said: Everyone agrees in the case of one who counts

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

Rav Hama said to Rav Hisda: What is he saying,

Rav? That is, what is “one who counts”?

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.

If so, it is impossible to say that

they are contradicting

one another [

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

Rather

this is the meaning of “counts”:

One

of the witnesses

says: one and two

terms of naziriteship he accepted upon himself.

And one

of the witnesses

says: three, four, five

terms of naziriteship he accepted upon himself.