obligation

All hail, ye sons and daughters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved us in peace. Seeing that the divine fruits of righteousness abound among you, I rejoice exceedingly and above measure in your happy and honoured spirits, because ye have with such effect received the engrafted spiritual gift. Wherefore also I inwardly rejoice the more, hoping to be saved, because I truly perceive in you the Spirit poured forth from the rich Lord of love. Your greatly desired appearance has thus filled me with astonishment over you. I am therefore persuaded of this, and fully convinced in my own mind, that since I began to speak among you I understand many things, because the Lord hath accompanied me in the way of righteousness. I am also on this account bound by the strictest obligation to love you above my own soul, because great are the faith and love dwelling in you, while you hope for the life which He has promised. Considering this, therefore, that if I should take the trouble to communicate to you some portion of what I have myself received, it will prove to me a sufficient reward that I minister to such spirits, I have hastened briefly to write unto you, in order that, along with your faith, ye might have perfect knowledge. The doctrines of the Lord, then, are three: the hope of life, the beginning and the completion of it. For the Lord hath made known to us by the prophets both the things which are past and present, giving us also the first-fruits of the knowledge of things to come, which things as we see accomplished, one by one, we ought with the greater richness of faith and elevation of spirit to draw near to Him with reverence. I then, not as your teacher, but as one of yourselves, will set forth a few things by which in present circumstances ye may be rendered the more joyful.

I Suppose that by my books of the Antiquity of the Jews, most excellent Epaphroditus, have made it evident to those who peruse them, that our Jewish nation is of very great antiquity, and had a distinct subsistence of its own originally; as also, I have therein declared how we came to inhabit this country wherein we now live. Those Antiquities contain the history of five thousand years, and are taken out of our sacred books, but are translated by me into the Greek tongue. However, since I observe a considerable number of people giving ear to the reproaches that are laid against us by those who bear ill-will to us, and will not believe what I have written concerning the antiquity of our nation, while they take it for a plain sign that our nation is of a late date, because they are not so much as vouchsafed a bare mention by the most famous historiographers among the Grecians. I therefore have thought myself under an obligation to write somewhat briefly about these subjects, in order to convict those that reproach us of spite and voluntary falsehood, and to correct the ignorance of others, and withal to instruct all those who are desirous of knowing the truth of what great antiquity we really are. As for the witnesses whom I shall produce for the proof of what I say, they shall be such as are esteemed to be of the greatest reputation for truth, and the most skillful in the knowledge of all antiquity by the Greeks themselves. I will also show, that those who have written so reproachfully and falsely about us are to be convicted by what they have written themselves to the contrary. I shall also endeavor to give an account of the reasons why it hath so happened, that there have not been a great number of Greeks who have made mention of our nation in their histories. I will, however, bring those Grecians to light who have not omitted such our history, for the sake of those that either do not know them, or pretend not to know them already.

And now I will turn my discourse to one of their principal writers, whom I have a little before made use of as a witness to our antiquity; I mean Manetho. He promised to interpret the Egyptian history out of their sacred writings, and premised this: that "our people had come into Egypt, many ten thousands in number, and subdued its inhabitants;" and when he had further confessed that "we went out of that country afterward, and settled in that country which is now called Judea, and there built Jerusalem and its temple." Now thus far he followed his ancient records; but after this he permits himself, in order to appear to have written what rumors and reports passed abroad about the Jews, and introduces incredible narrations, as if he would have the Egyptian multitude, that had the leprosy and other distempers, to have been mixed with us, as he says they were, and that they were condemned to fly out of Egypt together; for he mentions Amenophis, a fictitious king's name, though on that account he durst not set down the number of years of his reign, which yet he had accurately done as to the other kings he mentions; he then ascribes certain fabulous stories to this king, as having in a manner forgotten how he had already related that the departure of the shepherds for Jerusalem had been five hundred and eighteen years before; for Tethmosis was king when they went away. Now, from his days, the reigns of the intermediate kings, according to Manethe, amounted to three hundred and ninety-three years, as he says himself, till the two brothers Sethos and Hermeus; the one of whom, Sethos, was called by that other name of Egyptus, and the other, Hermeus, by that of Danaus. He also says that Sethos east the other out of Egypt, and reigned fifty-nine years, as did his eldest son Rhampses reign after him sixty-six years. When Manethe therefore had acknowledged that our forefathers were gone out of Egypt so many years ago, he introduces his fictitious king Amenophis, and says thus: "This king was desirous to become a spectator of the gods, as had Orus, one of his predecessors in that kingdom, desired the same before him; he also communicated that his desire to his namesake Amenophis, who was the son of Papis, and one that seemed to partake of a divine nature, both as to wisdom and the knowledge of futurities." Manethe adds, "how this namesake of his told him that he might see the gods, if he would clear the whole country of the lepers and of the other impure people; that the king was pleased with this injunction, and got together all that had any defect in their bodies out of Egypt; and that their number was eighty thousand; whom he sent to those quarries which are on the east side of the Nile, that they might work in them, and might be separated from the rest of the Egyptians." He says further, that "there were some of the learned priests that were polluted with the leprosy; but that still this Amenophis, the wise man and the prophet, was afraid that the gods would be angry at him and at the king, if there should appear to have been violence offered them; who also added this further, [out of his sagacity about futurities,] that certain people would come to the assistance of these polluted wretches, and would conquer Egypt, and keep it in their possession thirteen years; that, however, he durst not tell the king of these things, but that he left a writing behind him about all those matters, and then slew himself, which made the king disconsolate." After which he writes thus verbatim: "After those that were sent to work in the quarries had continued in that miserable state for a long while, the king was desired that he would set apart the city Avaris, which was then left desolate of the shepherds, for their habitation and protection; which desire he granted them. Now this city, according to the ancient theology, was Typho's city. But when these men were gotten into it, and found the place fit for a revolt, they appointed themselves a ruler out of the priests of Hellopolis, whose name was Osarsiph, and they took their oaths that they would be obedient to him in all things. He then, in the first place, made this law for them, That they should neither worship the Egyptian gods, nor should abstain from any one of those sacred animals which they have in the highest esteem, but kill and destroy them all; that they should join themselves to nobody but to those that were of this confederacy. When he had made such laws as these, and many more such as were mainly opposite to the customs of the Egyptians, he gave order that they should use the multitude of the hands they had in building walls about their City, and make themselves ready for a war with king Amenophis, while he did himself take into his friendship the other priests, and those that were polluted with them, and sent ambassadors to those shepherds who had been driven out of the land by Tefilmosis to the city called Jerusalem; whereby he informed them of his own affairs, and of the state of those others that had been treated after such an ignominious manner, and desired that they would come with one consent to his assistance in this war against Egypt. He also promised that he would, in the first place, bring them back to their ancient city and country Avaris, and provide a plentiful maintenance for their multitude; that he would protect them and fight for them as occasion should require, and would easily reduce the country under their dominion. These shepherds were all very glad of this message, and came away with alacrity all together, being in number two hundred thousand men; and in a little time they came to Avaris. And now Amenophis the king of Egypt, upon his being informed of their invasion, was in great confusion, as calling to mind what Amenophis, the son of Papis, had foretold him; and, in the first place, he assembled the multitude of the Egyptians, and took counsel with their leaders, and sent for their sacred animals to him, especially for those that were principally worshipped in their temples, and gave a particular charge to the priests distinctly, that they should hide the images of their gods with the utmost care he also sent his son Sethos, who was also named Ramesses, from his father Rhampses, being but five years old, to a friend of his. He then passed on with the rest of the Egyptians, being three hundred thousand of the most warlike of them, against the enemy, who met them. Yet did he not join battle with them; but thinking that would be to fight against the gods, he returned back and came to Memphis, where he took Apis and the other sacred animals which he had sent for to him, and presently marched into Ethiopia, together with his whole army and multitude of Egyptians; for the king of Ethiopia was under an obligation to him, on which account he received him, and took care of all the multitude that was with him, while the country supplied all that was necessary for the food of the men. He also allotted cities and villages for this exile, that was to be from its beginning during those fatally determined thirteen years. Moreover, he pitched a camp for his Ethiopian army, as a guard to king Amenophis, upon the borders of Egypt. And this was the state of things in Ethiopia. But for the people of Jerusalem, when they came down together with the polluted Egyptians, they treated the men in such a barbarous manner, that those who saw how they subdued the forementioned country, and the horrid wickedness they were guilty of, thought it a most dreadful thing; for they did not only set the cities and villages on fire but were not satisfied till they had been guilty of sacrilege, and destroyed the images of the gods, and used them in roasting those sacred animals that used to be worshipped, and forced the priests and prophets to be the executioners and murderers of those animals, and then ejected them naked out of the country. It was also reported that the priest, who ordained their polity and their laws, was by birth of Hellopolls, and his name Osarsiph, from Osyris, who was the god of Hellopolls; but that when he was gone over to these people, his name was changed, and he was called Moses."

