Shekalim 20a — the Talmud in English

He sought to roast his piece of meat in the river [ [A0003]and wanted to wash a piece of meat in the river].

and intended to rinse a piece of meat in the river.

And he forgot it and went away.

When he went away from there, he forgot it there.

He returned,

and

he sought to take it [ [A0009]he returned there and wanted to take it].

he returned there and wanted to take it.

Rav said to him: It is forbidden for you

to eat it.

For I say [ [A0013]I say], perhaps that piece

that is, I say: perhaps

in question,

which was kosher,

the river swept away, and brought

the river

another piece of a nevela beneath it [ [A0019]the river expelled another piece of meat, which was a nevela, in its place].

the river expelled another piece of meat, which was an animal carcass, in its place.

And the Gemara brings another incident in which Rav was stringent:

A certain man was walking in the marketplace.

He was carrying meat [ [A0023]and was carrying a load of meat].

and carrying a load of meat.

There came

a bird called

a dayta, snatched it from him, and threw it [ [A0027]it snatched the meat from him and then threw it into another place].

it seized the meat from him and then threw it down somewhere else.

He returned,

that man,

and sought to take it [ [A0031]and wanted to take it from the place where it was found].

and wanted to take it from the place where it was found.

Rav said to him: It is forbidden for you

to eat this meat. Because

I say [ [A0035]I say], perhaps that bird

that is, I say: perhaps that bird

was carrying the meat of a nevela,

it was carrying the meat of a nevela,

and threw it [ [A0039]and threw it].

and threw it down.

And it took that other one,

and it took your kosher meat for itself.

It turns out that it exchanged kosher meat for a nevela, and the meat that it threw and that was found beside you is the meat of a nevela.

And there was another incident in the river

Ginai,

which

swept away wineskins [ [A0047]wineskins of wine].

wineskins of wine.

The incident came before Rabbi Yitzhak bar Abba, and he said: Let them recognize the knots of their wineskins,

that is, let the owners inspect the knots of the wineskins of wine, and if they recognize that this is a knot that they themselves tied, these are permitted. But if not, they are forbidden, for I say that perhaps the wineskins expelled by the river are wineskins other than those that it swept away, and they contain yayin nesekh.

Wine jars [ [A0051]wine jars]

wine jars

were found in the synagogue of Buli,

they were found in the synagogue of the city of Buli, and it was not known whether they were kosher jars or not.

The incident came before Rabbi Yirmeya. He said: Let them recognize their marks made with red paint,

let those who marked the jars with sikra [red paint] inspect them. And if they recognize the mark they made, they may take them.

A roasted kid was found on the asרטia of Gufta [ [A0057]a roasted kid was found in the marketplace of the city of Gufta].

a roasted kid was found in the market of the city of Gufta.

And they permitted it for two reasons:

A. Because of the lost object: they did not fear that it should not be taken and that it should be returned to its owners.

B. They permitted it for eating because of the majority of travelers. And as he explains:

They did not fear returning it to the owners who had lost it

because of

the law of

a lost object

that has a identifying mark, for which one must make a proclamation,

because it was taught:

One who saves [an object] from a lion or from an army [ [A0068]an army that took objects from Jews], or

an army that took property from Jews, or

from the place reached by the sea [ [A0070]a place to which the sea reaches when it is stormy],

the place to which the sea reaches when it is stormy,

or from the place reached by the river, or from a large public road [ [A0072]a public thoroughfare],

a public road,

or from a large marketplace [ [A0074]a large marketplace], in all these cases:

a large market—in all these cases:

these are his, because the owners despair

of them, since they are completely lost.

Therefore here, since the kid was found on the isרטia of Gufta, it was permitted to take it.

And because of

the majority of travelers,

who are Jews, they permitted it

because of “the slaughter of a gentile,”

for they did not fear that perhaps a gentile slaughtered it and it is a nevela and forbidden to eat.

In the end,

it was found to be from Rabbi’s household,

for this kid was from Rabbi’s household, and it was kosher.

A round of cheese [ [A0087]a round of cheese]

a round of cheese

was found in Levi’s inn [ [A0089]it was found in Levi’s inn],

it was found in Levi’s inn,

and they permitted it for two reasons:

Because of a lost object, and because of the majority of travelers.

Because of a lost object, for it was taught: One who saves from an army, from a lion, from the place reached by the sea, and from the place reached by

the river,

from a large public road and from a large marketplace, these are his, because the owners despair of them.

And

because the majority of travelers

are Jews, they did not fear

that it was gentile cheese.

And

in the end

it was found to be from Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei.

And in the end it became clear that it was from the household of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yosei: And we see [ [A0104]I saw]

I saw

that the Sages make a proclamation

over the lost object, even when it was found in a marketplace.

For although according to the law they are exempt from making a proclamation, nevertheless Torah scholars make a proclamation beyond the letter of the law.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yosei to Rabbi Mana:

If you were to find—

would you not take it!?

And would you, if you found a lost object in a marketplace, not take it for yourself!?

But

Rabbi Yona, your father, did not say so,

that the Sages must make a proclamation beyond the letter of the law.

Rather,

he

said: Would that when I find—

I find it from Piyosa and inward.

