Now whose is the anonymous opinion in the Sifra? R. Judah's, and he teaches: The lot designates the sin-offering and the naming does not make it a sin-offering. Hence we see that the casting of the lots is indispensable. This will be a refutation of the opinion that it is not indispensable. It is a refutation. R. Hisda said: The special designation of the couples is made either by the owner or by the priest's action. R. Shimi b. Ashi said: What is the basis of R. Hisda's dictum? Because it is written: She shall take [. . . for a burnt-offering] and And the priest shall offer one [as a sin-offering] i.e., [the designation is made] either at the [owner's] taking [purchasing] or at the offering-up [by the priest]. They raised the following objection: ‘And make it a sin-offering’ -i.e., the lot makes it a sin-offering, but the naming [alone] does not make it a sin-offering. For I might have assumed, this could be inferred a minori: If in a case where a lot does not sanctity, the naming does, how much more should the naming sanctify, where the lot does? Therefore [Scripture] says: ‘And make it for a sin-offering’ [to intimate] it is the lot which makes it a sin-offering, but the naming does not make it a sin-offering. Here it is neither the time of its purchase, nor of its being offered, and yet he states that it should designate? — Raba said: This is what he said: If in a case where the lot does not sanctify even at the time of the purchase and even at the time of the offering, the naming does sanctify it at the time of either purchase or offering, how much more shall the naming, at either the time of purchase or of offering, sanctify it in a case where the lot sanctifies outside the time of either purchase or offering? Therefore [Scripture] says: ‘And make it a sin-offering’, i.e., the lot makes it a sin-offering but the naming does not make it a sin-offering. Come and hear: If someone defiled the Sanctuary whilst poor and put aside money for his bird-couple-offering, and afterwards became rich, and said thereupon: This [money] be for the sin-offering and that for the burnt-offering he adds to the money for the sin-offering to bring his obligatory offering, but he may not add to his burnt -offering to bring his obligatory offering. Now here it is neither the time of the purchase, nor the time of the offering and yet he teaches that it is designated? — R. Shesheth said: How do you reason? Surely R.. Eleazar said in the name of R. Hoshaia: If someone defiled the Sanctuary whilst rich, and brought the offering of a poor person, he has not done his duty. Now, since he has not done his duty, how could he have designated it? Must you not, rather, say that he had designated it when already poor? Thus here, too, the case is that he said it from the time when he set [the money] aside. But according to R. Hagga in the name of R. Josiah who said: He has done his duty —ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