Having sketched, then, so far as we could understand, these three opinions regarding the end of all things, and the supreme blessedness, let each one of our readers determine for himself, with care and diligence, whether any one of them can be approved and adopted. For it has been said that we must suppose either that an incorporeal existence is possible, after all things have become subject to Christ, and through Christ to God the Father, when God will be all and in all; or that when, notwithstanding all things have been made subject to Christ, and through Christ to God (with whom they formed also one spirit, in respect of spirits being rational natures), then the bodily substance itself also being united to most pure and excellent spirits, and being changed into an ethereal condition in proportion to the quality or merits of those who assume it (according to the apostle’s words, “We also shall be changed”), will shine forth in splendour; or at least that when the fashion of those things which are seen passes away, and all corruption has been shaken off and cleansed away, and when the whole of the space occupied by this world, in which the spheres of the planets are said to be, has been left behind and beneath, then is reached the fixed abode of the pious and the good situated above that sphere, which is called non-wandering (ἀπλανής), as in a good land, in a land of the living, which will be inherited by the meek and gentle; to which land belongs that heaven (which, with its more magnificent extent, surrounds and contains that land itself) which is called truly and chiefly heaven, in which heaven and earth, the end and perfection of all things, may be safely and most confidently placed,—where, viz., these, after their apprehension and their chastisement for the offences which they have undergone by way of purgation, may, after having fulfilled and discharged every obligation, deserve a habitation in that land; while those who have been obedient to the word of God, and have henceforth by their obedience shown themselves capable of wisdom, are said to deserve the kingdom of that heaven or heavens; and thus the prediction is more worthily fulfilled, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth;” and, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven;” and the declaration in the Psalm, “He shall exalt thee, and thou shalt inherit the land.” For it is called a descent to this earth, but an exaltation to that which is on high. In this way, therefore, does a sort of road seem to be opened up by the departure of the saints from that earth to those heavens; so that they do not so much appear to abide in that land, as to inhabit it with an intention, viz., to pass on to the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, when they have reached that degree of perfection also.

To the best of our ability, therefore, as in a treatise of this nature, we have answered the objection, that “if Jesus had really wished to manifest his divine power, he ought to have shown himself to those who ill-treated him, and to the judge who condemned him, and to all without reservation.” There was, however, no obligation on Him to appear either to the judge who condemned Him, or to those who ill-treated Him. For Jesus spared both the one and the other, that they might not be smitten with blindness, as the men of Sodom were when they conspired against the beauty of the angels entertained by Lot. And here is the account of the matter: “But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men who were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door.” Jesus, accordingly, wished to show that His power was divine to each one who was capable of seeing it, and according to the measure of His capability. And I do not suppose that He guarded against being seen on any other ground than from a regard to the fitness of those who were incapable of seeing Him. And it is in vain for Celsus to add, “For he had no longer occasion to fear any man after his death, being, as you say, a God; nor was he sent into the world at all for the purpose of being hid.” Yet He was sent into the world not only to become known, but also to be hid. For all that He was, was not known even to those to whom He was known, but a certain part of Him remained concealed even from them; and to some He was not known at all. And He opened the gates of light to those who were the sons of darkness and of night, and had devoted themselves to becoming the sons of light and of the day. For our Saviour Lord, like a good physician, came rather to us who were full of sins, than to those who were righteous.

We acknowledge, however, although Celsus will not have it so, that we do desire to instruct all men in the word of God, so as to give to young men the exhortations which are appropriate to them, and to show to slaves how they may recover freedom of thought, and be ennobled by the word. And those amongst us who are the ambassadors of Christianity sufficiently declare that they are debtors to Greeks and barbarians, to wise men and fools, (for they do not deny their obligation to cure the souls even of foolish persons,) in order that as far as possible they may lay aside their ignorance, and endeavour to obtain greater prudence, by listening also to the words of Solomon: “Oh, ye fools, be of an understanding heart,” and “Who is the most simple among you, let him turn unto me;” and wisdom exhorts those who are devoid of understanding in the words, “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mixed for you. Forsake folly that ye may live, and correct understanding in knowledge.” This too would I say (seeing it bears on the point), in answer to the statement of Celsus: Do not philosophers invite young men to their lectures? and do they not encourage young men to exchange a wicked life for a better? and do they not desire slaves to learn philosophy? Must we find fault, then, with philosophers who have exhorted slaves to the practice of virtue? with Pythagoras for having so done with Zamolxis, Zeno with Perseus, and with those who recently encouraged Epictetus to the study of philosophy? Is it indeed permissible for you, O Greeks, to call youths and slaves and foolish persons to the study of philosophy, but if we do so, we do not act from philanthropic motives in wishing to heal every rational nature with the medicine of reason, and to bring them into fellowship with God, the Creator of all things? These remarks, then, may suffice in answer to what are slanders rather than accusations on the part of Celsus.

We have now, then, to refute that statement of his which runs as follows: “O Jews and Christians, no God or son of a God either came or will come down [to earth]. But if you mean that certain angels did so, then what do you call them? Are they gods, or some other race of beings? Some other race of beings [doubtless], and in all probability demons.” Now as Celsus here is guilty of repeating himself (for in the preceding pages such assertions have been frequently advanced by him), it is unnecessary to discuss the matter at greater length, seeing what we have already said upon this point may suffice. We shall mention, however, a few considerations out of a greater number, such as we deem in harmony with our former arguments, but which have not altogether the same bearing as they, and by which we shall show that in asserting generally that no God, or son of God, ever descended [among men], he overturns not only the opinions entertained by the majority of mankind regarding the manifestation of Deity, but also what was formerly admitted by himself. For if the general statement, that “no God or son of God has come down or will come down,” be truly maintained by Celsus, it is manifest that we have here overthrown the belief in the existence of gods upon the earth who had descended from heaven either to predict the future to mankind or to heal them by means of divine responses; and neither the Pythian Apollo, nor Esculapius, nor any other among those supposed to have done so, would be a god descended from heaven. He might, indeed, either be a god who had obtained as his lot [the obligation] to dwell on earth for ever, and be thus a fugitive, as it were, from the abode of the gods, or he might be one who had no power to share in the society of the gods in heaven; or else Apollo, and Esculapius, and those others who are believed to perform acts on earth, would not be gods, but only certain demons, much inferior to those wise men among mankind, who on account of their virtue ascend to the vault of heaven.

The argument of Celsus appears to point by these illustrations to this conclusion: that it is “an obligation incumbent on all men to live according to their country’s customs, in which case they will escape censure; whereas the Christians, who have abandoned their native usages, and who are not one nation like the Jews, are to be blamed for giving their adherence to the teaching of Jesus.” Let him then tell us whether it is a becoming thing for philosophers, and those who have been taught not to yield to superstition, to abandon their country’s customs, so as to eat of those articles of food which are prohibited in their respective cities? or whether this proceeding of theirs is opposed to what is becoming? For if, on account of their philosophy, and the instructions which they have received against superstition, they should eat, in disregard of their native laws, what was interdicted by their fathers, why should the Christians (since the gospel requires them not to busy themselves about statues and images, or even about any of the created works of God, but to ascend on high, and present the soul to the Creator), when acting in a similar manner to the philosophers, be censured for so doing? But if, for the sake of defending the theses which he has proposed to himself, Celsus, or those who think with him, should say, that even one who had studied philosophy would keep his country’s laws, then philosophers in Egypt, for example, would act most ridiculously in avoiding the eating of onions, in order to observe their country’s laws, or certain parts of the body, as the head and shoulders, in order not to transgress the traditions of their fathers. And I do not speak of those Egyptians who shudder with fear at the discharge of wind from the body, because if any one of these were to become a philosopher, and still observe the laws of his country, he would be a ridiculous philosopher, acting very unphilosophically. In the same way, then, he who has been led by the gospel to worship the God of all things, and, from regard to his country’s laws, lingers here below among images and statues of men, and does not desire to ascend to the Creator, will resemble those who have indeed learned philosophy, but who are afraid of things which ought to inspire no terrors, and who regard it as an act of impiety to eat of those things which have been enumerated.

