וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי מִשּׁוּם אַוֵּירָא גָּזְרוּ עָלֶיהָ לָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִשּׁוּם גּוּשָׁהּ גָּזְרוּ עָלֶיהָ וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי בִּסְתָם נְזִירוּת קָנֵיסְנָא וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי כִּי קָנֵיסְנָא בִּתְחִילַּת נְזִירוּת: and Beit Hillel hold: They decreed with regard to its airspace, and it is a severe level of ritual impurity, so he must start his naziriteship from the beginning once he arrives in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara rejects this possibility: No, it may be that everyone agrees that they decreed only with regard to its earth, and they disagree merely over the details of the penalty. Beit Shammai hold that we penalize him with an unspecified term of naziriteship, which is thirty days, and Beit Hillel hold that when we penalize, we require him to return to the beginning of his term of naziriteship, and he must observe the entire term of naziriteship afresh.
מַעֲשֶׂה בְּהֵילֵנִי הַמַּלְכָּה וְכוּ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ בְּשֶׁנִּטְמֵאת וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אוֹ דִּלְמָא בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִטְמֵאת וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל § The mishna taught: An incident occurred with regard to Queen Helene. A dilemma was raised before them: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement? Does he hold that the case was one where she became impure in Eretz Yisrael, but after thirty days, and not after seven years, and Rabbi Yehuda spoke in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who hold that she was required to observe only a further thirty days upon her arrival in Eretz Yisrael, and due to her becoming impure she had to observe again her original term of naziriteship, for a total of fourteen years? Or perhaps the case is one where she did not become impure at the end of the seven years in Eretz Yisrael, and he ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel that she had to observe an additional seven years upon her entry to Eretz Yisrael.
תָּא שְׁמַע עָלְתָה לָאָרֶץ וְהוֹרוּהָ בֵּית הִלֵּל שֶׁתְּהֵא נְזִירָה עוֹד שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים אֲחֵרוֹת וְכוּ׳ וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּשֶׁנִּטְמֵאת וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אִי הָכִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיְתָה נְזִירָה אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: She ascended to Eretz Yisrael, and Beit Hillel instructed her that she should be a nazirite for an additional seven years, etc. And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda says that the case is one where she became ritually impure after observing thirty days of naziriteship following her arrival to Eretz Yisrael, and he spoke in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, if so, why does Rabbi Yehuda say she was a nazirite for only fourteen years? He should have said fourteen years and thirty days, as even Beit Shammai obligate her to observe a thirty-day period of naziriteship in Eretz Yisrael. It must be that Rabbi Yehuda holds that she observed seven additional years, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and says that she did not become ritually impure.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּאָמַר קְרָא זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה כִּי נִטְמָא בְּיוֹם מְלֹאת תֵּן לוֹ תּוֹרַת נָזִיר: The Gemara adds: This is also taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion cannot be established in accordance with Beit Shammai: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer that the verse states: “This is the law of the nazirite when the days of his consecration are fulfilled” (Numbers 6:13). The Torah states: When he becomes impure on the day of the completion of his naziriteship, even if it was at the end of a lengthy term, give him the law of an unspecified nazirite, and he must observe a thirty-day term. Therefore, if she became impure at the end of those thirty days that Beit Shammai obligates her to observe, she should have been required to observe naziriteship for only thirty additional days, rather than a full seven years. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda certainly accepts the opinion of Beit Hillel, and claims that she did not become ritually impure.
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִּיתֵּי עֵדִים מְעִידוֹת אוֹתוֹ אֵלּוּ מְעִידִים שֶׁנָּזַר שְׁתַּיִם וְאֵלּוּ מְעִידִים שֶׁנָּזַר חָמֵשׁ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים נֶחְלְקָה הָעֵדוּת וְאֵין כָּאן נְזִירוּת וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים יֵשׁ בִּכְלַל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁיְּהֵא נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם: MISHNA: In a case of one who had two sets of witnesses testifying about him that he had taken a vow of naziriteship for a certain period, and these witnesses testify that he took a vow of naziriteship for two terms, and these witnesses testify that he took a vow of naziriteship for five terms. Beit Shammai say: The testimony is divided, i.e., the testimonies contradict each other, and since the testimonies are in conflict they are both rejected entirely and there is no naziriteship here at all. And Beit Hillel say: The testimonies are not completely in conflict with each other, as two terms are included in five terms, and the unanimous testimony, that he is a nazirite for two terms, is accepted.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל שְׁתֵּי כִּיתֵּי עֵדִים אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת שְׁתַּיִם וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת חָמֵשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בִּכְלַל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ עַל כַּת אַחַת אֶחָד אוֹמֵר שְׁתַּיִם וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חָמֵשׁ שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים נֶחְלְקָה עֵדוּתָן וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים יֵשׁ בִּכְלַל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to the halakha in the case of two sets of witnesses, one of whom says two terms and one of whom says five terms, that two terms are included in five terms, and he must observe two terms of naziriteship. With regard to what did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to one set of two witnesses, one of whom says two terms and one of whom says five terms, and that Beit Shammai say: In that case their testimony is divided, as the two witnesses are in conflict and there is no testimony here at all. And Beit Hillel say: Since two terms are included in five terms, their testimony is in agreement with regard to two terms, and therefore he must observe two terms.
אָמַר רַב הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּמוֹנֶה אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָמָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא מַאי קָאָמַר אִילֵּימָא אֶחָד אוֹמֵר חָמֵשׁ וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר שְׁתַּיִם וְלֹא חָמֵשׁ הָא קָא מַכְחֲשִׁי אַהֲדָדֵי אֶלָּא אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אַחַת וּשְׁתַּיִם וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ אַרְבַּע חָמֵשׁ In relation to the explanation that the dispute is with regard to a single pair of witnesses, Rav said: All concede in a case of counting that the testimonies contradict each other. Rav Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: What is he saying; what did Rav mean by this? If we say that he was referring to a case where one witness says: He vowed five terms and not two terms, and one says: He vowed two terms and not five terms, in such a situation they clearly contradict one another, and neither of the testimonies is reliable. Rather, Rav is speaking of one witness who says that he heard the person in question count out only one and two terms when he took a vow of naziriteship, and one says that he heard the person in question count out only three, four, and five terms when he took a vow of naziriteship.