Eruvin 37a — the Talmud in English

He says: two log -

according to a calculation of one-fiftieth, as an intermediate measure -

which I am destined to separate, behold, they are teruma

gedola.

Ten

log that I am destined to separate, behold, they are

the first tithe.

Nine

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

the second tithe [

if it was a year of the second tithe].

And redeems [

and redeems] the second tithe, wherever it is, for money, since for this one does not need separation.

And drinks immediately,

and leaves enough for the teruma and the tithe—for he has designated them by name—which he does not drink, and after some time he separates the teruma and the tithe; and we say: the matter was retroactively clarified that this is the teruma and this is the tithe,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Yose, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit

drinking before he separates, and the reason of these tannaim is -

according to what we initially understood—because they hold: “there is no berera.”

Behold, we see that according to Rabbi Judah there is no berera.

Ulla said

about our Mishna and about the beraita that Ayyo taught, the reverse:

There is no

that which

Ayyo

taught in the name of Rabbi Judah, that there is no berera,

from the

strength

of our Mishna

which shows that Rabbi Judah holds that there is berera.

And we explain it:

But what of that which is taught—

in the beraita of one who purchases wine—

Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Yose, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit,

which proves that Rabbi Judah holds that there is no berera; how does Ulla explain it?

And we explain:

Ulla

does not teach in the beraita of one who purchases wine as it was taught above: that one tanna [Rabbi Meir] holds that there is berera, while three tannaim—and Rabbi Judah is among them—hold that there is no berera. Rather,

pairs by pairs [

pairs of tannaim]

it teaches

who disagree about this!

And this is how he teaches it: And he redeems and drinks immediately,

the words of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah,

for this pair holds that there is “berera.”

Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon prohibit,

for this pair holds that there is no “berera.”

And now we explain the beraita of one who purchases wine, where it teaches there that Rabbi Yose prohibits, and it was initially understood—and as we said—that his reason is because he holds that there is no berera.

And we raise an objection against it:

A

re

Rabbi Yose holds that there is no berera?!

But we learned: Rabbi Yose says:

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

who purchased

their

nests jointly [

in partnership: they purchased four birds and did not specify at the time of purchase which of them was for this one and which for that one, which for the sin-offering and which for the burnt-offering],

or who gave [

the money for;

the version of the Mishnayot]

of their nests to the priest,

and he purchased four birds for them in partnership.

The law of the nests is:

whichever

of the nests

the priest wishes, he offers as a burnt-offering,

one in the name of this woman and one in the name of that woman.

And whichever

of the nests

the priest wishes, he offers as a sin-offering,

one in the name of this woman and one in the name of that woman.

And now this is difficult: the burnt-offering that was offered in the name of another owner [“with a change of ownership”] does not count for its owner as his obligation, and a sin-offering that was offered not in the name of its owner is invalid.

And since Rabbi Yose says that it is permitted to purchase their nests jointly, necessarily he holds that there is berera: we say that it was clarified that this is the bird which he offered in her name, and it belongs to her, and there is no change of ownership. And how did you say that Rabbi Yose holds that there is no berera?

He said

and answered

Rabba: There

in the Mishna of the two women—it is speaking

when they stipulated

between themselves that whoever the priest offers in her name shall belong to her.

And we raise an objection against the answer:

If so,

it is obvious—and

what is it coming to say?!

And we answer: here it is speaking of a case where, after the women purchased the nests together, the women separated each nest individually, with the intention that one bird from the nest should be for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering [Rashash], and it might have entered your mind to say that the priest must make each nest one sin-offering and one burnt-offering, as the owners determined.

It teaches us

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

as Rav Hisda!

For Rav Hisda said: The nests

of every person requiring atonement

are not designated

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