142a This paragraph, accepting the Babylonian opinion that “meat which was out of sight”, out of control for a moment, is prohibited, annulling the Mishnah here, appears in a different order of the cases in Avodah zarah 2:9, Notes 393-395. The Genizah text here follows the arrangement of Avodah zarah . Rav returned there and saw them taking things lightly and was restrictive with them. A man went to wash a piece of meat in the river. He forgot it and left. Then he went and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying the other one was carried away by the river and it brought another piece of carcass meat in its place. A man was carrying meat while walking on the market. There came a vulture, seized it from his hand, and dropped it off. He came back and wanted to sell it. Rav told him, it is forbidden to you, for I am saying that it was carrying carcass meat, dropped it and took the other instead.
2Ginai 43 A river not otherwise identified (also mentioned in Demay 1:3 (Note 144 ), Babli Ḥulin 7a . Since both known authorities called R. Isaac ben Eleazar were Galilean, the river must be a Galilean brook. The statement made here is that even though wineskins may have been used for non-kosher wine, if they were swept away by a brook but then recovered, identification confirms not only ownership but also possibility of use for kosher wine. swept away wineskins. The case came before Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar who said, may the vintners recognize their knots.
3A sausage was found in the meeting room of the town council. The case came before Rebbi Jeremiah who said, may the butchers recognize their handiwork 44 Since the sausage was whole, the problem of meat out of sight does not arise if the maker recognizes it. .
4A roast kid goat was found in the main street of Gufta 45 The meaning of this word is not clear. It seems to denote the Jewish part of Sepphoris. . They permitted it because of two things, as a find 46 Because it was found on a thoroughfare it is ownerless and the finder may take possession without trying to find the owner. , and because of the majority of passers-by 47 Since the place was Jewish, the meat is presumed to be kosher. . As a find, as it was stated: If one saves from before a lion, from before an army, from a surge of the sea, or the surge of a river, from a wide road, or a wide plaza, it belongs to him, since the owners give up on them. Because of the majority of passers-by, because of a Gentile’s slaughter. It turned out 48 Nevertheless, nobody tried to eat from the meat before its kosher state was ascertained and certified. that it was from the House of Rebbi.
5A wheel of cheese was found in the hostelry of Levi. They permitted it because of two things, as a find, and because of the majority of passers-by. As a find, as it was stated: If one saves from before a lion, from before an army, from a surge of the sea, or the surge of a river, from a wide road, or a wide plaza, it belongs to him, since the owners give up on them. Because of the majority of passers-by, because of Gentile’s cheese. It turned out that it was from Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose.
6Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, but do we not see that the rabbis publicize 49 This refers to the monetary aspect, Note 46 . Rabbis will advertise to find the prior owner even if the find was laying on a well-travelled road. ? He told him, if you had been there, you would not have taken it. Your father, Rebbi Jonah, did not say so, but he said, if only I would find it inside from the circular road 50 Cf. Eruvin Chaptrer 8, Note 102; the access road to and from a town along a long-distance road. “Inside” is the major road in the town, where many people are passing by at all times. . Even so, he found and did not take 51 In practice he did not follow his own permissive ruling which therefore cannot be practice. .
