In this lesson we begin the fourth chapter of Maseches Eduyos, with Mishnah 1. This mishnah presents two cases dealing with the laws of nezirus, whose primary source is in Maseches Nazir, chapter 3.
A nazir is someone who verbally accepts upon himself an obligation to abstain from three areas:
Grape products - wine, grapes, raisins and the like.
Cutting the hair of the head - he may not cut the hair of his head.
Tumah from a corpse - he may not bring himself into contact with the tumah of a corpse. This point stands at the center of the first part of our mishnah.
Nezirus outside of Eretz Yisrael:
A person who is standing inside a cemetery at the moment he accepts nezirus upon himself - his acceptance does not take effect, and the period of his nezirus does not begin to be counted until he leaves the cemetery. Chazal established that the lands outside of Eretz Yisrael are considered one large cemetery, and by rabbinic law there is tumah from a corpse everywhere outside of Eretz Yisrael.
Therefore, if a person standing outside of Eretz Yisrael declares himself a nazir, the correct thing for him to do is to go up to Eretz Yisrael immediately and fulfill his obligation of nezirus there. If he does not do so, the clock is not running as far as the fulfillment of his nezirus commitment is concerned as long as he remains outside of Eretz Yisrael, since by rabbinic law it is like one large cemetery.
From here the mishnah moves to the following question: since on the Torah level he is in fact fulfilling his commitment of nezirus, suppose he accepted upon himself a nezirus of one year, and he remained outside of Eretz Yisrael for an entire year without going up to Eretz Yisrael. When he finally does go up to Eretz Yisrael, how long must he observe his nezirus?
A basic nezirus commitment, which is the minimum obligation, is thirty days. May he suffice with this minimal nezirus, or perhaps, since he committed himself to a year, must he begin again from the start and observe a second year of nezirus while in Eretz Yisrael?
Beis Hillel are stringent: he must begin from the beginning and fulfill his entire original commitment in Eretz Yisrael.
Beis Shammai are lenient: since fundamentally there is nothing here but a rabbinic prohibition, after the fact, if he did not go up to Eretz Yisrael immediately, thirty days of nezirus suffice for him - the minimum measure of nezirus by Torah law - for he violated his commitment only on the rabbinic level, by remaining outside of Eretz Yisrael.
It is worth stating explicitly: there is no practical difference in this dispute when he accepted upon himself an ordinary nezirus. A person who said "Hareini nazir" ("I am hereby a nazir"), whose commitment is thirty days, and who was standing outside of Eretz Yisrael - he should have gone up to Eretz Yisrael, and if he did not go up immediately, even though he did not act properly, in any case now that he is in Eretz Yisrael, both Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that his obligation is thirty days, since that is both the minimum and the amount he committed to. The dispute takes effect only when he committed himself, for example, to a nezirus of sixty days: Beis Hillel say that he must fulfill all sixty anew, and Beis Shammai say that thirty days suffice.
In the words of the mishnah:
"Mi shenadar nezirus merubah" - one who accepted upon himself nezirus for an extended period, longer than the standard thirty days.
"V'hishlim nezirusso v'achar kach ba la'aretz" - he completed the period of his nezirus while outside of Eretz Yisrael, and afterwards went up to Eretz Yisrael.
"Beis Shammai omrim nazir sheloshim yom" - since he actually fulfilled his commitment, there is nothing here but a rabbinic penalty, and thirty days suffice for him.
"Beis Hillel omrim nazir batechilah" - he must begin from the beginning and fulfill his entire original commitment anew in Eretz Yisrael.
The halachah follows Beis Hillel. In practice, this is a difficult thing to say: someone who would accept nezirus upon himself nowadays - something one ought not to do - would apparently have to go up to Eretz Yisrael and remain there indefinitely, for the rest of his life, until the Beis HaMikdash is rebuilt and he can bring his offerings and thereby conclude his term of nezirus.
Part Two: Contradictory Testimony in Nezirus:
The second part of the Mishnah also deals with nezirus, but its main subject is the laws of testimony. This is the case: a man is accused of having accepted nezirus upon himself, and even several terms of it, and he denies it - whether he is lying or simply does not remember. He himself claims that he is under no obligation to take on the prohibitions of nezirus, while the witnesses say they heard him obligate himself, and therefore he must fulfill it.
The difficulty is that two separate sets of witnesses testify differently about the extent of the commitment: one set says he obligated himself in two terms of nezirus, that is, two periods of thirty days, and the second set says he accepted five terms of nezirus, five such periods. At the end of each period he would have to bring offerings and begin again. In any case, there is a contradiction in the testimony: did he obligate himself twice or five times?
Beis Shammai: The man claims he is not obligated in nezirus at all, and although there are witnesses against him, the testimony regarding the most fundamental fact of the commitment is contradictory - and this is a refutation. The two sets cancel one another out, we are left with no testimony at all, and therefore he is not obligated in nezirus at all.
Beis Hillel: Both sets agree that he accepted nezirus upon himself at least twice, and the dispute is only about the three additional times. On the point of agreement there is corroborating and consistent testimony, and therefore he will be obligated to observe nezirus twice.
Here too the halachah follows the stricter opinion, that of Beis Hillel, who obligate him in nezirus.
In the words of the Mishnah:
"Mi shehayu shtei kitei eidim me'idos oso, eilu me'idim shenadar shtayim ve'eilu me'idim shenadar chamesh" - one set testifies that he accepted two terms of nezirus upon himself, and the second set testifies that he accepted five.
"Beis Shammai omrim nechlekah eidus ve'ein kan nezirus" - the testimony is contradictory and inconsistent, and therefore both sets are rejected, and we have no testimony on the basis of which the court can enforce anything; he remains with his claim that he is not obligated in nezirus at all.
"U'Beis Hillel omrim yesh biklal chamesh shtayim, sheyehei nazir shtayim" - included within the testimony about five is also testimony about two, and both sets agree that he obligated himself at least twice. For those two periods he is obligated, while for the three additional ones, which are disputed between the two pairs of witnesses, he is not obligated.
In summary: In this section we learned the two cases in the Mishnah. The first - one who accepted a lengthy term of nezirus upon himself and completed it outside of Eretz Yisrael, which is like a cemetery by rabbinic law: according to Beis Shammai thirty days suffice for him once he goes up to the Land, and according to Beis Hillel he must count his nezirus from the beginning. The second - two sets of witnesses who contradict one another regarding the extent of the nezirus: according to Beis Shammai the testimony is split and nullified, and according to Beis Hillel "included within five is two" and he is obligated in two terms of nezirus. In both cases the halachah follows Beis Hillel, the stricter opinion.