designated

For thou shalt be glorified before the Lord's face for all time, since the Lord chose thee, rather than all men on earth, and designated thee writer of all his creation, visible and invisible, and redeemer of the sins of man, and helper of thy household.'

But to arrive at a clearer understanding on these matters, we ought first to inquire after this point, whether it is allowable to suppose that they are living and rational beings; then, in the next place, whether their souls came into existence at the same time with their bodies, or seem to be anterior to them; and also whether, after the end of the world, we are to understand that they are to be released from their bodies; and whether, as we cease to live, so they also will cease from illuminating the world. Although this inquiry may seem to be somewhat bold, yet, as we are incited by the desire of ascertaining the truth as far as possible, there seems no absurdity in attempting an investigation of the subject agreeably to the grace of the Holy Spirit. We think, then, that they may be designated as living beings, for this reason, that they are said to receive commandments from God, which is ordinarily the case only with rational beings. “I have given a commandment to all the stars,” says the Lord. What, now, are these commandments? Those, namely, that each star, in its order and course, should bestow upon the world the amount of splendour which has been entrusted to it. For those which are called “planets” move in orbits of one kind, and those which are termed ἀπλανεῖς are different. Now it manifestly follows from this, that neither can the movement of that body take place without a soul, nor can living things be at any time without motion. And seeing that the stars move with such order and regularity, that their movements never appear to be at any time subject to derangement, would it not be the height of folly to say that so orderly an observance of method and plan could be carried out or accomplished by irrational beings? In the writings of Jeremiah, indeed, the moon is called the queen of heaven. Yet if the stars are living and rational beings, there will undoubtedly appear among them both an advance and a falling back. For the language of Job, “the stars are not clean in His sight,” seems to me to convey some such idea.

Now, of these opinions, let us first discuss that which is maintained by some, that there is in us a good and heavenly soul, and another earthly and inferior; and that the better soul is implanted within us from heaven, such as was that which, while Jacob was still in the womb, gave him the prize of victory in supplanting his brother Esau, and which in the case of Jeremiah was sanctified from his birth, and in that of John was filled by the Holy Spirit from the womb. Now, that which they term the inferior soul is produced, they allege, along with the body itself out of the seed of the body, whence they say it cannot live or subsist beyond the body, on which account also they say it is frequently termed flesh. For the expression, “The flesh lusteth against the spirit,” they take to be applicable not to the flesh, but to this soul, which is properly the soul of the flesh. From these words, moreover, they endeavour notwithstanding to make good the declaration in Leviticus: “The life of all flesh is the blood thereof.” For, from the circumstance that it is the diffusion of the blood throughout the whole flesh which produces life in the flesh, they assert that this soul, which is said to be the life of all flesh, is contained in the blood. This statement, moreover, that the flesh struggles against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and the further statement, that “the life of all flesh is the blood thereof,” is, according to these writers, simply calling the wisdom of the flesh by another name, because it is a kind of material spirit, which is not subject to the law of God, nor can be so, because it has earthly wishes and bodily desires. And it is with respect to this that they think the apostle uttered the words: “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” And if one were to object to them that these words were spoken of the nature of the body, which indeed, agreeably to the peculiarity of its nature, is dead, but is said to have sensibility, or wisdom, which is hostile to God, or which struggles against the spirit; or if one were to say that, in a certain degree, the flesh itself was possessed of a voice, which should cry out against the endurance of hunger, or thirst, or cold, or of any discomfort arising either from abundance or poverty,—they would endeavour to weaken and impair the force of such [arguments], by showing that there were many other mental perturbations which derive their origin in no respect from the flesh, and yet against which the spirit struggles, such as ambition, avarice, emulation, envy, pride, and others like these; and seeing that with these the human mind or spirit wages a kind of contest, they lay down as the cause of all these evils, nothing else than this corporal soul, as it were, of which we have spoken above, and which is generated from the seed by a process of traducianism. They are accustomed also to adduce, in support of their assertion, the declaration of the apostle, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, poisonings, hatred, contentions, emulations, wrath, quarrelling, dissensions, heresies, sects, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and the like;” asserting that all these do not derive their origin from the habits or pleasures of the flesh, so that all such movements are to be regarded as inherent in that substance which has not a soul, i.e. the flesh. The declaration, moreover, “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men among you according to the flesh are called,” would seem to require to be understood as if there were one kind of wisdom, carnal and material, and another according to the spirit, the former of which cannot indeed be called wisdom, unless there be a soul of the flesh, which is wise in respect of what is called carnal wisdom. And in addition to these passages they adduce the following: “Since the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that we cannot do the things that we would.” What are these things now respecting which he says, “that we cannot do the things that we would?” It is certain, they reply, that the spirit cannot be intended; for the will of the spirit suffers no hindrance. But neither can the flesh be meant, because if it has not a soul of its own, neither can it assuredly possess a will. It remains, then, that the will of this soul be intended which is capable of having a will of its own, and which certainly is opposed to the will of the spirit. And if this be the case, it is established that the will of the soul is something intermediate between the flesh and the spirit, undoubtedly obeying and serving that one of the two which it has elected to obey. And if it yield itself up to the pleasures of the flesh, it renders men carnal; but when it unites itself with the spirit, it produces men of the spirit, and who on that account are termed spiritual. And this seems to be the meaning of the apostle in the words, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit.” We have accordingly to ascertain what is this very will [intermediate] between flesh and spirit, besides that will which is said to belong to the flesh or the spirit. For it is held as certain, that everything which is said to be a work of the spirit is [a product of] the will of the spirit, and everything that is called a work of the flesh [proceeds from] the will of the flesh. What else then, besides these, is that will of the soul which receives a separate name, and which will, the apostle being opposed to our executing, says: “Ye cannot do the things that ye would?” By this it would seem to be intended, that it ought to adhere to neither of these two, i.e. to neither flesh nor spirit. But some one will say, that as it is better for the soul to execute its own will than that of the flesh; so, on the other hand, it is better to do the will of the spirit than its own will. How, then, does the apostle say, “that ye cannot do the things that ye would?” Because in that contest which is waged between flesh and spirit, the spirit is by no means certain of victory, it being manifest that in very many individuals the flesh has the mastery. But since the subject of discussion on which we have entered is one of great profundity, which it is necessary to consider in all its bearings, let us see whether some such point as this may not be determined: that as it is better for the soul to follow the spirit when the latter has overcome the flesh, so also, if it seem to be a worse course for the former to follow the flesh in its struggles against the spirit, when the latter would recall the soul to its influence, it may nevertheless appear a more advantageous procedure for the soul to be under the mastery of the flesh than to remain under the power of its own will. For, since it is said to be neither hot nor cold, but to continue in a sort of tepid condition, it will find conversion a slow and somewhat difficult undertaking. If indeed it clung to the flesh, then, satiated at length, and filled with those very evils which it suffers from the vices of the flesh, and wearied as it were by the heavy burdens of luxury and lust, it may sometimes be converted with greater ease and rapidity from the filthiness of matter to a desire for heavenly things, and [to a taste for] spiritual graces. And the apostle must be supposed to have said, that “the spirit contends against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit, so that we cannot do the things that we would” (those things, undoubtedly, which are designated as being beyond the will of the spirit, and the will of the flesh), meaning (as if we were to express it in other words) that it is better for a man to be either in a state of virtue or in one of wickedness, than in neither of these; but that the soul, before its conversion to the spirit, and its union with it, appears during its adherence to the body, and its meditation of carnal things, to be neither in a good condition nor in a manifestly bad one, but resembles, so to speak, an animal. It is better, however, for it, if possible, to be rendered spiritual through adherence to the spirit; but if that cannot be done, it is more expedient for it to follow even the wickedness of the flesh, than, placed under the influence of its own will, to retain the position of an irrational animal. These points we have now discussed, in our desire to consider each individual opinion, at greater length than we intended, that those views might not be supposed to have escaped our notice which are generally brought forward by those who inquire whether there is within us any other soul than this heavenly and rational one, which is naturally opposed to the latter, and is called either the flesh, or the wisdom of the flesh, or the soul of the flesh.

