Shekalim 20a (כ.) — the Talmud in English

He sought to wash his piece of meat in the river [that is, he wanted to wash a piece of meat in the river].

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

But he forgot it and went away.

When he left, he forgot it there.

He returned,

and

sought to take it [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 [I am saying] that perhaps

that is, I say: perhaps

that

kosher piece of meat,

the river swept away, and brought

the river

another piece of an animal carcass beneath it,

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

The Gemara brings another incident in which Rav was stringent:

A certain man was walking in the marketplace.

He was carrying meat [he was carrying a load of meat].

and carrying a load of meat.

A

bird called

a dayeta came, snatched it from him, and threw it away [it snatched the meat from him and then threw it down elsewhere].

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

He returned,

that man,

and sought to take it [he 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.

For I say [I am saying] that perhaps that bird

that is, I say: perhaps that bird

had been carrying the meat of an animal carcass,

that is, it had been carrying the meat of an animal carcass,

and threw it away [and discarded it].

and threw it down.

And it took that other one,

that is, it took your kosher meat for itself.

It follows that it exchanged kosher meat for an animal carcass, and the meat that it discarded and that you found is the meat of an animal carcass.

There was another incident involving the river

Ginnai,

which

swept away

[wine] skins of wine.

An incident came before Rabbi Yitzhak bar Abba, and he said: Let the owners identify the knots on their skins,

meaning, let the owners examine the knots on the wine skins; if they recognize that these are knots that they themselves tied, the skins are permitted. If not, they are forbidden, as I say: perhaps the skins expelled by the river are different skins from those it swept away, and they contain libation wine.

Wine jars

wine jars

were found in the synagogue of Buli,

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

An incident came before Rabbi Yirmeya, and he said: Let those who marked the jars with red paint identify their work,

that is, let those who marked the jars with red paint examine them. If they recognize the mark they made, they may take them.

A roasted kid was found in the market of Gophta [a roasted kid was found in the market of the city of Gophta].

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

And they permitted it for two reasons:

a. Because it was a lost object: they did not assume that its finder would refrain from taking it and return it to its owner.

b. They permitted it to be eaten because of the majority of travelers. As it explains:

They did not require its return to the owners who had lost it

because of

the law of

a lost object

that has an identifying mark, in which case one is obligated to announce it,

because it was taught:

One who saves an object from a lion or from an army [an army that seized property from Jews], or

an army that took property from Jews, or

from the tidal shore [a place reached by the sea when it is stormy],

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

or from the riverbank, or from a major thoroughfare [a public thoroughfare],

a public road,

or from a major marketplace [a large marketplace]:

a large market—in all these cases:

These are his, because the owners despair of recovering them,

as they are completely lost.

Therefore, here too, since the kid was found in the thoroughfare of Gophta, it was permitted to take it.

And because of

the majority of travelers,

who were Jews, they permitted it

because of “the slaughter of a gentile”,

as they did not suspect that a gentile had slaughtered it, in which case it would be an animal carcass and forbidden to eat.

Ultimately,

it was found to have come from Rabbi’s household,

that is, this kid had belonged to Rabbi’s household, and it was kosher.

A wheel of cheese

a round of cheese

was found in Levi’s inn

[that is, it was found in Levi’s inn],

and they permitted it for two reasons:

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

Because it was a lost object, as it was taught: One who saves an object from an army, from a lion, from the tidal shore, and from

the riverbank,

from a major thoroughfare and from a major marketplace—these are his, because the owners despair of recovering them.

And

because the majority of travelers

were Jews, they did not suspect

that it was gentile cheese.

And

ultimately,

it was found to have come from Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Yosei.

Ultimately, it became clear that it had belonged to the household of Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yosei: And we see [I have seen]

I saw

that the Sages announce

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

For although by strict law they are exempt from announcing it, nevertheless Torah scholars announce it beyond the letter of the law.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yosei to Rabbi Mana:

If you were to find one—

would you not take it!?

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

But

your father, Rabbi Yona, did not say so,

that the Sages must announce a lost object beyond the letter of the law.

Rather,

he

said: If only, when I find something,

I should find it from Piyosa inward.

That is, if only, whenever I find an object, I should find it in a place called Piyosa or farther inward, because many people are found there, and owners who lose an object there despair of recovering it, so I may take it.

The Gemara concludes:

Even

though Rabbi Yosei said

so

to Rabbi Mana, when the incident actually occurred

and Rabbi Yosei found

a lost object in a place where many people were present, he announced it,

and did not take it;

Rabbi Yosei did not take it for himself.