Y6obal (Jubal) and Tébalkin (Tubal-Cain), the two brethren, the sons of Lamech, the blind man, who killed Cain, invented and made all kinds of instruments of music. Jébal made reed instruments, and harps, and flutes, and whistles, and the devils went and dwelt inside them. When men blew into the pipes, the devils sang inside them, and sent out sounds from inside them. Tébalkin made cymbals, and sistra, and tambourines (or drums). And lasciviousness and fornication increased among the children of Cain, and they had nothing to occupy them except fornication—now they had no obligation [to pay] tribute, and they had neither prince nor governor—and eating, and drinking, and lasciviousness, and drunkenness, and dancing and singing to instruments of music, and the wanton sportings of the devils, and the laughter which affordeth pleasure to the devils, and the sounds of the furious lust of men neighing after women. And Satan, finding [his] opportunity in this work of error, rejoiced greatly, because thereby he could compel the sons of Seth to come down from that holy mountain. There they had been made to occupy the place of that army [of angels] that fell [with Satan], there they were beloved by God, there they were held in honour by the angels, and were called ‘‘ sons of God,” even as the blessed David saith in the psalm, “I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High.” (Ps. Ixxxii. 6.)

If one was reading in the Torah [the section of the Shema] and the time for its recital arrived, if he directed his heart [to fulfill the mitzvah] he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. In the breaks [between sections] one may give greeting out of respect and return greeting; in the middle [of a section] one may give greeting out of fear and return it, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: in the middle one may give greeting out of fear and return it out of respect, in the breaks one may give greeting out of respect and return greeting to anyone.

If one was reading in the Torah [the section of the Shema] and the time for its recital arrived, if he directed his heart [to fulfill the mitzvah] he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. In the breaks [between sections] one may give greeting out of respect and return greeting; in the middle [of a section] one may give greeting out of fear and return it, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: in the middle one may give greeting out of fear and return it out of respect, in the breaks one may give greeting out of respect and return greeting to anyone.

One who recites the Shema without causing it to be heard by his own ear, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yose says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited it without pronouncing the letters succinctly, Rabbi Yose says he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recites it out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recites it and makes a mistake he goes back to the place where he made the mistake.

One who recites the Shema without causing it to be heard by his own ear, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yose says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited it without pronouncing the letters succinctly, Rabbi Yose says he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recites it out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recites it and makes a mistake he goes back to the place where he made the mistake.

One who recites the Shema without causing it to be heard by his own ear, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yose says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited it without pronouncing the letters succinctly, Rabbi Yose says he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recites it out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recites it and makes a mistake he goes back to the place where he made the mistake.

One who recites the Shema without causing it to be heard by his own ear, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yose says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited it without pronouncing the letters succinctly, Rabbi Yose says he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recites it out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recites it and makes a mistake he goes back to the place where he made the mistake.

One who recites the Shema without causing it to be heard by his own ear, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yose says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recited it without pronouncing the letters succinctly, Rabbi Yose says he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recites it out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he recites it and makes a mistake he goes back to the place where he made the mistake.

If one blessed over fruit of the tree the blessing, “Who creates the fruit of the ground,” he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he said over produce from the ground, “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” he has not fulfilled his obligation. If over anything he says “By Whose word all things exist”, he has fulfilled his obligation.

If one blessed over fruit of the tree the blessing, “Who creates the fruit of the ground,” he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he said over produce from the ground, “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” he has not fulfilled his obligation. If over anything he says “By Whose word all things exist”, he has fulfilled his obligation.

If one blessed over fruit of the tree the blessing, “Who creates the fruit of the ground,” he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he said over produce from the ground, “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” he has not fulfilled his obligation. If over anything he says “By Whose word all things exist”, he has fulfilled his obligation.

A field harvested by gentiles, or harvested by robbers, or which ants have bitten [the stalks at the roots], or which wind and cattle have broken down, is exempt from peah. If [the owner] harvested half of it and robbers harvested half, it is exempt from peah, for the obligation of peah is in the standing grain.

If one has eaten of [these five] on Pesah an olive-size piece of matzah, he has fulfilled his obligation. [If he ate on Pesah] an olive-size of piece of hametz [made of these grains], he is liable for karet. If one of these [grains, having become leavened,] became mixed with any other species, one must remove it on Pesah. If one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] bread and tevuah (produce), he is prohibited from consuming these [five species] the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: if one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] dagan, is prohibited only from [consuming] these [species] only. They are subject to hallah and tithes.

Dough for dogs: If shepherds eat it: it is subject to hallah, and one may use it to make an eruv or a shittuf; and one should say the blessings over it, and one should make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may be made on a festival; and one fulfills his obligation with it on Pesah. But if shepherds do not eat it: it is not subject to hallah; and one may not use it to make an eruv, or a shittuf; and one does not say the blessings over it, and one does not make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may not be made on a festival; and one does not fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. In either case it is susceptible to ritual defilement affecting food.

Dough for dogs: If shepherds eat it: it is subject to hallah, and one may use it to make an eruv or a shittuf; and one should say the blessings over it, and one should make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may be made on a festival; and one fulfills his obligation with it on Pesah. But if shepherds do not eat it: it is not subject to hallah; and one may not use it to make an eruv, or a shittuf; and one does not say the blessings over it, and one does not make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may not be made on a festival; and one does not fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. In either case it is susceptible to ritual defilement affecting food.

[If] she dedicated her dough [to the Temple] before rolling it, and then redeemed it, it is subject [to hallah]. [If she dedicated it] after rolling it, and redeemed it, it is subject [to hallah]. [But if] she dedicated it before rolling it, and the Temple treasurer rolled it, and after that she redeemed it, it is exempt, since at the time of its obligation it was exempt.

One who makes dough from wheat [flour] and from rice [flour] if it has a taste of grain, it is subject to hallah, and one can fulfill one’s obligation with it on Pesah. But if it does not have the taste of grain, it is not subject to hallah, and one cannot fulfill with it one’s obligation on Pesah.

One who makes dough from wheat [flour] and from rice [flour] if it has a taste of grain, it is subject to hallah, and one can fulfill one’s obligation with it on Pesah. But if it does not have the taste of grain, it is not subject to hallah, and one cannot fulfill with it one’s obligation on Pesah.

Ben Antigonus brought up firstlings from Babylon, but they did not accept from him. Joseph the priest brought first fruits of wine and oil, but they did not accept from him. He also brought up his sons and members of his household to celebrate Pesah katan in Jerusalem, but they turned him back, so that the thing should not become firmly fixed as an obligation. Ariston brought his first fruits from Apamea and they accepted from him, because they said, one who buys [a field] in Syria is as one who buys [a field] in the outskirts of Jerusalem.

If a non-Jew comes to extinguish, they do not say to him, “extinguish it” or “do not extinguish,” because his resting is not their obligation. But if a minor comes to extinguish, they must not listen to him, because his resting is their obligation.

If a non-Jew comes to extinguish, they do not say to him, “extinguish it” or “do not extinguish,” because his resting is not their obligation. But if a minor comes to extinguish, they must not listen to him, because his resting is their obligation.

These are the things with which they fulfill their obligation on Pesah: with wheat, with barley, with spelt, with rye, and with oats. And they fulfill [the obligation] with demai, with first tithe whose terumah has been separated, and with second tithe or sanctified property which have been redeemed; And priests [can fulfill their obligation] with hallah and terumah. But not with untithed produce, nor with first tithe whose terumah has not been separated, nor with second tithe or sanctified property which have not been redeemed. Loaves of the thanksgiving offering and the wafers of a nazirite: If he made them for himself, they cannot fulfill [their obligation] with them; If he made them to sell in the market, they can fulfill [their obligation] with them.

