However, according to bar Padda this is difficult. Why doesn’t he shave his hair on the thirtieth day of each term of naziriteship?

The Gemara answers: Bar Padda could have said to you: Say the latter clause of the mishna: And if he shaved his hair for the first term on the thirtieth day, he shaves his hair for the second term on the sixtieth day. This demonstrates that the periods of naziriteship really last only twenty-nine days. Rather, the latter clause of the mishna supports his opinion, whereas the earlier clause of the mishna, which teaches that he shaves his hair on the thirty-first and sixty-first days, is referring to one who says that his naziriteship will be for thirty complete days.

The Gemara now asks: And according to Rav Mattana, the latter clause of the mishna is difficult. The Gemara answers that Rav Mattana could have said to you that it is as the latter clause teaches: The thirtieth day counts for both this and that, i.e., it is considered both the last day of the first term of naziriteship, as well as the first day of the second term.

The Gemara asks: What is the novelty of the latter clause of the mishna? Is it that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day? But didn’t he already say this once in an earlier clause in that mishna, as explained above? The Gemara answers: The latter clause was necessary; lest you say that this principle applies only with regard to one term of naziriteship, but with regard to two terms of naziriteship, no, this principle does not apply, the tanna therefore teaches us that part of the day is like that of an entire day, even to allow counting the beginning of the day as the last day of one term of naziriteship and the end of the day as the first day of another term of naziriteship.

The Gemara raises another question. We learned in the mishna (16a): If he shaved his hair on day sixty less one, i.e., on the fifty-ninth day after he vowed to observe two consecutive terms of naziriteship, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the thirtieth day counts as part of his tally. Granted, according to Rav Mattana this works out well, since the mishna is stating that the thirtieth day can be counted for both terms of naziriteship due to the principle that part of a day is like an entire day. However, according to bar Padda, why do I need the mishna to state that the thirtieth day counts in his tally? Didn’t he say that an unspecified term of naziriteship is for thirty days less one? It is obvious that the thirtieth day counts for the second term of naziriteship.

The Gemara answers: Bar Padda could have said to you: I too rely on this. This is my proof for the principle that an unspecified naziriteship lasts for twenty-nine days.

The Gemara continues to ask: We learned in the mishna (16a): In the case of one who said: I am hereby a nazirite, if he became ritually impure on the thirtieth day, it negates the entire tally, and he must start his naziriteship afresh. Granted, according to Rav Mattana it works out well, since he became impure before the conclusion of his naziriteship. However, according to bar Padda it is difficult, as the term of naziriteship ended at the conclusion of the twenty-ninth day, and one who becomes impure after completing his term does not have to observe a new term of naziriteship.