Now, respecting the end of the world and the consummation of all things, we have stated in the preceding pages, to the best of our ability, so far as the authority of Holy Scripture enabled us, what we deem sufficient for purposes of instruction; and we shall here only add a few admonitory remarks, since the order of investigation has brought us back to the subject. The highest good, then, after the attainment of which the whole of rational nature is seeking, which is also called the end of all blessings, is defined by many philosophers as follows: The highest good, they say, is to become as like to God as possible. But this definition I regard not so much as a discovery of theirs, as a view derived from holy Scripture. For this is pointed out by Moses, before all other philosophers, when he describes the first creation of man in these words: “And God said, Let us make man in our own image, and after our likeness;” and then he adds the words: “So God created man in His own image: in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them, and He blessed them.” Now the expression, “In the image of God created He him,” without any mention of the word “likeness,” conveys no other meaning than this, that man received the dignity of God’s image at his first creation; but that the perfection of his likeness has been reserved for the consummation,—namely, that he might acquire it for himself by the exercise of his own diligence in the imitation of God, the possibility of attaining to perfection being granted him at the beginning through the dignity of the divine image, and the perfect realization of the divine likeness being reached in the end by the fulfilment of the [necessary] works. Now, that such is the case, the Apostle John points out more clearly and unmistakeably, when he makes this declaration: “Little children, we do not yet know what we shall be; but if a revelation be made to us from the Saviour, ye will say, without any doubt, we shall be like Him.” By which expression he points out with the utmost certainty, that not only was the end of all things to be hoped for, which he says was still unknown to him, but also the likeness to God, which will be conferred in proportion to the completeness of our deserts. The Lord Himself, in the Gospel, not only declares that these same results are future, but that they are to be brought about by His own intercession, He Himself deigning to obtain them from the Father for His disciples, saying, “Father, I will that where I am, these also may be with me; and as Thou and I are one, they also may be one in us.” In which the divine likeness itself already appears to advance, if we may so express ourselves, and from being merely similar, to become the same, because undoubtedly in the consummation or end God is “all and in all.” And with reference to this, it is made a question by some whether the nature of bodily matter, although cleansed and purified, and rendered altogether spiritual, does not seem either to offer an obstruction towards attaining the dignity of the [divine] likeness, or to the property of unity, because neither can a corporeal nature appear capable of any resemblance to a divine nature, which is certainly incorporeal; nor can it be truly and deservedly designated one with it, especially since we are taught by the truths of our religion that that which alone is one, viz. the Son with the Father, must be referred to a peculiarity of the [divine] nature.

In the next place, with regard to the declaration of Jesus against rich men, when He said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God,” Celsus alleges that this saying manifestly proceeded from Plato, and that Jesus perverted the words of the philosopher, which were, that “it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness, and at the same time for riches.” Now who is there that is capable of giving even moderate attention to affairs—not merely among the believers on Jesus, but among the rest of mankind—that would not laugh at Celsus, on hearing that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and was supposed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not studied literature—not merely that of the Greeks, but not even that of the Hebrews—as the truth-loving Scriptures testify regarding Him, had read Plato, and being pleased with the opinion he expressed regarding rich men, to the effect that “it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness and riches at the same time,” had perverted this, and changed it into, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God!” Now, if Celsus had not perused the Gospels in a spirit of hatred and dislike, but had been imbued with a love of truth, he would have turned his attention to the point why a camel—that one of animals which, as regards its physical structure, is crooked—was chosen as an object of comparison with a rich man, and what signification the “narrow eye of a needle” had for him who saw that “strait and narrow was the way that leadeth unto life;” and to this point also, that this animal, according to the law, is described as “unclean,” having one element of acceptability, viz. that it ruminates, but one of condemnation, viz. that it does not divide the hoof. He would have inquired, moreover, how often the camel was adduced as an object of comparison in the sacred Scriptures, and in reference to what objects, that he might thus ascertain the meaning of the Logos concerning the rich men. Nor would he have left without examination the fact that “the poor” are termed “blessed” by Jesus, while “the rich” are designated as “miserable;” and whether these words refer to the rich and poor who are visible to the senses, or whether there is any kind of poverty known to the Logos which is to be deemed “altogether blessed,” and any rich man who is to be wholly condemned. For even a common individual would not thus indiscriminately have praised the poor, many of whom lead most wicked lives. But on this point we have said enough.