These are the things with which they fulfill their obligation on Pesah: with wheat, with barley, with spelt, with rye, and with oats. And they fulfill [the obligation] with demai, with first tithe whose terumah has been separated, and with second tithe or sanctified property which have been redeemed; And priests [can fulfill their obligation] with hallah and terumah. But not with untithed produce, nor with first tithe whose terumah has not been separated, nor with second tithe or sanctified property which have not been redeemed. Loaves of the thanksgiving offering and the wafers of a nazirite: If he made them for himself, they cannot fulfill [their obligation] with them; If he made them to sell in the market, they can fulfill [their obligation] with them.

These are the things with which they fulfill their obligation on Pesah: with wheat, with barley, with spelt, with rye, and with oats. And they fulfill [the obligation] with demai, with first tithe whose terumah has been separated, and with second tithe or sanctified property which have been redeemed; And priests [can fulfill their obligation] with hallah and terumah. But not with untithed produce, nor with first tithe whose terumah has not been separated, nor with second tithe or sanctified property which have not been redeemed. Loaves of the thanksgiving offering and the wafers of a nazirite: If he made them for himself, they cannot fulfill [their obligation] with them; If he made them to sell in the market, they can fulfill [their obligation] with them.

These are the things with which they fulfill their obligation on Pesah: with wheat, with barley, with spelt, with rye, and with oats. And they fulfill [the obligation] with demai, with first tithe whose terumah has been separated, and with second tithe or sanctified property which have been redeemed; And priests [can fulfill their obligation] with hallah and terumah. But not with untithed produce, nor with first tithe whose terumah has not been separated, nor with second tithe or sanctified property which have not been redeemed. Loaves of the thanksgiving offering and the wafers of a nazirite: If he made them for himself, they cannot fulfill [their obligation] with them; If he made them to sell in the market, they can fulfill [their obligation] with them.

These are the things with which they fulfill their obligation on Pesah: with wheat, with barley, with spelt, with rye, and with oats. And they fulfill [the obligation] with demai, with first tithe whose terumah has been separated, and with second tithe or sanctified property which have been redeemed; And priests [can fulfill their obligation] with hallah and terumah. But not with untithed produce, nor with first tithe whose terumah has not been separated, nor with second tithe or sanctified property which have not been redeemed. Loaves of the thanksgiving offering and the wafers of a nazirite: If he made them for himself, they cannot fulfill [their obligation] with them; If he made them to sell in the market, they can fulfill [their obligation] with them.

And these are the herbs with which one discharges his obligation on Pesah: with lettuce [hazaret]; with chicory [olshin]; with wild chicory [tamkah]; with picridium [harhavina], and with sonchus [maror]. They fulfill their obligation whether they are moist or dry, but not preserved [in vinegar], nor stewed nor boiled. And they combine to the size of an olive. And they fulfill their obligation with their stalk[s]. And with demai, and with first tithe from which terumah has been separated, and second tithe and sacred property which have been redeemed.

And these are the herbs with which one discharges his obligation on Pesah: with lettuce [hazaret]; with chicory [olshin]; with wild chicory [tamkah]; with picridium [harhavina], and with sonchus [maror]. They fulfill their obligation whether they are moist or dry, but not preserved [in vinegar], nor stewed nor boiled. And they combine to the size of an olive. And they fulfill their obligation with their stalk[s]. And with demai, and with first tithe from which terumah has been separated, and second tithe and sacred property which have been redeemed.

And these are the herbs with which one discharges his obligation on Pesah: with lettuce [hazaret]; with chicory [olshin]; with wild chicory [tamkah]; with picridium [harhavina], and with sonchus [maror]. They fulfill their obligation whether they are moist or dry, but not preserved [in vinegar], nor stewed nor boiled. And they combine to the size of an olive. And they fulfill their obligation with their stalk[s]. And with demai, and with first tithe from which terumah has been separated, and second tithe and sacred property which have been redeemed.

He who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah said: we had the custom to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders, and they didn’t say anything to us. Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabban Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed. And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.

He who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah said: we had the custom to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders, and they didn’t say anything to us. Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabban Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed. And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.

If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday]. The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it, since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.” But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow.

If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday]. The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it, since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.” But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow.

How was the water libation [performed]? A golden flask holding three logs was filled from the Shiloah. When they arrived at the water gate, they sounded a teki'ah [long blast], a teru'ah [a staccato note] and again a teki'ah. [The priest then] went up the ascent [of the altar] and turned to his left where there were two silver bowls. Rabbi Judah says: they were of plaster [but they looked silver] because their surfaces were darkened from the wine. They had each a hole like a slender snout, one being wide and the other narrow so that both emptied at the same time. The one on the west was for water and the one on the east for wine. If he poured the flask of water into the bowl for wine, or that of wine into that for water, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah says: with one log he performed the ceremony of the water-libation all eight days. To [the priest] who performed the libation they used to say, “Raise your hand”, for one time, a certain man poured out the water over his feet, and all the people pelted him with their etrogs.

One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo [also], he has not fulfilled his obligation. And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah [being read], if he directed his heart (had intention), then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not.

One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo [also], he has not fulfilled his obligation. And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah [being read], if he directed his heart (had intention), then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not.

One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo [also], he has not fulfilled his obligation. And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah [being read], if he directed his heart (had intention), then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not.

One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo [also], he has not fulfilled his obligation. And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah [being read], if he directed his heart (had intention), then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not.

“And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand Israel prevailed” etc. (Exodus 17:1. Did the hands of Moses wage war or break [Israel’s ability] to wage war? Rather this teaches that as long as Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven they prevailed, and if not they fell. Similarly, “Make for yourself a fiery serpent and mount it on a pole. And if anyone who is bitten shall look at it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8). Did the serpent kill or did the serpent keep alive? Rather, when Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven, they were healed, and if not their [flesh] would melt away. A deaf-mute, a lunatic and a minor cannot cause others to fulfill their religious obligation. This is the general principle: one who is not himself obligated in the matter cannot perform it on behalf of others.

They do not recite less than ten kingship [verses], ten remembrance [verses], and ten shofar [verses]. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: if he said three from each set he has fulfilled his obligation. They do not mention kingship, remembrance and shofar verses of punishment. He begins with [verses] from the Torah and concludes with [verses] from the prophets. Rabbi Yose says: if he concludes with [a verse] from the Torah he has fulfilled his obligation.

They do not recite less than ten kingship [verses], ten remembrance [verses], and ten shofar [verses]. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: if he said three from each set he has fulfilled his obligation. They do not mention kingship, remembrance and shofar verses of punishment. He begins with [verses] from the Torah and concludes with [verses] from the prophets. Rabbi Yose says: if he concludes with [a verse] from the Torah he has fulfilled his obligation.

[For the sake of] the shofar of Rosh Hashanah one is not allowed to go past the [Shabbat] border, nor remove a pile of rocks, nor climb a tree, nor ride on an animal, nor swim on the water. One may not cut it, neither with an instrument forbidden because of shevut, nor with an instrument forbidden by a negative commandment. But if he wants to pour wine or water into it he may do so. They need not prevent children from blowing the shofar [on Rosh Hashanah]; on the contrary, they may help them until they learn how to blow. One who is just practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, and the one hears [the blast made] by another when practicing has not fulfilled his obligation.

[For the sake of] the shofar of Rosh Hashanah one is not allowed to go past the [Shabbat] border, nor remove a pile of rocks, nor climb a tree, nor ride on an animal, nor swim on the water. One may not cut it, neither with an instrument forbidden because of shevut, nor with an instrument forbidden by a negative commandment. But if he wants to pour wine or water into it he may do so. They need not prevent children from blowing the shofar [on Rosh Hashanah]; on the contrary, they may help them until they learn how to blow. One who is just practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, and the one hears [the blast made] by another when practicing has not fulfilled his obligation.

The order of the blasts: three sets of three each. The length of a teki’ah is equal to three teru'ahs, and the length of a teru'ah is equal to three yevavot. If one prolonged the first teki'ah so that it went directly into the second, it counts only as one. One who has blessed [recited the Amidah] and then a shofar is given to him, he sounds a teki'ah teru'ah teki'ah three times. Just as the shaliah tzibbur is obligated, so every single individual is obligated. Rabban Gamaliel says: the shaliah tzibbur (communal prayer leader) causes the whole congregation to fulfill their obligation.

