The Pahlavi Rivayat of Adur-Farnbag
Tr. by Behramgore Tahmuras Anklesaria, 1938.
This text can be dated to the ninth century.
Anklesaria's summary of the work reads, "Atur-Farnbag, leader
of the faithful, whose decisions, views, and opinions were asked
for by the Zarathushtrians...."
This text is discussed at length by Jacob Neusner in Judaism
and Zoroastrianism at the Dusk of Late Antiquity: How Two Ancient
Faiths Wrote Down their Great Traditions, 1993. Scholars Press.
Several questions asked of Aerpat Adur-Farnbag son of Farokhvzat,
leader of the faithful.
1. Q: There is a man who had a daughter; two men desire her in
marriage, and the father gives her to one of the men; the daughter
does not agree to that man; her liking is towards the other man;
does the prerogative rest with the father or with the daughter?
And if the father does not fulfill the wish of the daughter, is
the daughter entitled to fix her guardian, and to have a husband?
And if she does not fix a guardian, can the daughter be an independent
wife or not?
2. A: As I understand: the father is entitled to assign the guardianship;
as long as he is living, he is entitled to withdraw the guardianship,
whenever it is necessary, but with the consent of the woman and
even that of the guardian; it cannot be otherwise; she cannot
have a husband otherwise, but with the consent of the father as
long as the father is living, and with the consent of the guardian,
after the father's passing away.
1. Q: When a man gives away a daughter to a man, that man become
renegade; with whom rests the guardianship of that woman? And
if she marries, can she be an independent wife or not?
2. A: There are different views thereon; there is one who said,
"Whoever marries her, she is an independent wife"; there
is one who said: "She is of 'aûsrâîn' status."
1. Q: When all members of a family save a woman become renegade;
can that girl have the status of an independent woman or 'aûsrâîn?
2. A: If there be none of the ancestors of this faithful whose
lineage can be traced, they shall appoint a guardian in the presence
of the 'ratus' or 'magopats' or 'dasturs', or they shall prepare
a deed thereon, and they shall give her to a husband; if no 'ratu'
or 'dastur' be at hand, he who is far-advanced in the discussion
of rules, and has most by heart the Avesta and the commentary,
shall secure a guardian, and the guardian shall give her to a
husband and he is entitled so to give.
1. Q: A man departs from the earthly existence; he has a wife
and a daughter, and thereafter the wife turns renegade or departs
from the earthly existence; what shall be the arrangement for
2. A: As I understand: if the wife expires, she has that one daughter
without issue, the daughter is alive and is not married, the daughter
whilst living is of the father; and if the wife be of independent
status, and the daughter be alive and marries under the guardianship
of the wife, her status as an independent wife is appropriate.
1. Q: If there is a man who has a sister or a daughter, that man
becomes a renegade, unto whom will their guardianship rest? If
they marry, can they be women of independent status or not?
2. A: As I understand: if they have relatives of the good religion,
that one of the paternal line closely related will be their guardian;
if they have no relative, the guardianship will be the mother's
guardianship or of him who is well versed in religion.
1. Q: If a man entrusts a daughter in daughterhood to another
man, with whom will her guardianship rest?
2. A: With him to whom he entrusts her.
1. Q: If a man entrusts a daughter in daughterhood to a woman,
who will be the guardian?
2. A: The husband has the guardianship of the spouse, and one
hands over the woman to the woman's husband, and if the spouse
be her guardian, the guardianship rests with the spouse.
1. Q: There is a woman who hands over a daughter in daughterhood
to a woman, who will be the guardian?
2. A: As I understand: the spouse cannot give the daughter to
another in daughterhood.
1. Q: There is a woman whose guardianship rests with a man; can
that man give the woman in guardianship to another? Or when he
departs from the earthly existence, he says: "I have made
thee guardian of thine own person, and independent". Can
she be a woman of independent status or not ?
2. A: As I understand: an appointed guardian cannot give the guardianship
to another; and if he be a guardian made or become, he can entrust
his guardianship to a woman; and if that woman to whom he assigns
guardianship, dies, it will revert to the original person; and
if he makes her guardian of her own self and independent, and
she marries, her independent womanhood will be appropriate.
1. Q: There is a man who gives a daughter of mature age to a man
in wifehood or in guardianship, the daughter does not agree, shall
the guardianship have been given to him, or with whom will her
2. A: As I understand: wifehood can never be but with the consent
of the daughter; guardianship can be otherwise without the consent
of the daughter; so long as the father is living he can withdraw
the guardianship whenever it is necessary, and none can withdraw
it after the father.
1. Q: There is a woman whose guardianship rests with a man, and
that man dies; he does not give her in guardianship to anyone,
nor does he make that woman guardian of her own self and independent,
and the woman, thereafter, marries: are that man and that woman
rightful or not?
2. A: As I understand: if the guardian dies, the guardianship
of that woman reverts to the world's worthfulness; he who is very
worthy will be the guardian of that woman; if she marries under
guardianship, her status of an independent woman will be appropriate.
1. Q: When a man gives a three year old daughter to a man in wifehood;
and that daughter attains to majority, and says: "I do not
consent to marry this man", with whom will the guardianship
rest? If that man says: "Unless thou wilt be my wife, I will
not give thee to anyone under guardianship." Can that daughter
secure a guardian? If she marries, will her status be of an independent
woman or not?
2. A: As I understand: the wifehood cannot take place; the guardianship
shall have been given; and if her father will not withdraw the
guardianship during the length of his life, the guardianship will
rest with him to whom he will give after the father; and if he
says: "If thou will not be my wife, I will not give thee
to the husband", he is rightful; if the husband is agreeable,
to cause the menstruation month to pass in marriage and the spouse
be not agreeable, the sin of the menstruation month originates
with the spouse.
1. Q: There is a minor girl who gives herself in wifehood to a
man; when she attains to majority, can she turn away from him
and have a husband? And can she be that man's wife of independent
status or not? And up to what age can she turn away from a man
when she has given her person in wifehood to him?
2. A: As I understand: when she attains to majority, she can turn
away from him, if she did not at all abide by it; if she marries,
she will be a wife of independent status; if she be nine years
of age, and has attained to puberty, and gives herself in marriage
under lawful guardianship, she cannot, thereafter, turn away from
1. Q: If a daughter of nine years gives her in marriage to a man,
can she turn away from the contract, when she becomes fifteen
years of age, and become the wife of another man? If she turns
away from the contract, what is the sin committed by her towards
that man? Will she be the wife of independent status of that other
man or not?
2. A: As l understand: if a girl of nine years has attained to
puberty, she cannot give herself in marriage to a man without
the consent of a lawful guardian, and turn away from the wifehood
of that man; if she turns away, she is a sinner deserving death,
after a full year expires thereafter.
1. Q: If a woman of mature age gives herself in marriage to a
boy of immature age, who is only ten years of age, and that boy
accepts that woman as wife; can he turn away from the contract
when he will become of mature age, or not?
2. A: As I understand: if the spouse gave herself in marriage
under lawful guardianship, the spouse cannot turn away from the
contract; and when the boy attains to majority, he cannot turn
away from the contract, if he had at all acted according to the
contract; and the boy can turn away from the contract when he
attains to majority, if he had not acted accordingly.
1. Q: A woman of mature age, who gives herself in marriage to
a man of mature age, turns away from that man, then what is her
sin and punishment of sin committed toward that man? Or if the
woman says: "I give myself in marriage unto thee," is
it lawful if she does not become his wife?
2. A: As I understand: if she gave herself in marriage under lawful
guardianship, she cannot turn away from that man; and if she turns
away, and will not perform the duties of wife towards that man,
and turns away without the consent of her husband, she becomes
a tanapuhr sinner on the spot, and a sinner deserving death after
a full year. 3. And if she says: "I will be thy wife",
and is under lawful guardianship, she ought to be asked four times;
when asked four times, the spouse cannot but be his wife; if she
will not be his wife, she will become a sinner deserving death
after a full year.
1. Q: There is a woman who without the knowledge of her father,
makes an engagement with a man, saying, "I gave my person
to thee as wife"; then, when the father comes to know and
says, "Do you turn away from this man." Can she turn
away at the command of the father, and become the wife of another
man? Is that woman the rightful wife of that other man or not?
2. A: As I understand: as her guardianship rests with the father,
unless she plights her troth with the consent of the father, she
can turn away from the engagement; for if she does not give her
word with the consent of the father, the engagement as wife does
not come into being.
1. Q: A woman, when her husband dies, has neither issue nor property
through that husband, and that woman has her property; thereafter,
that woman dies, and has no issue; is that property that of her
brother, or ought they to nominate an adopted son out of the property
for her husband?
2. A: As I understand: it is so manifest in the Scripture that
he who, as guardian, gave the woman to the husband, forthwith
gave to him a property of hers; the woman's property, thereafter,
is that of her husband; when the man passes away, the woman, so
long as living, is necessitated to make a provision of hers out
of that property; when the woman dies, the property comes, by
adoption, to the nearest relative of the husband; nothing whatsoever
comes to the woman's brother, neither by relationship nor by adoption.
1. Q: There is a man who tells his daughter, "Thou art made
by me independent guardian of thine own self", the daughter
may be of mature age or a minor; with whom rests her guardianship?
2. A: As I understand: if the daughter is of mature age, and the
man says: "Thou art made by me independent guardian of thy
own self", the guardianship will come over to this daughter;
if the daughter be a minor, the statement should not he considered
as of any avail.
