Shekalim 19

^{[דף יט.]} תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. נְדָבָה אַחַת. ^[19a]

A dissenting opinion was taught in a baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Jehoiada prepared a single chest for one free-will offering, as it is written: “So the king commanded, and they made a chest” (II Chronicles 24:8). The verse specifically states that Jehoiada made only one chest. This is the same chest mentioned elsewhere: And he placed it in the Sanctuary of the House of God, “and he bored a hole in its lid” (II Kings 12:10).

וְהָא כְתִיב וַיֹּ֣אמֶר הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וַיַּֽעֲשׂ֖וּ אֲר֣וֹן אֶחָ֑ד וַיִּתְּנֻ֛הוּ בְּשַׁ֥עַר בֵּֽית־יְי חֽוּצָה.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “So the king commanded, and they made a chest, and set it without, at the gate of the House of the Lord” (II Chronicles 24:8)? This indicates that that there was an additional chest that was placed outside the Temple.

אָמַר רַב חונָה. מִפְּנֵי הָטְּמֵאִים.

Rav Ḥuna said: There was only one chest, which was originally located inside the Temple by Jehoiada’s command. Afterward, however, he instructed that it should be placed outside the Temple because of those people who were ritually impure by contact with a corpse or a dead creeping animal. These people were unable to enter the Temple to insert their money for free-will offerings.

רִבִּי חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רַב יוֹסֵף. עַל שֵׁם אַךְ֩ לֹ֨א יֵֽעָשֶׂ֜ה בֵּ֣ית יְי סִפּ֥וֹת כֶּ֨סֶף֙. מִין סִפּוֹת כֶּסֶף לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה בֵית יי.

Rabbi Ḥanina said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: There were two free-will offerings in the Temple, as it is written: “But there were not made for the House of the Lord cups of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the House of the Lord; for they gave that to them who did the work, and repaired with it the House of the Lord” (II Kings 12:14). These were for the repairs of the Temple, not for making sacred serving vessels. Conversely, the verses in II Chronicles discuss the construction of the vessels, as it is written: “From which they made vessels for the House of the Lord” (II Chronicles 24:14). As this verse refers to a different chest and a separate free-will offering, it shows that there were in fact two chests.

משנה מָעוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בֵּין שְׁקָלִים לִנְדָבָה קָרוֹב לַשְּׁקָלִים יִפָּלוּ לַשְּׁקָלִים לַנְּדָבָה יִפְּלוּ לַנְּדָבָה מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה יִפְּלוּ לַנְּדָבָה.

Halakha 1 · MISHNA If money was found on the floor of the Temple between one of the collection horns marked shekels and the collection horn marked free-will offerings, that is to say, between the first and the thirteenth collection horns, in which funds contributed to the Temple were stored, the following distinctions apply: If the money was found closer to the horn marked shekels, it is allocated to the shekels; if it was found closer to the horn marked free-will offerings, it is allocated to free-will offerings; and if it was equidistant from the horn marked shekels and the horn marked free-will offerings, it is allocated to free-will offerings.

בֵּין עֵצִים לִלְבוֹנָה קָרוֹב לָעֵצִים יִפְּלוּ לָעֵצִים לַלְּבוֹנָה יִפְּלוּ לַלְּבוֹנָה מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה יִפְּלוּ לַלְּבוֹנָה.

If the money was found between the horn marked wood and the horn marked frankincense, that is, between the fifth and sixth horns, if it was closer to the horn marked wood, it is allocated to wood; if it was closer to the horn marked frankincense, it is allocated to frankincense; and if it was found equidistant from both, it is allocated to frankincense.

בֵּין קִנִּים לְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה קָרוֹב לַקִּנִּים יִפְּלוּ לַקִּינִּים לְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה יִפְּלוּ לְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה. מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה יִפְּלוּ לְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה.

If the money was found between the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings and the horn marked doves for burnt-offerings, i.e., between the third and the fourth horns, if it is closer to the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings, it is allocated to pairs of bird-offerings; if it was found closer to the horn marked doves for burnt-offerings, it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings; and if it was found equidistant from both, it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings.

