Answer: Because Rebbi mentioned in his words only "the verse discusses bringing a Korban", this implies that he is adamant only about the eighth day, and to exclude the seventh day, i.e. the opinion of his opponent (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who argues with him).

However, these Tana'im explain that Nezirus taking effect depends on Korbanos themselves, each [Tana] like his opinion.

Explanation: Nezirus Taharah takes effect on him [even if he did not bring his Asham], for the verse discusses this.

Question: If so, according to Rabanan, why do we need [ba'Yom] ha'Hu? We already know from [the fact that] first it says v'Hezir, and afterwards v'Hevi!

Answer: If not for ha'Hu, we would expound v'Hezir to include even if he did not bring his Olah, but really, the Asham is Me'akev;

Therefore, the Torah wrote ha'Hu, and reveals that we should expound "v'Hezir", even if he did not bring [his Asham]. Therefore, both needed to be written.

Explanation: She separated two birds, one for an Olah and one for a Chatas, and an animal for an Asham, to bring Korbanos Nazir Tamei, and afterwards her husband annulled her vow;

It turns out that the Neder was uprooted retroactively. It is as if she was not a Nezirah at all. She brings Chatas ha'Of, but she does not bring Olas ha'Of, like the Gemara explains.

Explanation: He includes above from "ha'Hu", even if he did not bring his Olah. This shows that Olah is not a gift. Kaparah depends on it;

According to Rabanan, who say that Olah is a gift, why doesn't she bring Olas ha'Of, even though her husband annulled her, and she is not a Nezirah? This is not Chulin, for at any time, she may bring a gift!

Rather, surely it is R. Yishmael, who holds that Olah of a Nazir is not a gift.

Question: All the more so, Chatas is not a gift. How can she bring Chatas, for her husband annulled her, and retroactively there is no Nezirus?!

Answer: Below, we establish this like R. Elazar Hakapar, [who holds] that she needs Kaparah for abstaining from wine, and even though he annulled her;

Therefore, she brings Chatas, for we find elsewhere that Chatas ha'Of comes in a case of Safek;

Therefore, here, for a flimsy reason she brings Chatas ha'Of. However, Olas ha'Of, since it is not a gift, she cannot bring it, since her husband annulled her.

Explanation: It turns out that Nezirus never took effect on her. Also Chatas ha'Of she should not bring!

Explanation: [He cuts off the vow] from now and onwards. She should bring also Olas ha'Of, for yesterday, when she became Tamei, she was a Nezirah!

Below (21b), we ask whether [a husband] uproots or cuts.

Source: If he cuts, she should bring also Olas ha'Of and Asham.

Explanation: [He holds that] even a Nazir Tahor is a sinner. Therefore, this woman who became Tamei needs a Kaparah. We find that Chatas ha'Of comes in a case of Safek. However, she does not bring Olah.

Inference: He is a sinner. Therefore, she brings Chatas ha'Of. This is only if she became Tamei;

If she did not become Tamei, and her husband annulled her, granted, also she needs Kaparah for paining herself. In any case, she does not bring anything;

Explanation: If he did not annul her, she would bring Chatas Behemah, which is not brought amidst Safek.

If so, now that he annulled her, she does not bring it, and she cannot bring Chatas ha'Of, since initially if he did not annul her, she would not bring it. If so, when he annulled her, she does not get a new law.

Explanation: R. Elazar Hakapar holds elsewhere that even a Nazir Tahor is a sinner;

Source #1: Elsewhere we bring his teaching regarding a Nazir Tahor.

Source #2: Also, his Kal va'Chomer applies also to a Nazir Tahor.

Explanation: He was not careful about Tum'ah, and prolonged his pain of not benefiting from wine.

Explanation: We are thinking that this is even within seven days, Therefore, we ask "because he left and entered, does Nezirus take effect on him?!"

We answer that he left, he received Haza'ah twice and immersed. We discuss even on day seven. [Nezirus] Taharah takes effect on him on day seven, since he vowed while he was Tamei, and he need not bring Korban Tum'ah on day eight.

