Explanation: [We ask how he holds that there can be a full Zavah,] because we are Metamei her from now and onwards. Every day is an independent Tum'ah;

Since she saw in the middle of the day, the other (first) half of the day counted for Shimur, even if she did not immerse in between;

She is like one who saw on days one, three and five. She is not a Zivah, even if she did not immerse in between, for she must see three consecutive days [to become a full Zavah]

Question: The wording is difficult. Why does it say "the other half of the day"? It could have said concisely "the other day counts for Shimur"!

Note: It seems that Tosfos thought that we discuss on the first day, and suggest that the end of the day should be Shimur. Tosfos asks that we should rather say that the next day should be considered Shimur, due to its beginning, and answers that indeed, this was the suggestion.

Answer: With difficulty, we can answer that she saw one day. Since she saw on day two in the middle of the day, the other half of the day, before she saw, counts for Shimur.

Question: Why don't we find this regarding one who saw three nights? Now, she is Tamei at the beginning of the day[time]!

Answer #1 (Rashi in Pesachim 81a): The words connote that according to the opinion that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, also the beginning of the night is like the entire [day] regarding counting [seven clean days];

Through the beginning of the night she fulfills Shimur. We do not need [part of the daytime after] dawn.

Rebuttal (Tosfos): This is an explicit Mishnah (Nidah 72a! Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel) agree that if a woman saw amidst the 11 days [of Zivah, excluding the last day], immersed that night and had Bi'ah, they are Metamei Mishkav and Moshav;

It is proven there that the beginning of the night is not Shimur!

Note: Tosfos (Nidah 71b DH ha'Ro'eh) challenged Rashi similarly. Aruch l'Ner explains that it is difficult to say that R. Yosi, who holds that Miktzas ha'Yom Lav k'Kulo, argues with Beis Hillel. I answer that R. Yosi argues with the Tana of that Mishnah! (PF)

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Just like according to R. Yosi, the beginning of the day is Shimur, likewise if she sees at night, the end of the next day, when she does not see, counts for Shimur;

The end of the next day is no different than the beginning of the day.

Support: Now it is fine the wording "since she saw in the middle of the day, the other half", i.e. of the same day itself at the end, should be Shimur.

Assertion: We must say that surely, regarding a Zavah Gedolah, R. Yosi did not say that her third day counts towards the seven [clean days] of Taharah.

Proof: In Nidah (69a), it says that Kusim, the day she stops seeing, she counts it towards the count of seven (i.e. but Yisre'elim do not)!

Explanation: This is because we find at the end of counting Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, for a Zav and Zavah may immerse during the [seventh] day;

Therefore, for a Zavah Ketanah [who must count only one day, so] the beginning of the count is the final number, we say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo;

However, a Zavah Gedolah needs to count seven. Then we do not say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo at the beginning of counting seven clean days.

Implied question: [Rava] makes a Kal va'Chomer (Rosh Hashanah 10a) from a Nidah. For her, the beginning of the day does not count for her at the end. Tevilah at night [of the eighth] helps [but not during the seventh day, for Miktzas ha'Yom Lav k'Kulo];

The end the day helps at her beginning. She needs [before immersing] only six days and the day she saw [the end of day one counts towards her seven days];

The beginning of a year counts [like a full year] at the end [regarding the age of Kodshim. An animal two years and a day is considered three years old]. All the more the end [of an animal's first year] should count at the beginning [like a full year]!

Summation of question: We should say that a Zavah Gedolah disproves this! The beginning of the day counts for her at the end, for she immerses during the [seventh] day, but the end [of the last day she saw Zivah] does not count for her [towards her seven days]!

Answer #1: Surely, Rava's Kal va'Chomer is not according to R. Yosi.

Answer #2: This is fine for Rashi, that he could not say that a Zavah disproves this. (The end of the last day she saw Zivah cannot count for her, for she needs seven totally clean days. We cannot challenge the Kal va'Chomer from Nidah, who does not need clean days. However, R. Tam said that when she sees at night, the end of the next day can count for Shimur, even though the day was not totally clean. If so, it is a proper challenge from a Zavah - Keren Orah.)

