Alternate text: Some texts say "Beis Shamai hold that they decreed on Chutz la'Aretz due to the soil, but not on the air, and one may enter it in a chest, box or tower [and remain Tahor];

Beis Hillel hold that they decreed even on the air." Therefore, they were stringent to cancel everything.

Objection: What is the reason for Beis Shamai? Granted, they decreed only due to the soil. In any case, he should cancel everything, just like a cemetery! Its air is not Tamei, and even so it cancels everything! (Sidrei Taharah - this is like below (54b), that "due to the soil" means for touching or Ohel (towering) above the ground, and "on the air" means even if he does not touch or tower above the ground, e.g. an Ohel interrupts. Shabbos (15b) connotes that "due to the soil" means touching the ground, and "on the air" means Tum'as Ohel. Based on this, Chutz la'Aretz is more lenient than a cemetery, and Tosfos has no question.)

Conclusion: The text says oppositely. Beis Shamai hold that they decreed due to the air, and they were stringent about Chutz la'Aretz. Beis Hillel hold that they decreed due to the soil.

Question: Also now, what is Beis Shamai's reason? Because they were more stringent [about Chutz la'Aretz] than a grave, is that a reason to cancel only 30?!

Answer: Indeed, it is! Since they were stringent to decree about the air, it is clear to all that the Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, it suffices to cancels 30 days, for it is not confused with Tum'ah mid'Oraisa.

Explanation: Beis Hillel hold that they decreed due to the soil. Since its law is like a grave, he must cancel everything, for Chutz la'Aretz is confused with graves.

Support: We find like this below (54b). It says "if they decreed due to the air, why is Haza'ah (of Mei Chatas) needed?"

Inference: If they decreed due to the soil, this is fine. Haza'ah is needed, like for other Tum'os.

Consequence: The text says "no. All agree that they decreed on the air." Therefore it is fine that Beis Shamai decree only 30 days;

Beis Hillel hold that even though it is clear to all that the Tum'ah is mid'Rabanan, and it is unlike other [Tum'as] Ohel, we fine him [to return] to the beginning of Nezirus. They argue about the fine.

Explanation: [According to Beis Shamai] R. Yehudah said that she needed to count 30 days, and she became Tamei at the end of 30 days in Eretz Yisrael, and counted another seven years, for she needed to cancel the entire Nezirus;

It turns out that according to R. Yehudah, she was [a Nezirah] 14 years and 30 days.

Only according to Beis Shamai she needed to count in Eretz Yisrael only 30 days;

According to Beis Hillel, she must return to count in Eretz Yisrael seven more years, and if she became Tamei at the end of the count in Eretz Yisrael, if so she would need 21 years!

Or, perhaps she did not become Tamei, and R. Yehudah teaches only according to Beis Hillel. According to Beis Shamai, she did not need 14 years. Seven years and 30 days suffice!

Correction: The text should not say like is written in Seforim [Tanya Nami Hachi...] until the [coming] Mishnah.

Question #1: Perhaps [really, R. Yehudah said according to Beis Shamai.] The 30 days were enveloped in the first seven years!

E.g. she observed in Chutz la'Aretz seven years less 30 days, and [with] the fine of 30 days in Eretz Yisrael, there were seven years and no more. She became Tamei at the end of the fine of 30 days, and observed another seven years. In all, there were 14 years!

Question #2: Why does he elaborate [and cite] the words of the first Tana (she ascended to Eretz Yisrael...)? He should bring only R. Yehudah's words, to deduce from them!

Answer: He cited the first Tana to prove that according to the first Tana, we do not discuss envelopment. He taught "at the end of seven years she became Tamei. It turns out that she was a Nezirah for 21 years;

If so, also R. Yehudah does not discuss envelopment. If so (that she became Tamei, and he teaches like Beis Shamai), he should have said 14 years and 30 days.

Explanation: [The testimony is divided, so] there is no Nezirus here at all.

Question: What is the case? If the Noder is quiet, silence is like admission!

Answer #1: The Noder contradicts each one. If he admitted to one of them, why wouldn't this be like his admission?!

Answer #2: He says "I do not know." Now, we must judge according to the testimony.

Answer #3: He was silent, and the two pairs of witnesses came together. His silence is not like admission, for he does not admit;

He says [to himself] why do I need to contradict them? Both of them contradict each other!

Explanation (cont.): Beis Hillel say that amidst five, there are two. He counts two Neziros, as if both of them said "you vowed two."

Observation: There was no need for this (all the words until b'Mai ka'Mipalgei). Surely we discuss the Reisha! The wording in Maseches Nazir is different [than in the rest of Shas].

Explanation: [Our Mishnah,] which teaches that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about two pairs of witnesses, is unlike the Tana of R. Yishmael (his opinion in the Beraisa).

Explanation: [They all agree when he was counting] that the testimony is divided. According to R. Yishmael, who says that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about one pair of witnesses, this is when one says [that he accepted] two [Neziros], and one says five;

However, if [the witnesses say that] he was counting, like we conclude, the testimony is divided.

Explanation: What is the case of counting that he said?

If they explicitly contradict each other, that [one witness] says [that the Noder said] "five, and not two", obviously the testimony is divided! What is Rav's Chidush?!

Rather, one [witness] says [that the Noder said] "one and two", and one says [that he said] "three, and four, and five." They do not explicitly contradict each other;

Rav teaches that since each [says that the Noder] counted, i.e. he did not say "two" at once, rather, [this one says that] he said "one and two", and this [witness says that he said] "three and four and five", and not "one and two", it is as if he said 'he did not vow "one and two", rather, "three and four and five"';

And this one who says [that he said] "one and two", it is as if he says "he did not vow three and four and five."