Explanation: This is said in astonishment. When he does not enter [the cemetery again, after becoming Tahor, there is] more [reason to say that] the days count towards his count!

Question: This requires investigation. We must teach that he enters, for R. Eliezer argues and says not on the same day!

Answer: In any case, it did not need to teach "it counts" to exclude R. Eliezer's opinion. It should have taught "if he left and entered, he brings Korban Tum'ah."

Explanation: One might have thought that the small time he was Tahor, from [the second] Haza'ah until he became Tamei, does not count.

Explanation: [R. Eliezer said] that we require that he counted two days only regarding a Tamei who vowed, since the Torah said "v'Timei Rosh Nozro." This implies that he vowed amidst Tum'ah, and the Torah said "veha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu", that we require two days.

Question: What is the source to expound like this according to R. Eliezer? Rabanan, who do not expound "Yamim" to teach two days, do not distinguish between a Tamei who vowed and a Tahor who vowed!

Explanation: [He became Tamei] on the first day, and he does not have first days. Therefore, the first day he became Tamei is part of the count of his Nezirus, and he counts 99 days in addition to it, and shaves on day 100 (from when he becomes Tahor), which is day 101 of his count;

Suggestion: If he became Tamei at the end of 100 days, on the last day, perhaps he cancels everything!

Rejection: The Torah says "veha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu" - this implies that there are latter days destined to come upon him when he became Tamei. Presumably, we require two, similar to the first days. Therefore, he does not cancel everything.

Question: A Mishnah above (16a) teaches that if he became Tamei on day 100, he cancels 30 days according to R. Eliezer!

Answer: Indeed, this is what he says! One might have thought that he cancels everything. The Torah says "veha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu", and this person does not have latter days. Therefore, he does not cancel everything;

However, he does cancel 30 days due to the Drashah (6b) "Zos Toras ha'Nazir b'Yom Melos" - if he became Tamei on Yom Melos, give to him the law of a Nazir.

Implied question: Why do we need both of these verses?

Answer - part 1: If not for Zos Toras ha'Nazir, one might have thought that when he became Tamei on the last day, which is Yom Melos, he does not cancel at all, even 30 days. Therefore, it wrote Zos Toras ha'Nazir.

Question: If so, the Torah should have written Zos Toras ha'Nazir, but not veha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu!

Answer #1 (and part 2 of answer to Implied question (d)): If so, one might have thought that Yom Melos is day 101 - just like "uvi'Melos Yemei Taharah", which is after [a Yoledes] completes the Yemei Taharah - this (day 101) is [also] the day of shaving, for his days were already completed. That [day] cancels 30 days;

However, if he became Tamei on day 100, [one might have thought that] he cancels everything. The Torah wrote "veha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu" - even if he became Tamei on day 100, he does not cancel everything.

Answer #2: Also, the Torah needed to write "veha'Yamim", to exclude the beginning of the 100, for he did not have first days.

Explanation: [He has latter days, i.e.] the day of Tum'ah and day 100 after it, which is totally from the count of Nezirus, as long as he did not shave and bring Korbanos;

Even according to Rav Masne, who says Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, l'Chatchilah it is a Mitzvah to complete [the entire day], like it says above (6a).

Inference: He vowed when he was Tahor, and later became Tamei.

Explanation: The "first days" that R. Eliezer said - does he means that one passed, and the second started, i.e. [he became Tamei] on the second day of his Nezirus?

Or, perhaps we require one full day, just like there is one full day of the latter days, i.e. day 100?

Also regarding the first days, [we require that] he began the third day;

However, if he became Tamei on the second day, sometimes this is only two halves of a day, e.g. if he accepted Nezirus yesterday after half the day, and today he became Tamei after half the day.

Question: He should resolve this from our Mishnah, in which R. Eliezer said "not the same day." This implies that the day after, he is Soser!

Answer: [We could say that] R. Eliezer was concerned to mention only what he argues with Rabanan [that they explicitly said];

They say that [even for Tum'ah] on the same day, he brings Korban Tum'ah. R. Eliezer told them "he does not bring for the same day", and the same applies to day two, until day three.

