Nazir

IT IS RELATED THAT QUEEN HELENA etc.: The question was asked: [Does R. Judah agree that] she contracted impurity, in which case his statement concurs with Beth Shammai's opinion,  or does he 'deny that she contracted impurity, in which case his statement concurs with Beth Hillel's opinion? Come and hear: SHE WENT UP TO THE LAND [OF ISRAEL]. AND BETH HILLEL RULED THAT SHE MUST OBSERVE NAZIRITESHIP FOR A FURTHER SEVEN YEARS etc. Now if you assume that she did contract impurity, and that [R. Judah] concurs with Beth Shammai, then the text should read: R. Judah said: She was a nazirite for fourteen years and thirty days, instead of [simply] fourteen years! There has also been taught in the same sense: R. Judah quoting R. Eliezer said that the implication of the verse, And this is the law of the Nazirite [on the day when the days of his separation are fulfilled]  is: the Torah says that if he contracts ritual defilement on the day of his fulfilment, he is to be given the law of a nazirite. MISHNAH. WHERE TWO GROUPS OF WITNESSES GIVE EVIDENCE CONCERNING A MAN, ONE SAYING THAT HE VOWED TWO NAZIRITESHIPS  AND THE OTHER THAT HE VOWED FIVE, BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE IS CONFLICTING [IN TOTO], AND NO NAZIRITESHIP OPERATES AT ALL, BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT 'FIVE' INCLUDES 'TWO', SO THAT HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE FOR TWO PERIODS. GEMARA. The Mishnah disagrees with the following Tanna. For it has been taught: R. Ishmael, the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka, said that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not dispute that five included two where there are two groups of witnesses one saying five and one two. Where they differed was when of a single pair of witnesses, one says five and the other two, Beth Shammai averring that this is conflicting evidence, whilst Beth Hillel maintained that [here also], five includes two. Rab said: All are agreed that where [the witnesses] enumerate [the evidence is conflicting]. R. Hama said to R. Hisda: What does this mean? It cannot mean that one says it was five and not two, and the other it was two and not five, for they plainly contradict each other. And if again it means that one says, [he vowed] a first and a second time, and the other a third, fourth and fifth time.