QUESTION: Rav Masna and Bar Pada disagree about the length of a Nezirus with no specified duration, mid'Oraisa. Rav Masna maintains that the Nezirus is 30 days long, and Bar Pada maintains that it is 29 days long. Bar Pada proves his view that the duration of Nezirus is 29 days from the statement of the Tana, Rebbi Eliezer, who says that a Nazir becomes Tamei on the thirtieth day of his Nezirus, his Tum'ah is only "Soser Shiv'ah" -- he does not observe another 30 days, but rather he waits only seven days, after which time he may bring his Korbanos and conclude his Nezirus. The reason why he does not have to observe another period of Nezirus is that his Nezirus already ended before the arrival of the thirtieth day. This proves that Nezirus lasts for only 29 days.

Rav Masna replies that Rebbi Eliezer considers the Nezirus over on the thirtieth day not because he maintains that Nezirus is only 29 days long, but because he maintains that it is 30 days long and that "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" applies. Once part of the thirtieth day has passed, the Nazir is considered to have observed his Nezirus for the entire thirtieth day. (Rebbi Eliezer applies "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" even when the Nazir becomes Tamei in the middle of the thirtieth day. The Rabanan argue that "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" applies only when the Nazir has offered his Korbanos on the thirtieth day. They maintain that the offering of the Korbanos gives part of the thirtieth day the status of a full day.)

The Gemara questions both opinions from Rebbi Eliezer's words later in the Mishnah. Rebbi Eliezer rules that when a person makes himself a Nazir for 100 days and becomes Tamei on day 100, that Tum'ah is only "Soser" 30 days, which means that after he becomes Tahor he must observe another 30 days of Nezirus. Why, according to both Rav Masna and Bar Pada, must he observe only 30 days? If, as Bar Pada rules, "Miktzas ha'Yom" is not "k'Kulo," part of a day is not considered a full day, his entire Nezirus should be annulled and he should have to observe the full 100 days again. If, on the other hand, "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" as Rav Masna rules, he should be required to observe only another seven days until he becomes Tahor and is able to bring the Korbanos, since his partial observance of day 100 is considered as though he observed the entire day.

The Gemara answers that "Miktzas ha'Yom" is not "k'Kulo," and becoming Tamei on day 100 indeed should ruin his entire Nezirus and require him to observe all 100 days again. However, Rebbi Eliezer derives from the verse, "b'Yom Melos Yemei Nizro" (Bamidbar 6:13), that if a Nazir becomes Tamei on the last day of his Nezirus he must observe only another 30 days and not the full number of days of his Nezirus. The Gemara elaborates no further on this subject.

The answer of the Gemara explains Rebbi Eliezer's opinion only according to Bar Pada's view, that "Miktzas ha'Yom" is not "k'Kulo." There seems to be no way to explain Rebbi Eliezer's view according to Rav Masna, who maintains "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo." Does the Gemara reject Rav Masna's opinion and prove from Rebbi Eliezer that the opinion of Bar Pada ("Miktzas ha'Yom" is not "k'Kulo") is correct? (This proposal is problematic, because the Poskim seem to rule in accordance with Rav Masna.)

(a) TOSFOS (DH Amar Reish Lakish) and the ROSH explain that the Gemara's answer conforms with Rav Masna's opinion as well. Rav Masna understands that the case of Rebbi Eliezer (in which a Nazir accepted Nezirus for 100 days) involves a Nazir who specified that his Nezirus should last for 100 full days and should not end in the middle of the day. In such a case, Rav Masna agrees that "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" does not apply (see 5b).

(b) The MAHARAF (Rabeinu Peretz) cited by TOSFOS suggests that Rav Masna agrees that Tum'ah on day 100 is "Soser" 30 days, and not just seven, because of a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv. Just as the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv teaches, according to Bar Pada, that Tum'ah on the last day of Nezirus does not ruin the entire Nezirus but only 30 days (l'Kula), similarly -- according to Rav Masna -- the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv teaches that although "Miktzas ha'Yom" is "k'Kulo" and the Tum'ah should require him to observe only seven more days, the verse teaches that it is "Soser" 30 days (l'Chumra). (The Maharaf points out that this Gezeiras ha'Kasuv applies only to a Nezirus in which a number of days was specified. If a person became Tamei on the last day of a normal Nezirus of an unspecified term (which lasts for 30 days), Rebbi Eliezer certainly agrees that it is "Soser" only seven days, as the Gemara earlier says.)

(c) The BRISKER RAV (Hilchos Nezirus 4:1) points out that the RAMBAM seems to have a different approach to this question. The Rambam rules that when a person makes himself a Nazir and specifies 30 days, he must shave his hair only on day 31, and if he shaves on day 30 his shaving is not valid even b'Di'eved. The Rambam does not write what the Halachah is in the case of a person who makes himself a Nazir for 100 days. His omission of this case implies that the same Halachah would apply regardless of how many days a person specified; the Nazir must shave on the day following the last day of his Nezirus.

The Rambam (Hilchos Nezirus 4:2; see LECHEM MISHNEH) seems to rule like Rav Masna. The Brisker Rav asks that if the Rambam rules like Rav Masna, a Nazir (who accepted Nezirus for 100 days) should be able to shave on day 100 because of "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo." The only reason he cannot shave on day 30 (in a case in which he accepted Nezirus for 30 days) is the fact that he added to his statement the word "Sheloshim" ("thirty") which was unnecessary (because his Nezirus would have been 30 days long without being specified) demonstrates that he was trying to add something. Hence, it is as though he said "thirty complete days." In contrast, when he accepts Nezirus for 100 days, there is no reason to infer from his words that he wants to observe 100 complete days, since he needs to say "one hundred" in order to specify the duration of his Nezirus. Why, then, should he not be allowed to bring his Korbanos on that day (day 100) according to the Rambam?

The Brisker Rav answers that the Rambam learns the Gemara earlier (5b) like the ME'IRI and not like Tosfos. According to the Me'iri, when the Gemara says that a person who accepted upon himself Nezirus and said that he will observe "Sheloshim" is considered to have said "Shelemim," it means that whenever the Nazir specifies a number of days the principle of "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" does not apply. The principle of "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" applies only to a normal Nezirus which was accepted with no specified duration, in which case the Torah gives it a duration of thirty days. "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" applies to the Torah's Halachah. In contrast, the Torah does not give a person the right to make for himself a longer Nezirus and then to treat part of the last day as a full day based on "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo." Hence, when the person himself specifies an amount, the Halachah of "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" does not apply.

This explains why the Rambam maintains that when a person accepts Nezirus for 100 days, "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" does not apply and he must bring the Korbanos on the day after the Nezirus ends (day 101).

This also explains how Rav Masna understands Rebbi Eliezer's statement. When the Gemara says that Rebbi Eliezer rules that "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" does not apply to the case of a Nazir who accepted a 100-day Nezirus, its intention is not only to answer the question according to Bar Pada, but also to answer the question according to Rav Masna. It is answering that since the person specified a duration for his Nezirus, the principle of "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" does not apply.

(See footnote #1:2 of Chart #4, where we point out that Tosfos seems to answer the Maharaf's questions on his explanation by stating, similar to what the Rambam writes, that "Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" does not apply when one specifies a length of time for his Nezirus. Tosfos, however, understands that this is simply an enactment of the Rabanan and is not mid'Oraisa.)