בֵּין חוּלִּין לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי קָרוֹב לַחוּלִּין יִפְּלוּ לַחוּלִּין לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי יִפְּלוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה יִפְּלוּ לְמָעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. זֶה הַכְּלָל הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הַקָּרוֹב מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה לְהַחְמִיר׃

And similarly, if money was found anywhere else between a container for ordinary, non-sacred money and one containing second-tithe money, the following distinctions apply: If the money was found closer to the non-sacred money, it is allocated to the non-sacred money; if it was found closer to second-tithe money, it is allocated to second-tithe money; and if it was found equidistant from both, it is allocated to second-tithe money. This is the principle: In cases of doubt, the ruling follows whichever is closer, even if this involves being lenient, but if the money was found equidistant from both, the ruling follows whichever allocation involves being stringent.

הלכה מָעוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בֵּין שְׁקָלִים לִנְדָבָה כול׳. לָא צוֹרְכָה דְלָא בֵין שְׁקָלִים לִקִינִּים.

GEMARA: The mishna taught the halakha governing the case where money was found between the horn marked shekels and a horn marked free-will offerings. The Gemara asks: Addressing this case was not necessary, as these horns were not adjacent to one another; the one marked shekels was the first horn and the last six were marked free-will offerings. Why should it be presumed that money found in the middle belongs to one or the other and not to one of the horns in between? Rather [dela], the mishna should have addressed the case where money was found between the horn marked old shekels and the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings, as they are adjacent to one another.

רִבִּי אָבוּן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פִינְחָס. כְּמִין כּוֹכְלִײַם הָיוּ עֲשׂוּיִין.

Rabbi Avun said in the name of Rabbi Pineḥas: The contribution horns in the Temple were arranged like a circle [bukhliyar]. The horns did not stand in a straight row, but rather in a circle, such that the horn marked new shekels and the horn marked free-will offerings were adjacent to one another from the other side.

לָא צוֹרְכָה דְלָא מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה יִפְּלוּ לִשְׁקָלִים.

The mishna teaches that if money was found equidistant from the horn marked shekels and the horn marked free-will offerings, it is allocated to free-will offerings. The Gemara asks: The mishna should not have said that the money is allocated to free-will offerings. Rather, it should have said that when money is found equidistant from both, it is allocated to shekels. For the halakha governing the money in the horn marked shekels is more stringent, as the regular communal offerings are bought with that money, whereas the money in the horn marked free-will offerings is used only to buy offerings for those times when there are no regular offerings being sacrificed.

אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. שֶׁמָּא יִפְּלוּ לְשִׂיֵּירֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה.

The Gemara answers: Some wish to say that the halakha governing the money in the horn marked shekels is less stringent because perhaps the money allocated would not be used for the purchase of offerings, and consequently it would be allocated to the remainders of the chamber funds, i.e., those left over after the public offerings have been bought with the half-shekels collected in the chamber. Such money would be used for repairing the walls and towers of Jerusalem, and not for offerings. It is consequently preferable that the money be allocated to free-will offerings, and therefore be used for offerings.

אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה כְּמִי שֶׁמֵּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. עַד דַּאֲנָא תַמָּן שְׁמָעִית קָל רַב יְהוּדָה שְׁאַל לִשְׁמוּאֵל. הִפְרִישׁ שִׁקְלוֹ וָמֵת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

And some wish to say that money that is found equidistant from both is treated like money that has no owner, i.e., like money that was set aside by someone who subsequently died, and the Sages said that such money is allocated to free-will offerings. As Rabbi Yesa said: While I was there in Babylonia, I heard the voice of Rav Yehuda who asked Shmuel the following question: If someone set aside his shekel and subsequently died, what is to be done with the money? Shmuel said to him: It is allocated to free-will offerings.

עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יוֹלִיכֵם לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

The Gemara now asks a similar question: The High Priest could set aside money to be used for the purchase of his daily griddle-cake offering made from one-tenth of an ephah of flour, half in the morning and half in the evening. If he died before the flour had been bought, what is to be done with the money? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The money must be cast into the Dead Sea, i.e., so that it is destroyed. Rabbi Elazar disagreed and said: The money is allocated to free-will offerings.

