QUESTIONS: The Gemara cites a Beraisa in which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel disagree about the Halachah in a case in which one witness says, "I saw that person accept two sets of Nezirus," and a second witness says, "I saw him accept five sets of Nezirus." Beis Shamai rules that the witnesses contradict each other and their testimony is discounted. Beis Hillel rules that the person must observe two sets of Nezirus, because both witnesses agree that the person accepted two sets of Nezirus (since two is included in five).

Rav clarifies the dispute and explains that if the two witnesses are "Moneh" -- they enumerate the individual sets of Nezirus which they saw the person accept, even Beis Hillel agrees that the two witnesses cannot join and their testimony is discounted.

The Gemara explains that even without Rav's statement, it is obvious that if the witness who says that the person accepted five sets of Nezirus says specifically that he accepted five and not two, and the other witness says that he accepted two and not five, the witnesses cannot join and their testimony is discounted. Rav teaches that even when one witness says that the person accepted "one and two" sets of Nezirus, and the other witness says that he accepted "three, four, and five" sets of Nezirus, they still cannot join. The sages of Ma'arava disagree with Rav and say that in such a case, the witnesses do join (with regard to obligating the person to observe two sets of Nezirus), since the second witness merely added to (and did not disagree with) what the first witness said.

Several points in the Gemara need clarification.

First, what does the Gemara mean when it says that one witness testifies that the person accepted "five and not two" sets of Nezirus? If the witness saw the person accept five sets of Nezirus, he obviously saw him accept two sets as well, because in order to accept five sets one must first accept two! If the Gemara means that he saw him accept five and not only 2, and the other witness says that he saw him accept only two and not five, then why should the witnesses not join with regard to two sets? Since two is included in five, both witnesses agree about two sets of Nezirus! Why does this case differ from the case of the Beraisa in which the two witnesses are able to join because two is included in five?

Second, what does Rav mean when he says that one witness testifies that he saw the person accept "one and two" sets, and the other says that he saw him accept "three, four, and five" sets? If the second witness says that he saw the person accept the third Nezirus, he is acknowledging that the person already accepted the first and second sets of Nezirus. His testimony about the third Nezirus implies that the person also accepted the first and second sets, and thus he is in agreement with the first witness!

Moreover, why is Rav's case of "Moneh" considered a greater form of contradictory testimony than the case in the Beraisa?

ANSWER: The SHITAH MEKUBETZES cites a HAGAHAH (apparently based on the words of the ROSH, DH Amar Rav) who explains that the primary difference between the case of the Beraisa and the other two cases involves the details of the person's acceptance of Nezirus: how many sets of Nezirus did the person accept in each statement? Did he accept all five sets in one statement or in multiple statements? In the case of the Beraisa, the witnesses did not clarify how many statements the Nazir made. It is possible that the witnesses are in complete agreement, because the Nazir first accepted two sets of Nezirus in two statements, and he later added another three sets of Nezirus in three statements. In such a case, according to Beis Hillel the witnesses join together because they might be in agreement.

In contrast, in the case in which one witness says "five and not two," the witness testifies that the person accepted five sets of Nezirus in one statement (and not in five statements). The other witness testifies that the person accepted only two sets of Nezirus in one statement. In such a case, the witnesses clearly contradict each other and cannot join with each other. In the case in which the first witness says "one and two" and the other witness says "three, four, and five," the second witness implies that the person accepted the first three sets of Nezirus in one statement. Therefore, Rav says that Beis Hillel agrees that the witnesses cannot join and the person is not a Nazir. The sages of Ma'arava argue and say that when the witness says that the person accepted "three, four, and five" sets of Nezirus, he does not mean to say that the first three sets were accepted in one statement. Rather, he relies on the first witness to explain how the Nazir accepted the first two sets, and he just adds sets three, four, and five.