on him and make it dependent on the wishes of the public. Said Amemar: The law is as follows: Even according to him who holds that an interdict by vow imposed on a person in public can be invalidated, a vow made dependent on the wishes of the public cannot be invalidated. But this is only the case with a vow made for a secular purpose, whereas if made for a religious purpose, it can be invalidated, a case in point being that of a teacher whom R. Aha prohibited by vow from teaching any longer because he maltreated the children, but whom Rabina reinstated, as there was not to be found one who taught so efficiently. AND ONE WHO MAKES HIMSELF UNCLEAN THROUGH THE DEAD etc. What is the difference between the case here, where merely an undertaking suffices and there [where a priest contracts an illegal marriage] that we impose a votary prohibition on him? — There [in the latter case] his passion overpowers him. MISHNAH. THERE IS ONE WHO IS [COUNTED AS] A FIRSTBORN [WITH RESPECT TO] INHERITANCE BUT NOT WITH RESPECT TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST; A FIRST-BORN WITH RESPECT TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE; A FIRSTBORN [WITH RESPECT BOTH] TO INHERITANCE AND TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST; AND [AS] A FIRST-BORN [IN RESPECT NEITHER] TO INHERITANCE NOR REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST. WHICH IS A FIRST-BORN [IN RESPECT] OF INHERITANCE BUT NOT OF REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST? ONE WHICH FOLLOWS AN UNTIMELY BIRTH WHOSE HEAD CAME FORTH ALIVE OR ONE BORN IN THE NINTH MONTH WHOSE HEAD CAME FORTH DEAD, OR WHEN A WOMAN DISCHARGES SOMETHING LIKE AN ANIMAL, BEAST OR BIRD. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY: [IT IS NOT CONSIDERED AN OPENING OF THE WOMB] UNTIL [THE DISCHARGE] HAS THE FORM OF A HUMAN BEING. IF [A WOMAN] DISCHARGES A SANDLE LIKE FOETUS OR A PLACENTA OR A FOETUS HAVING AN ARTICULATED SHAPE, OR IF AN EMBRYO CAME OUT BY PIECES, [THE INFANT] WHICH FOLLOWS AFTER THEM IS A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST. IF ONE WHO NEVER HAD CHILDREN PREVIOUSLY MARRIED A WOMAN WHO HAD ALREADY GIVEN BIRTH, EVEN IF SHE HAD GIVEN BIRTH WHEN SHE WAS A BONDWOMAN, BUT IS FREE [NOW], OR [HAD BORNE A CHILD] WHEN SHE WAS A HEATHEN BUT HAS SINCE BECOME A PROSELYTE IF AFTER COMING TO THE ISRAELITE SHE BEARS TO HIM, [THE INFANT] IS ALSO CONSIDERED A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST. R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS HOWEVER: [THE INFANT] IS A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE AND ALSO ONE WHO MUST BE REDEEMED FROM A PRIEST, BECAUSE IT IS SAID IN THE SCRIPTURES: OPENETH THE WOMB AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, [INTIMATING] UNTIL THE OPENING OF THE WOMB IS ‘[OF THE CHILDREN] OF ISRAEL’. IF ONE HAD CHILDREN ALREADY AND MARRIED A WOMAN WHO HAD NEVER GIVEN BIRTH PREVIOUSLY OR IF SHE BECAME A PROSELYTE WHEN PREGNANT OR IF SHE WAS FREED WHEN PREGNANT AND SHE GAVE BIRTH; [IF THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION BETWEEN] HER AND A PRIESTESS, [BETWEEN] HER AND A LEVITE'S DAUGHTER, [BETWEEN] HER AND A WOMAN WHO HAD ALREADY GIVEN BIRTH; AND LIKEWISE [IF A WOMAN] WHO DID NOT WAIT THREE MONTHS AFTER HER HUSBAND'S DEATH, MARRIED AND GAVE BIRTH AND IT IS NOT KNOWN IF THE INFANT WAS BORN IN THE NINTH MONTH SINCE THE DEATH OF THE FIRST [HUSBAND] OR IN THE SEVENTH MONTH SINCE SHE MARRIED THE SECOND, IT IS A FIRST-BORN TO REDEMPTION FROM A PRIEST BUT NOT A FIRST-BORN [WITH RESPECT] TO INHERITANCE.23ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