Would that when I find something, I find it in a place called Piyosa, and inward from it, because many people are found there, and the owners who lost something there despair of it, and I may take it.

And the Gemara concludes:

Even

though Rabbi Yosei said

so

to Rabbi Mana, when an incident occurred

and Rabbi Yosei found

a lost object in a place where many people are found, he made a proclamation concerning it,

and he did not take it

Rabbi Yosei! He did not take it for himself.

Halakha 3 — Mishna:

A.

An animal that is found

far

from Jerusalem to Migdal Eder [ [A0135]a place-name], or that was found at a place distant

the name of a place, or that is found at a distance

by its measure

the distance between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder, around Jerusalem

in every direction—

we are concerned that perhaps this animal left Jerusalem, and the majority of animals that leave it are offerings, and this animal must be considered possibly any of the offerings for which it is fit.

Therefore,

males

fit for burnt-offerings—we are concerned that they are

burnt-offerings.

And females

that are not fit for burnt-offerings—we are concerned that perhaps they are

peace-offerings

of the peace-offerings type.

And what one should do with them will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If one found a lamb or a goat one year old

fit for

offerings

of Pesaḥ in this place, we are concerned that it was consecrated

in this area, we are concerned that it was consecrated

for

the designation of

Pesaḥ offerings, if it was found at a time

before the festival by thirty days.

thirty days before the Festival.

Because thirty days before the festival they begin expounding the laws of the festival, and a person then sets aside his Pesaḥ offering.

B.

At first, they would take as collateral from the one who found it

of this animal

until he brought

from his house

its libations.

And when those who found them saw that they were obligating them to bring libations,

they returned to leaving it and fleeing,

so as not to become obligated for its libations.

And when the court saw this,

the court instituted that its libations should be brought from public funds.

C.

Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven things

to take from the funds of the Chamber.

And this,

which we said, that the libations of a found animal are brought from public funds—is

one of them.

And they also instituted:

A gentile who sent his burnt-offering from overseas,

for the descendants of Noah send voluntary offerings to the Temple,

if he sent with it

the money for

libations,

the libations are brought

from his funds.

But if not—

they are brought from

libations

of

the

public,

since a voluntary burnt-offering is obligated in libations.

And likewise,

a convert who died and left offerings,

which he had set aside during his lifetime, whose law is that they are brought even after his death, and he has no heirs to bring the libations.

Then—

if he has libations

that he set aside during his lifetime [for after death all the convert’s property is ownerless],

they are brought from his funds.

But if not, they are brought from public funds.

D.

And it is a condition of the court

to take from the funds of the Chamber for a high priest who died, while another priest had not yet been appointed in his place; they instituted

that his meal-offering [ [A0205]the minḥat ḥavitin, which the high priest offers every day—half an issaron in the morning and half an issaron in the evening]

the ḥavitin meal-offering, which the High Priest brings every day—half an isaron in the morning and half an isaron in the evening—

should be brought from public funds.

Rabbi Yehuda

disagrees with this law and

says:

It was brought not from public funds, but

from the funds of the heirs

of the high priest.

And

it was not brought according to the law of the minḥat ḥavitin, which the high priest offers while alive: an issaron of flour, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.

Rather,

a whole one was brought.

That is, a whole issaron in the morning and a whole issaron in the evening. And this is expounded from verses.

E. The court also stipulated

concerning the salt and the wood

of the consecrated property,

that the priests should benefit from them [ [A0224]derive benefit from them] for eating consecrated offerings.

and use them when eating sacrificial meat.

F.

And

they also stipulated

concerning the red heifer

after it had been burned,

that there should be no misuse of its ashes,

and one who benefits from its ashes would not become obligated in a misuse offering.

G.

And

they also stipulated

concerning the bird-pairs [ [A0236]two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one a sin-offering and one a burnt-offering], which were purchased with money brought by those obligated to bring bird-pairs and placed in the box designated for them, that if

two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one a sin-offering and one a burnt-offering, purchased with money brought by those obligated to bring bird-pairs and placed in the box designated for them: if

the

bird-pairs

were invalid, they should be brought from public funds,

and they assign them to the owners and bring them in their names.

It is impossible for the owners to bring other birds in their place, since we do not know from whose money these bird-pairs were purchased.

Rabbi Yosei says:

The invalid bird-pairs are not brought from public funds. Rather, that person

who supplies the bird-pairs,

with whom the treasurer made an agreement to supply them,

he supplies the

bird-pairs brought in place of

the invalid ones.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: An animal found from Jerusalem to Migdal Eder—the males are burnt-offerings.

And we object: Why do we assume that the males are burnt-offerings?

And

because

peace-offerings do not come

both

from males

and

from females,

if so, one should be uncertain concerning the male that was found: perhaps it is a peace-offering? [ [A0260]The entire following passage is according to the version of the Gra.]

The entire following passage follows the version of the Vilna Gaon.

Rabbi Hoshaya the Great said: It is to come—

they taught this with regard to their monetary value.

That is, certainly one must be uncertain concerning the male that was found, whether it is a burnt-offering or a peace-offering.

Therefore, it itself certainly is not brought as a burnt-offering; rather, he brings a burnt-offering with its value, as he explains:

What does he do?

First he

takes out

the animals that he found

to non-sacred status.