Explanation: [They count like consecutive days of Zivah] because they are surrounded with Tum'ah at the beginning of the day and at the end, and there is no Shimur at all. Similarly, day three is Tamei at its beginning;

There are three consecutive Tamei days, for part of the third day is like the entire day, and there is no Shimur in between.

Note: Perhaps "part of the third day is like the entire day" explains why she need not see during the daytime. Surely, the one who holds that Ein Miktzas ha'Yom Lav k'Kulo does not require that she bleed constantly for 24 hours! Alternatively, perhaps our text is missing Lamed-Mem. It should say "l'Man d'Amar Miktzas..." i.e. this is how we find a Zavah Gedolah according to this opinion.

Reference: Above (5b) we brought this. Rav Masne and Bar Pada explained it like they hold (because Stam Nezirus is 30 days, or we decree due to one who accepted 30 full days, respectively).

Explanation: According to Rav Masne, it counts for the count of the first Nezirus, which mid'Oraisa is 30 days, and also for the second count mid'Oraisa, for we require 30 mid'Oraisa;

According to Bar Pada, it need not count for the first, since he already finished from day 29. He shaved on day 30, like Torah law.

Implied question: Why does the Mishnah say that day 30 counts towards the count?

Answer: It counts towards the second Nezirus, so the shaving will be on day 30, for he shaved [the second time] on day 59.

Explanation: According to Rav Masne, it cancels mid'Oraisa. He brings a Korban Tum'ah, and counts 30 days of Nezirus Taharah;

Explanation: According to Bar Pada, it cancels everything mid'Rabanan, for on day 29 the Nezirus finished. He is Soser mid'Rabanan. This is a decree for when he said 30 days. He does not bring Korbanos Nazir Tamei.

Explanation: According to Bar Pada; we do not decree;

Explanation (cont.): According to Rav Masne, R. Eliezer holds that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, and even if he became Tamei before bringing his Korbanos;

Rabanan hold that we say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo only when he brought his Korbanos in Taharah on day 30. He was Yotzei as if he brought them on day 31.

Explanation: R. Eliezer does not argue [that he cancels 30 days], according to Rav Masne, who holds that Stam Nezirus is 30 days;

Here, due to an extra word, that he said Sheloshim, it is as if he said "full days." Therefore, even according to R. Eliezer, who says that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, he cancels everything;

According to Bar Pada, who does not hold that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, here that he said 30, it is from the Minyan of Nezirus, since he specified 30 days.

Question: Still, why does he cancel everything according to R. Eliezer?

Below, R. Eliezer expounds in a Beraisa (19b) that [if one said] "I am a Nazir for 100 days", and he became Tamei on day 100, one might have thought that he cancels everything! It says "veha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu" - this implies that there are latter days, and [this person] has no latter days.

Also here, that he became Tamei on day 30, he has no latter days. We should say that he does not cancel everything!

Answer: It seems to me that since he said 30, if so day 30 is Yom Melos, and we expound Zos Toras ha'Nazir b'Yom Melos" - if he became Tamei on Yom Melos, give to him the law of a Stam Nazir (30 days).

Support: Also below (19b) in the Beraisa, regarding one who became Tamei at the end of 100 days, we do not exclude them from "veha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu" only that he does not cancel all 100, but surely he cancels 30 days;

Note: I do not know that why Tosfos says that we exclude them (plural). The other case excluded there, one who became Tamei on his first day, does not cancel 30 days!

This is like our Mishnah teaches below. If he became Tamei on day 100, according to R. Eliezer he cancels 30 days.

Distinction: However, in the Reisha, when he said Stam "I am a Nazir" R. Eliezer says that he cancels only seven when he became Tamei on day 30.

Explanation: According to Bar Pada, this is fine. He finished his Nezirus on day 29. Day 30 is not Yom Melos, since he did not explicitly say 30;

Also the first Tana, who says that he is Soser, this is only mid'Rabanan according to Bar Pada. He does not bring a Korban Tum'ah;

Explanation (cont.): Also according to Rav Masne, who says that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, therefore day 30 is not Yom Melos, since it is as if the day finished, since he conducted part of the day in Nezirus.

However, in the Seifa, it is considered as if he said 30 full days according to Rav Masne. We do not say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo. Therefore, day 30 is Yom Melos.