7MISHNAH: If it was found in the countryside 26 Palestine outside of Jerusalem and its surroundings. , limbs are carrion 27 Since the butcher did not care to cut it into slices, one must assume that it was notkosher and thrown away for the dogs. , cuts are permitted 28 If there are no sources of non-kosher meat in the neighborhood. . On holidays, when meat is abundant, even limbs are permitted 29 Since for big family meals one may buy whole limbs and cut them after cooking. . Rebbi Simeon said, the Court 64 The body empowered by the returnees from Babylonia to oversee the functioning of the Second Temple. stipulated seven things, and this 65 The stipulation mentioned in the preceding Mishnah, that the libations for a stray animal used as sacrifice should be paid for by the half- sheqel tax. was one of them: If a Gentile 66 Who may bring all kinds of voluntary offerings; only obligatory offerings are restricted to full members of the Jewish faith. sent his elevation offering from overseas also sent its libations, they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. Similarly, if a proselyte 67 He failed to contract a Jewish marriage and start a Jewish family; therefore he has no heirs and his estate is ownerless. died and the estate includes well-being offerings; if he also has flour offerings they are brought from his property; otherwise they are brought from public money. It is a stipulation of the Court that the flour offering of a deceased High Priest 68 The daily offering of the High Priest should not stop between the death of one High Priest and the investiture of the next; the only question is whether it is paid for by the heirs of the deceased or by the public. be brought from public money; Rebbi Jehudah says, from his heirs, and it was brought whole 69 The offering of the living High Priest is brought in two parts ( Lev. 6:13 ); the offering in the interim is brought whole according to everybody. . 101 Continuation of the Court stipulations from Mishnah 5 . About salt and wood that the Cohanim may use them 102 The Cohanim who have to consume most holy sacrifices in the sacred compound may use salt and wood bought with sheqalim to cook the meat and bake maṣsot. , and about the Cow that one does not commit larceny with its ashes 103 Even though the ashes of the Red Cow are called חַטָּאת, this does not mean “purification sacrifice” but only “(means of) purification.” Even though the Cow was bought with sheqel money, the ashes are no sancta . . And about disqualified nests 104 If a woman put money for a “nest” in the corresponding box, and the birds given to the Cohen for the corresponding sum turned out to be disqualified, they must immediately be replaced since the woman trusts that she may eat sancta after sundown. Since her identity is unknown, she cannot be asked to pay a second time; therefore her nest has to be paid by the public. R. Yose disagrees and holds that the contract with the supplier of birds stipulates that the birds supplied must be qualified. Therefore disqualified birds have to be replaced by the supplier at no cost to the Temple. that they be charged to the public; Rebbi Yose says, he who provides the nests provides the disqualified ones.
8HALAKHAH: 56 The present paragraph has a parallel in Qiddušin 2:8 (Notes 202–210 ) of which, however, it is not a direct copy. The elder Rebbi Hoshaia said (more)<to his son>` 57 Of the three readings given by the three parallel sources, the one ג is supported by the parallel in Qiddušin and making sense. In the translation, the texts in parentheses should be disregarded. this was taught for their monetary value 58 It is impossible to say that a male animal which was found ownerless should be taken as elevation offering since it might have been dedicated as well-being offering. The animal should be redeemed and the redemption money used for an elevation offering. The same argument is given in the Babli, Qiddušin 55a . . Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, does one say to a person, go and commit larceny with sacrifices 59 It is impossible to redeem an unblemished dedicated animal ( Lev. 27:10 .) Any redemption is both sinful and ineffective. R. Hoshiah’s rule seems to be impossible. ? But they followed the majority of cases: If most 60 The animal itself should be used for what was its most probable dedication. are male, they are elevation offerings, if most are female, well-being offerings. But do not well-being offerings come from males and females? What does he do? He redeems them as profane and then turns them into elevation offerings 61 One follows both R. Hoshaia and R. Joḥanan. The animal is first redeemed and then rededicated; this precludes the sin of freeing a dedicated animal and removes the prior specific dedication. In the Babli, Qiddušin 55b , R. Joḥanan holds that the redemption of unblemished animals is never possible. He requires that the animal be put out to graze until it develops a blemish; then it can be redeemed and the proceeds used for another sacrifice. In any case, the answer is unsatisfactory. Since the Mishnah states that people were refraining from picking up stray animals because they did not want to pay for its flour offerings, they certainly do not want to take upon themselves the much greater expense of redemption. . Rebbi Ze`ira said, it is a stipulation by the court that all redundant animals should be brought as elevation offerings, so it is a stipulation by the court that lost animals should be brought as elevation offerings 62 Therefore, it is part of every dedication of any male animal that, if not needed for its original purpose, it should be used as an elevation offering. It is also part of every dedication of any male animal that, if lost and then found by another person, it should become an elevation offering. . Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa 63 Since R. Jacob bar Aḥa lived two generations before R. Yose, the reading of B, R. Assi (= Yasa) has to be accepted. , is that not intentional misuse? He said to him, since it is a stipulation by the court, it is not intentional misuse.