After thus misrepresenting our views of the nature of God, Celsus goes on to ask of us “where we hope to go after death;” and he makes our answer to be, “to another land better than this.” On this he comments as follows: “The divine men of a former age have spoken of a happy life reserved for the souls of the blessed. Some designated it ‘the isles of the blest,’ and others ‘the Elysian plain,’ so called because they were there to be delivered from their present evils. Thus Homer says: ‘But the gods shall send thee to the Elysian plain, on the borders of the earth, where they lead a most quiet life.’ Plato also, who believed in the immortality of the soul, distinctly gives the name ‘land’ to the place where it is sent. ‘The extent of it,’ says he, ‘is immense, and we only occupy a small portion of it, from the Phasis to the Pillars of Hercules, where we dwell along the shores of the sea, as grasshoppers and frogs beside a marsh. But there are many other places inhabited in like manner by other men. For there are in different parts of the earth cavities, varying in form and in magnitude, into which run water, and clouds, and air. But that land which is pure lies in the pure region of heaven.’” Celsus therefore supposes that what we say of a land which is much better and more excellent than this, has been borrowed from certain ancient writers whom he styles “divine,” and chiefly from Plato, who in his Phœdon discourses on the pure land lying in a pure heaven. But he does not see that Moses, who is much older than the Greek literature, introduces God as promising to those who lived according to His law the holy land, which is “a good land and a large, a land flowing with milk and honey;” which promise is not to be understood to refer, as some suppose, to that part of the earth which we call Judæa; for it, however good it may be, still forms part of the earth, which was originally cursed for the transgression of Adam. For these words, “Cursed shall the ground be for what thou hast done; with grief, that is, with labour, shalt thou eat of the fruit of it all the days of thy life,” were spoken of the whole earth, the fruit of which every man who died in Adam eats with sorrow or labour all the days of his life. And as all the earth has been cursed, it brings forth thorns and briers all the days of the life of those who in Adam were driven out of paradise; and in the sweat of his face every man eats bread until he returns to the ground from which he was taken. For the full exposition of all that is contained in this passage much might be said; but we have confined ourselves to these few words at present, which are intended to remove the idea, that what is said of the good land promised by God to the righteous, refers to the land of Judæa.

Experiments upon enemies may be performed in several ways, but, whether with waxen images or some other instrument, the particulars of each must be diligently and faithfully observed. Should the day and hour fail thee, proceed as already laid down, and prepare the image or instrument proper to this effect in the order and manner thereof. Fumigate with the proper perfumes, and if writing be required on the image, let it be done with the needle or stylet of the art, as aforesaid. Next recite the following words once over the said image:- VSOR, DILAPIDATOR, TENTATORE, SOMNIATORE, DEVORATOR, CONCISOR, ET SEDUCTOR. O all ye ministers and companions, I direct, conjure, constrain and command you to fulfil this behest willingly, namely, straightway to consecrate this image, which is to be done in the name of N., that as the face of the one is contrary to the other, so the same may never more look upon another. Deposit the image in some place perfumed with evil odours, especially those of Mars, such as sulphur and assafoetida. Let it remain there for one night, having duly asperged it, observing the proper hour and time. Do likewise when the experiment is performed with characters and names, by touching the lovers with words, or by whatsoever other manner. But when the experiment is made by giving something to be eaten, the same must be performed on the day and hour proper to this work. All things being prepared, place them before you, and say: Where are ye, SOMNIATOR, VSOR, DILAPIDATOR, TENTATOR, DIVORATOR, CONCISOR, SEDUCTOR, ye who sow discord, where are you? Ye who infuse hatred and propagate enmities, I conjure you by him who hath created you for this ministry, to fulfill this work, in order that whenever N. shall eat of like things, or shall touch them, in whatsoever manner, never shall he go in peace. Give then whatsoever you please to the person designated, but let it be in the hour of Saturn or that of Mars, observing all things needful for such experiments.

But in one balance are they equiponderated. (The balance denoteth the male and the female; and the meaning is, that the letters I, Yod, and H, He—of which the former is masculine and referreth to the path of the foundation; and the latter is feminine, pertaining to the queen—are interchangeable; since whilst the equilibrium existeth there is an intercommunication between them, and they are joined together as one. Add to this that the queen is also called ADNI, Adonai, wherein the letter I, Yod, bringeth up the rearguard of the army, as it were; because also it is accustomed to be called the Lesser Wisdom.) And the living creatures rush forth and return. (This is what is said in Ezek. i. 14 concerning the living creatures, which is accustomed to be said concerning those letters of the Tetragrammaton, which sometimes hold the last place and sometimes the first; as when I, Yod, rusheth forth unto the last place, and when it returneth unto the beginning again; and so also the letter H, He. Likewise, then, also the living creatures are said to rush forth, when the Tetragrammaton is written with the final H, He, because then the whole system of emanatives is exhausted. But they are said to return when the Tetragrammaton is written with the final I, Yod, so that the sense may be collected in such a manner as to return from the last path of the queen into the penultimate of the foundation, which is designated by this letter I, Yod.

