1)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, Queen Helen was only a Nazir for fourteen years. He might disagree with the Tana Kama, maintaining that she did not become Tamei, but had to repeat another seven years, like Beis Hillel - or he might hold like Beis Shamai, and in addition to the seven years that she had to repeat when she became Tamei, Queen Helen was also given one extra month of Nezirus when she arrived in Eretz Yisrael.

(b)We prove from our Mishnah itself, that the first of the two interpretations is the correct one - because following the Tana Kama's statement ('Alsah le'Eretz Yisrael ... '), Rebbi Yehudah specifically specifies 'fourteen years' and not 'fourteen years and thirty days'.

(c)It would be possible to establish a case of exactly fourteen years according to Rebbi Yehudah in Beis Shamai - if she had arrived in Eretz Yisrael thirty years before the termination of her first seven-year term, and when she then became Tamei at the end of the thirty day penalty period, she had to observe another seven years.

(d)We do not even consider this explanation however, for the same reason as we quote the words of the Tana Kama, when we could equally well have proved our point from the words of Rebbi Yehudah alone. We quote the Tana Kama - to prove that he is not talking about a case when one of the terms is absorbed within the other. Consequently, neither is Rebbi Yehudah (and we cannot explain Rebbi Yehudah like Beis Shamai).

2)

(a)According to Beis Shamai in our Mishnah, if one pair of witnesses testify that someone undertook two sets of Nezirus, whereas another pair testify that he undertook five, the entire testimony is canceled and he is not a Nazir at all. According to Beis Hillel - two is included in five, in which case the two testimonies do not clash.

(b)The author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah - because he interprets the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel when there are two individual witnesses. But ...

(c)... in the case in our Mishnah - when the testimonies of two pairs of witnesses clash, even he concedes that 'two is included in five' (and their testimony is accepted).

3)

(a)Rav states that everyone agrees in a case of 'Month'. Rav Chama disagrees with him. Assuming that Rav means ...

1. ... that even Beis Shamai agree that if one witness testifies 'five sets of Nezirus and not two' and the other one says 'two and not five' that their testimony is canceled - Rav Chama objects on the grounds that this is obvious, and does not need to be stated.

2. ... that the first witness said 'one, two', and the second one 'three, four, five' - he objects on the grounds that this is not a contradiction, seeing as the second witness is merely adding to the first one (meaning that is he accepted two sets of Nezirus, he certainly accepted five).

(b)In Eretz Yisrael - they said 'Ein Hakchashah be'Moneh (like Rav Chama).

(c)Rav in the Yerushalmi concurs with his opinion here (that by Month, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that the testimony is contradictory). According to Rebbi Yochanan there - they argue by Moneh, but by the case in our Mishnah, Beis Shamai will agree that two is included in five, and the testimony stands.

4)

(a)If Shimon and Levi heard Reuven declare himself a Nazir, Shimon said 'va'Ani' and so did Levi, they are all Nezirim. Should ...

1. ... Reuven then annul his Neder - then all the Nedarim are annulled.

2. ... Levi annul it - then Levi's Neder alone is annulled, but not that of the others.

(b)If Shimon says 'Pi ke'Fiv ve'Sa'ari ke'Sa'aro' - the Din is the same as that of 'va'Ani'.

5)

(a)If ...

1. ... a man declares himself a Nazir, his wife says 'Ani' and he is Meifer her Neder - his wife's Neder is annulled, but his Neder stands.

2. ... a woman declared herself a Nazir, her husband said 'va'Ani', and then was Meifer her Neder - he cannot annul her Neder.

(b)The reason for this latter Halachah might be because a husband uproots his wife's Nedarim from their inception (like a Chacham does), because then his Neder would become nullified too (and he is not empowered to do so, as we shall see later). If we hold that a husband only annuls it from now on - then the reason is because 'va'Ani' is considered a Hakamah.

6)

(a)If a man declared 'Hareini Nazir ve'At', he will need to annul his wife's Neder - only if she responds by saying 'Amen'.

(b)Otherwise, 've'At' alone is not considered upholding her Neder (in this case) - because she has not declared one (and he cannot do so against her will).

(c)In a case of 'Amrah Hareini Nezirah ve'Atah, ve'Amar Amen' - he cannot annul her Neder (for the same two reasons that we mentioned above).

7)

(a)Resh Lakish said in the presence of Rebbi Yehudah' Nesi'a - that Reuven and Shimon in our Mishnah are both Nezirim only if they both managed to say it 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of Reuven's declaration.

(b)That explains why only three people can become Nezirim by saying 'va'Ani', according to Resh Lakish - because 'Toch K'dei Dibur' comprises three words (as we shall now see), so it is only three people who will manage to say 'va'Ani' in 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of the first one.

(c)'Toch K'dei Dibur' comprises - the time it takes to say 'Shalom Alecha Rebbi'.

(d)This caused Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a to disagree with Resh Lakish - because according to him, a Talmid who wishes to say 'va'Ani' following his friend's declaration of Nezirus, and just then his Rebbe walked past, will be unable to do so. Consequently, it is more logical to say that Chazal gave a fraction longer that 'K'dei Dibur' of 'Shalom Alecha Rebbi', to accommodate this situation.

8)

(a)Resh Lakish is vindicated by a Beraisa - which specifically states that if someone who said 'va'Ani' immediately after the Shiur of 'K'dei Dibur', (which the Tana equates with 'Shalom Aleicha Rebbi') he is not a Nazir.