If one reads the Megillah out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he reads it by heart, if he reads it in a translation [targum], or in any other language, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But they may read it to those who do not understand Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. One who doesn’t understand Hebrew who heard it in Assyrian [Hebrew], has fulfilled his obligation.

If one reads the Megillah out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he reads it by heart, if he reads it in a translation [targum], or in any other language, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But they may read it to those who do not understand Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. One who doesn’t understand Hebrew who heard it in Assyrian [Hebrew], has fulfilled his obligation.

If one reads the Megillah out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he reads it by heart, if he reads it in a translation [targum], or in any other language, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But they may read it to those who do not understand Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. One who doesn’t understand Hebrew who heard it in Assyrian [Hebrew], has fulfilled his obligation.

If one reads it with breaks, or naps [in between readings], he has fulfilled his obligation. If he was copying it, explaining it or correcting [a scroll of Esther], if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If it was written with arsenic, with red chalk, with gum or with sulfate of copper, or on paper or on scratch paper, he has not fulfilled his obligation, unless it is written in Assyrian on parchment and in ink.

If one reads it with breaks, or naps [in between readings], he has fulfilled his obligation. If he was copying it, explaining it or correcting [a scroll of Esther], if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If it was written with arsenic, with red chalk, with gum or with sulfate of copper, or on paper or on scratch paper, he has not fulfilled his obligation, unless it is written in Assyrian on parchment and in ink.

If one reads it with breaks, or naps [in between readings], he has fulfilled his obligation. If he was copying it, explaining it or correcting [a scroll of Esther], if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If it was written with arsenic, with red chalk, with gum or with sulfate of copper, or on paper or on scratch paper, he has not fulfilled his obligation, unless it is written in Assyrian on parchment and in ink.

If one reads it with breaks, or naps [in between readings], he has fulfilled his obligation. If he was copying it, explaining it or correcting [a scroll of Esther], if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If it was written with arsenic, with red chalk, with gum or with sulfate of copper, or on paper or on scratch paper, he has not fulfilled his obligation, unless it is written in Assyrian on parchment and in ink.

A resident of a town who has gone to a walled city or a resident of a walled city who has gone to a town, if he is to return to his own place he reads according to the rule of his own place, and if not reads with them. From where does a man read the Megillah and thereby fulfill his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: all of it. Rabbi Judah says: from “There was a Jew” (Esther 2:5). Rabbi Yose says: from “After these things” (Esther 3:1).

He who reads the Megillah may either stand or sit. Whether one read it or two read it [together] they [those listening] have fulfilled their obligation. In places where it is the custom to say a blessing, they say the blessing, and where it is not the custom they do not say the blessing. On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah, three read from the torah, they do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it.

Israelites fulfill their obligation with vow-offerings, freewill-offerings and cattle tithe. And priests with sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, firstlings, the breast and the shoulder, but not with bird-offerings, and not with meal-offerings.

A widow is to be maintained out of the estate of [her husband's] orphans [and], her handiwork belongs to them but it is not their obligation to bury her. Her heirs, who inherit her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.

If his wife miscarries, he does not become a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: [in this case] he should say, “If it was a viable child, behold, I am a nazirite from obligation; otherwise behold, I am a voluntary nazirite.” If [his wife] later bears a child, he then becomes a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: he should say, “If the first was a viable child, the first [naziriteship] was obligatory, and this one is voluntary; otherwise, the first one was voluntary, and the present one is obligatory.”

If one says, “Behold, I am a nazirite,” he shaves on the thirty-first day. If he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has fulfilled his obligation. [If, however, he says] “Behold, I am a nazirite for thirty days,” and shaves on the thirtieth day, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

If one says, “Behold, I am a nazirite,” he shaves on the thirty-first day. If he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has fulfilled his obligation. [If, however, he says] “Behold, I am a nazirite for thirty days,” and shaves on the thirtieth day, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

If a man vows two naziriteships, he shaves for the first one on the thirty-first day, and for the second on the sixty-first day. If he shaved for the first on the thirtieth day, he can shave for the second on the sixtieth day. If he shaved on the day before the sixtieth, he has fulfilled his obligation. For this was the testimony that Rabbi Papias testified concerning one who vows two naziriteships, that if he shaved for the first on the thirtieth day, he is to shave for the second on the sixtieth day. And if he shaved on the day before the sixtieth day, he has fulfilled his obligation, the thirtieth day counting towards the required number.

If a man vows two naziriteships, he shaves for the first one on the thirty-first day, and for the second on the sixty-first day. If he shaved for the first on the thirtieth day, he can shave for the second on the sixtieth day. If he shaved on the day before the sixtieth, he has fulfilled his obligation. For this was the testimony that Rabbi Papias testified concerning one who vows two naziriteships, that if he shaved for the first on the thirtieth day, he is to shave for the second on the sixtieth day. And if he shaved on the day before the sixtieth day, he has fulfilled his obligation, the thirtieth day counting towards the required number.

If [the person approaching] turned around suddenly [without being identified], he is not a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: he should say, “If it was as I said, behold I am a nazirite by obligation; and if not, behold I am a voluntary nazirite.”

Shaving in a case of purity: How was it done? He would bring three animals, a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a well-being offering, slaughter the peace-offering and shave thereafter, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Elazar says: he shaves after the sin-offering, for in all cases [the sacrifice of] the sin-offering takes precedence. But if he shaved after [the slaughter] of any one of the three he has fulfilled his obligation.

Two nazirites to whom someone says, “I saw one of you defiled, but I do not know which of you it was,” [Both] must shave and [together] bring sacrifices for defilement and sacrifices [for completing a naziriteship] in purity, [and one of them] must say, “If I am unclean, the sacrifices for defilement are mine, and the sacrifices in purity are yours, whereas if I am the one who is clean, the sacrifices in purity are mine and the sacrifices for defilement are yours.” And they must then count thirty [more] days and bring sacrifices in purity and [one of them] must say, “If I am the one who was unclean, the sacrifices for defilement were mine, the sacrifices in purity were yours, and these are my sacrifices in purity, whereas if I was the one who was clean, the sacrifices in purity were mine, the sacrifices for defilement were yours, and these are your sacrifices in purity.” If one of them dies: Rabbi Joshua said that [the other] should request that someone from the marketplace take a nazirite vow together with him, and say: “If I am unclean, you are to be a nazirite immediately, but if I was clean, you are to become a nazirite at the end of thirty days.” They then count thirty days and bring sacrifices for defilement and sacrifices [for completing a naziriteship] in purity and [the first one] says, “If I am the one who was unclean, the sacrifices for defilement are mine and the sacrifices in purity are yours, whereas if I am the one who is clean, the sacrifices in purity are mine and the sacrifices for defilement are [sacrifices offered] in doubt.” They then count [another] thirty days and bring [one set of] the sacrifices in purity and [the first one] says, “If I am the one who was defiled, the sacrifice for defilement [offered previously] was mine and the sacrifice in purity was yours, and this is my sacrifice in purity, whereas if I was the one who was clean, the sacrifice in purity was mine and the sacrifice for defilement [was offered] in doubt and this is your sacrifice in purity.” Ben Zoma said to him: Who will listen to him and take a nazirite vow together with him? Rather he must bring a bird as a sin offering and an animal as a burnt offering and say, “If I was defiled, the sin offering is part of my obligation and the burnt offering is a voluntary offering, whereas if I remained clean, the burnt-offering is part of my obligation and the sin offering is [a sacrifice offered] in doubt.” ‘ He must then count thirty days and bring the sacrifices in purity and say, “If I was defiled, the former burnt offering was a voluntary offering and this is part of my obligation, whereas if I remained clean, the former burnt offering was part of my obligation and this is the voluntary one. And these are the rest of my sacrifices.” Rabbi Joshua said: the result is that he brings his sacrifices half at a time! But the Sages agreed with Ben zoma.

