Shekalim 19b — the Talmud in English

And during the Festival, when meat is plentiful,

and they do not cut the meat into small pieces, but cook it limb by limb—

even

if he found the pieces of meat when they were cut

into limbs,

they are

permitted.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Money found on the Temple Mount is presumed to be non-sacred.

And we challenge:

Was it not necessary

—was it not necessary for the tanna to say the opposite:

that

there should

not be on the Temple Mount

anything except money that is

consecrated?!

For surely this money certainly fell from the contribution of the chamber, since a person is not permitted to enter there with his money tied up in his garment.

He said,

Rabbi Ba

said,

Rabbi Hiyya in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Even money that the priest took from the chamber is not consecrated, but non-sacred.

For it is a

presumption

that

the priest,

the treasurer,

does not take money from the chamber until he redeems it onto the animal.

It follows that the money is non-sacred and not consecrated.

We learned in the Mishna:

Meat found in the Temple courtyard—

both this and that, its form shall be allowed to pass, and it shall go to the place of burning:

Consecrated meat from which one diverted his attention is invalid.

And there is one who says that this law is a “higher standard concerning consecrated things,” and even if Elijah should come and say that the consecrated meat did not become impure throughout all the time that one diverted his attention from it, we do not heed him to declare it valid.

According to that one who says this, since it is invalid, it should be burned immediately.

And there is one who says that it is invalid because of uncertainty, lest it became impure.

According to him, it is impossible to burn it until its form has passed.

And this is the view of Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya:

Rabbi Elazar

said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: Lack of awareness

concerning consecrated things renders it invalid, but

it requires the passing of its form,

so that it becomes invalid after the time for eating it passes and it becomes notar, and only afterward is it burned.

Rabbi Hoshaya said: The Mishna says so [

this is proven from our Mishna].

For it is stated in the Mishna that those consecrated things found in the Temple courtyard—

their form shall be allowed to pass, and they shall go to the place of burning.

But those consecrated things that were found had been lost, and one had diverted his attention from them. And if they are invalid because of lack of awareness even when they certainly did not become impure, why was the “passing of the form” necessary?

It is proven that every consecrated thing rendered invalid through lack of awareness has only an uncertain disqualification, lest it became impure; therefore it is not burned until its form has passed.

Rabbi Yose said: It is appropriate,

the law that this meat found in the Temple courtyard should be burned is properly understood, even though the disqualification of meat from which one diverted his attention is due to the possibility that it became impure.

And although seemingly one may challenge: We learned in tractate Pesahim that the Temple courtyard is considered legally “a public domain with regard to impurity.”

And the law is that an uncertainty concerning impurity, if it occurred in a public domain, is pure.

And if so, why is the meat found in the Temple courtyard, where there is uncertainty whether it became impure when one diverted his attention from it, burned? Behold, an uncertainty concerning impurity in a public domain is pure.

This is the reason:

you cannot eat it, because

perhaps

its form has already deteriorated,

that perhaps

its form has already been spoiled,

that perhaps the time for eating it passed and it is notar.

And you cannot burn it, lest it has not yet become invalid as notar.

And therefore, it is necessary to say [

and for this reason it is necessary to say]:

its form shall be allowed to pass,

and it will certainly become notar,

and

then it shall go

to the place of burning.

We learned in the Mishna:

Pieces were found

of meat

in the outlying areas

when they were cut into limbs, they are forbidden; if pieces were found, they are permitted:

He said

Rabbi Krispa in the name of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina:

that which we say

limbs

that are found are presumed to be

carcasses,

this is not a law based on uncertainty. Rather, they are certainly carcasses, and those who eat them

receive lashes for [eating] a carcass.

[And if it were uncertain, it would be forbidden to eat them, but one does not receive lashes on account of uncertainty.]

And we say:

The beraita says so.

It is proven from the Mishna that the limbs are forbidden by the law of a certain carcass.

For it teaches in the Mishna

“Limbs—

carcasses;

and pieces—

permitted.”

But

“pieces—

permitted,”

as it teaches: are they

not actually

permitted, and by the law of certainty!? But if it were uncertain, they would be forbidden.

If so,

and correspondingly, that which it teaches

the statement that teaches:

“Limbs—

carcasses,”

is analogous to pieces, for it is by the law of certainty,

and one receives lashes for [eating] them on account of a carcass.

Rabbi Krispa said in the name of

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina: If the

limbs of flesh that were found were

strung

on a string, then they are

permitted,

because it is not the practice to string carcasses.