Halakha 3—Mishna:

a.

An animal that is found

far

from Jerusalem to Migdal Eder [a place-name], or that is found at a distance

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

equal to it

from Jerusalem to Migdal Eder, around Jerusalem

in every direction—

we are concerned that this animal left Jerusalem, and the majority of animals leaving it are sacrificial animals; therefore, this animal must be considered possibly one of every sacrifice for which it is fit.

Accordingly,

males

that are fit to be burnt-offerings, we are concerned that they are

burnt-offerings.

And females,

which are not fit to be burnt-offerings, we are concerned that perhaps

they are peace-offerings,

that is, they were consecrated as peace-offerings.

What is to be done with them will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If one finds a one-year-old lamb or goat

If one finds a one-year-old lamb or goat

fit for

sacrifices

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

in this area, we are concerned that it was consecrated

for

the purpose of

Pesaḥ sacrifices, if it is found

at a time

thirty days before the pilgrimage festival.

This is because thirty days before a pilgrimage festival they begin expounding the laws of the festival, and at that time a person sets aside his Pesaḥ offering.

b.

At first, they would seize the property of the finder

of this animal

until he brought

from his home

its libations.

Once the finders saw that they were requiring them to bring the libations,

they began leaving it and fleeing,

so as not to become liable for its libations.

When the court saw this,

the court instituted that its libations should be supplied from communal funds.

c.

Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven measures

to be paid for from the chamber contribution.

And this,

the provision we stated, that the libations of a found animal are supplied from communal funds,

is one of them.

They instituted further:

When a gentile sends his burnt-offering from overseas,

as the descendants of Noah may send voluntary offerings to the Temple,

if he sent with it

the money for

the libations,

the libations are offered

from his funds.

And if not—

they are offered from

libations

of

the

the community,

because a voluntary burnt-offering requires libations.

Likewise,

when a convert dies and leaves sacrifices,

which he consecrated during his lifetime and which are to be offered even after his death, and he has no heirs to bring the libations,

then,

if he has libations,

which he set aside during his lifetime [because after his death all the convert’s property becomes ownerless],

they are offered from his funds.

And if not, they are offered from communal funds.

d.

And it is a stipulation of the court

to take from the chamber contribution for a High Priest who died, when another priest has not yet been appointed in his place. They instituted

that his meal-offering [the daily meal-offering of the High Priest, consisting of 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 offered from communal funds.

Rabbi Yehuda

disagrees with this ruling and

says: It was offered not from communal funds but

It was not offered from communal funds, but

from the funds of the heirs

of the High Priest.

And

it was not offered according to the law of the daily meal-offering, which the High Priest offers while alive: one issaron of flour, half in the morning and half in the evening.

Rather,

a complete offering was brought.

That is, a complete issaron in the morning and a complete issaron in the evening. This is derived from verses.

e. The court further stipulated

concerning the salt and the wood

of consecrated property

that the priests may benefit from them [derive benefit from them] when eating sacrificial food.

and use them when eating sacrificial meat.

f.

And

they further stipulated

concerning the red heifer

after it had been burned,

that there should be no misuse of its ashes,

so that one who derives benefit from its ashes would not be liable to bring a sacrifice for misuse of consecrated property.

g.

And

they further stipulated

concerning the pairs of birds [two turtledoves or two fledglings, one a sin-offering and one a burnt-offering]

purchased with money brought by those obligated to bring pairs of birds and placed in the box designated for them, that if

the

pairs of birds

are found to be unfit, they should be supplied from communal funds,

and they are assigned to the owners and offered in their names.

It is impossible for the owners to bring other birds in their place, since we do not know whose money was used to purchase these pairs of birds.

Rabbi Yosei says: The unfit pairs of birds are not supplied from communal funds. Rather, the person

Unfit bird-pairs are not provided from communal funds. Rather, the person

who supplies the pairs of birds,

with whom the treasurer contracted to supply them,

he supplies the

pairs of birds that come in place of

the unfit ones.

Gemara:

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

And we raise an objection: Why do we presume that the males are burnt-offerings?

And

because

peace-offerings do not come

both

from males

and

from females,

is that so? One should still be uncertain regarding a male that was found: perhaps it is a peace-offering.

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

Rabbi Hoshaya the Great said: Read it as referring—

to their monetary value.

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

Therefore, it itself certainly may not be offered as a burnt-offering; rather, he brings a burnt-offering with its monetary value, as explained:

What does he do?

First, he

removes

the animals he found

to non-sacred status.