1. Q: There is a man whom it behooves that he should give his
daughter or his sister in marriage; they do not agree; can that
man hand them over in marriage with force? If he does, will the
meritorious work of the holy communion come into being, or not?
2. A: As I understand: it is proper to hand over a sister or a
daughter as wife, in that way, with force; if one does it, the
marriage is appropriate, and the meritorious work of the holy
communion does come into being; it is not proper to do it if the
husband does not agree, and it is a sin.
1. Q: A man departs from this world; he has immense wealth; he
has neither wife nor children; will the entire wealth be that
of his adopted son, if they nominate an adopted son for him? Or
how much will belong to the adopted son? What ought they to do
with the rest? And if they nominate a woman, will it be in the
same way as a man, or not?
2. A: As I understand: his adopted son ought to preserve the entire
wealth under adoption, till a son is born and attains to fifteen
years of age; then, the wealth, which is in his possession, goes
to that son and other children who are born during the period
of adoption; if the adopted person is a male, and if he married
during the term of adoption, they ought to consider it the same
as the adoption of a female.
1. Q: There is a man who departs from this world; he has a daughter
or a sister; he has immense wealth; will that entire wealth or
how much will be theirs? How ought they to dispose off the remaining?
If a child be born of them, shall that wealth remain in their
possession or in adoption?
2. A: As I understand: if the daughter or the sister be the 'ayôhê',
the 'ayôhê' ought to keep the entire wealth in adoption,
and the son or children, who are born of that 'ayôhê',
ought to have it; it is the same even if the adoption was attained
to worthily by the daughter or the sister, or if they were nominated.
1. Q: When a man departs from this world, he has a wife, and he
has immense wealth: does that entire wealth belong to the wife,
or how will it be? And if the wife, thereafter, begets children,
does the entire wealth belong to these children? And if she does
not beget children, and she dies, how ought they to dispose off
2. A: As I understand: they ought to keep the entire wealth under
adoption; if a son is born of that wife, and he has attained to
fifteen years of age, the wife ought to keep under adoption a
part of the wealth for her sons; and if that son has departed
from this world, the other children of independent status of that
man ought to keep it; that one which is born of that wife after
the passing away of that man, will be in the same category as
if that one was born of that man; if the wife dies, if she had
not begotten children by him, that wealth will be under the adoption
of that man, it goes by adoption to one who is very qualified.
1. Q: The. question is this: in how many places can a nominated
adopted son be appointed? Is it proper, if they appoint a female
as adoptive child? Or if they appoint a female and she dies, where
does that wealth go? If they appoint a female as adoptive child,
does that wealth remain with her children in ownership or under
adoption? And from the commencement when they nominate, the value
of the wealth is fifty Stirs or more; and if it be fifty Stirs,
how ought they to nominate so that the adopted son may marry during
adoption, or keep the wealth under adoption?
2. A: As I understand: if a male were nominated, he is fit for
many adoptions; if a female, she is fit for one adoption; so
that one may not waste the wealth, it is proper if one does not
take a wife during the adoption; if the adopted person dies, the
wealth remains open for the appointment of one qualified; they
shall, certainly nominate the minor who is very qualified; if
one takes a wife during the period of adoption has progressed,
and the son has attained to fifteen years of age, the wealth comes
in ownership to that son and other children who are born during
adoption, even those born of that woman under adoption; from the
beginning, when they nominate an adopted son, the Dasturs
are to come to understanding that this person is very qualified
for adoption, they are to lay the seal of certainty over
his qualification; thereafter, the magopat [[mobed]] has
to seal the nomination, and he, the adopted son,
shall forthwith take the wealth under adoption, and take
a wife ; and if he took a wife during the period of
adoption, and the son attained to majority, the
same will be the case as written above.
1. Q: They nominate a female for adoption; is it proper if she
takes a husband during the period of adoption? And if she does
not take a husband, and she dies, where will the wealth go? And
if she takes a husband during the period of adoption, will the
wealth remain with her children in ownership or under adoption?
2. A: As I understand: if she has taken a paramour, she has not
taken a husband; it is proper if she does not take a husband;
if she has no issue, and she dies, the wealth remains again for
qualifiedness; they are to nominate him for adoption who
is very qualified, who shall forthwith take the wealth
under adoption; the other things will be just as
is written in several places; if during the period of
adoption, she bears a child through her husband, since
she begot a child; since the child attained to mature age,
the wealth cannot come to any person in ownership, as is
written in several places.
1. Q: When a man accepts adoption, is it proper if he relieves
his wife from independent wifehood, and he takes that woman
in adoption for himself; when she had a son of mature age, is
it proper if he again receives her as his independent wife?
And if the wealth be immense, will that wealth remain for the
son in ownership or under adoption?
2. A: As I understand: if he so says with the consent of
the spouse 'Until you beget a son who will
attain to majority, you are to remain under adoption as
an adopted woman of so and so; if she bears a son,
then be can receive her back to himself as his wife of
independent status; the wealth will come in ownership to the
son who was born during this adoption of his and attained
1. Q: If a man gives to a man a property of two thousand
under adoption; that man takes a wife during his period of
adoption; will the wealth belong to his children
under ownership or under adoption?
2. A: As I understand: if he begets a son, and the son
becomes fifteen years of age, the wealth will be that
of the son by ownership, and until the son attained
to the fifteenth year, it will be that of the man
1. Q: Is the regulation as to the adopted person
who has become, either one's own wife or daughter or sister,
just the same? Or are the 'ayôhês' authorized
when they nominate an adoptive person for the
father or for the brother, and take a husband themselves?
2. A: As I understand, and I have so heard from the
aerpats [[ervads]]: since the wife has always
become that that of the man, the 'ayôhê' is
not authorized unless she performs her duty as 'ayôhê';
she cannot give herself to any as a wife of independent
status; if she gives she becomes a sinner deserving death,
after a full year.
1. There is a man, who has a wicked disobedient wife; the man
goes out to a place; she offers her person to non-Iranians,
and she lies even with non-Iranians several times, and
she commit atrocious sins; can that man retain or divorce that
wife? And if that wife commits sins, are the sins those of that
man or not?
2. A: As I understand: if she submitted herself to
non-Iranians for sexual intercourse, if the wife agrees, he can
divorce her; and if he does not divorce her, he may retain
her for the great good, with this intent that she may commit less
sin; if he even retains her as wife, he can, but he cannot
cause the menstrual monthly period to be appeased; if he divorces
her, as it is said that if there is even the least
fear to material life or fear to the soul, he can divorce her.
3. Note, this, too, is stated to us, that if she submitted
herself once to alien men, one must certainly have fear both of
body and soul. 4. And if the wife commits sin after that,
it will not have originated with the husband, save at the
time if he does not check her when he can check her. 5.
If the wife becomes absolved of sin, he can appease the
monthly menstrual period.
1. Q: There is a man who has a boy of ten years; and that man
goes out to a place and hands over that boy in guardianship to
a man of the good religion; and that boy does not carry out the
commands of that man, and becomes non-Iranian; is it the father's
sin or not?
2. A: As I understand: there is no sin.
1. Q: There is a big house; it has a cellar at the base of the
house; at the bottom of that cellar of its, a man passes away;
does the entire house become contaminated or not?
2. A: If the cellar be not projected away from this house, if
the bottom is made with a separate foundation or with the same
foundation, the same happens as to the house.
1. Q: Which dead body ought one to consider as seen by
2. A: If the dead body be in, the locality of the non-Iranians,
take care, it is not to be considered as seen by the dog,
unless it be evident that the dog saw it; and if it be in the
locality of the Iranians, take care, it is not to be considered
as seen by the dog, unless it be evident that the dog saw it;
if it be in the locality of the Iranians, it shall be considered
as seen by the dog, unless it be evident that the dog did
not see it; in any case, it is very proper, if it be shown to
1. Q: Which are the dead bodies of non-Iranians?
2. As I understand: they are the dead bodies of those who come
to the country of Iran for overthrowing in battle, and such of
those who stay therein; and if a ruler of the good religion
is to come, those who are not loyal to their sovereigns, those
who have not complied with the decisions of men of the
good religion has not come, those who do not abide
by the decisions of judges of the good religion.
1. Q: When a man undergoes ablution with the cleaning of each
limb, a wound over a limb becomes visible; how much and to
which extent is it allowable?
2. A: If it becomes known on the same day or the next
day he ought to undergo ablution once again; and if it
becomes known afterwards, I do not know of the extent,
unless it becomes known that it was before undergoing the ablution.
1. Q: A man, who has undergone the washing during the
period of nine days, has a wound in the head or a dry wound,
something; is it allowable or not?
2. A: It is not allowable, for it so happens as in the case
of the barashnom ablution.
1. Q: What is the work which can be done during the
nine days' isolation.
2. A: One cannot do any work during the isolation, if the person
is a woman or whosoever else.
1. Q: There is an aerpat [[ervad]], who brings out a dead
body from the water; can he perform the ceremony,
or ought he to undergo ablution?
2. A: If he brings it out property just as is said, he can
perform the ceremony, but he shall undergo ablution, in
any way possible, for good habit.
1. Q: If a dead is disintegrated in water, they bring out
that which they can; what is the decision as to that which they
2. A: If it be disintegrated in still water, which is not more
than nine steps, or in a well, it is good to let it be as it is
on the spot, unless it is possible to bring out the whole; if
it be running water, they shall bring out that which they can
bring out, as is said.
