Eruvin 37a (לז.) — the Talmud in English

He says: Two log –

according to a calculation of one-fiftieth, approximately the average measure –

that I am destined to separate, they are teruma

gedola.

Ten

log that I am destined to separate, they are

first tithe .

Nine

log [that is, one-tenth of what remains after teruma gedola and the first tithe] that I am destined to separate, they are

second tithe [

if it was a year of the second tithe].

And he begins [

and redeems] the second tithe wherever it is, onto money, since this does not require physical separation .

And he drinks immediately,

while leaving the amount corresponding to the teruma and the tithe—which he has designated—as he does not drink that portion; and later he separates the teruma and the tithe. And we say: It is retroactively clarified that this is the teruma and this is the tithe,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit

drinking before he separates them, and the rationale of these tanna’im is: -

according to what we initially assumed—because they hold: “There is no retroactive clarification” .

We see, then, that according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no retroactive clarification.

Ulla said

with regard to our Mishna and with regard to the beraita taught by Ayo, the opposite:

The statement of

that which

Ayo

taught in the name of Rabbi Yehuda—that there is no retroactive clarification—is not accepted,

from

the force

of our Mishna,

as Rabbi Yehuda holds that there is retroactive clarification.

And we explain it:

But what of that which is taught –

in the beraita concerning one who purchases wine –

Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit,

which demonstrates that Rabbi Yehuda holds that there is no retroactive clarification? How does Ulla explain it?

And we explain:

Ulla

does not teach the beraita concerning one who purchases wine as it was taught above: that one tanna [Rabbi Meir] holds that there is retroactive clarification, while three tanna’im—and Rabbi Yehuda among them—hold that there is no retroactive clarification. Rather,

in pairs [

pairs of tanna’im]

it is taught

that they disagree on this matter!

And this is how it is taught: And he begins and drinks immediately,

the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda,

as this pair holds that there is retroactive clarification.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon prohibit,

as this pair holds that there is no retroactive clarification.

And now we explain the beraita concerning one who purchases wine, which teaches there that Rabbi Yosei prohibits, and it was initially assumed—as we said—that his reason is because he holds that there is no retroactive clarification.

And we raise a difficulty against it:

And

does

Rabbi Yosei hold that there is no retroactive clarification?!

But we learned: Rabbi Yosei says:

Two women—women who have given birth or women who have experienced a discharge, who bring for their atonement a “nest” of two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering—

who purchased

their

nests jointly [

as partners: They purchased four birds and did not designate at the time of purchase which were for one woman and which for the other, or which was for the sin-offering and which for the burnt-offering],

or who gave

the money for

the reading in the Mishna manuscripts:

their nests to a priest,

and he purchased four birds jointly on their behalf.

The law of the nests is as follows:

Whichever

of the nests

the priest wishes, he may offer as a burnt-offering,

one on behalf of this woman and one on behalf of that woman.

And whichever

of the nests

the priest wishes, he may offer as a sin-offering,

one on behalf of this woman and one on behalf of that woman.

But now there is a difficulty: A burnt-offering that was offered on behalf of another owner [through a “change of ownership”] does not satisfy the obligation of its owner, and a sin-offering that was offered not on behalf of its owner is disqualified.

And since Rabbi Yosei says that it is permitted to purchase their nests jointly, it necessarily follows that he holds that there is retroactive clarification, as we say: It is retroactively clarified that this is the bird that he offered on behalf of this woman, and it belongs to her; thus, there is no change of ownership. How, then, did you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that there is no retroactive clarification ?

He said

and answered:

Rabba: There –

in the Mishna concerning the two women—

is referring to a case where they stipulated

between themselves that whichever bird the priest offers on behalf of one of them shall belong to her .

And we challenge the resolution:

If so,

it is obvious—and

what is it coming to teach?!

And we answer: Here we are dealing with a case in which, after the women purchased the nests together, they separated each nest individually, intending that one bird from each nest would be for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering [Rashash]. It might have entered your mind to say that the priest would be required to make each nest one sin-offering and one burnt-offering, in accordance with the designation made by the owners.

It teaches us

that since they did not explicitly designate them at the time of purchase, saying, “This bird is a sin-offering and this bird is a burnt-offering,” even if they designated them after the purchase, the priest may do as he wishes, and

in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda!

For Rav Ḥisda said: The nests

of anyone requiring atonement

are not designated

as to which is a burnt-offering and which is a sin-offering,