Question: [Rav Papa] should resolve this from the Beraisa brought above! It says that if he became Tamei at the beginning of the 100 days, one might have thought that he cancels [everything...]

Inference: If he became Tamei on day two, surely he is Soser!

Answer #1: "The beginning of the 100" includes the second day. [Also] it is called the beginning of 100.

Answer #2: Because Rabanan say that even on the first day he is Soser, R. Eliezer said to them that he is not Soser.

Question: He should resolve this from the Seifa, which says that if he became Tamei on day 99, he is Soser;

Two days suffice. The same applies to the beginning of Nezirus, for presumably the latter days are like the former days!

Answer: It was obvious to him that two days suffice [at the end], since there is a full day, i.e. day 100;

However, at the beginning of Nezirus, sometimes there are only two halves of a day, e.g. if he vowed in the middle of the day. Therefore, he was unsure if for this reason, we require [before he becomes Tamei] two days, and he is on the third day.

Note: It is possible for the first day to be complete, e.g. he said "I am a Nazir starting tomorrow."

Question: He should resolve this from the Beraisa above (18b), "he begins and counts immediately", i.e. from the seventh day;

When he becomes Tamei on day eight, there are only two days, and he brings Korban Tum'ah according to R. Eliezer!

Answer #1: We must say that he did not hear that Beraisa above.

Answer #2: He heard the Beraisa, and asked what is the source for the law from verses.

Answer #3: I explained above that the question about when two days passed and he is on the third day, is because we require a full day that Nezirus took effect on him, similar to the latter days;

However, [in the Beraisa] above, since Nezirus took effect on him on the seventh day, when he became Tamei on day eight, there is the entire seventh day. Therefore, since he became Tamei on day eight, he brings Korban Tum'ah.

Question: The seventh day is not complete, for he must receive [the second] Haza'ah and immerse before Nezirus [Taharah] takes effect on him!

Note: Perhaps it is considered a full day because part was in Taharah, and all Isurei Nezirus apply to him the entire day!

Citation of Gemara - Comment: He said to him 'it says "Yiplu".'

Inference: This connotes even a small falling, that we do not require even one full day.

Citation of Gemara: [The Torah] needed to write Yamim, and it needed to write Yiplu.

Explanation: [If we did not need both of these for Drashos,] it could have written "v'Kidash Es Rosho ba'Yom ha'Hu Milvad Yamim ha'Rishonim", and omitted "Yiplu."

Citation of Gemara: Until two days pass and the third begins.

Explanation: "Yamim" connotes that we require like the latter days, i.e. there is a full day. [Therefore] the Torah wrote "Yiplu", which connotes any falling, that one day passed, and he is on the second [when he became Tamei].

Citation of Gemara: Had the Torah written [only] "Yiplu".

Implied question: [It would due to write "ha'Rishonim", and not Yamim! I.e. it could have written only 'veha'Rishonim Yiplu"!

Answer: [If so,] one might have thought that [he brings a Korban] even [if he became Tamei] on the same day, like the first Tana. "Yiplu" refers to Nezirus in general (whenever Nezirim become Tamei, the first days fall. The plural is proper even if only one day falls for each Nazir.) Therefore, the Torah wrote Yamim.

Explanation: This is not [like it connotes,] that he merely happened [to come to Eretz Yisrael];

He cannot avoid coming to Eretz Yisrael to offer Korbanos and complete his Nezirus, this opinion like he holds (that he must be a Nazir for 30 days) and this opinion like he holds (that he must be a Nazir for the entire term he accepted)!

Explanation: The Gemara explains that this is mid'Rabanan. It is a mere fine that he accepted Nezirus in Chutz la'Aretz, for they decreed Tum'ah [on Chutz la'Aretz];

Mid'Oraisa, he is Vadai Tahor, and he fulfilled his Nezirus.

Explanation: He returns and begins his entire count. Also Beis Hillel's opinion is a fine mid'Rabanan. The Gemara explains so.

Explanation: The Gemara explains that these days were not enveloped in these (she did not become Tamei in the middle of the second seven years), since we count 21 years.

Remark: The Gemara explains this.