וְקַשְׁיָא. וְיֵשׁ חַטָּאת קְרֵיבָה עוֹלָה.

The mishna taught that if the money was found equidistant from the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings, i.e., one burnt-offering and one sin-offering, and the horn marked doves for burnt-offerings, it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings. And this is difficult: Is a sin-offering brought as a burnt-offering? Surely it is possible that the money fell from the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings, and is therefore partially designated for the purchase of sin-offerings.

רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה אֲחִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תְּנַיי בֵית דִּין הוּא עַל הַמּוֹתָרוֹת שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת.

Ḥizkiya said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: A condition of the court stipulates with regard to the remainder of the money originally consecrated for sin-offerings that it is brought as burnt-offerings. Even if the one who consecrated the money did not state such a condition explicitly, he is regarded as having done so, as it is presumed that the money was consecrated in accordance with the court’s stipulation.

הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת בַּמֶּה הִיא מִתְכַּפֶּרֶת.

The Gemara asks: If so, with what does this woman, who had placed the money for her offering in the horn marked pairs of bird-offerings, achieve atonement? A woman who had given birth or is a zava must bring a pair of bird-offerings, one as a burnt-offering and the other as a sin-offering, as part of her purification process. If that money has been allocated to doves for burnt-offerings, she has not completed the process.

אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. תְּנַיי בֵית דִּין הוּא. הַמְסַפֵּק אֶת הַקִּינִּים מְסַפְּק אֶת הַפְּסוּלוֹת.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A condition of the court stipulates: Whoever supplies the Temple with the pairs of birds, he also supplies extra birds to replace those birds that are disqualified. If one of the birds is disqualified or missing, he provides another bird in its place, and so in any event the woman will have brought both a burnt-offering and a sin-offering.

לָא צוֹרְכָה דְלָא בֵין קְטוֹרֶת לָעֵצִים לִלְבוֹנָה לְזָהָב לַכַּפּוֹרֶת.

The mishna did not consider all the possible places that money could be found between different horns, and so the Gemara asks: Shouldn’t the mishna also discuss additional cases, like where the money was found between the fourth and fifth horns, i.e., between the horn marked incense and the horn marked wood, or between the sixth and seventh horns, i.e., between the horn marked frankincense and the horn marked gold for the Ark cover?

וְתַנִּיתָהּ בְּסוֹפָהּ. הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הַקָּרוֹב מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה לְמַחְמִיר׃

The Gemara answers: In fact, this mishna addresses these cases as well, as it teaches at its end: This is the principle: In cases of doubt, the ruling follows whichever is closer, even if this involves being lenient; but if the money was found equidistant from both, the ruling follows whichever attribution involves being stringent.

משנה מָעוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ לִפְנֵי סוֹחֲרֵי בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹלָם מַעֲשֵׂר.

Halakha 2 · MISHNA This mishna considers other situations in which something is found and its source is unknown. Money found before animal merchants in Jerusalem is always presumed to be second-tithe money. The presumption is based on the fact that in Jerusalem, most of the animals are bought with second-tithe money and sacrificed as peace-offerings.

וּבְהַר הַבַּיִת חוּלִּין. וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם בִשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה חוּלִּין וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל הַכֹּל מַעֲשֵׂר.

and money found on the Temple Mount is presumed to be non-sacred money. And with regard to money found in the rest of Jerusalem, the following distinction applies: If it was found during the rest of the days of the year, it is presumed to be non-sacred money, but if it was found during the time of a pilgrim Festival, it is all presumed to be second-tithe money, because most of the money found in Jerusalem at the time of a Festival is second-tithe money.

בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּעֲזָרָה אֵיבָרִים עוֹלוֹת. וַחֲתִיכוֹת חַטָּאוֹת. וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. זֶה וָזֶה תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתוֹ וְיֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּרֵפָה.

