[20a - 31 lines; 20b - 19 lines]
1)[line 1]משום אוירא גזרו עליהMISHUM AVIRA GAZRU ALEHA- (a) the [Rabanan] decreed that its airspace should be considered Tamei [and since they were stringent and decreed Tum'ah on its airspace, they were likewise stringent as to require a Nazir who observed his Nezirus in Chutz la'Aretz to repeat his entire Nezirus in Eretz Yisrael]; (b) according to the Girsa "MISHUM GUSHAH GAZRU ALEHA" - the [Rabanan] decreed that its land should be considered Tamei [and since this is comparable to the status of Tum'ah d'Oraisa, there is reason to be concerned that there are those who will assume that this Halachah applies to Tum'ah d'Oraisa as well] (TOSFOS)
2)[line 3]בסתם נזירות קניסנאBI'STAM NEZIRUS KANISNA- we penalize him with a standard Nezirus [of thirty days]
3a)[line 5]בשנטמאת ואליבא דב''שBESHE'NITMES VA'ALIBA D'VEIS SHAMAI- [does Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that Hilni ha'Malkah was a Nezirah for only fourteen years, understand] that she became Tamei (a) [at the end of the thirty-day period that she had to observe after she arrived in Eretz Yisrael] according to the opinion of Beis Shamai [necessitating that she re-observe her original period of Nezirus] (TOSFOS, ROSH, MEFARESH in his first explanation); (b) [before she arrived in Eretz Yisrael, in which case she must re-observe her entire Nezirus in Eretz Yisrael] and [then even] according to Beis Shamai [she would not be required to add an additional thirty days to her Nezirus] (MEFARESH in his second explanation)
b)[line 6]בשלא נטמאת ואליבא דב''הBESHE'LO NITMES VA'ALIBA D'VEIS HILLEL- she did not become Tamei [at all] and he agrees with the opinion of Beis Hillel [in which case she was required to re-observe her seven-year Nezirus in Eretz Yisrael]
4)[line 11]תניא נמי הכיTANYA NAMI HACHI ...- (a) This Beraisa is proof that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a Nazir who became Tamei on the last day of his Nezirus need only observe another thirty days of Nezirus. Therefore, since Hilni ha'Malkah became Teme'ah on the last day of her second observance of a seven-year Nezirus, she would have had to have added an additional thirty days to her fourteen years of Nezirus. (MEFARESH, second explanation); (b) according to the Girsa "SHELOSHIM YOM MIBA'I LEI! D'TANYA..." - Since Hilni ha'Malkah became Teme'ah on the last day of her thirty-day period of Nezirus according to the possibility that Rebbi Yehudah's opinion follows that of Beis Shamai, she would have needed to observe only an additional thirty days of Nezirus. This would result in a total Nezirus of seven years and sixty days. This Beraisa is proof that Rebbi Yehudah rules as such. (ROSH, second explanation); (c) TOSFOS (see ORACH MISHOR and BIRKAS ROSH), as well as the ROSH and the MEFARESH in their first explanations, are not Gores this Beraisa. They maintain that the Mishnah begins at this point.
5)[line 14]כי נטמא ביום מלאת תן לו תורת נזירKI NITMA B'YOM MELOS, TEN LO TORAS NAZIR- should [a Nazir] become Tamei on the day that his Nezirus is complete, require him to observe a standard [thirty-day] period on Nezirus [only]
6)[line 15]כיתיKITEI- sets [of at least two]
7)[line 16]שתיםSHTAYIM- two (a) years (MEFARESH); (b) periods of Nezirus (TOSFOS)
8)[line 17]נחלקה העדותNECHLEKAH HA'EDUS- the testimony is split [and cannot be accepted, in which case the subject of their testimony is not a Nazir whatsoever]
9)[line 24]אחדECHAD- one [witness]
10)[line 27]הכל מודים במונהHA'KOL MODIM B'MONEH- [according to] all [opinions, Beis Hillel] agree [with Beis Shamai that the testimony is unacceptable] when the witnesses enumerate [the periods of Nezirus as opposed to stating them as a single total] (the Gemara now explains Rav's statement)
11)[line 30]הא קא מכחשי אהדדיHA KA MACHCHASHEI A'HADADEI!- they are [clearly] contradicting each other [and it is therefore obvious that their testimony is not accepted]! [Why would Rav have felt the need to teach this Halachah?]
12)[last line]שלש ארבע חמשSHALOSH ARBA CHAMESH- three, four, and five [periods of Nezirus]. This implies that the Nazir had not accepted any less than three upon himself, thereby contradicting the first witness. See Insights for further elucidation of this Sugya.
