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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Halakha 3 · MISHNA If an animal that is fit for the altar was found straying, from Jerusalem and as far as Migdal Eder, and similarly if it was found within that distance from Jerusalem in any other direction, it is presumed that the animal came from Jerusalem. Most of the animals in Jerusalem were designated for offerings, and presumably this one was as well. Males are presumed to be burnt-offerings, as only males are brought as burnt-offerings. Females are presumed to be peace-offerings, as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering. Rabbi Yehuda says: An animal that is fit for the Paschal offering, i.e., a one-year-old male lamb or kid, is presumed to be a Paschal offering, provided that it was found within thirty days before the Festival of Passover. Originally, the court would seize collateral from one who found such an animal, as security until he would bring with it the libations associated with this offering, as if the found animal were his own and he had committed himself to bring the libations. This brought about a situation in which those who found the animals began leaving them where they found them, and absconding, so as not to become liable for the libations. The court therefore instituted that the libations accompanying these offerings would come from public funds, that is, from the Temple treasury. Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven ordinances with regard to the financial aspects of offerings and consecrations. And this ordinance, namely, that the cost of the libations accompanying the sacrifice of a found animal is borne by the public, is one of them. These are the other ordinances: If a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad, outside Eretz Yisrael, and he sent with it money for the purchase of the libations that must accompany it, the libations are offered at his expense. And if the gentile did not cover the cost of the libations, it is a condition of the court that the libations are sacrificed at the public's expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury. And likewise, in the case of a convert who died without heirs and left animals that he had designated as offerings. If he has the libations, i.e., if he also had set aside libations or money for that purpose, the libations are sacrificed from his estate. And if he did not do so, the libations are sacrificed from public funds. And another ordinance: It is a condition of the court with regard to a High Priest who died, and a new High Priest had not yet been appointed in his place, that his meal-offering, i.e., the griddle-cake offering that the High Priest would bring each day from one-tenth of an ephah of flour, would be sacrificed from public funds. Rabbi Yehuda says: It was brought from the property of the High Priest's heirs, i.e., his estate, and not from public funds. In any event, the offering was not brought as it would have been brought by the High Priest himself were he still alive, half in the morning and half in the evening, but rather it was sacrificed all at once, from a whole one-tenth of an ephah. The fourth ordinance was about the salt in the Temple that was designated for salting the offerings, and the fifth was about the wood that was used for the burning of the offerings. These ordinances decreed that the priests may use them also to prepare the meat of the offerings that they eat. And the sixth ordinance concerned the red heifer: that deriving benefit from its ashes is not considered misusing consecrated property. And the seventh ordinance was about disqualified pairs of bird-offerings: It ruled that their replacements should come from public funds. Rabbi Yosei disagreed and says: The expense does not fall upon the public, but rather upon whoever supplies all the pairs of bird-offerings to the Temple; he must also supply, at no additional charge, the replacements for the disqualified birds.

GEMARA: The mishna taught that if a male animal was found near Jerusalem, it is presumed to have been consecrated as a burnt-offering. Given that a male animal could just as easily be a peace-offering, and as such, most of its meat is meant to be eaten and it is prohibited to burn it on the altar, how can the found animal be sacrificed as a burnt-offering? In answer to this question, Rabbi Hoshaya Rabba said: They taught the halakha that it is presumed to be a burnt-offering only with regard to one who comes with its money, i.e., the money with which the animal was redeemed. One who finds such an animal near Jerusalem may not bring it as a burnt-offering, as it might be a peace-offering. He must redeem the animal for its monetary value, and in addition he must consecrate the same sum again, from his own money. He then stipulates the following: If the animal is a burnt-offering, let it be redeemed on the first sum, and let the second sum be used for a free-will peace-offering. If this animal is a peace-offering, let it be redeemed on the second sum, and let the first sum be used for a free-will burnt-offering. He then purchases a burnt-offering with the first sum and a peace-offering with the second sum. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Does one say to a person that he should go out and misuse consecrated animals? If one redeems a consecrated animal that is still fit for the altar, the redemption is valid; the animal is no longer consecrated and the money is now sacred in its place and must be used to buy other offerings. This redemption, however, is valid only after the fact; it is considered misuse to redeem an unblemished animal and prohibited to do so ab initio. Rather, the mishna must be understood differently. In their regard, follow the majority. If the majority of the animals found are males, they are determined to be burnt-offerings, for most male animals brought as offerings are burnt-offerings. And if the majority of the animals found are females, they are determined to be peace-offerings, for most female animals brought as offerings are peace-offerings. The Gemara asks: But are peace-offerings not brought both from males and from females? Therefore, it is possible that the male animals that were found are not burnt-offerings, but rather peace-offerings. Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan's words must be understood as follows: If one finds animals near Jerusalem, even though they are presumed to be offerings, he cannot sacrifice the animals themselves on the altar. What then does he do? He must wait until the animals develop blemishes and only then redeem them, and thereby remove their consecrated status and restore them to their non-sacred state. He then goes back and ensures that he makes them