The mishna continues: With regard to meat that was found in the Temple courtyard, and it is not known from whence it came, the halakha is as follows: If it is whole limbs of the animal, in the manner that burnt-offerings are brought to the altar, it is presumed to be burnt-offerings. And if it is in small pieces, it is presumed to be sin-offerings. And if the meat, in whatever form, is found in the city of Jerusalem, as opposed to the courtyard, it is presumed to be the meat of peace-offerings, as most of the meat in Jerusalem is the meat of peace-offerings. Since it is possible that the time during which it is permitted to eat any of it has already passed, both this and that, whether it is determined to be the meat of burnt-offerings or the meat of peace-offerings, its form must be allowed to decay, i.e., it must be left until it is definitely disqualified, and then it must be taken out to the place of burning, where offerings that have become disqualified are burned.

נִמְצָא בַּגְּבוּלִין אֵיבָרִים נְבֵילוֹת וַחֲתִיכוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת.

With regard to meat found in the outlying areas, outside of Jerusalem, if it is in the form of whole limbs, the meat presumably comes from carcasses of animals that were not properly slaughtered, for meat unfit for eating was generally cut up into full limbs, to be fed to dogs or sold to gentiles. But if it is in small pieces, it is presumably kosher and permitted to be eaten, as kosher meat was ordinarily cut up into small pieces.

^{[דף יט:]} וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר מְרוּבֶּה אַף אֵיבָרִין מוּתָּרוֹת׃ ^[19b]

And if meat is found at the time of a Festival, when meat is plentiful, so that it is generally not cut up into small pieces, then even whole limbs are permitted to be eaten.

הלכה לָא צוֹרְכָה דְלָא בְּהַר הַבַּיַת קוֹדֶשׁ.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that money found on the Temple Mount is presumed to be non-sacred money. The Gemara asks: Shouldn’t the mishna have said that the money found on the Temple Mount is treated as consecrated money? Most of the money on the Temple Mount is consecrated money, and even if it were not, one ought to be stringent and regard any found money as such.

רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חַזָּקָה שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּהֵן מוֹצִיא מִן הִַלִּישְׁכָּה מָעוֹת עַד שֶׁהוּא מְחַלְלָן עַל הַבְּהֵמָה.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ba said that Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: There is a presumption that the priest who is in charge does not remove money from the chamber until he desacralizes it by transferring its consecrated status onto the animals that he purchases for offerings. Therefore, any money that is found on the Temple Mount is presumably non-sacred money.

רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הִסִּיעַ דַּעַת טָעוֹן צוּרָה.

The mishna teaches that meat found in the rest of the city of Jerusalem, cut into whole limbs or small pieces, is presumably from a peace-offering. However, it may not be eaten and its form must be allowed to decay, after which it is burned. The Gemara now cites what Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya and a proof for his opinion from the mishna: If one diverted his attention from sacrificial meat such that it was not protected from ritual impurity, even though the meat is disqualified, it is not burned immediately. Rather, it must be left over past the time permitted for its consumption in order that its form decays.

אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה. מַתְנִיתָה אָֽמְרָה כֵן. תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתוֹ וְיֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּרֵפָה.

Rabbi Hoshaya said: The mishna says like that with regard to meat that was found in Jerusalem, i.e., that its form must first be allowed to decay and then it is taken out to the place of burning. As the meat was lost, clearly its owner’s attention was diverted from it, and the meat became disqualified. The mishna rules that nevertheless it must be kept left over before it is burned, therefore supporting Rabbi Hoshaya’s ruling that meat from which one’s attention was diverted is not burned immediately but must be left over. The disqualification stems from the uncertainty whether the meat became impure, and the meat cannot be burned until its disqualification is certain.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְיֵאוּת. לְאוֹכְלוֹ אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל שֶׁמָּא נִתְקַלקְלָה צוּרָתוֹ. לְפוּם כָּךְ צָרַךְ מֵימַר. תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתוֹ וְיֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּרֵפָה.