If there were ten shops in the city:

nine shops

of them

sell the meat of a carcass, and one

of them

sells slaughtered meat:

If they became exchanged for him,

for he took meat from one of them, and now he does not know from which one he took it, he

is concerned

and it is forbidden to eat the meat.

But one does not receive lashes for eating the meat, even though the majority of the shops sell the meat of a carcass, for one does not follow the majority in them, since the uncertainty arose concerning the shop itself, from which he took the meat: what was it?

And since the shops are “fixed” in their places, every uncertainty that arises at the place where the prohibition is fixed, we do not follow the majority in it to obligate him to lashes.

Rather, this is like half prohibition and half permission, and since it is an evenly balanced uncertainty, we say: uncertainty concerning a prohibition is treated stringently, but one does not receive lashes for it on account of uncertainty.

And

a piece

found

in the city—one follows

the majority.

For if the uncertainty did not arise in the shop, but rather concerning meat found in the city, and the uncertainty is from which shop it separated, one follows the majority.

For since the meat separated from the place of fixation, it does not have the law of “fixed”; rather, we attribute it to the fact that it separated from the majority of the shops that sell carcass meat, according to the rule that whatever separates, separates from the majority. Therefore the meat is forbidden by the law of certainty, and one who eats it receives lashes.

And the same is the law in the reverse situation: for example, if there were in the city

nine shops selling slaughtered meat, and one selling the meat of a carcass, and they became exchanged for him,

for he forgot from which shop he took it, he

is concerned

because of the uncertainty. Since the uncertainty arose concerning what is fixed, whose law is like half and half, the meat is not permitted to be eaten, despite the fact that there is a majority of valid shops.

And

for a piece of meat

found

in another marketplace, after it separated from the shop, the law is

that one follows the majority,

and it is permitted.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Meat

found in the hand of a gentile

its law is

as

if it had

been found in the marketplace

[in the market]. If the majority of those who slaughter meat in the city are Israelites, we say that whatever separates, separates from the majority, and it is permitted to eat it.

Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Haggai was leaning on Rabbi Mana

[he was leaning on Rabbi Mana while walking].

He saw a certain Aramean cutting from his horse and throwing it outside

[he saw a gentile cutting a piece of meat from the horse and throwing it outside].

He said to him,

Rabbi Mana to Rabbi Eleazar:

Is this

[is this the example]

of what Rabbi Yohanan said:

meat

found in the hand of a gentile—

as

the meat

found in the marketplace? And if the majority of the slaughterers are Israelites, it is permitted to eat it?!

And this is to say: why should we not be concerned lest that gentile cut it from his animal and threw it outside, as occurred in this incident?

He said to him

Rabbi Eleazar

to Rabbi Mana:

So said Rabbi Yosei:

meat found in the hand of a gentile is permitted,

provided that

[he]

was seen

[the gentile]

coming out of the Israelite butcher market

[from the Israelite butchers’ market].

For then, certainly, that gentile did not cut this piece of meat from his horse, but rather bought it in this market.

And it teaches us that we are not concerned that an Israelite sold him the meat of an animal rendered unfit.

A certain man in Sepphoris was going.

He wanted to buy meat from the butcher

[a certain man in Sepphoris went, and wanted to buy meat from the butcher],

but he did not give it to him,

and he did not want to sell it to him, because they hated one another.

He said to him,

the buyer to a certain

Roman: “Go and bring it to him.”

The buyer said to a certain gentile that he should buy meat for him, and this one went and brought it to him.

He said to him,

the buyer to the seller,

“Did I not take it from you against your will?!”

[Did I not take meat from you against your will?] And he said this to provoke him.

He said to him,

the seller: “Was it not

the meat of a carcass that I gave him?”

For the seller wished to distress him, and said to him: This meat that I gave to your gentile agent, and that you ate, was the meat of a carcass.

Rabbi Jeremiah said in the name of

Rabbi Hanina: This incident

came

before Rabbi, and he said:

Even if we believe him that he sold him the meat of a carcass, nevertheless the law remains that one who sees a gentile taking meat out of the butcher market of Sepphoris, it is valid.

For it is not within his power to prohibit the butcher market of Sepphoris.

That is to say, because one Israelite once sold the meat of a carcass to a gentile, we do not prohibit the entire market.

Since we are occupied with the law of meat found in the hand of a gentile, the Gemara now discusses the law of meat that was known to have been valid, disappeared from sight, and afterward was seen again. What is its law?

Rav went down there,

he went down to Babylonia.

He saw them being lenient,

and he saw that the Babylonians were lenient concerning the law of meat that had disappeared from sight,

and he was stringent with them,

and he was stringent with them in several incidents. As follows:

A certain man went

[a certain man went].