וְאִי תְּנָא שָׁעָה אַחַת מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא נָחֵית לְדַוְקָא אֲבָל אַחַת וּמֶחֱצָה דְּנָחֵית לְדַוְקָא אֵימָא לָא לִימְנֵי תַּרְתֵּי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן כּוּלְּהוּ נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם: And if the mishna taught only the case where one said: I am hereby a nazirite and one hour, one might have said that he is obligated in two periods of naziriteship because he did not go into specific detail [davka]. He merely stated that he accepts upon himself some part of a second term of naziriteship, and therefore he must observe a full second term of naziriteship. However, in the case of one who says he will be a nazirite for one and a half, where he does go into specific detail, one might say he should not have to count two full terms of naziriteship but rather forty-five days of naziriteship. The mishna therefore teaches us that in all these cases he is a nazirite for two full terms of naziriteship.
מַתְנִי׳ הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וְשָׁעָה אַחַת נָזִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד יוֹם שֶׁאֵין נְזִירוּת לְשָׁעוֹת: MISHNA: One who says: I am hereby a nazirite for thirty days and one hour, becomes a nazirite for thirty-one days, as there is no naziriteship for hours but only for full days.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד יוֹם אֲבָל אָמַר שְׁלֹשִׁים [יוֹם] וְיוֹם אֶחָד נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם GEMARA: Rav said: They taught that he is a nazirite for thirty-one days only when he said: Thirty-one days. But if he said: Thirty days and one day, he is a nazirite for two terms of naziriteship, since the thirty days are considered one term of naziriteship, and the additional day is the start of an additional term.
רַב סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּדָרֵישׁ לִישָּׁנָא יַתִּירָא The Gemara comments: In this regard, Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who derives meaning from superfluous language. Rabbi Akiva believes that if one uses unnecessary words, it is inferred that he intended to add something. In this case, since the individual said: Thirty days and one day, without combining them into one amount, he intended to accept an additional term of naziriteship.
דִּתְנַן לֹא אֶת הַבּוֹר וְלֹא אֶת הַדּוּת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לוֹ עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא וְצָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא As we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 64a): According to Rabbi Akiva, if one sold his house to another without specification, he has sold neither the pit nor the cistern [dut] with it, although he wrote to him in the document of sale: With its depth and its height. This is because anything that is not part of the house, e.g., pits and cisterns, must be explicitly mentioned in the contract. And the seller must purchase a path through the property he sold along with the house in order to reach the pit or cistern that he kept for himself. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ חוּץ מֵאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ: And the Rabbis say: He does not need to purchase a path, as it is assumed that just as he maintained his rights to the pit or cistern, he also maintained the right to walk through the rest of the property in order to access the pit or cistern. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when he says to him in the document of sale: Apart from these, i.e., the pit and cistern, that he does not need to purchase a path. Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning is this: Since the seller unnecessarily stressed that the pit and cistern are not included in the sale, he must have intended to thereby reserve for himself the right of access. This proves that, according to Rabbi Akiva, if one adds a superfluous clause he must have had a specific meaning in mind, and something must be derived from his statement. Rav follows a similar line of reasoning with regard to the case of a nazirite.