Rabbi Yosei said: The halakha of the mishna is indeed correct, but not for this reason. With regard to the meat that one found in Jerusalem, the reason you may not eat it is that perhaps its form had already decayed. Perhaps before it was found the time permitted for eating it had already elapsed. Therefore, one must say that its form must be allowed to decay, lest the allotted time has not elapsed, and only then is it taken out to the place of burning. The requirement that its form decay has nothing to do with the fact that the meat might have become impure. Since the meat was lost in Jerusalem, which is a public domain, it cannot become disqualified because of doubtful ritual impurity, as the principle is that any doubt about ritual impurity that arises in a public domain is declared ritually pure (Teharot 4:7).

רִבִּי קְרִיסְפָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּרִבִּי חֲנֵיִנָה. אֵיבָרִים נְבֵילוֹת לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֵן מִשֵּׁם נְבֵילָה.

The mishna taught that with regard to meat found in the outlying areas, outside of Jerusalem, if it was whole limbs, the meat is presumably that of carcasses and therefore forbidden, but if it was found in small pieces it is presumably kosher and permitted to be eaten. Rabbi Krispa said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: When the mishna says that whole limbs are presumed to come from carcasses, that presumption is determinate, to the extent that one who eats this meat receives lashes for eating the meat of unslaughtered carcasses.

מַתְנִיתָה אָֽמְרָה כֵן. אֵבָרִים נְבֵלוֹת וַחֲתִיכוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת. חֲתִיכוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת לֹא מַמָּשׁ. וְדִכְווָתָהּ אֵיבָרִים נְבֵילוֹת לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֵן מִשֵּׁם נְבֵילָה.

The Gemara comments: The mishna itself says this, i.e., the wording of the mishna implies this, for the mishna teaches: With regard to meat found in the outlying areas, outside of Jerusalem, if it is in the form of whole limbs, the meat presumably comes from carcasses. And if it is in small pieces, it is presumably kosher and permitted to be eaten. When the mishna says that small pieces are permitted, does it not mean that they are actually permitted, i.e., the mishna permits the eating of the small pieces of meat and does not regard it as an uncertainty? In a corresponding manner, when the mishna says that meat found in the form of limbs is presumably that of carcasses, this is regarded as a certainty, such that one who eats this meat is flogged for having violated the prohibition against eating the meat of a carcass that was not properly slaughtered.

רִבִּי קְרִיסְפָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. אִם הָיוּ מְחָרוֹזוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת.

Rabbi Krispa said further in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, with regard to meat that was found in the form of whole limbs: If the meat was found strung together on strings like beads, it may be presumed that the meat is kosher, and it is therefore permitted.

תַּשַׁע חֲנוּיוֹת מוֹכְרוֹת בְּשַׂר נְבֵילָה וְאַחַת מוֹכֶרֶת בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה נִתְחַלְּפוּ לוֹ. חוֹשֵׁשׁ. וְלַנִּמְצֵאת הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הָרוֹב.

It was further taught in a baraita with regard to meat of an unknown source: If one bought meat in a town that has ten stores, nine stores selling the non-kosher meat of a carcass and one store selling the meat of a properly slaughtered animal, and he was confused about them, not remembering from which store he made his purchase, he must be concerned that perhaps he bought non-kosher meat. However, the meat is forbidden only because of an uncertainty, and if he ate it he is not liable to receive lashes. And if a piece of meat was found in the marketplace and it is not known from which store the meat came, one follows the majority of meat stores. Since in this scenario the majority of stores sell non-kosher meat, the found meat is presumed to be non-kosher.

תַּשַׁע חֲנוּיוֹת מוֹכְרוֹת בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה וְאַחַת מוֹכֶרֶת בְּשַׂר נְבֵילָה נִתְחַלְּפוּ לוֹ. חוֹשֵׁשׁ. וְלַנִּמְצֵאת הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הָרוֹב.

