Study Eruvin folio 37B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
when they are purchased by their owner, if the owner explicitly consecrated it as a burnt-offering or sin-offering when he purchased it, or through the actions of the priest when he offers the birds as sacrifices. Therefore, even if the women did not verbalize their intentions, it is considered as
And still the question may be raised: Does R' Yosei really hold that there is no retroactive designation? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: If an am ha’aretz, who is not known to be scrupulous in separating tithes, said to a ḥaver, one known to be meticulous in his observance of halakha and especiall
And the Rabbis say: He must tithe it. Since we do not accept the principle of retroactive designation, everything that the ḥaver bought was bought for himself, and the fact that he later gave part of it to the am ha’aretz does not exempt him from his original obligation to separate tithes from the d
The Talmud attempts to bring another proof. Come and hear a proof from a different Tosefta: In the case of one who says: The second tithe that I have in my house shall be redeemed upon the sela coin that will happen to come up in my hand when I remove it from the pouch, i.e., he did not have a par
The Talmud answers again: Reverse the attributions, and say that R' Yosei says: He has not redeemed the second tithe. The Talmud raises a difficulty: What did you see that you reversed two sources because of one, and made the two baraitot conform to the Mishnah, which indicates that R' Yosei holds