1. Q: If greasy matter has intermingled in still water, after
how long will that place be pure? Till what length of time is
that water unfit for use?
2. A: As I understand: there is no reckoning of the measure;
for, if the water be abundant and vast, if its width and length
be vast, one shall make a test up to that spot where he certainly
knows that there is no grease, either with cotton just
as the aerpats [[ervads]] have stated, with consultation;
he shall consider the matter, as may be proved by
1. Q: When they bring out a dead body from the water in
a plain or a forest, can they desert that place, or how
ought they to act?
2. A: If one- removes it from fear of the water, unless
he shows to the dog, and removes it with the help of
two persons, take care he cannot remove it alone.
1. Q: When a man comes up to a place alone, a dead body
lies there; can he leave it and go, and bring a man and a dog?
2. A: If there be no person there, if he sits, there is fear of
his person or of remaining without food; and he is justified
in asking for help.
1. Q: A vast plain has water in close contact; a dead body falls
in it; how shall one remove it?
2. A: As I understand: one shall come up to it without
fear and without its coming in the way, as he can bring it out
well; so, he can lay it and drag it, till when he has
not brought it out of water; if he can, I do not understand
it to be a sin.
1. Q: When a well, which is within a fire-altar, within a measureable
distance, is intermingled with dead matter and grease; can they
keep that fire on the same spot, or how ought they to
2. A: If possible if they remove the fire, they
will not extinguish it and they may keep it in a separate
place; they ought to remove it at a distance of thirty
steps from the well; and if they extinguish it, when they remove
it from that spot, take care, it is not proper; if it be three
steps, they ought to leave this place; they cannot perform
any ceremony and consecrate the dron, within a distance
of thirty steps from the well.
1. Q: When a well is built entirely of bricks from bottom
to top, a dog dies within it; one of his limbs remains on a brick;
what is the regulation as to that well?
2. A: When no grease is intermingled within the well, they
may bring up the dog; if one draws out that
one brick, the rest is pure.
1. Q: There is running water wherein a dead body has disintegrated;
at what distance shall a man be not contaminated, who drinks water
near by that dead body?
2. A: Nine paces above the water, three paces under the
water and six paces of other widths.
1. Q: How ought they to show to the dog a dead body
which is within the womb?
2. A: As I understand: they ought to tie the chain on the
dog's neck, and a knife shall be attached to that chain; they
shall excite the dog a little so that he may split the womb;
then they shall show the dead body.
1. Q: What is the dry dead matter of the dead?
2. A: That which comes out during the passing away, and that which
comes out after death.
1. Q: Which is the dead matter which they eat without
2. A: That which they shall engulf, as when they seize
the tongue or a part of the mouth with the teeth
or eat and swallow warm food.
1. Q: Till how long shall a man not drink water, by whom a tooth
2. A: As I understand: one night and day.
1. Q: Till what time shall that depository of bones be clean,
in which bones-depository there is dead matter?
2. A: Fifty year are certainly requisite after when it has become
free from dead matter.
1. Q: When a man wounds his wife and casts off her young;
what is that man's sin?
2. A: It is a sin deserving death.
1. Q: A man who removes the sacred thread [[kusti]], becomes
penitent within a year, but he cannot retie the sacred thread,
owing to fear of his person; thereafter he commits the
least sin, and becomes diligent for other acts and works
of merit, and performs the holy communion, and does other
acts and works of merit whatever he can; do those acts and works
of merit become his or not? And when he dies they carry
his dead body with force to water and fire, what is your opinion
2. A: The acts and works of merit which he performs
do become his; the sin of walking without the sacred thread
has originated with him; and if they neither wash nor bury
his dead body, if he is absolved from sin when
he dies, they will perform the retribution of the
three nights, and will not turn him over to the
wicked existence; and if they wash and bury his dead body,
there was one who has said: "He is in a sinful state,
and cannot desist owing to inability". There was one who
has said: "Penitence is the remedy". 3. I so
understand that since he is a sinner deserving death, the sinfulness
culminates after death; if he spoke unto a person by way of
message: "If they wash and bury my dead body,
do you offer penitence unto the Dasturs by my message in
my behalf"; and if he shall be penitent in this way,
by message in his behalf, the penitence is appropriate;
they are to perform his three nights ceremony after the
expiry of the three nights, and are to perform other
acts and meritorious works as much as they can.
1. Q: A man, who removes the sacred thread [[kusti]] becomes
penitent of that sin and dies within a year; does the sin go away
2. A: If he become penitent within a year, the acts and
works of merit, which he had performed before that, come
back to him; those which he will perform after the penitence
do become his; and those which he will perform, after the removal
of the sacred thread, and before the penitence,
will not be his.
1. Q: What is your view as to a man who seizes the inside of his
mouth with the teeth, blood comes out and he eats that food and
does not throw off that skin?
2. A: This is very appropriate for him that he, who nibbles the
fingers with the teeth, ought to wash his finger afterwards.
1. Q: A man who eats warm food and burns his mouth, and he either
eats that food, or throws it off, or blister takes place; the
blister subsides, and comes off the mouth outright; does he become
contaminated or not?
2. A: As I understand: he is not contaminated.
1. Q: There is a man who fights with a man, one with the other;
the latter who fought seizes him, the other, with his teeth during
that fight, he eats dead matter; does the former become contaminate
by that eating of dead matter or not?
2. A: As I understand: he who does not seize with the teeth neither
becomes contaminated nor, too, deserving death.
1. Q: A man, who approaches a non-Iranian or a highwayman, has
fear of person and property through him; he cannot withhold him
unless he seizes him with the teeth; will there be sinfulness
of eating dead matter or not?
2. A: It is not lawful to devour dead matter observantly in any
1. Q: There is a man who fights with another man, one with the
other; what are the sin and penalty of him the aggressor, and
those of the latter; when the former deals wounds and blows, what
is his crime? What is that of the latter? And when one of them
says of the wounds that the other made them with the teeth, what
is your opinion of it?
2. A: As I understand: they are to observe the fight; if the Ratu
is doubtful as to who was not fighting, in a case of doubtfulness,
the Ratu shall hold as participating in the fight whoever is standing
at his place; if one deals the blow, and the other, too, deals
one, the penalty of battle, one to the other, will be the result;
and as God knows the sins of dead matter, of dealing the wound,
and of dealing the least wound, save those relating to the soul,
their reckoning will take place thither in the court of God; otherwise,
the judges are not to give a judgment thereon, since there have
been penalties of the dispute; for, they cannot understand as
to who made the dead matter; and if one says in this manner: "I
was seized by him with the teeth", and the other says: "I
did not seize", and there is no single proof, they shall
not consider the statement as believable.
1. Q: There is a boy of eight years who deals a wound or a blow
or an injury to a man or to a boy of eight years; what are his
sin and penalty?
2. A: As I understand: if he makes a wound, the sin is a
yât; if he strikes a blow bigger than a yât
sin, then, too, he shall undergo the penalty of a yât
sin; and if he commits a sin which is just like that deserving
death, a sin greater than a yât will not originate; and
if he undergoes punishment, he shall atone for the
offense within a year. 3. These several sins originate
with a child; bôtozêt, kâtyôzêt,
walking with one boot, eating while talking and false teaching;
the tanapuhr, and the sin deserving death do not accrue
1. Q: Ought a man, who sees that a person commits sorcery or sins
deserving death or other atrocious sins, mention the fact
to another? And if he does not mention it, shall a sin
accrue or not? And if he has no witness when he speaks,
acceptance of the statement of that man is not proper,
ought they to consider this man doubtful or not? And what is your
view of that man with this man?
2. A: If one commits a sin deserving death, or commits such sin
wherefrom the sin deserving death arises, or if a man sees a thief
or a brigand on the road, or he knows that they are on the road,
so long as he does not mention this it is not proper; if he does
not speak out all other sins, on account of not knowing which
there will be harm, if he does not disclose a sin deserving death
when he can disclose it, if he does not make it public,
the same will be the case; if one frees from confinement
the thief who has not made an assault, all the sins originate
with him which accrue if he had not made a grievous assault,
which it was not possible for him to make; in the
case when he had made an assault, then, too, he had been
able to make an assault, do not originate with him; if
he frees him from confinement, whichever sin he commits
by theft accrue to him.
1. Q: What is the sin of a man who tells a falsehood
about a man ?
2. A: Whenever the judges so announce that they are
taking his evidence, till when he who gives evidence speaks only
that which is a fact wherefrom there is no harm, it is a
statement of wicked speech; if harm issues therefrom, it is
1. Q: There is a man who makes an agreement with
his wife and says: "The children who are born of thee
are made copartners and joint-owners"; and thereafter, to
the children who are born of that wife; can that man give a greater
share of his property to some one of the children, and
less to some one? The father hands over to the husband
the daughter who is born of that wife; is a share of the
property hers after the father or not?
2. A: An equal share belongs to sons and daughters, and
one cannot do otherwise; if the daughter takes a husband, when
her father is alive, even then the share goes
to her by way of justice and lawfulness.
1. Q: A dead body lies on a road, on which road men of the good
religion come and go, and there is fear of contaminating
the body and clothes owing to that dead body, or there
is fear of disintegration of that dead body; it is not possible
to show the dog to the dead body, and there are
not two persons who can lift it; is it good that they
raise it alone, or better to let it be?