Two nazirites to whom someone says, “I saw one of you defiled, but I do not know which of you it was,” [Both] must shave and [together] bring sacrifices for defilement and sacrifices [for completing a naziriteship] in purity, [and one of them] must say, “If I am unclean, the sacrifices for defilement are mine, and the sacrifices in purity are yours, whereas if I am the one who is clean, the sacrifices in purity are mine and the sacrifices for defilement are yours.” And they must then count thirty [more] days and bring sacrifices in purity and [one of them] must say, “If I am the one who was unclean, the sacrifices for defilement were mine, the sacrifices in purity were yours, and these are my sacrifices in purity, whereas if I was the one who was clean, the sacrifices in purity were mine, the sacrifices for defilement were yours, and these are your sacrifices in purity.” If one of them dies: Rabbi Joshua said that [the other] should request that someone from the marketplace take a nazirite vow together with him, and say: “If I am unclean, you are to be a nazirite immediately, but if I was clean, you are to become a nazirite at the end of thirty days.” They then count thirty days and bring sacrifices for defilement and sacrifices [for completing a naziriteship] in purity and [the first one] says, “If I am the one who was unclean, the sacrifices for defilement are mine and the sacrifices in purity are yours, whereas if I am the one who is clean, the sacrifices in purity are mine and the sacrifices for defilement are [sacrifices offered] in doubt.” They then count [another] thirty days and bring [one set of] the sacrifices in purity and [the first one] says, “If I am the one who was defiled, the sacrifice for defilement [offered previously] was mine and the sacrifice in purity was yours, and this is my sacrifice in purity, whereas if I was the one who was clean, the sacrifice in purity was mine and the sacrifice for defilement [was offered] in doubt and this is your sacrifice in purity.” Ben Zoma said to him: Who will listen to him and take a nazirite vow together with him? Rather he must bring a bird as a sin offering and an animal as a burnt offering and say, “If I was defiled, the sin offering is part of my obligation and the burnt offering is a voluntary offering, whereas if I remained clean, the burnt-offering is part of my obligation and the sin offering is [a sacrifice offered] in doubt.” ‘ He must then count thirty days and bring the sacrifices in purity and say, “If I was defiled, the former burnt offering was a voluntary offering and this is part of my obligation, whereas if I remained clean, the former burnt offering was part of my obligation and this is the voluntary one. And these are the rest of my sacrifices.” Rabbi Joshua said: the result is that he brings his sacrifices half at a time! But the Sages agreed with Ben zoma.

Two nazirites to whom someone says, “I saw one of you defiled, but I do not know which of you it was,” [Both] must shave and [together] bring sacrifices for defilement and sacrifices [for completing a naziriteship] in purity, [and one of them] must say, “If I am unclean, the sacrifices for defilement are mine, and the sacrifices in purity are yours, whereas if I am the one who is clean, the sacrifices in purity are mine and the sacrifices for defilement are yours.” And they must then count thirty [more] days and bring sacrifices in purity and [one of them] must say, “If I am the one who was unclean, the sacrifices for defilement were mine, the sacrifices in purity were yours, and these are my sacrifices in purity, whereas if I was the one who was clean, the sacrifices in purity were mine, the sacrifices for defilement were yours, and these are your sacrifices in purity.” If one of them dies: Rabbi Joshua said that [the other] should request that someone from the marketplace take a nazirite vow together with him, and say: “If I am unclean, you are to be a nazirite immediately, but if I was clean, you are to become a nazirite at the end of thirty days.” They then count thirty days and bring sacrifices for defilement and sacrifices [for completing a naziriteship] in purity and [the first one] says, “If I am the one who was unclean, the sacrifices for defilement are mine and the sacrifices in purity are yours, whereas if I am the one who is clean, the sacrifices in purity are mine and the sacrifices for defilement are [sacrifices offered] in doubt.” They then count [another] thirty days and bring [one set of] the sacrifices in purity and [the first one] says, “If I am the one who was defiled, the sacrifice for defilement [offered previously] was mine and the sacrifice in purity was yours, and this is my sacrifice in purity, whereas if I was the one who was clean, the sacrifice in purity was mine and the sacrifice for defilement [was offered] in doubt and this is your sacrifice in purity.” Ben Zoma said to him: Who will listen to him and take a nazirite vow together with him? Rather he must bring a bird as a sin offering and an animal as a burnt offering and say, “If I was defiled, the sin offering is part of my obligation and the burnt offering is a voluntary offering, whereas if I remained clean, the burnt-offering is part of my obligation and the sin offering is [a sacrifice offered] in doubt.” ‘ He must then count thirty days and bring the sacrifices in purity and say, “If I was defiled, the former burnt offering was a voluntary offering and this is part of my obligation, whereas if I remained clean, the former burnt offering was part of my obligation and this is the voluntary one. And these are the rest of my sacrifices.” Rabbi Joshua said: the result is that he brings his sacrifices half at a time! But the Sages agreed with Ben zoma.

Two nazirites to whom someone says, “I saw one of you defiled, but I do not know which of you it was,” [Both] must shave and [together] bring sacrifices for defilement and sacrifices [for completing a naziriteship] in purity, [and one of them] must say, “If I am unclean, the sacrifices for defilement are mine, and the sacrifices in purity are yours, whereas if I am the one who is clean, the sacrifices in purity are mine and the sacrifices for defilement are yours.” And they must then count thirty [more] days and bring sacrifices in purity and [one of them] must say, “If I am the one who was unclean, the sacrifices for defilement were mine, the sacrifices in purity were yours, and these are my sacrifices in purity, whereas if I was the one who was clean, the sacrifices in purity were mine, the sacrifices for defilement were yours, and these are your sacrifices in purity.” If one of them dies: Rabbi Joshua said that [the other] should request that someone from the marketplace take a nazirite vow together with him, and say: “If I am unclean, you are to be a nazirite immediately, but if I was clean, you are to become a nazirite at the end of thirty days.” They then count thirty days and bring sacrifices for defilement and sacrifices [for completing a naziriteship] in purity and [the first one] says, “If I am the one who was unclean, the sacrifices for defilement are mine and the sacrifices in purity are yours, whereas if I am the one who is clean, the sacrifices in purity are mine and the sacrifices for defilement are [sacrifices offered] in doubt.” They then count [another] thirty days and bring [one set of] the sacrifices in purity and [the first one] says, “If I am the one who was defiled, the sacrifice for defilement [offered previously] was mine and the sacrifice in purity was yours, and this is my sacrifice in purity, whereas if I was the one who was clean, the sacrifice in purity was mine and the sacrifice for defilement [was offered] in doubt and this is your sacrifice in purity.” Ben Zoma said to him: Who will listen to him and take a nazirite vow together with him? Rather he must bring a bird as a sin offering and an animal as a burnt offering and say, “If I was defiled, the sin offering is part of my obligation and the burnt offering is a voluntary offering, whereas if I remained clean, the burnt-offering is part of my obligation and the sin offering is [a sacrifice offered] in doubt.” ‘ He must then count thirty days and bring the sacrifices in purity and say, “If I was defiled, the former burnt offering was a voluntary offering and this is part of my obligation, whereas if I remained clean, the former burnt offering was part of my obligation and this is the voluntary one. And these are the rest of my sacrifices.” Rabbi Joshua said: the result is that he brings his sacrifices half at a time! But the Sages agreed with Ben zoma.

If he [who had stolen from the convert] gave the money to the men of the priestly watch and then died, his inheritors cannot recover it from their [the priests] hands, as it says, “Whatsoever a man gives to a priest shall be his” (Numbers 5:10). If he gave the money to Yehoyariv, and the Guilt-offering to Yedayah, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the Guilt-offering to Yehoyariv and the money to Yedayah: if the Guilt-offering still remains, the sons of Yedayah shall offer it; otherwise, he must bring another Guilt-offering. For if a man brought what he had stolen before he offered his Guilt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he brought his Guilt-offering before he brought what he had stolen, he has not yet fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the value but not the [added] fifth, the [added] fifth does not prevent [him from offering the Guilt-offering].

If he [who had stolen from the convert] gave the money to the men of the priestly watch and then died, his inheritors cannot recover it from their [the priests] hands, as it says, “Whatsoever a man gives to a priest shall be his” (Numbers 5:10). If he gave the money to Yehoyariv, and the Guilt-offering to Yedayah, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the Guilt-offering to Yehoyariv and the money to Yedayah: if the Guilt-offering still remains, the sons of Yedayah shall offer it; otherwise, he must bring another Guilt-offering. For if a man brought what he had stolen before he offered his Guilt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he brought his Guilt-offering before he brought what he had stolen, he has not yet fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the value but not the [added] fifth, the [added] fifth does not prevent [him from offering the Guilt-offering].

