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.
חַד בַּר נַשׁ הֲוָה מְהַלֵּךְ בְּשׁוּקָא טָעִין קוּפָּד. אֲתַא דַייְתָא וַחֲטַפְתֵּיהּ מִינֵיהּ וּטְלַקְתֵּיהּ. חֲזַר בָּעֵי מִיסְבִינֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב. אֲסִיר לָךְ. דָּנָא אֲמַר. בָּשָׂר דִּנְבֵילָה הֲוָת טְעִינָה וּטְלַקְתֵּיהּ וְנָֽסְבָה הַהוּא אוֹחְרָנָא. The Gemara relates another incident where Rav was stringent about meat of doubtful provenance. A certain man was walking in the market, carrying a piece of kosher meat. A kite bird came and snatched it from him, and later cast it away elsewhere. The man returned and wanted to take the piece of meat from the place where he saw the bird drop it. Rav, however, said to him: This meat is forbidden for you to eat, as I can say: It is possible the kite was carrying non-kosher meat and that is what it cast away in this place. It then took away the other piece of meat that it snatched from you.
גִּינַאי שְׁטַף זִיקִין. אֲתַא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אֶלְעָזָר וְאָמַר. יַחְכְּמוֹן שְׁפַייָא קִטְרֵיהוֹן. It is further related that the Gina’ei river once swept away wineskins belonging to Jews, and the wineskins were later found along the riverbank. The incident came before Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Elazar, who said: Let the Jewish wine-dealers come and examine the knots on the wineskins. If they recognize the knots as theirs, the wineskins are presumably theirs, and the wine and the wineskins are permitted.
נוּקְנִיקָה אִישְׁתַּכַּח בִּכְנִישְׁתָּא דְבוּלֵי. אֲתַא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אָמַר. יַחְכְּמוֹן סִיקִייָרִיָּא עֲבִידְתֵּיהוֹן. It once happened that a wine container [nekonika] was found in the synagogue of the city council [bulei], and the incident came before Rabbi Yirmeya for a ruling. He said: Let the Jewish markers, i.e., those who paint the markings on the containers, examine their work. Only if they recognize it as theirs, is the wine permitted.
גְּדִי צְלִי אִישְׁתַּכַּח בְּאִיסְרָטָא דְגוּפְתָּא. וְהִתִּירוּהוּ מִשֵּׁם שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים. מִשֵּׁם מְצִיאָה וּמִשֵּׁם רוֹב מְהַלְּכֵי דְרָכִים. It is further related that a roasted goat was once found in the street in the town of Gufta, and the Rabbis permitted it to be eaten based on two considerations: First, because of found property; that is to say, they allowed the finder to keep it. Secondly, because of the majority of traffic, i.e., the majority of people passing through that street were Jews.
מִשֵּׁם מְצִיאָה. דְּתַנֵּי. הַמַּצִּיל מִיַּד הָאֲרִי מִיַּד הַגַּיִיס מִשּׁוּנַת הַיָּם וּמִשּׁוּנַת הַנָּהָר וּמֵאיסְרַטְיָא גְדוֹלָה וּמִפַּלַּטְיָא גְדוֹלָה הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִתְײַאֲשִׁין מֵהֶן. The Gemara explains: Because of found property, as it was taught in a baraita: One who rescues an article from a lion, from an enemy army [gayyis], from rocks in the sea [shunit hayam], or from rocks in a river, or from a large public street [isratya], or from a large public square; in all these cases, these articles belong to him, even if they have an identifying mark on them, because the owners have given up hope of ever recovering them. For this reason the Rabbis ruled that the goat belonged to its finder, as it was found on the street.
מִשֵּׁם רוֹב מְהַלְּכֵי דְרָכִים. מִשֵׁם שְׁחִיטַת הַגּוֹי. וְאִשְּׁתַּכַּח מִן דְּבֵית רִבִּי. The Rabbis also permitted the goat because of the majority of traffic. Since most of the people who passed through that street were Jews, it stands to reason that a Jew had lost the roast goat, and the Rabbis were not concerned that it was the product of gentile slaughter and therefore not kosher. The Gemara adds that in the end, the goat was found to be from the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and indeed kosher.
עִיגוּל דְּגוּבְנָא אִישְׁתַּכַּח בְּפוּנְדָּקָא דְּלֵוִי. וְהִתִּירוּהוּ מִשֵּׁם שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים. מִשֵּׁם מְצִיאָה וּמִשֵּׁם רוֹב מְהַלְּכֵי דְרָכִים. The Gemara relates that a wheel of cheese was once found in an inn [pundaka] belonging to Levi, and the Rabbis permitted it to be eaten based on two considerations: Because of found property and because of the majority of traffic.
מִשֵּׁם מְצִיאָה. דְּתַנֵּי. הַמַּצִּיל מִיַּד הַגַּיִיס מִיַּד הָאֲרִי מִשּׁוּנַת הַיָּם וּמִשּׁוּנַת הַנָּהָר מֵאיסְרַטְיָה גְדוֹלָה וּמִפַּלַּטְיָא גְדוֹלָה הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִתְײַאֲשִׁין מֵהֶן. The Gemara explains: Because of found property, as it was taught in a baraita: One who rescues an article from an enemy army, from a lion, from rocks in the sea, or from rocks in a river, from a large public street, or from a large public square; in all these cases, these articles belong to him, even if they have an identifying mark on them, because the owners have given up hope of ever recovering them. The same applies to something that was found in an inn, which is also a public area; its owner presumably gave up hope of getting it back, and so the finder is entitled to keep it for himself.
מִשֵּׁם רוֹב מְהַלְּכֵי דְרָכִים. מִשֵׁם גְּבִינַת גּוֹי. וְאִשְּׁתַּכַּח מִן דְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי. The problem that was overcome because of the majority of traffic, was that perhaps the cheese should have been prohibited because it was the cheese of a gentile. Since the majority of the guests at the inn were Jews, this was not a concern. The Gemara notes that, in the end the wheel of cheese was found to be from the house of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, and was indeed kosher.
אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וַאֲנָן חָֽמְייָן רַבָּנִן מַכְרִזִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אִין אַתְּ הֲווִיתָה מַשְׁכַּח לָא נָֽסְבָת. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָבוּךְ לֹֹא אָמַר כֵּן אֶלָּא אָמַר. הַלְּוַאי כַּד נַשְׁכַּח נַשְׁכַּח מִן פִיּוֹסְרוֹס וּלְגֵיו. אֲפִילוּ כֵן אַשְׁכַּח וְלָא נְסַב. Rabbi Mana said in the presence of Rabbi Yosei: But I saw the Rabbis announcing that they had found lost property, even when the item was found in a public area. Rabbi Yosei said to him: If you were to find an article in a public area, you would not take it either. Rabbi Yona, your father, did not say this, but said: If only that when we find some item, we should find it in a place that will not require us to announce its discovery, e.g., from the gate outward, in a public area. The Gemara notes that even so, when Rabbi Yona found a lost article in a crowded public place, he did not take it for himself, but rather announced that he had found it, so that he could locate its original owner.