The text: The text says "why do we need this? We can say that he said a stringent matter, all the more so a lenient matter!" The text does not say "Rav said [a stringent matter]."

Explanation: We challenge what [the Gemara] said that this is contradiction, i.e. for we say that since he (the second witness) said "three, four, five", and did not say also "one and two", it is as if he explicitly said "he did not accept Nezirus "one and two";

Why [should we say so]? We can say that it is not contradiction. The reason he did not mention "one and two", is because there was no need to mention it!

A stringent matter, i.e. "three and four and five", he (the witness) said. Did he not say a lenient matter?!

We can say that "one and two", is included in his words. He adds to [the words of] the first [witness]! Rather, surely it is not contradiction.

Explanation: Surely, when the other [witness] said "three and four and five", he did not exclude, that the Noder did not say "one and two."

Observation: The Yerushalmi in Sanhedrin connotes that counting is contradiction even more, as if he said 'not "one and two", rather, "three and four."

Citation (Yerushalmi): Rav said that the argument is about Klal (he said just the total number), but Prat (he detailed, i.e. counted), the testimony is divided, and there is no Nezirus here;

Citation (cont.): R. Yochanan said that the argument is about Prat, but regarding Klal, all agree that two are included in five (he is a Nazir twice).

Explanation: Two heard the first accept Nezirus, and one said va'Ani, and also the second said va'Ani. All of them are Nezirim;

If the first was permitted, i.e. the first went to a Chacham and permitted his vow, also the latter ones are permitted, for each said "I am like him." They made their vows dependent on his vow.

If the last was permitted through a Chacham, he is permitted, and all of them (the others) are forbidden, unless they also permit their vows through a Chacham;

Note: Really, even if only the first permits his vow, also the second is permitted, like Tosfos said above.

However, without Hatarah, they are not [permitted], for they did not make their vows dependent on the vow of the last one.

Explanation: The Gemara explains this.

Explanation: He did not make his vow dependent on her vow. Just the contrary, she said "I am a Nezirah like you", for he already vowed to be a Nazir!

Observation: The Gemara wanted to prove from this that a husband uproots his wife's vow from its source, and therefore he cannot annul, for if he annuls her, also his [Nezirus] is Batel, for his vow depends on her vow.

This is like the Mishnah taught above. If the first was permitted, all are permitted, for they are due to the first;

[Her husband] may not cause his vow to be Batel, like it says "Lo Yachel Devaro", and we expound "he cannot profane his word, but others can pardon (permit) him.

Explanation: The Gemara rejects this. Really, I can say that a husband cuts off [her vow], from Hafarah and onwardsó

Now, even when he annuls her, his vow endures, for in any case, her vow took effect until now;

He cannot annul her Nezirus, for since he said "and I", he was Mekayem her vow.

Explanation: [He asks] "do also you want to vow be a Nazir?" She answered Amen, i.e. she accepted on herself Nezirus;

He annuls hers, and his endures, for he did not make his vow dependent on her vow.

However, if she did not answer Amen, she is permitted, for he cannot impose a vow on her b'Al Korchah (against her will).

Explanation (cont.): Surely, this that he said to her "and you?" is not Kiyum, for the vow takes effect on her only when she answers Amen, and he still does not know whether or not she will accept. Therefore, it is not Kiyum.

The text: R. Tam's text is as follows. Her husband heard, and said Amen. He cannot annul.

If he uproots, this is fine, because if so (he would annul), his Nezirus would be Batel;

If he cuts off, [he cannot annul] because when he said Amen, this is Kiyum, just like "and I", like above.

Observation: In the Gemara (21b) we conclude that her husband did not annul her. This is obvious [that she is lashed]!

Because the Seifa needed to teach that she is not lashed, which is a Chidush, even though she intended for Isur, since in the end it was permitted, she is not lashed...

[Therefore], also the Reisha taught that she is lashed.

Explanation: She is lashed mid'Rabanan because she intentionally intended for an Aveirah.

Citation (Makos 22a): Forty lashes are mid'Oraisa. Makos Mardos (lashes mid'Rabanan) have no limit. We lash him until he dies, or until he accepts on himself [what Chachamim tell him] because she intentionally intended for an Aveirah.

Question (Tosfos' Rebbi): I am unsure about here, that she is lashed for what she [already] transgressed. Perhaps she is lashed only 40, and no more;

Only when one does not want to fulfill the Mitzvah, we lash him without limit. Here that she already transgressed, why should we lash her more than [what would be] Torah law, had he not annulled her?!

Explanation: [Toch Kedei Dibur] is like the Gemara proceeds to explain, the time for Talmid to greet his Rebbi, i.e. [to say] Shalom Alecha Rebbi, i.e. three words;

Also here, three people can be Matfis themselves in the first, who vowed to be a Nazir. Each one said "va'Ani". This is three words. Even the last is Toch Kedei Dibur of the first;

However, the fourth cannot be Matfis himself in the first, even if he said "va'Ani", for he already delayed Kedei Dibur from the first. Therefore, Nezirus does not take effect on the fourth.

Note: This assumes that everyone takes the same amount of time to say each word (including Alecha, which has three syllables), and everyone starts immediately after the previous one finished.

Explanation: If a Talmid heard someone vow to be a Nazir, and he wants to say va'Ani, and meanwhile his Rebbi passed in front of him, and he is obligated to give Shalom to his Rebbi and say Shalom Alecha Rebbi, which are three words...

After this it will not help to be Matfis in [his vow to be a] Nazir. If he will say va'Ani, he already delayed the time to say three words. This is unreasonable!

Rather, surely also the fourth can be Matfis, since he did not delay at all after Kedei Dibur. Rather, immediately after Kedei Dibur he said va'Ani.

Distinction: However, surely the fifth cannot be Matfis, for he delayed slightly after Kedei Dibur.