אומר שני לוגין שאני עתיד להפריש הרי הן תרומה עשרה מעשר ראשון תשעה מעשר שני ומיחל ושותה מיד דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אוסרין

may say: Two log of the hundred log present here, which I will separate in the future, when I have finished drinking, shall be the great teruma given to a priest; ten log shall be first tithe; and nine log, which are a tenth of the remaining ninety log, shall be second tithe. He then redeems the second-tithe with money because in its sanctified state second tithe may only be consumed in Jerusalem, and he may then immediately drink the wine, and the wine remaining at the end will be teruma and tithes. One may rely on the principle of retroactive designation and say that when he is finished drinking, the wine that is left becomes retroactively designated as teruma and tithes, such that the wine he drank was permitted for consumption. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit drinking the wine in this manner. Therefore, it would appear that Rabbi Yehuda rejects the principle of retroactive designation, contrary to the ruling of the mishna and in accordance with the opinion of Ayo.

עולא אמר ליתא לאיו ממתניתין ואלא הא דקתני רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אוסרין

Ulla also took note of this contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yehuda, but he said the opposite: The statement of Ayo should not be accepted because it contradicts what is stated in the mishna. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But that which was taught in the Tosefta : Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit drinking the wine in this manner, indicates, as was demonstrated above, that Rabbi Yehuda rejects the principle of retroactive designation.

עולא זוזי זוזי קתני דברי רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה רבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אוסרין

Ulla taught the names of the authorities mentioned in the Tosefta dealing with wine in pairs, as follows: The allowance mentioned in the Tosefta is according to the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, whereas Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon prohibit drinking the wine in this manner. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Meir and accepts the principle of retroactive designation, in accordance with the mishna.

וסבר רבי יוסי אין ברירה והתנן רבי יוסי אומר שתי נשים שלקחו את קיניהן בעירוב או שנתנו קיניהן לכהן איזהו שירצה כהן יקריב עולה ולאיזה שירצה יקריב חטאת

To this point, it has been accepted that Rabbi Yosei clearly prohibits the procedure described in the Tosefta . Therefore, he apparently rejects the principle of retroactive designation. With regard to this point, the Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yosei really hold that there is no retroactive designation? Didn’t we learn in a mishna elsewhere that Rabbi Yosei says: If two women took their birds’ nests, pairs of turtledoves or pigeons as purification offerings following childbirth, jointly and without specifying which pair of birds was for which woman, or if they gave their birds’ nests to a priest but did not inform him which birds were consecrated as sin-offerings and which as burnt-offerings, whichever the priest wishes he may offer as a burnt-offering, and whichever he wishes he may offer as a sin-offering. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei must accept the principle of retroactive designation, such that when the priest offers any of the birds as a sacrifice, it is retroactively clarified that the bird had been selected for that woman and as that sacrifice.

אמר רבה התם כשהתנו

Rabba said: There is no proof from there, with regard to retroactive designation, as the mishna there deals with a special case, where the women stipulated from the outset that the priest would decide which bird would be offered for which woman and as what sacrifice.

אי הכי מאי למימרא קא משמע לן כדרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא אין הקינין מתפרשות

The Gemara asks: If so, what need was there for the mishna to say anything? If they made an explicit stipulation to that effect, then the priest certainly has the power to fulfill their condition. The Gemara answers: The mishna nonetheless teaches us that the law is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda said: Birds’ nests become designated as burnt-offerings or sin-offerings only