And God said, Let there be MARTh, Maroth, lights in the firmament of the heaven. (Now he hasteneth to the third part of that quadrilateral name, namely, to these two letters IH, Yod, He. But by lights are understood the sun and the moon, the beautiful path and the kingdom or bride. And herein the sense is this: although usually by these two letters are accustomed to be understood the Father and the Mother, or the wisdom and the understanding, yet in this place the supernal lights are wanting, like as the word MARTh, Maroth, is written in a defective form; and the meaning is proper to be applied unto the firmament of the heaven—that is, to the foundation, extended and prepared for marital conjunction; for the spouse is called the heaven, and the member of the treaty is the firmament, like as, therefore, the two last paths in the whole name IHVI, Yod, He, Vau, Yod are designated by the letters V, Vau, and I, Yod, so likewise these in this portion of the square are designated by the letters, I Yod, and H, He.) The husband hath dominion over the wife (since it is not written by V, Vau, but by I, Yod, which is the symbol of the member of the treaty, and herein denoteth the actual combination with the female): like as it is written (Prov. x. 25): “And the just man is the foundation of the world.” (By this saying he illustrateth his meaning; because by the letter I, Yod, is understood the fundamental member by which the world is preserved in existence.)

And God said, Let there be MARTh, Maroth, lights in the firmament of the heaven. (Now he hasteneth to the third part of that quadrilateral name, namely, to these two letters IH, Yod, He. But by lights are understood the sun and the moon, the beautiful path and the kingdom or bride. And herein the sense is this: although usually by these two letters are accustomed to be understood the Father and the Mother, or the wisdom and the understanding, yet in this place the supernal lights are wanting, like as the word MARTh, Maroth, is written in a defective form; and the meaning is proper to be applied unto the firmament of the heaven—that is, to the foundation, extended and prepared for marital conjunction; for the spouse is called the heaven, and the member of the treaty is the firmament, like as, therefore, the two last paths in the whole name IHVI, Yod, He, Vau, Yod are designated by the letters V, Vau, and I, Yod, so likewise these in this portion of the square are designated by the letters, I Yod, and H, He.) The husband hath dominion over the wife (since it is not written by V, Vau, but by I, Yod, which is the symbol of the member of the treaty, and herein denoteth the actual combination with the female): like as it is written (Prov. x. 25): “And the just man is the foundation of the world.” (By this saying he illustrateth his meaning; because by the letter I, Yod, is understood the fundamental member by which the world is preserved in existence.)

And if thou sayest, “Who is the Most Holy Ancient One?” Come and see. The Supreme Head is that which is not known, nor comprehended, nor designated, and that (Head) comprehendeth all things.

One who had designated the terumat maaser of demai, or the poor man’s tithe of produce that had certainly not been tithed, he should not separate them on Shabbat. But if the priest or the poor man regularly ate with him, they may come and eat provided that he informs them.

There were before him two baskets full of tevel, and he said: “Let the tithes of this [basket] be in that [basket],” the first [basket] is tithed. [If he said:] “Let the tithes of this [basket] be in that [basket], and the tithes of that [basket] in this [basket],” the first basket is tithed [whereas the second is not]. [If he said:] “Let the tithes be so that the tithes of each basket be in the other,” he has designated [the tithes of either basket].

They said an important general principle with regard to the sabbatical year: Anything that is usually designated as food for humans, one may not make a poultice of it for a person. And there is no need to say [that he may not make a poultice of it] for a beast. Anything that is not usually designated as for food for humans may be used as a poultice for a person, but not for cattle. And anything not usually designated either for humans or for animals, but now he thought to use it as food for either a person or an animal, we impose upon it the stringent laws applying both to people and beasts. If he thought to use it as wood [for a fire], behold it is treated as wood [and the laws of sheviit do not apply]; for example, savory, hyssop, or thyme.

They said an important general principle with regard to the sabbatical year: Anything that is usually designated as food for humans, one may not make a poultice of it for a person. And there is no need to say [that he may not make a poultice of it] for a beast. Anything that is not usually designated as for food for humans may be used as a poultice for a person, but not for cattle. And anything not usually designated either for humans or for animals, but now he thought to use it as food for either a person or an animal, we impose upon it the stringent laws applying both to people and beasts. If he thought to use it as wood [for a fire], behold it is treated as wood [and the laws of sheviit do not apply]; for example, savory, hyssop, or thyme.

They said an important general principle with regard to the sabbatical year: Anything that is usually designated as food for humans, one may not make a poultice of it for a person. And there is no need to say [that he may not make a poultice of it] for a beast. Anything that is not usually designated as for food for humans may be used as a poultice for a person, but not for cattle. And anything not usually designated either for humans or for animals, but now he thought to use it as food for either a person or an animal, we impose upon it the stringent laws applying both to people and beasts. If he thought to use it as wood [for a fire], behold it is treated as wood [and the laws of sheviit do not apply]; for example, savory, hyssop, or thyme.

If one says: “The terumah of this pile is within it,” or, “its tithes are within it,” or, “the terumah of tithe [terumat maaser] is within it:” Rabbi Shimon says: he has thereby designated it. But the sages say: not unless he said, “It is in the north or south of it.” Rabbi Elazar Hisma says: one who says, “The terumah of this pile is taken from it for it,” he has thereby designated it. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: one who says, “The tenth part of this tithe is terumah of tithe for that pile,” he has thereby designated it.

If one says: “The terumah of this pile is within it,” or, “its tithes are within it,” or, “the terumah of tithe [terumat maaser] is within it:” Rabbi Shimon says: he has thereby designated it. But the sages say: not unless he said, “It is in the north or south of it.” Rabbi Elazar Hisma says: one who says, “The terumah of this pile is taken from it for it,” he has thereby designated it. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: one who says, “The tenth part of this tithe is terumah of tithe for that pile,” he has thereby designated it.

If one says: “The terumah of this pile is within it,” or, “its tithes are within it,” or, “the terumah of tithe [terumat maaser] is within it:” Rabbi Shimon says: he has thereby designated it. But the sages say: not unless he said, “It is in the north or south of it.” Rabbi Elazar Hisma says: one who says, “The terumah of this pile is taken from it for it,” he has thereby designated it. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: one who says, “The tenth part of this tithe is terumah of tithe for that pile,” he has thereby designated it.