2. A: It is good to leave it on the spot, rather
than raise it alone.
1. Q: Does the man become contaminated or not who urinates over
a dead body, and does not stir that dead body, or he urinates
on the ground and the urine does not reach that dead body,
and he stirs that dead body?
2. A: He is not contaminated if the urine reaches the dead body
after he urinates; he does become contaminated if he urinates
1. Q: There is a dead body in water and a man inserts his
hand in water; what is the measure of that water, wherein
a man does not become contaminated?
2. A: There is no counting of the measure ; for,
whenever they insert a hand or a limb in water, and stir
the dead body before they bring over the hand out
of water, they do become contaminated.
1. Q: There is a man who gives a loan to a man; that
man departs from this world; he has wife and children
in this family; the widow does not return the loan taken
from the man; when she departs from this world, and there
are sons and daughters in the family, and the man
asks the return of the loan from a son; and the
son is perverse and says: "I do not know it"; the
man who is this creditor says: "Swear that thy father
did not take this loan from me, and I and other heirs of
my father have neither to return nor give this property to thee;
their returning or giving is not lawful"; the man who took
the loan says: "Let us, thou and I, so undergo the ordeal:
'I and other heirs of my father have no knowledge of this event'".
What is the advice?
2. A: As I understand: then he shall certainly undertake the
ordeal, saying: "My father and mother did not
take this loan from thee, O man!, and we who are the heirs of
our father and mother have not to return this loan to thee".
1. Q: There is a man who wants to recover two hundred derams
from a man, and that man says: "I have not, I cannot give":
and the man, the creditor, says: "He has, and give
the order so that we may search his house, and this
capability which he has, is worth so much in lieu of that debt".
Can they seize the man's belongings or not?
2. A: The man who wants to recover the debt from a man,
cannot seize from the property of the man, the
debtor, for his own belonging without the order and
adjudication of the Dasturs; if he takes away, he
becomes a thief or a robber; the judges shall so adjudicate that
of the materials in the house of the indebted man,
unless he leaves as much for the indebted man that he has
no fear of death nor privation from the continual outcome
of his property; otherwise, they cannot decide upon seizing
and taking away.
1. Q: There is a man who mortgages a property to
a man and takes a loan; and he agrees, and mortgages to the
man as much property as can redeem the loan for the
property, to the satisfaction of the creditor; and
the loan becomes one out of two; then the property can redeem
the interest; but it cannot redeem the interest; can the man who
is the creditor claim additional property, or will it be enough
if he, the mortgagor delivers that mortgaged property? Shall he
make any other amends or not?
2. A: As the man, who is the creditor, approved the property
which he received as mortgage, by the reckoning of the
value of the principal and interest as holding good on
that day, and he took it; when the property depreciates, the man
who received the loan, and mortgaged his property, so long as
the principal is equal to that. property, the man is unable
to return the loan immediately, and the mortgagee has the
right to the property which he received as mortgage, until the
mortgagor is able to return the principal and the interest, the
opinion for return of the loan, too, is such, as if he
had taken the loan, but he had not made the mortgage; even then,
he shall return the loan and the interest, in accordance
with his means and ability.
1. Q: If a man is in debt, he has no belongings, he cannot repay
his debt, the judge sends him temporarily to jail; how long can
the judge detain that man in jail? And in what manner shall he
release him? And as the man will come to his wife and children,
enfeebled in the jail, he has fear of death and privation; how
long can the judge detain him in jail?
2. A: If it be evident that he has nothing, until he is not certain
of returning, the judge cannot detain him in jail.
And if one so says: "He ought to be detained in jail",
according to customary law, it is so held that he shall detain
him in jail for five days; and then, if he can do any
work, he shall order him to work, and shall fix his
wage, and shall count the rest for repaying the debt; and
if he cannot do any work, he shall give him an average
1. Q: A man who passes away had a wife of independent status;
he told his brother: "Hand over in marriage this wife whom
I had obtained from thee"; and the man handed over
in marriage that wife under his adoption, and she bore
several children; the family perished with wife and children,
and the estate remained in the man's hands; the case
is this: shall the adoption revert to the original
state, or is this man fully qualified, since the man's
brother had told him: "Hand over this my wife in marriage"?
Shall the case be in consonance with the customary law or not?
2. A: As I understand: that adoption will revert to the original
state, and that brother of his has a qualification in another
way, otherwise the adoption will be very much his owing to that
statement; nor, too, has that statement any sound of customary
1. Q: There was a man who had a son of mature age; he had estates,
and passed away; the father had a son of inferior status, who
was held to be an accepted adopted son; and he expires a little
while after that; the case is this: does the estate of the father
go to the family of that son who expired before the father or
not? And if it does go, how much shall go?
2. A: A half of the father's estate has to be added on to the
gift of the son's family, and one half is to be given to that
1. Q: If the complainant has one or two witnesses for proof of
culpability, and the defendant is perverse, who shall undergo
the ordeal? And if there is a witness on one side, and a consideration
on the other side, who shall undergo the ordeal?
2. A: As I understand: the complainant has the better title to
institute the ordeal, in both the cases; and he who is perverse,
and he who has consideration, have themselves to cooperate in
the institution of the ordeal; and they have to hold even with
the defendant in the ordeal. 3. There are ten gradations of sin;
the framan, an awsma, a srosho-charanam, agerept, avoirisht, aredush,
khvar, baja, yat, tanapuhr, or margarjan.
1. Q: If a woman of inferior status, who has a son of mature age,
takes a husband without the authority and knowledge of the son,
is it proper or not?
2. A: According to the teaching of the guild it is so taught
that Awarg had said: "If a woman of inferior status takes
a husband without the authority of the family chief, her wifehood
of inferior status will be proper, as per the text: 'She who accepts
for herself'". Datfarokhv and Vakhshapohr had said:
"It is not proper"; but as Awarg had adjudicated
for its propriety, they could not, therefore, so adjudicate,
since they had not produced Avestan evidence as to its impropriety;
as that impropriety which they had declared might have been for
that reason of appropriating a share of the estate,
there is no consideration of any illicit love in her selection
of a paramour, which is such that she does not take any
share of the family inheritance; curtailing any difference
of opinions, the law of usage shall have been otherwise followed,
as is proper according to one teaching; the aerpats [[ervads]]
are to alter the least what they must do; if no magnitude of a
point of law is evident, they are very properly to consider the
greater evidence of the teaching, even of this teaching to which
the evidence of the Avesta is very helpful.
1. Q: Whoever makes a solemn vow with this sort of colloquy: "I
have dedicated to such and such person all acts and good deeds
which I may perform from this day onward"; what is your
opinion of this case: this as to whether they will have been
dedicated by him or not?
2. A: If he declares as "dedicated" that property
which has not come to his possession, it will not have been dedicated;
and if he speaks of that good deed which has not become
his, he shall not have dedicated in the same manner; if
he speaks of that property which has not come to his possession,
or of that good deed and property which have not together
come to his possession, if a fear, or a difficulty, or a trouble,
or depressing thought, or a defect has not come, such as that
which is said in detail in the ordeal section of the
Husparum, if he speaks of one who is worthy; then when
that property came to his possession, or that good deed came
to achievement, they shall have been dedicated, in
the same manner, to him to whom they are
dedicated, if even now that worthiness has not elapsed; it can
be dedicated for that one fear of fears, when one dedicates
anything to worthy persons for fear of the wicked existence;
if he says: "I will dedicate" a good deed, not for any
earthly gain, but for the friendship of the soul of a person
who is worthy, it will be his to whom he said "I will
dedicate", when he has performed it; and it will not be the
less, of him who performed it; it will come to him
in the same manner as if he had performed it for the
sake of his own soul; since he declared that colloquy
"I will dedicate" for the love of righteousness,
he advances this in the path of a soul, even this
munificence which he advances with a good deed will be such as
his who performs a worship, without earthly reward and gain, for
the souls of persons; then, the recitation by him of what is in
the oath ordeal has gone by, which brings out the least a preparation
of this kind, then he shall recite the words of Rashnu, those
which the Avesta has demonstrated, those which he can verily consider,
such as one says: (Av.) 'Here is such utility,' so is this regulation
for defense, (Av.) 'or here is its information unto me'; so I
have information of it by proof, (Av.) 'or I do not know of it,'
or I have not that by knowledge, if by non-recitation of it, I
am a sinner who misuses a trust; then, I do not know of any formula
to explain that he has to take effectively in reckoning those
words which it is not according to the law for him to speak, and
to decide the matter. 3. It is instituted that if there has been
such a man, a man who, on account of fear, speaks in the presence
of judges: "This man had smitten me", the judge understands
that he spoke on account of fear, he shall release him on the
highway. 4. They shall leave the decision of this, as to for what
reason that man spoke of dedicating that good deed, to the Yazads
who ordain; they can decide; otherwise, since the judges of this
world cannot effectively return to the real holder the property
which is invisible, which is known to have been in the keeping
of one who carried it away with force, therefore, as an invisible
good deed becomes requisite by declaration, he has to atone for
the false oath; the punishment of the atonement is evident as
determined; they shall not mitigate the penalty of that which
is indubitable and that which is doubtful, and they shall adjudicate
the material person and property; they shall leave the judgment
of the soul and the good deed to Him who knows; it is even due
to His power that the righteous is inculpated by that over which
he has no power.