If he [who had stolen from the convert] gave the money to the men of the priestly watch and then died, his inheritors cannot recover it from their [the priests] hands, as it says, “Whatsoever a man gives to a priest shall be his” (Numbers 5:10). If he gave the money to Yehoyariv, and the Guilt-offering to Yedayah, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the Guilt-offering to Yehoyariv and the money to Yedayah: if the Guilt-offering still remains, the sons of Yedayah shall offer it; otherwise, he must bring another Guilt-offering. For if a man brought what he had stolen before he offered his Guilt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he brought his Guilt-offering before he brought what he had stolen, he has not yet fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the value but not the [added] fifth, the [added] fifth does not prevent [him from offering the Guilt-offering].

If one hired laborers and told them to work early or to work late, he has no right to compel them to do so where the custom is not to work early or not to work late. In a place where the custom is to give them their food he should give it to them, and where the custom is to provide them with sweet food, he must give it to them. Everything should follow local custom. It once happened that Rabbi Yochanan ben Mattia said to his son: “Go and hire laborers for us”. He went and struck a deal to provide them with food. When he came to his father, his father said to him, “My son, even if you make them a banquet like Solomon’s in his time you will not have fulfilled your obligation to them. For they are sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But, rather, before they begin to work go and say to them, “On condition that I am not bound to give you more than bread and beans only.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “It was not necessary to speak thus, for everything should follow local use.”

If the trial was concluded when there was no high priest [in office], or if one kills a high priest, or a high priest that kills, [in these cases the manslayer] can never come away from that place [of refuge]. He [the manslayer] may not go out to bear witness, neither for cases having to do with a religious observance, nor to bear witness in a monetary suit, nor to bear witness in a capital case. Even should [all] Israel need him, and even a general like Yoav the son of Zeruiah, he may never go out, as it is said, “to there he fled”: ‘there’ must be his abode, ‘there’ his death, ‘there’ his burial. Just as the city affords asylum so does its Sabbath boundary afford asylum. If a manslayer went beyond the boundary [of the city] and the blood avenger found him: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: “For the avenger it is a matter of obligation [to kill him]; for everyone else, a matter of option.” Rabbi Akiba says: “It is a matter of option for the avenger, and anyone else [who kills him] is not liable for doing so.” If a tree was standing within the boundary and its boughs extended beyond [the boundary] or if it was standing outside of the boundary and its boughs extended within, it wholly follows [the position of] the boughs. If he slew [someone] in that city [of refuge] he is banished from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. And a Levite is banished from one city to another.

One who vowed [to keep] a longer naziriteship [than ordinary] and he completed his naziriteship and afterwards came to the [holy] land: Beth Shammai says: [he must be] a nazirite [only] thirty days, But Beth Hillel says: [he must be] a nazirite [the full time vowed as] in the beginning. One who has two groups of witnesses who testify about him, these testifying that he vowed two naziriteships and these testifying that he vowed five: Beth Shammai says: their testimony is divided, and there is no [obligation to perform] naziriteship. But Beth Hillel says: within the five, two are included, so that he must be a nazirite twice.

One who learns from his fellow one chapter, or one halakhah, or one verse, or one word, or even one letter, is obligated to treat him with honor; for so we find with David, king of Israel, who learned from Ahitophel no more than two things, yet called him his master, his guide and his beloved friend, as it is said, “But it was you, a man mine equal, my guide and my beloved friend” (Psalms 55:14). Is this not [an instance of the argument] “from the less to the greater” (kal vehomer)? If David, king of Israel who learned from Ahitophel no more than two things, nevertheless called him his master, his guide and his beloved friend; then in the case of one who learns from his fellow one chapter, or one halakhah, or one verse, or one word, or even one letter, all the more so he is under obligation to treat him with honor. And “honor’” means nothing but Torah, as it is said, “It is honor that sages inherit” (Proverbs 3:35). “And the perfect shall inherit good” (Proverbs 28:10), and “good” means nothing but Torah, as it is said, “For I give you good instruction; do not forsake my Torah” (Proverbs 4:2).

The [court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] except where ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action. The court is not obligated unless they ruled concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless they ruled concerning a matter the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly.

The [court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] except where ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action. The court is not obligated unless they ruled concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless they ruled concerning a matter the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly.

All sacrifices slaughtered not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the pesah and the hatat (sin-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat at all times. Rabbi Eliezer says: also the asham (guilt-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat and an asham at all times. Rabbi Eliezer said: the hatat comes on account of sin, and the asham comes on account of sin: just as a hatat [slaughtered] not in its own name is invalid, so the asham is invalid if [slaughtered] not in its own name.

A pesah that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of Nisan] under a different designation: Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, just as if it had been slaughtered on the thirteenth. Ben Batera declares it invalid, as if it had been slaughtered in the afternoon. Said Shimon ben Azzai: I have a tradition from seventy-two elder[s] on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah] was placed in the academy, that all sacrifices which are eaten, though slaughtered under a different designation are valid, except that their owners have not fulfilled their obligation, except the pesah and the hatat. And ben Azzai added only the olah, but the sages did not agree with him.

If he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of something else; if he drained out its blood for the sake of something else, or for its own sake and for the sake of something else, or for the sake of something else and for its own sake, it is unfit. An olah of a bird is fit [in such circumstances] except that it does not count for its owner’s obligation. A hatat of a bird or an olah of a bird which he nipped, or drained out the blood [with the intention] to eat what was normally eaten or to burn what was normally burned outside of the appropriate place, is invalid, but it does not involve karet; After the appropriate time, it is piggul and involves karet, Provided that the mattir was offered in accordance with the regulations. How does he offer the mattir according to regulations? If he nipped it in silence and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood in silence; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time: in these cases he offered the mattir according to regulation. How does he not offer the mattir according to regulation? If he nipped it [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of a different sacrifice and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice; or if he nipped it and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice: in these cases he did not offer the mattir according to regulation. [If he intended] to eat as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] as much as an olive the next day, [or] as much as an olive the next day [and] as much as an olive outside the appropriate place; Or half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] half as much as an olive the next day; Or half as much as an olive the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place, [the sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: if the [wrongful] intention of time precedes that of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [wrongful] intention of place precedes that of time, it is unfit and does not involve karet. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice is] unfit and does not involve karet. [If he intended] to eat half as much as an olive [outside the appropriate place or after the appropriate time] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is fit, for eating and burning do not combine.

If an olah of a bird is offered above [the red line], with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of a olah, it is fit. With the rites of an olah [but] in the name of a hatat, it is fit, but does not count for its owner’s obligation. [If he offers it] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a olah; [Or] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat, it is unfit. If he offers it below, [even] with the rites of any of these, it is unfit.

All minhahs from which the handful was taken not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the sinner's minhah and the minhah of jealousy. A sinner’s minhah and the minhah of jealousy from which he removed the handful not in their own name, or he put into the vessel, or brought [to the altar], or burned not in their own name, or for their own name and not for their own name, or not for their own name and for their own name, they are invalid. How can they be “for their own name and not for their own name”? [If offered it] as a sinner's minhah and as a voluntary minhah. And how can they be “not for their own name and for their own name”? [If offered it] as a voluntary minhah and as a sinner's minhah.

Two minhahs from which the handfuls had not yet been taken out were mixed together: If it is still possible to take the handful from each separately, they are valid; If not, they are invalid. If the handful [of a minhah] was mixed with a minhah from which the handful had not yet been taken, he must not burn it. If he did burn it, then the minhah from which the handful had been taken fulfills the owner's obligation while the other from which the handful had not been taken does not fulfill the owner's obligation. If the handful was mixed with the remainder of the minhah or with the remainder of another minhah, it must not be burned; If he did burn it does fulfill the owner's obligation. If the handful had become unclean and yet he offered it, the head plate renders it acceptable, But if it went out [of the Temple Court] and was afterwards he offered it, the headplate does not render it acceptable. For the headplate renders acceptable only an offering which was unclean but not that which was taken out.