If he designated black [doves] but found [on Yom Tov] white ones, white [doves] but found black ones, two but found three, they are [all] forbidden. [If he designated] three but found two, they are permitted. [If he designated doves] inside the nest and found them in front of the nest, they are forbidden. But if none were there except these, they are permitted.

If he designated black [doves] but found [on Yom Tov] white ones, white [doves] but found black ones, two but found three, they are [all] forbidden. [If he designated] three but found two, they are permitted. [If he designated doves] inside the nest and found them in front of the nest, they are forbidden. But if none were there except these, they are permitted.

If he designated black [doves] but found [on Yom Tov] white ones, white [doves] but found black ones, two but found three, they are [all] forbidden. [If he designated] three but found two, they are permitted. [If he designated doves] inside the nest and found them in front of the nest, they are forbidden. But if none were there except these, they are permitted.

[If one says,] “Konam that I do not benefit from the Children of Noah,” he may benefit from Israelites, and he is forbidden to benefit from the nations of the world. [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from the seed of Abraham,” he is forbidden [to benefit] from Israelites, but permitted [to benefit] from the nations of the world. [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from Israelites”, he may buy things from them for more [than their worth] and sell them for less. [If he says, “Konam] if Israelites benefit from me, he must buy from them for less and sell for more [than their worth], if they will listen to him. [If he says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from them, nor they from me”, he may benefit only from non-Jews. [If one says,] “Konam that I do not benefit from the uncircumcised”, he may benefit from uncircumcised Israelites but not from circumcised heathens”; [If one says, “Konam] that I do not benefit from the circumcised,” he is forbidden to benefit from uncircumcised Israelites but not from circumcised non-Jews, because “uncircumcised” is a term applicable only to non-Jews, as it says, “For all the nations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart” (Jeremiah 9:25). And it says, “And this uncircumcised Philistine shall be [as one of them]” (I Samuel 17:6). And it says, “Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult” (II Samuel 1:20). Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: The foreskin is loathsome, since it is a term of disgrace for the wicked, as it says, “For all the nations are uncircumcised”. Rabbi Ishmael says: Great is circumcision, since thirteen covenants were made upon it. Rabbi Yose says: Great is circumcision, for it overrides the Sabbath. Rabbi Joshua ben Karha says: Great is circumcision for Moses’s punishment for neglecting it was not suspended even for one hour. Rabbi Nehemiah says: Great is circumcision, since it overrides the laws of leprosy. Rabbi says: Great is circumcision, for despite all of the commandments which Abraham fulfilled he was not designated complete until he circumcised himself, as it says, “Walk before me, and be complete” (Genesis 17:1). Another explanation: “Great is circumcision, for were it not for it, the Holy One, Blessed Be He, would not have created the world, as it says, “Were it not for my covenant by day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25).

To where are they banished? To the cities of refuge, to the three cities situated on the far side of the Jordan and the three cities situated in Canaan, as it says, “Three cities shall be designated beyond the Jordan, and the other three shall be designated in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 35:14). Not until three cities were selected in the land of Israel did the [first] three cities beyond the jordan receive fugitives, as it says, “Six cities of refuge in all” (Numbers 35:13), until all six could simultaneously receive fugitives.

To where are they banished? To the cities of refuge, to the three cities situated on the far side of the Jordan and the three cities situated in Canaan, as it says, “Three cities shall be designated beyond the Jordan, and the other three shall be designated in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 35:14). Not until three cities were selected in the land of Israel did the [first] three cities beyond the jordan receive fugitives, as it says, “Six cities of refuge in all” (Numbers 35:13), until all six could simultaneously receive fugitives.

This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

[If one intended] to eat as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive on the outside its intended place, [or] as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

[If one intended] to eat as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive on the outside its intended place, [or] as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

[If one intended] to eat as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive on the outside its intended place, [or] as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

If he put in too much of its oil or too little of its oil or too little of its frankincense, it is invalid. One who takes a fistful from the minhah [intending]: To eat the remainder outside [the Temple] or an olive’s worth outside; To burn the fistful or an olive’s worth of the fistful outside; To burn its frankincense outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One who takes a fistful from the minhah intending]: To eat the remainder the next day or an olive’s worth the next day; To burn the fistful the next day or an olive’s worth of the fistful the next day; To burn its frankincense the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth. This is the general rule: anyone who removes the fistful, or puts it into a vessel, or carries it to the altar, or burns it, [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the minhah] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law. How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful in silence, and put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it, [intending to eat it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time, and put it in a vessel, and carried it and burned it in silence, or if one took out the fistful, or put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law.

If he put in too much of its oil or too little of its oil or too little of its frankincense, it is invalid. One who takes a fistful from the minhah [intending]: To eat the remainder outside [the Temple] or an olive’s worth outside; To burn the fistful or an olive’s worth of the fistful outside; To burn its frankincense outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One who takes a fistful from the minhah intending]: To eat the remainder the next day or an olive’s worth the next day; To burn the fistful the next day or an olive’s worth of the fistful the next day; To burn its frankincense the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth. This is the general rule: anyone who removes the fistful, or puts it into a vessel, or carries it to the altar, or burns it, [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the minhah] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law. How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful in silence, and put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it, [intending to eat it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time, and put it in a vessel, and carried it and burned it in silence, or if one took out the fistful, or put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law.

If he put in too much of its oil or too little of its oil or too little of its frankincense, it is invalid. One who takes a fistful from the minhah [intending]: To eat the remainder outside [the Temple] or an olive’s worth outside; To burn the fistful or an olive’s worth of the fistful outside; To burn its frankincense outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One who takes a fistful from the minhah intending]: To eat the remainder the next day or an olive’s worth the next day; To burn the fistful the next day or an olive’s worth of the fistful the next day; To burn its frankincense the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth. This is the general rule: anyone who removes the fistful, or puts it into a vessel, or carries it to the altar, or burns it, [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the minhah] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law. How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful in silence, and put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it, [intending to eat it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time, and put it in a vessel, and carried it and burned it in silence, or if one took out the fistful, or put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law.