1. Q: The question is this: what is the appointment of an adopted
son? What is the benefit if they accept him for themselves, or
if they accept him for the person who has passed away? How ought
they to accept? If they accept him for him who has passed away,
shall he have any comfort or not? And how can the good deed which
the son will perform for him be his? Is he fit for the adoption
of him who has passed away? If the accepted son gives birth to
a child, shall he who has passed away have his name borne by that
child or not? 2. And this too, we ask: how ought they to accept
a son whom they accept as son, if he be a child of four years
and he has no father? In what manner is his appointment? And if
his father appoints him, is it proper or not? And how shall they
maintain him? 3. You will write the customary law as to whatever
I have written, and that which I may not have written, about this
case; what ought we to do?
4. A: The appointment of an adopted son is such that at first
one ought to proclaim the proper appointment by selection with
the open proclamation of good thoughts, good words, and good deeds;
he, too, ought to give advancement to his soul whose good thoughts,
good words, and good deeds he has to accept for the work of propagation;
if he turns away from it, I know its text [[Avesta]] and commentary
[[Zand]], that which is stated in the Sagadum: (Av.) 'Whoso chooses
to be the son of a man knowing this much: for the good thought
which is in my mind, and for the good word which is mine in utterance,
and for the good deed which is mine in action', he who will promote
sonship for a man, knowing thus that the good thought which I
think with the mind, the good word which I speak with the utterance,
the good deed which I perform with the act; and this I say emphatically
that he reverts from it. (Av.) 'He handed over his own father
to the dev of death', he shall have delivered his own father to
Astwihad; that is, the father will be handed over to him owing
to him; (Av.) 'he does not do any action better than this', he
will not do better action than this, by way of comparison (Av.)
'he might break off the adoption of a man of most good thought,
of most good word, and of most good deed', as if he had broken
off the adoption of a holy man of immense good thoughts, of immense
good words, and of immense good deeds; (Av.) 'even when dead,
one does not allot him who is at rest the place of the best existence
[[heaven]]', when dead, they do not allot, even unto him, the
abodes of the best existence.
5. And one says this, too, as regards the sonship and the other
ceremony of reciting the name of the departed, which is for good
fame, and for the share of the departed beings accruing thereby:
(Av.) 'O Spitama Zarathushtra! the souls of the departed verily
wish this much for good fame', for it is their desire, O Spitaman
Zartosht! of these souls of the departed, as much good fame and
recitation of their names in the material world, (Av.) 'as in
this life which is physical anysoever of the physical life would
wish for the friendship of body and life, and any Mazda-worshipper
even so wishes, as in the physical life anysoever possessing physical
life has the desire of co-association of body and life, that is,
it is requisite for them when a life is with the body; it is their
wish; there wish is also the same.
6. Otherwise, the aphorism for the appointment of an accepted
son is even this: "The father has instituted me like a son,
has accepted me for my sons, has accepted me for a line of sons."
7. If something of this kind be spoken or written or declared
by one or by the statement of the city, in the same way either
by message or by testament, so long a that son is of mature age,
it is right to accept that son; and a minor can be accepted; and
if a daughter has attained to majority and agrees, if the father
who is the begetter accepts her, the daughtership is proper.
1. Q: The question is this: of acts and good deeds which the child
of inferior status performs, which are those which reach the father
of independent status, and which are those which reach the father
of inferior status? Where will they go at the final material life?
2. A: If the father begetting has nothing with him except parentage,
one-fourth will be his; if the child receives food and provision
from the father begetting, three parts out of four will belong
to the father begetting.
1. Q: If a man has no wife nor children of independent status
in material life, shall he have them in spiritual life or not?
2. A: He will not have them in spiritual life; but every person
will attain to completeness and needlessness of that which is
quite necessary for him.
1. Q: A man accepts a woman as wife of independent status; he
does not even lie with her; he, then, gave her to a man as wife
of inferior status; the question is this: can that woman be his
wife of independent status in spiritual life or not?
2. A: If such is a parole contract, her wifehood came into being;
there is no consideration of lying with her; for, even if he did
not lie with her, she is a wife of independent status.
1. Q: What shall a woman who was in contact with dead matter eat
before the three nights' period of ablution? What shall she not
eat? Can they give her water or not for precaution against the
sin of starvation? And if they must give, how and how much shall
they give? And can they keep the fire before her or not, during
severe winter? Can they cast off her clothes or not?
2. A: Those things which she can eat are animal food which is
cooked without water and salt, and corn which is not cooked with
water and the accompaniment of salt ; she can drink the juice
of the sumac plant which has no water mingled with it, and the
milk of small animals and big animals. 3. She can sit close to
the fire, in case of the fear of death and privation, and she
cannot drink water in case of starvation.
1. Q: There is a woman from whose uterus a lump comes off; which
is that which one has to consider as dead matter? And which is
that which is not so? How can one understand it?
2. A: It is so stated that they may show it to the dog, that they
may cast it in the bull's urine by the aid of two men; if it turns
white, they shall consider it to be dead matter; if it becomes
melted and red, it is proper if one does not consider it to be
1. Q: If a woman with child passes away, what are the precautions
distinct from those of other dead bodies?
2. A: It is so stated that they shall remove the dead body by
the help of two men; both of them shall wash themselves with the
ablution by the nine-knot stick; and there was a Dastur who said
that they shall remove it by the help of four men; it is proper
if they do not wash themselves with the ablution by the stick.
1. Q: There are two men of the good religion in a caravan of those
of another religion; one of them passes away; a dog cannot be
procured; how shall this man alone take care of that dead body?
If those of the adverse religion say: "Unless thou liftest
it up together with us, we will not be satisfied"; how can
it be lifted?
2. A: If this man removes it away from the fear of water and fire,
it is not lawful unless the dog has seen it. 3. It is lawful,
if they remove it by two men; and if both be of the good religion,
or if both be of the adverse religion, it is very good as it is;
it ought to be so executed; there is a teaching according to which
it is lawful to remove it so.
1. Q: There is stacked wheat in which dead matter has reached;
if the wheat be pure, even if it is in grass; what is the opinion
as to the wheat? And if the dead matter is disintegrated, how
ought we to act? And if it is putrid, what shall we do? How is
the opinion about the grass?
2. A: As I understand from the Scripture: it is stated of pure
wheat that it is detached from impurity; that much spot whereon
the dead matter rests is putrid, and the rest is clean; and that
which is compact with glass is to be washed, as is manifest from
the Vendidad; and it is to be placed in a ground pit, as is stated,
for the length of a year; and water is to be poured over it at
the end of the year; it is pure at that time, provided the dead
matter is not disintegrated.
1. Q: There is a man on whose hand a wound occurs in a pot wherein
there is water, or in a jar wherein there is wine; what is the
condition of the jar of wine and of the pot and the water?
2. A: If the wound occurs when the hand is inside the pot, the
pot is contaminated; and that which is in it is unfit for use;
if it occurs when the hand is outside the pot, that much portion
is to be cleaned by feeling it with the hand, and the pot will
not be and shall not be made unfit for use; and if the wound occurs
outside the pot, that which is inside it is not contaminated.
1. Q: A man cuts his foot whilst straining wine; what is the condition
of the wine? And what is your opinion of a venomous serpent which
may die in a jar of wine?
2. A: If his foot comes out cut in the wine juice, and moisture
comes up, that in which the foot was is to be considered entirely
full of dry dead matter; and if its becoming dead matter be manifest,
it is full of dead matter. 3. And as regards the venomous serpent;
there was a Dastur who said that it was not distinct from other
noxious creatures; there was one who said that it was distinct.
1. Q: The is a man the gums of whose teeth are tender, or his
teeth are extracted; at times blood comes out whilst he is eating
some food; when he has eaten a morsel, as he observes, he sees
blood; what and how is the case of the morsel? And if any food
settles hard within the teeth, what is the opinion as to the morsel
swallowed, and as to throwing off the entire morsel, and cleaning
the teeth ?
2. A: If the tenderness of the flesh of the mouth be such that
at times blood comes out whilst eating food, the man must spit
the morsel as soon as it came to his knowledge; as he sees the
blood, it is good if he spits it out; if it came to his knowledge
that he has swallowed blood, and its having been dead matter be
not evident, it is proper if he does not receive the ablution
by the stick, for that apparent cause.
1. Q: There is a man who has a blister or other ulcerated putridity
on the hand; what is the opinion as to him who eats the food which
is touched by that hand?
2. A: All putridity is said to be the worst dry dead matter; if
that putridity from which no moisture exudes, comes in contact
with any food, that food does not become unfit for use; if the
putridity be moist, and the food which comes in contact with it
and mingles with it be fresh, it is entirely contaminated; and
that which is dry should be separated from that spot; that much
portion which has come in contact is to be set apart.
1. Q: There is a man who is grinding corn; during that grinding,
his hand dashes with the mill-stone, and dead matter exudes therefrom;
he does not know whether it went into the flour or under the stone;
what is the disposal of the flour?
2. A: If dead matter has exuded, he does not see where it has
gone, he is doubtful as to the flour, and he does not know that
it did not go into the flour; it is unfit for use, and shall be
given to the dog.
1. Q: A part of a man's tooth breaks whilst he is eating bread,
and he swallows it; what is your opinion?
2. A: As the tooth breaks from the root and it has not reached
the brain, it is said to be a dry bone, and does not make the
man contaminated; if it has reached the brain, it is dead matter,
and the man is contaminated thereby.