This is why he cancels 30 days according to R. Eliezer from the Drashah Zos Tihyeh Toras ha'Nazir.

According to the first Tana, who says that he cancels everything regarding a Stam Nazir, according to Rav Masne this is mid'Oraisa, for it is part of the count of Nezirus. Rabanan say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo [only] when he did not become Tamei.

Comment: In the Seifa, when he said "I am a Nazir for 100 days", and he became Tamei on day 100, he cancels 30 days according to R. Eliezer from the Drashah Zos Tihyeh...

Question: According to Rav Masne, what is the difference between the Reisha, when he vowed Stam? We consider it according to R. Eliezer, according to Rav Masne, as if he became Tamei after Melos, because Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo;

Also here, when he vowed for 100 days, we should consider day 100 like after Melos, for we should say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo!

Answer: Tosfos answered above (6b) that we discuss when he said "I am a Nazir for 100 full days." Now, we cannot say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo.

Support: Through this, the Sugya is resolved above (6b), which brings that if a Stam Nazir became Tamei on day 30, he cancels everything;

Citation (6b): Granted, according to Rav Masne [this is fine, but it is difficult for Bar Pada...] Bar Pada can say "look at the Seifa! R. Eliezer says, he cancels only seven."

Question #1: What is the proof? I can say that the duration of Nezirus is 30 days. He cancels only seven according to R. Eliezer because there are no latter days!

Question #2: Also according to Rav Masne, what forced him to say that [R. Eliezer] holds that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo? He should say that R. Eliezer's reason is because there are no latter days!

Answer #1: This is fine based on what I explained that if day 30 were part of the Minyan of Nezirus according to Bar Pada, and also according to Rav Masne, if we would not say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo it would cancel everything due to the Drashah of Zos Toras ha'Nazir b'Yom Melos. Until here is the comment.

Comment: This [coming] comment is from my Rebbi, R. Yitzchak ben R. Yitzchak.

Answer #2: It seems that all, i.e. both Rav Masne and Bar Pada expound Zos Toras ha'Nazir. The verse "veha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu" discusses [one who accepted] 100 full days.

Answer #3: Based on this comment (of my Rebbi), the Drashah of Zos does not refer to a small Nezirus, like I explained above (6b DH Amar), in the name of R. Peretz. (The Mishnah discusses one who said "100 days", without saying "full". It is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv that one who becomes Tamei on Yom Melos must observe another Stam Nezirus, even if we normally say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo.)

Similarly, the Drashah "veha'Yamim ha'Rishonim" implies that there are latter days', does not refer to a small Nezirus, rather, to a long Nezirus [e.g.] of 100 days. Like this, the Sugya is resolved.

Explanation: This is the last day of Nezirus. Rabanan do not say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo when he became Tamei and did not [already] bring his Korbanos.

Explanation: It would be proper that he cancels everything according to Bar Pada, who holds that we do not say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo;

Also according to Rav Masne, we explained above (6b) that he said full days, and he should have cancelled everything, but the Drashah Zos Toras ha'Nazir b'Yom Melos is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv that he is Soser only 30 days.

Explanation: This is merely mid'Rabanan. Therefore, he cancels only 30;

Since day 101 is the day of shaving and bringing Korbanos, we decree due to when he became Tamei on day 30 when he said Stam "I am a Nazir", and day 30 is the day of shaving mid'Oraisa;

According to Rav Masne, this is because he says Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo. According to Bar Pada, it is because Nezirus finished on day 29, and on day 30 he shaves mid'Oraisa.

Explanation (cont.): If he became Tamei on day 30, according to Rav Masne he cancels mid'Oraisa. We decree day 101 due to day 30;

According to Bar Pada, on day 30 he is Soser mid'Rabanan, due to when he said "I am a Nazir for 30";

Similarly, when he became Tamei on day 100, which is the day of shaving, they decreed day 101 due to day 30. If not for this decree [of day 100], this decree [of day 30] would not endure, for also day 30 is the day of shaving.

Observation: Also above, we could have taught so regarding [one who said] "Hareini Nazir." If he became Tamei on day 31, he cancels everything mid'Rabanan;

However, surely if he became Tamei on day 102, he is not Soser 30, rather, only seven, so he can become Tahor and bring his Korbanos.