As for the reverse case, if nine stores were selling the meat of a properly slaughtered animal and one store was selling the non-kosher meat of a carcass, and one bought meat in one of the stores but was confused about them, not remembering from which store he made his purchase, he must be concerned that perhaps he bought non-kosher meat. And if a piece of meat was found in the marketplace and it is not known from which store the meat came, one follows the majority of meat stores, and presume that the meat is kosher.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַנִּמְצָא בְיַד גּוֹי כְּנִמְצָא בַפַּלַּטְיָא. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי חַגַּיי הֲוָה מְסַמֵּךְ לְרִבִּי מָנָא. חֲמָא לְחַד אֲרָמַאי מְקַטֵּעַ מִן סוּסֵיהּ וּמַפִּיק לִבְרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. הָדָא הִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַנִּמְצָא בְיַד גּוֹי כְּנִמְצָא בַפַּלַּטְיָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כֵּן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי. וְהֵן שֶׂרָאוּ אוֹתוֹ יוֹצֵא מִמַּקֻּילִין שֶׁל יֵשְׂרָאֵל.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Meat that is found in the hand of a gentile is regarded as if it were found in a large public square [pelatya], and so its status is determined in accordance with the majority of stores in the town. It is related that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Ḥaggai, was supporting Rabbi Mana, helping him walk, when he saw a certain Roman [Armai] lopping off a piece of flesh from his horse and taking it out for sale. Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Mana: Is this what Rabbi Yoḥanan meant when he said: Meat that is found in the hand of a gentile is regarded as if it were found in a large public square, and so one follows the majority of stores in the town? If so, then if the majority of the town’s stores are owned by Jews, this meat should be treated as kosher. But surely it isn’t, as we saw where it came from. Rabbi Mana said to Rabbi Elazar: Thus said Rabbi Yosei my teacher about Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling: This ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s applies only where they saw the gentile exiting from a butcher shop belonging to a Jew with a piece of meat in his hand.

חַד בַּר נַשׁ בְּצִיפּוֹרִין אֲזַל בָּעֵי מִיזְבוֹן קוּפָּד מִן טַבְּחָא וְלָא יְהַב לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַד רוֹמַיי וְאַייְתִי לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לָא נִיסְבִּית עַל כָּרְחֵיהּ. אֲמַר. וְלָאו בְּשַׂר דִּנְבֵילָה יְהָבִית לֵיהּ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בָא לִפְנֵי רִבִּי וְאָמַר. לָא כוּלָּא מִינֵּיהּ מֵיסּוֹר מַקֻּילִין דְּצִיפּוֹרִין.

It is further related that a certain man in Tzippori was walking and he wanted to buy a piece of meat [kufad] from the butcher, but the butcher did not give him the meat, as they were at odds with each other. The man asked a certain Roman to buy the meat on his behalf, and he brought him the meat. The man later said to the butcher: Did I not in the end take the meat from you against your will? The butcher said to him: Did I not give him the non-kosher meat of a carcass, and so the meat you received from him was not kosher? Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: An incident like this came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said about this: It is not within his power to prohibit all the butcher shops [makkulin] of Tzippori on that day; since the majority of meat shops in that city belong to Jews, the butcher’s claim that he gave the Roman non-kosher meat is not to be believed.

רַב נְחַת לְתַמָּן. חַמְתּוֹן מֵקִילוֹן וַחֲמַר עֲלֵיהוֹן. חַד בַּר נַשׁ אֲזַל ^{[דף כ.]} בָּעֵי מְשִׁיגָּה אֵסְקוֹפְתֵּיהּ בְּגַו נַהֲרָא וְאִינְשִׁתָהּ וַאֲזַל לֵיהּ. חֲזַר בָּעֵי מִיסְבִינֵהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב. אָסִוּר לָךְ. דָּנָא אֲמַר. הַהִיא שְׁטַף נַהֲרָא וְאַייְתִי חוּרִי דִנְבֵילָה תוֹחְתּוֹי.

It is related that Rav went down there to Babylonia and saw that they were lenient about meat of unknown origin, and he was stringent with them. The Gemara now reports what it is that Rav saw: A certain man went ^[20a] and wanted to rinse his hat [askuptei] in the river. While doing so, the piece of kosher meat he was carrying fell and the man went on his way. Afterward, he returned to that very place and found a piece of meat identical to the one that he had dropped, and he wanted to take it. Rav, however, said to him: This meat is forbidden for you to eat, as I can say: It is possible that the river swept away that piece of meat, and brought in its place a different piece of non-kosher meat that had fallen into the water somewhere else.