1. Q: A well is constructed with bricks; within its water dead
matter falls in; even if it be dead matter emanating from the
living beings, how is the operation of that well?
2. A: As the going into it of dead matter is certain, as it is
built of bricks, it is neither to be covered nor to be filled
1. Q: There is a man of the good religion who purchased cloth
from the market; then, it came to his knowledge that they had
brought this cloth from the suburbs of the city; what is the opinion,
if it be certain or even if it be doubtful?
2. A: If it be certainly manifest that it is brought from the
suburbs of the city, there is contamination of the man owing to
there being dead matter and the grease of the dead matter on it;
owing to other things which are in contact with it, it is the
actual contamination of unfitness for use; and if it be doubtful
that it was brought from the suburbs of the city, unless in the
case of certainty; it is not contaminated.
1. Q: Of teeth or dead matter such as hair and toothpick, after
the passing away of a man to whom they belong, which is that which
produces contamination, and which is that which does not produce
2. Q: That the teeth become dead matter, it is certain; and when
a man is dead, the dog is to be shown; the teeth are to be considered
as seen by the dog; if a man stirs the dead body alone, he becomes
contaminated; the hair which, it is not evident, were with the
dead body, or the toothpick which has not become full of dead
matter, do not contaminate a man.
1. Q: A dead body has fallen on the public road or in any other
street; the coming and going of men and animals-are therethrough;
can one lift it up alone and lay it on one side or not? And if
he so can, upto what extent can he remove it? Can he lift with
a rag and the hands? What is your opinion of each distinct operation?
If he does not lift it up, is it a sin or not? And is there any
difference of view as regards the dead body which is in water
or not? And what is your opinion as to requesting another person
to remove it?
2. A: One can lift up alone a dead body not seen by the dog, even
away from water and fire, or from the fear of water and fire,
owing to undoubted fear, at the, time; or when it is buried, he
can lift it alone up to the time of its exposure to the sun. 3.
If he be dead on a side of the road, according to the saying of
Atar-frenabag son of Farokhvzat, leader of the faithful, one can
let it lie, he must not be contaminated. 4. And one ought so to
remove and place on one side the dead body from the water that
the water dripping from it may not come back to the water from
which it is being removed; for, if it so comes, the water will
be putrefied. 5. It would be better if one does not seize it with
the hands, but with a rag or with some other thing. 6. And then,
one has to show the dog to it, and remove it to a befitting place.
7. It is a tanapuhr good deed for each of the parts of the dead
body which one brings out of water or exposes to the light of
the sun from underground; and it is a greater good deed to show
the dog to it and to remove it to a befitting place.
1. Q: Does a man of the good religion, who touches the dead body
of a person on the road, on the back or the chest, become contaminated
or not? And if he says, "I will dash thee against dead body",
and he holds it up with the hands, does he contaminate or not?
2. A: He is not contaminated, if he dashes against the dead body,
but he does not come in contact even with it, if he does not cast
it with his strength; but the clothes which are with him in contact
do become contaminated; it would be very good if at the time when
he attains to difficulty, he stands back, and the dead body rather
falls of itself off from him, and not with his strength.
1. Q: When a woman is bathing after the period of menstruation,
her foot collided with a stone, and blood came out of it; is there
any putrefaction or not?
2. A: She is not contaminated if she was engaged in her work of
duty, as the dead matter flowed from the foot and did not reach
the water; if her foot had collided without any work of duty,
dead matter had flowed from it and reached the water; she is contaminated.
1. Q: There is a running stream wherein a dead body is disintegrated,
how many paces underneath, how many above the water, and how many
on the sides is the contamination said to infect?
2. A: It is so stated that if a dead body is disintegrated in
running water, nine paces of the upper layer of water, six paces
of the layer underneath, and six paces from the side elevated,
are infected; it is so when the dead matter is not liquefied;
when it is liquefied, the under and the side layer of water deserves
to be analyzed.
1. Q: How are we to abstain from the teeth of living beings? How
are we to abstain from the blood which comes out due to the sinful
act? Can they be given to the dog or not?
2. A: It is better to carry the teeth to the ossuary; for, if
they give to the dog, it may be that he will bring them out. 3.
The blood which comes out due to the sinful act should be carried
to a hillock or to a dry plain; otherwise I feel it is better
to give to the dog.
1. Q: What is your view of a bird which devours the blood which
comes out due to the sinful act?
2. A: There is a Dastur who adjudicated it as a case of contamination;
there is one who stated it to be more abject.
1. Q: How long shall water be not given to an animal which chews
a man's hand with the teeth and dead matter exudes? If any person
drinks and eats the milk and flesh of that animal before the expiry
of the year, what is your opinion?
2. A: The care of water against the animal is not mentioned in
this case; up to a year's length, the animal and whatever issues
from the animal are the worst dry dead matter; any person who
partakes thereof does not become contaminated; but the sin of
eating dry dead matter arises.
1. Q: For how many days shall a man, who swallows a tooth or any
dead matter, drink no water?
2. A: It has so come down to us from the first leaders of religion
that this is to be done for three full days when the proof of
the tooth swallowed will not have come out, and for one full day
in the case of a tooth bite.
1. Q: A man ties a tooth in a piece of rag, and puts it in a place,
before be departs from the world; how ought they to take care
of the tooth in the piece of rag, after the passing away of the
2. A: Thy are to carry the tooth in the rag to the ossuary, and
are to unloose it there from the rag, and throw it properly.
1. Q: If a dead body is over a roof, if it is doubtful to stir
it, and the dog cannot look at the dead body from underneath;
he cannot unless they seize him and drag him over the roof; what
is your opinion of the man who drags forth the dog?
2. A: If they lay a ladder up the wall, make the dog to sit from
the wall over the roof, if they throw bread piece by piece in
the vicinity of the dead body, until they understand that the
dog has seen it, and then two men with cooperation may go up,
and lift it up, and remove it with cooperation, it is proper?
1. Q: A man of the good religion, who is in a caravansary, wherein
there are men of many denominations; a man of another religion
expires over the roof; the man of the good religion has access
to that place; how ought the man of the good religion to act in
order to carry the dead from thence? The dead bodies of men of
another religion do not defile man or house or place; when they
are carrying it over a bed, and a man of the good religion of
the road forthwith strikes at the shroud or at the bed; what is
your view as regards the man? And if he comes in contact with
the clothes which are on the dead, what is your view?
2. A: If a person strikes at the shroud, if the clothes come in
contact with the body in the shroud, the man has to clean the
clothes with bull's urine and water; if the body comes
in contact even with the body, the man has to clean his body and
clothes with bull's urine and water; and if his upper garment
dashes with the dead body, the man is not contaminated, but the
garment which dashes with the dead body is contaminated.
1. Q: A man in the desert approaches a well in which a dead body
has fallen; it chooses to float from this side to that, in short,
from every side; how can one make the water at a distance from
2. A: It is so stated that one cannot cause dead matter to be
carried to water or fire, for any very great purpose; and it there
is a well in which there is a dead body which is not disintegrated,
they are to bring it out of it when the exudation of dead matter
and the mingling of oiliness are not manifest; it is then lawful
to bring it out, when it is motionless; and if the disintegration
of the dead body be manifest and it is full of oiliness, it is
not lawful to draw the water out of it in any way, to allow the
drops of water to fall back to the water full of dead matter,
and to drink therefrom; for, there is fear of becoming a great
sinner deserving death.
1. Q: How many paces underneath, how many above, and how many
from the sides, is the contamination stated in a lake in which
a piece of dead matter falls?
2. A: If disintegration has taken place therefrom, it is not more
than three paces on each side, and for still water six paces are
1. Q: A man kneads flour; when he has kneaded it, he sees his
hand, blood has come out of it; what is the disposal of that flour?
And if it comes to his knowledge after baking the bread, is the
oven defiled or not? What is the opinion as to him who ate that
2. A: If the exudation of dead matter be not visible, the kneaded
flour has become full of dry dead matter, and is to be given to
the dog; and if it be baked and eaten, it is a case of eating
dry dead matter; and it dead matter has exuded, the flour is full
of dead matter, is therefore immediately unfit for use, and the
flour is to be given to the dog with proper precautions; if it
be eaten, and as the oven is full of dead matter, he who ate out
of it is contaminated.
1. Q: There is a cauldron in a state of ebullition, over which
a man holds his hand and a skimmer thereon in hand; out of that
boiling substance a little falls over his hand, and the hand burns
or a blister comes out; he does not know whether the eatable of
the cauldron and the pus which issues from the burn went up to
the cauldron or not; what is your opinion?
2. A: The cauldron will not have contamination, if the exudation
of dead matter and pus formation are not visible; and if the pus
issuing from it be visible, the cauldron is full of dry dead matter;
and if the exudation of dead matter from it be visible, one has
to observe with vigilance; and when one has observed with vigilance,
the cauldron and even that which is in it are unfit for use; after
observing that, one has to take care with caution.
1. Q: What is your opinion of piled fuel, if a dead body has been
piled in it?
2. A: If one is doubtful as to the coming up of dead matter, and
oiliness coming to it be not evident, they shall clean it as the
statement is clear in the Vendidad; and if the mingling in of
oiliness be evident, and if the dry dead matter be evident, they
shall remove it to the place of dead matter.
1. Q: What is your opinion of an oven wherein the hand burns,
and then a person eats the bread baked in that oven?
