ה אמר רבה התם כשהתנו
5 jointly, or gave the price of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , so MS.M. and the ed. of the MISHNAH: Cur. edd. omit the word.');"><sup>13</sup></span> their bird sacrifices to the priest, the latter may offer whichever he wishes as a burnt-offering and whichever he wishes as a sin-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kin. I, 4. Now, since a burnt-offering is unacceptable unless it is offered in the name of the person for whom it was originally intended (cf. Pes. 60b and Zeb. 2a) while a sin-offering of a certain person is completely disqualified if it is offered for a different person or as a different kind of sacrifice, and since R. Jose nevertheless allows the priest to offer up any of the birds either as a sin-offering or as a burnt-offering for either of the women, it obviously follows that he upholds the rule of bererah, so that when the priest offers up any of the four birds it is assumed that this particular bird was retrospectively selected by the particular woman for the particular sacrifice for whom and for which it is now offered. How then could it be maintained that R. Jose does not uphold bererah?');"><sup>14</sup></span> - Rabbah replied: There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah cited from Kin.');"><sup>15</sup></span> [it is a case] where [the women originally] made this condition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the choice be left to the priest. The question of bererah does not, therefore, arise.');"><sup>16</sup></span>