Nedarim

We learnt: If priests render a sacrifice piggul  in the Temple, and do so intentionally, they are liable;  This implies [that if they do so] unwittingly, they are exempt, though it was taught thereon:  Yet their piggul stands.  Now, it is well if you say that they are the agents of the All-Merciful: hence their piggul stands. But if you say that they are our agents, why is it so; let him say to him, 'I appointed you an agent for my advantage, not for my hurt'?  — I will tell you: Piggul is different, because the Writ saith, neither shall it be imputed unto him:  [implying that it is piggul] in spite of everything. The [above] text [states]: 'R. Johanan said: All require [the owner's] consent, save for those lacking atonement, since one brings a sacrifice for his sons and daughters when minors.' If so, let one offer a sin-offering on behalf of his neighbour for [eating] heleb,  since one brings [a sin-offering] for his insane wife?  Why then did R. Eleazar say: If a man set aside a sin-offering for heleb on his neighbour's behalf, his action is invalid?  — [Now consider:] In respect to his insane wife, what are the circumstances? If she ate [heleb] whilst insane, she is not liable to a sacrifice;  while if she ate it when sane, subsequently becoming insane, [there is the ruling of] R. Jeremiah who said in the name of R. Abbahu in R. Johanan's name: If a man ate heleb, set aside an offering, became insane, and then regained his sanity, it [the sacrifice] is unfit: having been once rejected, it remains so. Yet if so,  a man should be able to offer the passover sacrifice for his neighbour,  since he brings it for his sons and daughters, who are minors. Why then did R. Eleazar say: If a man sets aside a passover sacrifice for his neighbour his action  is null? — Said R. Zera: [The law, And they shall take to them every man] a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, [a lamb for a house],  is not Biblically incumbent [upon minors].  And how do we know this? — Because we learnt: If a man says to his sons [who are not of age], 'I will slaughter the passover sacrifice for whomever of you first enters Jerusalem', then as soon as the first of them enters with his head and the greater part of his body, he acquires his portion, and assigns a part thereof to his brothers with him. Now, if you maintain that 'a lamb, according to the house of their fathers' is Biblically applicable [to minors], then standing over the flesh, can he transfer a portion to his brethren?  If so, why did their father speak thus to them? — In order to stimulate them in [the performance of] precepts. It was taught likewise: it once happened [after their father had spoken thus] that the daughters entered [the city] before the sons, so that the daughters shewed themselves zealous, and the sons indolent. HE MAY SEPARATE HIS TERUMAH [etc.]