2. A: If the exudation of dead matter be evident, the oven is
unfit for use and contaminated; whoever eats the bread baked in
it is contaminated; and if the dead matter has not any the least
mingling of oiliness, and if no exudation be evident, the oven
is full of dry dead matter; whoever ate bread from it is not contaminated,
and the oven shall be razed.
1. Q: Someone lays his foot over a dead body which is buried underneath
the earth; what is your opinion?
2. A: He is not contaminated if he does not stir it nor comes
in contact with it.
1. Q: What is your view as regards passing from a graveyard?
2. A: Special precautions in all respects during humidity, and
in other periods at the time when the day is out.
1. Q: A man felt: "I will give a thing to a person, poor
or rich"; can he alter that thing or not?
2. A: He cannot do otherwise than whatever he felt in his mind,
except when a contract is made.
1. Q: One dedicates some thing to the soul of a person; will the
entire good deed belong to his soul, or will it be his own, too?
2. A: He who dedicates, he for whom he does, both become co-sharers
in the good deed.
1. Q: When a person is passing away, does any sin go off by renunciation
2. A: This much will happen that the person will be freed from
sin which he/she was unable to expiate, owing to the performance
of renunciation, after they have performed the retribution during
the three nights.
1. Q: When the bird settles over the dead body, does any sin diminish
2. A: It is said that sin diminishes.
1. Q: A dog dies in a straw-bin, what is your view of the grass?
2. A: The glass is contaminated; it is not proper to give it to
animals by observation; and do you not consider it proper if they
are eating it.
1. Q: A dog dies on a spot in the road, which spot is narrow,
and there is too much dust; in that immense dust, the turning
of the passage of entrance is narrow; how ought we to act?
2. A: The dust is to be removed from the road, and the ground
to the extent of the length and the breadth of the dog's body
is defiled; and if they can alter the road, they shall alter it;
and if they cannot they shall close that spot.
1. Q: A man is digging a spot, a dead body or an old skeleton
comes to sight; what is your opinion?
2. A: If he digs the earth with the intent that he may expose
to the light of the sun the dead body which is underneath the
earth, he is not contaminated until he exposes to the light of
the sun; and when the exposure to the light of the sun is effected,
he shall show the dog, and he shall perform the work of its disposal
by two men.
1. Q: A man goes into a well in order to clean it; a dead body
comes to sight; what is its disposal, if it be in a good condition,
2. A: If the dead body is disintegrated, the well is unfit for
use and it shall neither be covered nor filled; it is proper to
dig another close by.
1. Q: A dead body is thrown at a spot, and one would pass by it
and does not lift it up; is it proper or not?
2. A: Whatever is allowed to remain, in spite of the fear to water
and fire, creates a sin.
1. Q: If a man is ploughing the earth with an ox, and a piece
of dead matter comes out of the earth with his strength and that
of the ox, what is your view about the man?
2. A: If he stirs the dead body which the dog has not seen by
the strength of two, he becomes contaminated; if the dog has seen
it, he does not become contaminated.
1. Q: There is a garment in the ossuary defiled with oiliness,
and there is fear of infection if they remove it; what is your
opinion, if they would go in and tear it?
2. A: If they be doubtful of coming up towards oiliness, it is
not proper to go but in pair.
1. Q: When ought we to perform the day, the year, and the month
ceremony of a person who passes away in the good pentad [[i.e.
during the 5 Gatha days at the end of the year]]?
2. A: His/her day ceremony of the first month, on the thirtieth
day, and of the other months on the day Frawardin, and the anniversary
on the day he has passed away.
1. Q: A man is passing along a road; enemies approach him; can
he fight or not?
2. A: Unless he indubitably knows it to be rightful, he cannot.
1. Q: Can we purchase wine and other eatables from the Christians
2. A: We cannot purchase but during helplessness, as they do not
abstain from the menstrual impurity which they hold as lawful.
1. Q: A man speaks to his child: "I will give thee something",
before his giving that thing the child passes away; can he dedicate
that thing to his his/her soul or not? And ought he to give it
to his/her child or not?
2. A: Something which he had declared for his child, if possible
is to be given to his/her child, and if the child be a daughter,
it is to be given to her husband.
1. Q: If a woman passes away during childbirth, will there be
any great benefit to her soul such as that which is not to a begetter?
2. A: Her good deeds are greater due to her dutiful action and
the greatest service of man.
1. Q: A person passes away; what ought we to place over that dron
of the dawn of the fourth day of the holy fravashis? You will
please write the whereabouts as regards this matter.
2. A: Egg and salted cheese are requisite over the two drons
of the good Vayu and Rashn-Ashtad; and it is proper to place all
adornments over that of the holy fravashis.
1. Q: Is it lawful to carry the dead body at night or not?
2. A: It is proper to carry it from the house at night, and it
shall be carried into the ossuary during the day; if, at night,
there be no other dead body at the place of carnage, it is proper
to carry to the ossuary even at night.
1. Q: An infant falls into the fire; ought the mother to take
the barashnom ablution or not? And how would it be if it falls
in the water?
2. A: If it so happens owing to the sinfulness of the mother that
the dead body burns, the mother is contaminated; and if it falls
into the water and dies, or dead matter exudes from it, there
is a sinful act, too, along with contamination.
1. Q: A man declares: "I will give an amount of derams for
the elevation of the soul;" how shall he give?
2. A: It would be so very appropriate if he gives a one-third
for ceremonies, a one-third for tending the sacred fire and cooperation
with the good deed of the season festivals [[Gahambars]], and
a one-third for the gift of the holy communion as the most essential
degree of good deeds.
1. Q: How much sinful is it if a woman in her menses sits in the
vicinity of the fire? And if she sits before the lamp? And how
far ought she to stand from the fire?
2. A: If she sits within three paces of the fire, every time it
is a tanapuhr sin which is equivalent to three hundred Stirs;
if she sits within three paces of the lamp, the same happens as
in the case of fire.
1. Q: How much sinful is it if the feet of a woman in her menses
touch the ground? And how much sinful is it for every drop of
water which they pour over a woman in her menses? And how much
is it sinful if she looks at the sky, the sun, the stars, and
the moon? And how much sinful is it if she extends her hands towards
2. A: Every drop of any water which they let fall over a menstruative
woman with sinfulness creates much more than a sin worth a Stir;
and by looking at things, besides the fire, which are written,
a sin worth three Stirs, for each occasion.
1. Q: If a woman in her menses cannot eat the food which they
give over to her, and it remains till the next day, is it fit
for eating or not?
2. A: It is stated that the food which remains unused by a woman
in her menses, is not fit for any use whatsoever. 3. There was
one who said: "It is not also fit even for her as a separate
repast." 4. There was one who said: "It is fit".
1. Q: Can a man talk with a woman in her menses? And an infant
who first extends his hand towards menstrual impurity, then extends
his hand towards food: is it proper? If the infant is of three
years or of four years, what is your view?
2. A: A man by talking to a woman in her menses, commits a framan
sin every time. 3. There is no need of precaution for a babe of
three years or of four years, if there be fear of giving bath
1. Q: What is your view of a man laying his hands on a woman in
her menses? And if he gives a kiss to a woman in her menses, how
much is the sinful? If he divests himself of his clothes, and
lies even with her, how much is the sinfulness?
2. A: It is a khvar sin to lay the hands on a woman in her menses;
to lie with her, and to extend the sexual organ without the function
it has to perform, are stated to be heinous sins.
1. Q: The man who commits intercourse with a menstruative woman,
how much is his sin? Can he do so? What expiation ought he to
undergo? And if he did not emit the semen in the menstruation,
what is the difference? And if he did the emission betwixt the
thighs, what is your view?
2. A: The details of atonement are numerous; for, the libations
of a thousand animals to the Warharan fire are mentioned; and
a thousand faggots of fuel, and a thousand faggots of fragrant
wood, and a thousand ceremonies which carry the libations to the
waters; and he shall smite a thousand snakes and two thousand
lizards; and if he kills of snakes a thousand, it is the greatest
good deed; and two thousand frogs of the water, and two thousand
which are outside the water, which can run, and a thousand ants
carrying grains of corn, and two thousand small one and a thousand
black flies, and two thousand venomous lizards; and he has to
construct thirty bridges over the places of crossing of the waters;
and if the man can, he shall so expiate as is manifest in the
Avesta; and if he be unable, if he performs the hama-din and the
duwazdah homast (dvazdah-homast) with the libations, he shall have expiated properly.
1. Q: If a man commits intercourse with a woman of a different
religion, what is your view? How will it be if the woman becomes
pregnant, and if impregnated by him? How will it be if the woman
is in her menses, and if she is not, what is your view?
2. A: There is a heinous sin in coition with such a woman; if
she becomes pregnant, it is possible several sins will occur;
and if she is in her menses, the expiation is that which is written
above; and if she be not in her menses, and not impregnated, he
is liable to atonement, besides the sin of coition with a non-Iranian,
for the wound to the body, fear unto the soul, and temporary involvement;
and if he is involved therein, the decision is that of wasting
the semen even with a woman in her menses, which is not emitted
in her body, a tanapuhr sin of wasting the semen, and of defiling
the body accrues.
1. Q: What is your view of a man who is in the company of a woman
in her menses, and the woman does not tell him? What is your view
if the woman is non-Iranian, and even if she was of the good religion,
and she tells him afterwards?
2. A: If the woman was such to whom it was lawful to go, and the
man was not aware of her condition, and the woman was aware and
does not tell him, the woman is sinful, and the man unsinning;
and if the woman was not lawful, the man, too, is sinful.