Two minhahs from which the handfuls had not yet been taken out were mixed together: If it is still possible to take the handful from each separately, they are valid; If not, they are invalid. If the handful [of a minhah] was mixed with a minhah from which the handful had not yet been taken, he must not burn it. If he did burn it, then the minhah from which the handful had been taken fulfills the owner's obligation while the other from which the handful had not been taken does not fulfill the owner's obligation. If the handful was mixed with the remainder of the minhah or with the remainder of another minhah, it must not be burned; If he did burn it does fulfill the owner's obligation. If the handful had become unclean and yet he offered it, the head plate renders it acceptable, But if it went out [of the Temple Court] and was afterwards he offered it, the headplate does not render it acceptable. For the headplate renders acceptable only an offering which was unclean but not that which was taken out.

Two minhahs from which the handfuls had not yet been taken out were mixed together: If it is still possible to take the handful from each separately, they are valid; If not, they are invalid. If the handful [of a minhah] was mixed with a minhah from which the handful had not yet been taken, he must not burn it. If he did burn it, then the minhah from which the handful had been taken fulfills the owner's obligation while the other from which the handful had not been taken does not fulfill the owner's obligation. If the handful was mixed with the remainder of the minhah or with the remainder of another minhah, it must not be burned; If he did burn it does fulfill the owner's obligation. If the handful had become unclean and yet he offered it, the head plate renders it acceptable, But if it went out [of the Temple Court] and was afterwards he offered it, the headplate does not render it acceptable. For the headplate renders acceptable only an offering which was unclean but not that which was taken out.

If one said, “I take upon myself [to bring a minhah prepared] on a griddle”, and he brought one prepared in a pan, or “a minhah prepared in a pan”, and he brought one prepared on a griddle, what he has brought he has brought, but he has not fulfilled his obligation. [But if he said, “I take upon myself] to bring this [flour] as a minhah prepared on a griddle”, and he brought it prepared in a pan; or as “a minhah prepared in a pan”, and he brought it prepared on a griddle, it is invalid. If one said, “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in one vessel”, and he brought them in two vessels, or [he said] “in two vessels,” and he brought them in one vessel, what he has brought he has brought, but he has not fulfilled his obligation. But [if he said, “I take upon myself to bring] these [two tenths] in one vessel”, and he brought them in two vessels, or “in two vessels”, and he brought them in one vessel, they are invalid. If he said, “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in one vessel” and he brought them in two vessels, and when they said to him, “You vowed to bring them in one vessel”, if he brought them in one vessel, they are valid, but if he still offered them in two vessels, they are invalid. If he said “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in two vessels”, and he brought them in one vessel, and when they said to him, “You vowed to bring them in two vessels”, if he offered them in two vessels they are valid; but if he still kept them in one vessel, they are considered as two menahot which have been mixed.

If one said, “I take upon myself [to bring a minhah prepared] on a griddle”, and he brought one prepared in a pan, or “a minhah prepared in a pan”, and he brought one prepared on a griddle, what he has brought he has brought, but he has not fulfilled his obligation. [But if he said, “I take upon myself] to bring this [flour] as a minhah prepared on a griddle”, and he brought it prepared in a pan; or as “a minhah prepared in a pan”, and he brought it prepared on a griddle, it is invalid. If one said, “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in one vessel”, and he brought them in two vessels, or [he said] “in two vessels,” and he brought them in one vessel, what he has brought he has brought, but he has not fulfilled his obligation. But [if he said, “I take upon myself to bring] these [two tenths] in one vessel”, and he brought them in two vessels, or “in two vessels”, and he brought them in one vessel, they are invalid. If he said, “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in one vessel” and he brought them in two vessels, and when they said to him, “You vowed to bring them in one vessel”, if he brought them in one vessel, they are valid, but if he still offered them in two vessels, they are invalid. If he said “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in two vessels”, and he brought them in one vessel, and when they said to him, “You vowed to bring them in two vessels”, if he offered them in two vessels they are valid; but if he still kept them in one vessel, they are considered as two menahot which have been mixed.

One may offer wine but not oil, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But Rabbi Tarfon says: one may also offer oil. Rabbi Tarfon said: just as we find that wine is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering, so oil which is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you say so of wine it is because it is offered by itself even when offered as an obligation, can you say the same of oil which is not offered by itself when offered as an obligation? Two [men] may not jointly offer one tenth [of flour for a minhah]; but they may jointly offer an olah or a shelamim, and bird sacrifices even a single bird.

One may offer wine but not oil, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But Rabbi Tarfon says: one may also offer oil. Rabbi Tarfon said: just as we find that wine is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering, so oil which is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you say so of wine it is because it is offered by itself even when offered as an obligation, can you say the same of oil which is not offered by itself when offered as an obligation? Two [men] may not jointly offer one tenth [of flour for a minhah]; but they may jointly offer an olah or a shelamim, and bird sacrifices even a single bird.

One may offer wine but not oil, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But Rabbi Tarfon says: one may also offer oil. Rabbi Tarfon said: just as we find that wine is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering, so oil which is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you say so of wine it is because it is offered by itself even when offered as an obligation, can you say the same of oil which is not offered by itself when offered as an obligation? Two [men] may not jointly offer one tenth [of flour for a minhah]; but they may jointly offer an olah or a shelamim, and bird sacrifices even a single bird.

One may offer wine but not oil, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But Rabbi Tarfon says: one may also offer oil. Rabbi Tarfon said: just as we find that wine is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering, so oil which is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you say so of wine it is because it is offered by itself even when offered as an obligation, can you say the same of oil which is not offered by itself when offered as an obligation? Two [men] may not jointly offer one tenth [of flour for a minhah]; but they may jointly offer an olah or a shelamim, and bird sacrifices even a single bird.

[If he said,] “I take upon myself to offer an ox,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of a maneh. “A calf,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of five selas. “A ram,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of two selas. “A lamb,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of one sela. If he said “An ox valued at one maneh,” he must bring one worth a maneh apart from its drink-offerings. “A calf valued at five selas,” he must bring one worth five selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A ram valued at two selas,” he must bring one worth two selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A lamb valued at one sela,” he must bring one worth one sela apart from its drink-offerings. [If he said, “I take upon myself to offer] an ox valued at a maneh,” and he brought two together worth a maneh, he has not fulfilled his obligation, even if one was worth a maneh less one denar and the other also was worth a maneh less one denar. [If he said] “A black one” and he brought a white one, or “a white one” and he brought a black one, or “a large one” and he brought a small one, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said] “a small one” and he brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation; Rabbi says: he has not fulfilled his obligation.

[If he said,] “I take upon myself to offer an ox,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of a maneh. “A calf,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of five selas. “A ram,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of two selas. “A lamb,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of one sela. If he said “An ox valued at one maneh,” he must bring one worth a maneh apart from its drink-offerings. “A calf valued at five selas,” he must bring one worth five selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A ram valued at two selas,” he must bring one worth two selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A lamb valued at one sela,” he must bring one worth one sela apart from its drink-offerings. [If he said, “I take upon myself to offer] an ox valued at a maneh,” and he brought two together worth a maneh, he has not fulfilled his obligation, even if one was worth a maneh less one denar and the other also was worth a maneh less one denar. [If he said] “A black one” and he brought a white one, or “a white one” and he brought a black one, or “a large one” and he brought a small one, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said] “a small one” and he brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation; Rabbi says: he has not fulfilled his obligation.

[If he said,] “I take upon myself to offer an ox,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of a maneh. “A calf,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of five selas. “A ram,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of two selas. “A lamb,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of one sela. If he said “An ox valued at one maneh,” he must bring one worth a maneh apart from its drink-offerings. “A calf valued at five selas,” he must bring one worth five selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A ram valued at two selas,” he must bring one worth two selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A lamb valued at one sela,” he must bring one worth one sela apart from its drink-offerings. [If he said, “I take upon myself to offer] an ox valued at a maneh,” and he brought two together worth a maneh, he has not fulfilled his obligation, even if one was worth a maneh less one denar and the other also was worth a maneh less one denar. [If he said] “A black one” and he brought a white one, or “a white one” and he brought a black one, or “a large one” and he brought a small one, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said] “a small one” and he brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation; Rabbi says: he has not fulfilled his obligation.