If he put in too much of its oil or too little of its oil or too little of its frankincense, it is invalid. One who takes a fistful from the minhah [intending]: To eat the remainder outside [the Temple] or an olive’s worth outside; To burn the fistful or an olive’s worth of the fistful outside; To burn its frankincense outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One who takes a fistful from the minhah intending]: To eat the remainder the next day or an olive’s worth the next day; To burn the fistful the next day or an olive’s worth of the fistful the next day; To burn its frankincense the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth. This is the general rule: anyone who removes the fistful, or puts it into a vessel, or carries it to the altar, or burns it, [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the minhah] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law. How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful in silence, and put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it, [intending to eat it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time, and put it in a vessel, and carried it and burned it in silence, or if one took out the fistful, or put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else; Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else; Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else; Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else; Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else; Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else; Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else; Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else; Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else; Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else; Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else; Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.

If one has set aside money for his nazirite offerings, it may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it, as it may all be used for the shelamim. If he died and left money [for his nazirite offerings] If unspecified it shall go to the fund for voluntary offerings; If specified: The money designated for the hatats shall be taken to the Dead Sea; it may not be used, though the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. With the money designated for an olah they shall bring a olah; the law of sacrilege applies to it. With the money designated for the shelamim they shall bring a shelamim, and it has to be consumed within a day, but requires no bread offering.

If one has set aside money for his nazirite offerings, it may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it, as it may all be used for the shelamim. If he died and left money [for his nazirite offerings] If unspecified it shall go to the fund for voluntary offerings; If specified: The money designated for the hatats shall be taken to the Dead Sea; it may not be used, though the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. With the money designated for an olah they shall bring a olah; the law of sacrilege applies to it. With the money designated for the shelamim they shall bring a shelamim, and it has to be consumed within a day, but requires no bread offering.

If one has set aside money for his nazirite offerings, it may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it, as it may all be used for the shelamim. If he died and left money [for his nazirite offerings] If unspecified it shall go to the fund for voluntary offerings; If specified: The money designated for the hatats shall be taken to the Dead Sea; it may not be used, though the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. With the money designated for an olah they shall bring a olah; the law of sacrilege applies to it. With the money designated for the shelamim they shall bring a shelamim, and it has to be consumed within a day, but requires no bread offering.

One who was clean for the hatat waters who touched something that has madaf uncleanness, he becomes unclean. A flask that was designated for the hatat waters that touched something that has madaf uncleanness, it becomes unclean. One who was clean for the hatat waters who touched food or liquids with his hand, he becomes unclean, but if he did it with his foot he remains clean. If he moved them with his hand: Rabbi Joshua says that he becomes unclean, And the sages say that he remains clean.

They said a general rule with regard to clean food: whatever is designated as food for human consumption is susceptible to uncleanness unless it is rendered unfit to be food for a dog; And whatever is not designated as food for human consumption is not susceptible to uncleanness unless it is designated for human consumption. How so? If a pigeon fell into a wine-press and one intended to pick it out for an idolater, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness; but if he intended it for a dog it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. If a deaf mute, one not of sound senses or a minor intended it as food, it remains insusceptible. But if they picked it up it becomes susceptible; since only an act of theirs is effective while their intention is of no consequence.

They said a general rule with regard to clean food: whatever is designated as food for human consumption is susceptible to uncleanness unless it is rendered unfit to be food for a dog; And whatever is not designated as food for human consumption is not susceptible to uncleanness unless it is designated for human consumption. How so? If a pigeon fell into a wine-press and one intended to pick it out for an idolater, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness; but if he intended it for a dog it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. If a deaf mute, one not of sound senses or a minor intended it as food, it remains insusceptible. But if they picked it up it becomes susceptible; since only an act of theirs is effective while their intention is of no consequence.

They said a general rule with regard to clean food: whatever is designated as food for human consumption is susceptible to uncleanness unless it is rendered unfit to be food for a dog; And whatever is not designated as food for human consumption is not susceptible to uncleanness unless it is designated for human consumption. How so? If a pigeon fell into a wine-press and one intended to pick it out for an idolater, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness; but if he intended it for a dog it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. If a deaf mute, one not of sound senses or a minor intended it as food, it remains insusceptible. But if they picked it up it becomes susceptible; since only an act of theirs is effective while their intention is of no consequence.

There (Mishnah Qiddushin 1:7) we have stated: “Every positive commandment that is activated by time, men are obliged by it but women are exempt. Every positive commandment that is not activated by time, both men and women are obliged by it.” (Tosephta Qiddushin 1:10): “What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example sukkah, lulab, shofar, and tefillin. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles, sending away the nest, railing, and ẓiẓit. Rebbi Simeon exempts women from ẓiẓit because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Because a nightgown is exempt from ẓiẓit. Rebbi Lia said: The reason of the rebbbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs ẓiẓit.

Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: They declared oral instructions by a bedridden person equal to written and delivered ones by a healthy person, on condition that he had died from that particular sickness and that he describes the property and says, give field X to Y. If he says, half of the field to X and half to Y, is that designated? Or only if he says: the Northern half, the Southern half?

It was stated: “A group of people on the road were met by Gentiles who said to them, give us one of you that we may kill him, otherwise we shall kill all of you; even if all of them are killed they should not hand over a Jewish person. If they designated one, like Sheba ben Bikhri, they should hand him over so as not to be killed.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, on condition that he be guilty of a capital crime like Sheba ben Bikhri; but Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he is not guilty of a capital crime like Sheba ben Bikhri. Ulla bar Qoshav was proscribed by the government. He fled and went to Lydda to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. They came and surrounded the city. They said to them, if you do not hand him over to us, we shall destroy the city. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi went to him and talked him into being handed over to them. Elijah, may be be remembered for good things, used to appear to him; he stopped appearing. He fasted many fasts; he appeared to him and said, do I appear to informers? He said to him, did I not act according to a baraita? He said to him, is that a statement for the pious?