13a)[line 1]הא למה ליHA LAMAH LI?- (a) why is it necessary [for Rav to teach this Halachah]? (MEFARESH); (b) is this necessarily true? (TOSFOS)
b)[line 1]השתא יש לומר חמירתאHASHTA YESH LOMAR CHAMIRTA AMAR RAV, KILTA LO AMAR?- (a) now that Rav has already ruled such stringently [in a case in which there were two sets of witnesses (cited by the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 5:2)], is it not obvious that he would rule such in a lenient case [in which the two witnesses in one set contradict each other]? [Why did Rav feel it necessary to repeat himself unnecessarily?] (MEFARESH); (b) According to the Girsa "... CHAMIRTA AMAR, KILTA LO KOL SHE'KEN?" - now that [the second witness] has testified stringently [regarding the third, fourth, and fifth periods of Nezirus], does he not also include the leniency [of the first two periods of Nezirus, in which case he is not in disagreement with the first witness]? (TOSFOS, ROSH)
14)[line 2]במערבאB'MA'ARAVA- in Eretz Yisrael
15)[line 2]אין הכחשה במונהEIN HAKCHASHAH B'MONEH- when one witness elucidates "One and two" and the other elucidates "Three, four, and five," they are not considered to be contradicting each other and their testimony is accepted. According to the MEFARESH, this is the first opinion to disagree with Rav recorded in our Gemara. According to TOSFOS and the ROSH, those in Ma'arava agree with the objection that Rav Chama posed to Rav Chisda.
PEREK #4 MI SHE'AMAR
16)[line 6]ואניVA'ANI- [and a third person responds,] "And I [am a Nazir]"
17)[line 6]הותרHUTAR (HATARAS NEDARIM - The Revoking of Vows)
(a)When one takes a Neder (vow) or Shevu'ah (oath), pledges to be a Nazir, or designates Chalah (see Background to Beitzah 12:12), Terumah (see Background to Beitzah 12:15), or Hekdesh (that which is sanctified to HaSh-m), he may have his vow revoked. For this, he must appeal to either a Beis Din of three or a Yachid Mumcheh (an outstanding authority).
(b)One of two methods is possible when repealing a Neder. One is that the person who took the vow explains that had he been fully aware of the circumstances at the time that he took the Neder, or had he thought through the ramifications of his Neder, the he would not have taken the Neder in the first place. This is called a Pesach.
(c)Some opinions maintain that even if one expresses Charatah — sincere remorse that he had ever taken the Neder — then Beis Din or the Chacham may revoke the Neder. Charatah requires that he who vowed wishes that he had never taken the Neder to begin with, and not merely that the Neder would not now be in effect. (Nedarim 22a)
18)[line 10]מיפרMEIFER- see Background to 19:1.
19)[line 12]אינו יכול להפרEINO YACHOL L'HAFER- he may not annul his wife's Neder. The Gemara explains the reason why this is so (21a).
20)[line 12]ואתV'AT?- and [do] you [also accept Nezirus upon yourself]?
21)[line 15]דר' יהודה נשיאהD'REBBI YEHUDAH NESI'AH- Rebbi Yehudah the prince. This Amora was the grandson of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi (also known as Rebbi), who organized — and is often quoted in — the Mishnayos.
22)[line 16]שהתפיסוSHE'HITFISU (HATFASAH - Prohibiting an Item by Relating it to a Different Prohibited Item)
(a)By accepting a prohibition or obligation upon oneself aloud, he has triggered a Torah obligation to fulfill that prohibition or obligation (Bamidbar 30:3). There are two categories of vows possible to accept upon oneself: Nedarim (Nidrei Isur) and Shevu'os.
(b)A Neder may be expressed by relating the object in question to that which had previously been prohibited, such as a Korban. This is termed "Hatfasah." (Some Rishonim maintain that Hatfasah is integral to a Neder; see Insights to Nedarim 2:2.) The object of the comparison, however, must be a "Davar ha'Nadur" — that which itself had been prohibited my man, either through a Neder or through Hekdesh (consecration). If one attempts to prohibit an object through a Neder by comparing it to a "Davar ha'Asur" — that which is prohibited by the Torah, such as non-kosher meat — is has no effect (Nedarim 14a). Hatfasah of Nezirus occurs when one relates himself to another Nazir, such as by stating, "I am like him." This case is described in our Mishnah.
23)[line 16]בתוך כדי דיבורTOCH KEDEI DIBUR- within the amount of time that it takes to speak (the Gemara now clarifies this phrase)
24)[line 17]שאלת שלוםSHE'ELAS SHALOM- a greeting
25)[line 18]כדי שאומר שלום תלמיד לרבKEDEI SHE'OMER SHALOM TALMID L'RAV- the amount of time that it takes a student to say to his Rebbi ["Shalom Alecha Rebbi"; i.e., the amount of time that it takes to say three words]
26)[last line]תוב לא שבקת רווחא לתלמידאTUV LO SHAVKAS RAVCHA L'SALMIDA!- you have not left room for a student [whose Rebbi passes by just as he wishes to respond to an acceptance of Nezirus with "va'Ani" to do so]! [Rather, even one who responds immediately following Toch Kedei Dibur is a Nazir.]