1. Q: A woman leaving an infant in the house at the foot of the
hearth, herself went away from that place; the infant is burnt
by the fire; does the woman thereby become sinful or not? Ought
she to wash with the barashnom or not?
2. A: As the woman has to perform the guidance of her own child,
she cannot, therefore, leave her child at a dangerous place, so
long as she can secure it in her hands; if she, otherwise, leaves
it, the child attains to danger, the wound which occurs to it
is a sin which originates with her; and if it is burnt and it
so happens that dead matter exudes and reaches the fire, she attains
to the sinfulness deserving death, and there is contamination
of body and clothes.
1. Q: Can the man who obtains from his father wealth which is
accumulated with unrighteousness, enjoy that wealth, and make
a provision for duty and good deeds or not? And if he performs
out of it ceremonies for his own soul and even that of his father,
will they reach their souls or not?
2. A: For all the wealth which the father had accumulated before
the coming forth of the child, I cannot understand his child to
be a sharer in his sins or good deeds; and then when it comes
into the possession and authority of the child, he shall return
whatever he knows as having been obtained from the thief or the
robber; a half or one-third, just as the Dasturs may direct, and
he shall restore the rest, that which is worthy of him; and he
shall make provision according to religious usage, just as may
be very helpful, for the expiation of the sins of his father;
as to that of which he does not know anything, as he himself is
authorized to keep the wealth in his possession, it is good that
be shall, in all respects perform ceremonies, votive offerings,
and other works of merit for the soul of his father, for making
the atonement of the sins of his father and by way of good deeds
even for the sake of the soul of his father, so that he may expiate
the sins and impurities, and the indebtedness of his father; for
the expiation of sin is the most compulsory work of merit, whereby
glory and radiance are increased.
1. Q: How much is the sin of a man who takes over the wealth of
adoption in his own possession? And how shall he expiate when
he wishes to expiate? If a man whose sin has been of this nature,
goes to the judgment without atonement, ought we to perform or
not his three days' ceremony and the ceremony of the anniversary
day? The question is this: have we to perform or not the ceremony
for the soul of a sinner deserving death for whom no atonement
is manifest save that of being absolved from sin? And in what
respect does the opinion differ when his having performed the
atonement is not manifest, in the case when he is absolved, from
that when he is not absolved from sin? And it may even happen
that if his atonement of sin is manifest, his absolution may not
be manifest; in what respect is his case different from him whose
absolution is manifest, but his atonement of sin is not manifest?
What is your opinion of a disciple man, who performs the ceremony
for the souls of those deserving death?
2. A: He who has the wealth of adoption in his own possession
is a robber so long as he comes after a person and publicly takes
away from him whatever he has, and for whatever he stole secretly
he becomes a thief; if he wishes to expiate, he ought to return
in coin half of what he had thievishly stolen, one-third in coin
of what he had openly robbed, and it shall be replenished into
the wealth of the family of adoption; and if one deram out of
sixty stirs of the wealth of adoption decreases, it is so instituted
in the Husparum Nask that he is a tanapuhr sinner on the spot,
and he will become a sinner deserving death after the expiry of
a year; and according to other chapters also, one who infringes
the adoption is adjudged to be a sinner deserving death; and if
he goes to the judgment without absolution from sin, remaining
steadfast to the good religion, since it is instituted in the
Nigadum Nask that sinners deserving death, such as the one who
infringes the adoption and the one who buries the dead body, are
left out of religious usages, I will not say that his ceremony
of the three days is not to be performed; and if the ceremony
of the three days is to be performed for him, even other ceremonies
and acts and meritorious works are verily to be performed for
his soul; then, he is a sinner deserving death whom the first
leaders of the faith have listed as death deserving; in the usages
of religion it is laid down that if one dies without atonement,
his three days' ceremony is not to be performed; if one dies after
having absolved himself from sin, but then without atonement,
the three days' ceremony is certainly to be performed for him
after the first three nights; if his three days' ceremony be in
consonance with religious usage, they shall verily appoint an
adopted son for him likewise; if his sin be of such a nature for
which his head is to be severed, his ceremony of the three nights
is certainly to be performed during the three nights; they shall
certainly appoint an adopted son for him; a sinner whose atonement
for expiation by deed is proved, but his absolution from sin by
utterance is not proved, is better than he whose absolution from
sin by utterance is manifest, but his expiation of sin by performing
atonement is not proved; for, one says in the Spend Nask: "For,
work is supreme; wherefore, in this, in this revelation, I tell
thee, O Spitaman Zartosht! who has the revelation? He who has
meditation, speech, and deed".
3. That which you have asked as regards the disciple man .........................
1. Q: There is a disciple man who promises his sister in the assembly
for giving away as wife; for that purpose, he prevented her from
taking a husband, for some years; finally, he himself not handing
her over as wife, has to give her to a man for marriage, who is
cognizant of the promise of khwetodas, and is unaware of not fulfilling
it; the question is this: what do you say about his performing
the ceremonies of persons?
2. A: If, from the commencement of the act, he practically promised
his sister the performance of her marriage and the propagation
of the holy communion, a meritorious work became his owing to
that promise; if, thereafter, although it was his work of duty
and he was able, and be was not putting the promise into execution,
after the age of fifteen years of the woman, he is religiously
deserving of penance for her, for every menstruative period; and
it is a grievous sin for not propagating the meritorious work
of the holy communion, for withholding the meritorious work of
the holy communion; and firstly as he did not propagate the meritorious
work of the holy communion, and for breaking the promise and contract
which was his from the commencement, he is, therefore, very deserving
of damnation; and we ought to know the duration of the menstruative
periods, and the extent of time, for fixing the expiation of sin.
3. There was one who said that if one deserts a woman, it is a
sin deserving death; and there was one who considered it very
abject; but that of infringing the holy communion is the most
atrocious. 4. And then, if he gave her to a man in marriage, and
if the man is virtuous, and the woman was agreeable to the proposal,
I do not understand anything wrong in his giving her; for, now
he is to be considered redeemable for the prevention of the sin
which was due to keeping the woman hindered from marriage; but
he ought to be deserving of penance for the former sin; and if
he himself was lawful for promising to do that act from the commencement,
then if he had no ability to put it into execution, his remedy
was to be freed from the engagement to the extent of his ability;
if he has hopefulness of being thus advised, he has to give her
with her consent to a good man who is ready to marry her; I do
not know of any sinfulness in this action; I discern even this
explanation as to his lawful action, as one says in the Sagadum
Nask: "Even any whatsoever of the religious guardians can
give with righteousness his own woman to any whatsoever of religious
1. Q: If a man passes away for whom the performance of the three
nights' ceremony is requisite according to religious usage, and
he whose duty it is becomes forgetful of the performance of the
ceremony and thereby sinful, how much is his sin of condemnation?
What is his penance of expiation? The question is this: in what
manner can the three nights' ceremony be very good when performed?
And what ceremony ought we to perform in the least, and what at
the most ? And how many ceremonies ought we to perform?
2. A: For the three nights' ceremony, it is very appropriate if
during the first three days, yazishn after yazishn is being continually
performed in every period of the day with combustibles over the
fire, and the spreading forth of the sacred twigs; and at the
most as many ceremonies as are possible, and in the least a Yasht
and a dron consecration, and together with the votive offering
and a service of praise of Srosh by its 'yo vanano' section; its
'afrinami' is not necessary in the section of bunging the soul
to the judge; if during the three days' period a Yasht and a dron
consecration is performed, and every day and every night a service
of praise is performed, I have considered it as well done and
propitiated; if it be possible, we may consecrate the hamadin
ceremony, Nask after Nask continually without any cut in the ceremony;
it would also be so good, if it is possible to consecrate only
one Nask, for the identical reason during the three nights' ceremony,
and a Vendidad recital is very appropriate; if the three nights'
ceremony, remains undone, the measure of the penance and condemnation
of him who has been sinful for non-performance of the ceremony
is just as that of not consecrating the season festivals [[Gahambars]],
it is proper if he performs the ceremony which is as much more
than the three nights' ceremony; he shall perform the ceremony
omitted; and even if he asks another person to perform it, that,
too, is proper; and one has to consecrate the entire season festival
rite himself; if it remains undone till the next year, it is not
as if omitted in that same season; even then it would be very
appropriate if it is reconsecrated with atonement in another year
in the same season.
1. Q: What is your opinion of a man who, when he wishes that he
may repeat the recital of a prayer, in every period of the day,
does not seem to recite it owing to the defect of the tongue or
owing to not remembering the prayer by heart? And if he consecrates
the dron thrice, will the consecration be good or not?
2. A: The prayer is not recited; for the recited prayer will not
become recited by consecration; I have not heard of any teaching
the recitation of prayer by consecrating the dron; I have heard
enough recitals at length.
1. Q: If a child consecrates the dron, if he has only the Yasht
by heart, is it lawful for an invoker; for him who has the Yasht
as well as the Visperad by heart, to receive the grace from that
child invoker when he receives it? Or what is your opinion of
both of them?
2. A: It is so stated that a child is fit for the work of invocation
of any person; if he is sagacious, he has the Yasht by heart,
and knows the ritual.
1. Q: What is your opinion of the sacred twigs [[barsom]] in the midst of
men who are asleep?
2. A: It is proper if the sacred twig are laid three paces away
or in a separate place.