The colleagues said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it correctly, it is difficult for the rabbis! Does one not mark for the day, does he not steal in the night? Rebbi Mana said to them, following what Rebbi Ḥanina said (Job 24:16): “He dug in the darkness under houses, by day they designated for them, they did not see light.” That is what the generation of the flood did, they were making signs with balsamum resin and came to steal in the night. So did Rebbi Ḥanina preach in Sepphoris; there were 300 houses undermined.

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

The colleagues said, in the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah if he dedicated it it is dedicated; if he designated it as heave it is no heave. If he dedicated it it is dedicated, dedication of money’s worth. If he designated it as heave it is no heave, since heave was given only to be consumed. Rebbi Yose told them, the opposite is reasonable. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated; if he designated it as heave it is heave. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated, since one does not redeem sancta to feed to the dogs. If he designated it as heave it is heave, since it is pure by the words of the Torah. You are the one who decided that it has to be burned.

The colleagues said, in the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah if he dedicated it it is dedicated; if he designated it as heave it is no heave. If he dedicated it it is dedicated, dedication of money’s worth. If he designated it as heave it is no heave, since heave was given only to be consumed. Rebbi Yose told them, the opposite is reasonable. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated; if he designated it as heave it is heave. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated, since one does not redeem sancta to feed to the dogs. If he designated it as heave it is heave, since it is pure by the words of the Torah. You are the one who decided that it has to be burned.

The colleagues said, in the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah if he dedicated it it is dedicated; if he designated it as heave it is no heave. If he dedicated it it is dedicated, dedication of money’s worth. If he designated it as heave it is no heave, since heave was given only to be consumed. Rebbi Yose told them, the opposite is reasonable. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated; if he designated it as heave it is heave. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated, since one does not redeem sancta to feed to the dogs. If he designated it as heave it is heave, since it is pure by the words of the Torah. You are the one who decided that it has to be burned.

The colleagues said, in the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah if he dedicated it it is dedicated; if he designated it as heave it is no heave. If he dedicated it it is dedicated, dedication of money’s worth. If he designated it as heave it is no heave, since heave was given only to be consumed. Rebbi Yose told them, the opposite is reasonable. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated; if he designated it as heave it is heave. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated, since one does not redeem sancta to feed to the dogs. If he designated it as heave it is heave, since it is pure by the words of the Torah. You are the one who decided that it has to be burned.

It is written, but a firstling which is born first to the Eternal by a domestic animal no person can declare holy. No holiness can fall on anything holy. What does he do? He brings a profane tetradrachma and says, the monies of Second Tithe wherever they be are redeemed by this tetradrachma; this is designated as Second Tithe and the others are declared sheqalim.

Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering was presented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering. Rebbi Ze`ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for the gift account. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: “The following are not designated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings should be left to die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should be left to die, it remains not designated.” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given to the gift account.

Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering was presented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering. Rebbi Ze`ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for the gift account. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: “The following are not designated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings should be left to die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should be left to die, it remains not designated.” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given to the gift account.

Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering was presented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering. Rebbi Ze`ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for the gift account. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira: “The following are not designated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings should be left to die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should be left to die, it remains not designated.” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given to the gift account.

Rav Ḥisda said, a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. Rebbi Yose said, that is correct. You cannot sacrifice it by itself since bread cannot be brought alone. You cannot sacrifice it together with another nazir’s since no nazir sacrifices without bread. Therefore, it was necessary to say that a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. They wanted to say, the same rule applies to his leftover bread as to his leftover wine offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, his leftover wine offering is most holy; it should be given to the gift account. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Samuel, Rav Ḥisda, and Rebbi Eleazar, all three said the same. Rav Ḥisda, as quoted here. Samuel, as Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel: If he designated his sheqel and died? He said, it should be given as gift. Rebbi Eleazar: the leftover of his tenth of an ephah: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be given to the gift account..

MISHNAH: A woman who had made a vow of nazir and designated her animal when her husband dissolved her vow, if the animal was his, it leaves and grazes with the herd. But if the animal was hers, the purification offering shall die, the elevation offering shall be brought as an elevation offering, the well-being offering as a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. If she had money not designated, it should be given as a donation. If the monies were designated, the value of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, they shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, they shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread.

MISHNAH: A woman who had made a vow of nazir and designated her animal when her husband dissolved her vow, if the animal was his, it leaves and grazes with the herd. But if the animal was hers, the purification offering shall die, the elevation offering shall be brought as an elevation offering, the well-being offering as a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. If she had money not designated, it should be given as a donation. If the monies were designated, the value of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, they shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, they shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread.

MISHNAH: A woman who had made a vow of nazir and designated her animal when her husband dissolved her vow, if the animal was his, it leaves and grazes with the herd. But if the animal was hers, the purification offering shall die, the elevation offering shall be brought as an elevation offering, the well-being offering as a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. If she had money not designated, it should be given as a donation. If the monies were designated, the value of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, they shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, they shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread.

There, we have stated: “Leftovers for nezirim are for nezirim; what is left over from a nazir is for donation.” Rav Ḥisda said, only if his purification offering was presented last. But if his well-being offering waspresented last, what is left over is for a well-being offering. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even if his well-being offering was presented last, it is a general rule for a nazir that his leftover be for donation. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: “The following are undesignated monies: any which contain money for purification offerings that should die. Even if he designated money for purification offerings that should die, it remains undesignated.” A baraita supports Rav Ḥisda: “This is for my purification offering and the rest for my nezirut. Then he died. One commits larceny with all of them but not with part of them.” It does not say, when he died it should be given for donation.

