Talmud sobre Yevamot 11:9

If he drank wine within the first 30 days, he is (not) whipped; within the last 30 days, he is [] whipped⁴⁴Here begins the discussion of Mishaniot 2 ff. The scribe (or the text he copied from) switched the places of “whipped” and “not whipped”. If one of the nezirim died, the other certainly has to finish the period of his vow and then has to start a second period because he might have been impure and the nezirut of part of his first period might have been invalid. Since the first period was in fulfillment of his vow of nazir, any transgression is prosecutable. But since he keeps the second period only because of a doubt, even if there are two witnesses both to his vow of nazir and to his drinking wine, a prosecutor could not prove that a crime certainly had been commited. Nobody can be found guilty by a human court if the crime was not proven.. The one coming from the general population cannot be whipped, either for the (second) or the last period⁴⁵Since his nezirut in both periods is conditional, the certainty of his crime is not provable.. So far, if he was warned separately for each period⁴⁶Even if the crime was proven, a conviction is possible only if criminal intent was proven by two witnesses who testify that the perpetrator was warned of the criminality of his undertaking; cf. Kilaim 8:1, Note 9.. If they warned him for both together⁴⁷It is clear that either the first or the second period of nezirut are in fulfillment of his vow, even if it is not known which period counts in biblical law. If the nazir was warned for both during his first period after it was determined that he had to keep a second period, and he drank wine during both periods, the fact of the crime has been established. (The separate problem, that the accused might have forgotten the warning if it preceded the action by a long time, is not considered here.) this is the disagreement⁴⁸פלוגתא is the Babylonian form for Galilean תפלוגתא. between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who disagreed about the two days of holiday in the diaspora⁴⁹Before the publication of the computed calendar, communities which could not be informed by messengers about the determination of the first days of the months of Nisan and Tishri, kept two days of holidays to account for possible variations in the dates. Since each day was only one of a possible two, no work on the holidays could be prosecutable unless the warning was given for both days, the infraction occured on both days, and this kind of long־term conditional warning was accepted in court. [After the publication of the calendar computations, the first day of a holiday is of biblical character; the second day is of purely rabbinic character and is kept only because the algorithm was published on condition that its users continue to keep the second day (Eruvin 3:10 21c 1. 24; Babli Beṣah 4b).]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts warning in case of a doubt; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept warning in case of a doubt⁵⁰Yebamot 11:7 (Note 171), Pesaḥim 5:4 (32s 1. 5); Babli Makkot 16a..