Explanation: He does not decree day 101 due to day 30, for day 30 itself does not cancel 30 according to R. Eliezer.

This is even according to Bar Pada, who says that if one said Stam "Hareini Nazir" and became Tamei on day 30, for his Nezirus already finished on day 29, and day 30 is the day of shaving mid'Oraisa. (Even though he does not say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, Tum'ah on day 30 does not cancel, for it is after Melos.)

Explanation (cont.): [Even though mid'Rabanan day 31 is Soser, like the previous Tosfos said, we need not decree day 101 due to] day 31, for it is after the day of shaving. It is like day 102. (Even though we do not decree about 101, the decree of day 31 will endure.)

Observation: The same applies if he was Tamei and vowed. The Gemara compares these [to each other].

Explanation: [It does not count] regarding not bringing Korban Tum'ah, for the Torah excluded him from a Korban, like the Gemara explains.

It was obvious that the days do not count [towards Nezirus Taharah]. Even if he counted in Taharah and became Tamei, he cancels the first days. All the more so they do not count when he was Tamei from the beginning!

Explanation: The Gemara (19a) explains that he left, received Haza'ah (Mei Chatas was sprinkled on him) twice [on days three and seven] and entered the same day he immersed, on day seven;

They count for him regarding this, that when he [reentered and] became Tamei [again], he is Soser [that day he started counting] and is obligated Korban Tum'ah, for on that day itself he began Nezirus Taharah.

In the Gemara, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about when he becomes Tahor, whether he must return and accept Nezirus again, or if it suffices what he accepted while he was Tamei.

Explanation: If he entered on the day he became Tahor, he does not bring a Korban Tum'ah unless it is [at least] the second day [from when] he began in Taharah;

It says "veha'Yamim ha'Rishonim Yiplu." One who cancels must cancel at least two days, and then he brings Korban Tum'ah;

Observation: Likewise, we could have taught their argument regarding a Nazir Tahor who became Tamei on the first day of acceptance of Nezirus. According to Rabanan he brings Korban Tum'ah;

According to R. Eliezer he does not bring Korban Tum'ah. Rather, he counts seven days of Tum'ah, receives Haza'ah twice, immerses and counts 29 days [in addition to] the first day he counted, and shaves on day 30, which is day 31 [of Taharah] of his Nezirus.

Explanation: The reason why he says that [if one said] "Hareini Nazir" and became Tamei on day 30, he is not Soser [everything], for it is after Melos...

According to Rav Masne, this is because he says that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, and according to Bar Pada, on day 29 his Nezirus finished.

Explanation: According to Rav Masne, it is as if he said "full days", and we do not say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo. Therefore, he cancels everything;

According to Bar Pada, when he explicitly said "30", and it is as if he said "full days", for he does not [ever] say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo. Therefore, R. Eliezer does not argue at all.

Explanation: [Nezirus takes effect] for everything. He is lashed while there for Tum'ah, if they warned him to leave and he does not leave, and for shaving and drinking wine;

When he becomes Tahor, he need not accept Nezirus again.

Explanation: Still (even though R. Yochanan holds that his Nezirus is suspended), he holds that he is forbidden.

Citation of Gemara: When the Nezirus finds Taharah, it takes effect.

Explanation: The law of Nezirus Taharah [takes effect] regarding bringing a Korban [if he will become Tamei afterwards].

It is suspended until he leaves there (the cemetery) and becomes Tahor. When he becomes Tahor, it takes effect on him automatically regarding bringing a Korban.

Observation: He could have said concisely that Nezirus takes effect on him from now, and he is lashed for shaving, wine and Tum'ah.

Explanation: [It does not take effect on him] while he is still Tamei, until he becomes Tahor. Then, he must return and accept Nezirus on himself again.

Explanation (Rashi): A small acceptance suffices, to say "the Nezirus should take effect on me", or "I am a Nazir like I vowed."

In Nedarim, we say that according to Reish Lakish, he transgresses Bal Te'acher (delaying fulfilling a vow) if he does not accept Nezirus once he becomes Tahor.

Explanation: The verse excludes this (Korban Tum'ah), below.

Inference: Nezirus takes effect on him to be lashed for Tum'ah, shaving and wine.

Explanation: Nezirus does not take effect on him at all.