Eruvin

he may1 say: ‘Two log2 which I am about to set aside3 are terumah, ten4 are first tithe and nine4 are second tithe’, and this5 he redeems6 and may drink [the wine] forthwith;7 so R. Meir,8 but R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simeon forbid [this procedure].9 ‘Ulla said: Ayo's version is not to be upheld by reason of what was stated in our Mishnah.10 What, however, about the statement, ‘R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simeon forbid [this procedure]’?11 — Ulla read [the names of the authors] in pairs [thus:] ‘So R. Meir and R. Judah, but R. Jose and R. Simeon forbid [this procedure]’. But is R. Jose of the opinion that the rule of bererah is not to be upheld? Have we not in fact learnt: R. Jose ruled: If two women bought their bird sacrifices12 jointly, or gave the price of13 their bird sacrifices to the priest, the latter may offer whichever he wishes as a burnt-offering and whichever he wishes as a sin-offering?14 — Rabbah replied: There15 [it is a case] where [the women originally] made this condition.16 But if that is the case17 what [need was there] to state [such an obvious ruling]?- We were thereby informed [that the law is] in agreement with R. Hisda.18 For R. Hisda ruled: Bird sacrifices19 cannot be designated20 priestly and levitical dues from the wine) and he requires the wine for the Sabbath. It is prohibited to separate priestly or levitical dues on the Sabbath, v. Bez. 36b. wine he originally intended for the purpose. retrospectively as if it had taken place on the Sabbath eve. As no retrospective selection is recognized, the wine throughout the Sabbath cannot in their opinion be regarded as properly prepared for use and its consumption is consequently forbidden. originally intended (cf. Pes. 60b and Zeb. 2a) while a sin-offering of a certain person is completely disqualified if it is offered for a different person or as a different kind of sacrifice, and since R. Jose nevertheless allows the priest to offer up any of the birds either as a sin-offering or as a burnt-offering for either of the women, it obviously follows that he upholds the rule of bererah, so that when the priest offers up any of the four birds it is assumed that this particular bird was retrospectively selected by the particular woman for the particular sacrifice for whom and for which it is now offered. How then could it be maintained that R. Jose does not uphold bererah? purchase, though he did so subsequently, the priest may offer it as any sacrifice he wishes.