Rav Ḥisda said, a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. Rebbi Yose said, that is correct. You cannot sacrifice it by itself since (reparation sacrifices) cannot be brought alone. You cannot sacrifice it together with another nazir’s since no nazir sacrifices without bread. Therefore, it was necessary to say that a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. They wanted to say, the same rule applies to his leftover bread as to his leftover wine offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, his leftover wine offering is most holy; it should be given to donation accounts. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Samuel, Rav Ḥisda, and Rebbi Eleazar, all three said the same. Rav Ḥisda, as quoted here. Samuel, as Rebbi Yasa said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking our teacher Samuel: If he designated his sheqel and died? He said, it should be given as donation. The leftover of his tenth of an epha: Rebbi Joḥanan said, he should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be given as donation.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Money can be non-designated, no animal can be non-designated. Rav Sheshet said, it was stated thus: “I might think that one could not satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with an animal which he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he cannot shave for his nezirut with his father’s animal; but he could satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with money he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he can shave on money for his nezirut, any time it is not designated, but not if it is designated. The verse says, ‘his sacrifice’, he can only satisfy his obligation with his sacrifice, not with his father’s sacrifice.” Talking about money, one mentions “not designated”.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Money can be non-designated, no animal can be non-designated. Rav Sheshet said, it was stated thus: “I might think that one could not satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with an animal which he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he cannot shave for his nezirut with his father’s animal; but he could satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with money he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he can shave on money for his nezirut, any time it is not designated, but not if it is designated. The verse says, ‘his sacrifice’, he can only satisfy his obligation with his sacrifice, not with his father’s sacrifice.” Talking about money, one mentions “not designated”.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Money can be non-designated, no animal can be non-designated. Rav Sheshet said, it was stated thus: “I might think that one could not satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with an animal which he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he cannot shave for his nezirut with his father’s animal; but he could satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with money he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he can shave on money for his nezirut, any time it is not designated, but not if it is designated. The verse says, ‘his sacrifice’, he can only satisfy his obligation with his sacrifice, not with his father’s sacrifice.” Talking about money, one mentions “not designated”.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Money can be non-designated, no animal can be non-designated. Rav Sheshet said, it was stated thus: “I might think that one could not satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with an animal which he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he cannot shave for his nezirut with his father’s animal; but he could satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with money he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he can shave on money for his nezirut, any time it is not designated, but not if it is designated. The verse says, ‘his sacrifice’, he can only satisfy his obligation with his sacrifice, not with his father’s sacrifice.” Talking about money, one mentions “not designated”.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Money can be non-designated, no animal can be non-designated. Rav Sheshet said, it was stated thus: “I might think that one could not satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with an animal which he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he cannot shave for his nezirut with his father’s animal; but he could satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with money he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he can shave on money for his nezirut, any time it is not designated, but not if it is designated. The verse says, ‘his sacrifice’, he can only satisfy his obligation with his sacrifice, not with his father’s sacrifice.” Talking about money, one mentions “not designated”.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

An animal is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, but it is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end. Money is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation.” An animal is subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he brought three animals but did not explain.” They are subject to the rules of the non-designated at the beginning, as we have stated: “ ‘These are for my purification offering, the remainder is for the rest of my nezirut’, when he died. One commits larceny about all but one cannot commit larceny about a part.” It is not subject to the rules of the non-designated at the end, when he brought money and redeemed it for an animal. If he designated a donkey, it is as if he designated money. If he designated an ox, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Julianus, both speak in Shammai’s name. One says, he is like one who designates money; the other says, he is like one who designates an animal.

MISHNAH: A man can declare his son a nazir but a woman cannot declare her son a nazir. How is this? If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested, if he had designated animals, the purification offering shall die; the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering; the well-being offering shall be brought as elevation offering; it may be eaten for one day and does not need bread. If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation. If the monies were designated, the money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, he shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, he shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. A man may shave on the basis of his father’s nezirut, but a woman may not shave on the basis of her father’s nezirut. How is this? If his father was a nazir and had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died, and he said, I am a nazir on condition that I may shave on my father’s money, Rebbi Yose said, the money shall be given as donation, for he cannot shave on his father’s money. Who may shave based on his father’s nezirut? If both he and his father were nezirim and his father had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died; this one shaves on his father’s nezirut.

MISHNAH: A man can declare his son a nazir but a woman cannot declare her son a nazir. How is this? If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested, if he had designated animals, the purification offering shall die; the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering; the well-being offering shall be brought as elevation offering; it may be eaten for one day and does not need bread. If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation. If the monies were designated, the money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, he shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, he shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. A man may shave on the basis of his father’s nezirut, but a woman may not shave on the basis of her father’s nezirut. How is this? If his father was a nazir and had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died, and he said, I am a nazir on condition that I may shave on my father’s money, Rebbi Yose said, the money shall be given as donation, for he cannot shave on his father’s money. Who may shave based on his father’s nezirut? If both he and his father were nezirim and his father had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died; this one shaves on his father’s nezirut.

MISHNAH: A man can declare his son a nazir but a woman cannot declare her son a nazir. How is this? If he shaved him or relatives shaved him; if he protested or relatives protested, if he had designated animals, the purification offering shall die; the elevation offering shall be brought as elevation offering; the well-being offering shall be brought as elevation offering; it may be eaten for one day and does not need bread. If he had money not designated, it should be given as donation. If the monies were designated, the money’s worth of the purification offering shall be thrown into the Dead Sea; one may not use it but there can be no larceny. For the value of the elevation offering, he shall bring an elevation offering; it is subject to the law of larceny. For the value of the well-being offering, he shall bring a well-being offering, to be eaten on one day; it does not need bread. A man may shave on the basis of his father’s nezirut, but a woman may not shave on the basis of her father’s nezirut. How is this? If his father was a nazir and had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died, and he said, I am a nazir on condition that I may shave on my father’s money, Rebbi Yose said, the money shall be given as donation, for he cannot shave on his father’s money. Who may shave based on his father’s nezirut? If both he and his father were nezirim and his father had set aside unspecified money for his nezirut when he died; this one shaves on his father’s nezirut.