And if meat is found at the time of a Festival, when meat is plentiful, so that it is generally not cut up into small pieces, then even whole limbs are permitted to be eaten.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that money found on the Temple Mount is presumed to be non-sacred money. The Gemara asks: Shouldn't the mishna have said that the money found on the Temple Mount is treated as consecrated money? Most of the money on the Temple Mount is consecrated money, and even if it were not, one ought to be stringent and regard any found money as such. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ba said that Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: There is a presumption that the priest who is in charge does not remove money from the chamber until he desacralizes it by transferring its consecrated status onto the animals that he purchases for offerings. Therefore, any money that is found on the Temple Mount is presumably non-sacred money.

The mishna teaches that meat found in the rest of the city of Jerusalem, cut into whole limbs or small pieces, is presumably from a peace-offering. However, it may not be eaten and its form must be allowed to decay, after which it is burned. The Gemara now cites what Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya and a proof for his opinion from the mishna: If one diverted his attention from sacrificial meat such that it was not protected from ritual impurity, even though the meat is disqualified, it is not burned immediately. Rather, it must be left over past the time permitted for its consumption in order that its form decays. Rabbi Hoshaya said: The mishna says like that with regard to meat that was found in Jerusalem, i.e., that its form must first be allowed to decay and then it is taken out to the place of burning. As the meat was lost, clearly its owner's attention was diverted from it, and the meat became disqualified. The mishna rules that nevertheless it must be kept left over before it is burned, therefore supporting Rabbi Hoshaya's ruling that meat from which one's attention was diverted is not burned immediately but must be left over. The disqualification stems from the uncertainty whether the meat became impure, and the meat cannot be burned until its disqualification is certain. Rabbi Yosei said: The halakha of the mishna is indeed correct, but not for this reason. With regard to the meat that one found in Jerusalem, the reason you may not eat it is that perhaps its form had already decayed. Perhaps before it was found the time permitted for eating it had already elapsed. Therefore, one must say that its form must be allowed to decay, lest the allotted time has not elapsed, and only then is it taken out to the place of burning. The requirement that its form decay has nothing to do with the fact that the meat might have become impure. Since the meat was lost in Jerusalem, which is a public domain, it cannot become disqualified because of doubtful ritual impurity, as the principle is that any doubt about ritual impurity that arises in a public domain is declared ritually pure (Teharot 4:7).

The mishna taught that with regard to meat found in the outlying areas, outside of Jerusalem, if it was whole limbs, the meat is presumably that of carcasses and therefore forbidden, but if it was found in small pieces it is presumably kosher and permitted to be eaten. Rabbi Krispa said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: When the mishna says that whole limbs are presumed to come from carcasses, that presumption is determinate, to the extent that one who eats this meat receives lashes for eating the meat of unslaughtered carcasses. The Gemara comments: The mishna itself says this, i.e., the wording of the mishna implies this, for the mishna teaches: With regard to meat found in the outlying areas, outside of Jerusalem, if it is in the form of whole limbs, the meat presumably comes from carcasses. And if it is in small pieces, it is presumably kosher and permitted to be eaten. When the mishna says that small pieces are permitted, does it not mean that they are actually permitted, i.e., the mishna permits the eating of the small pieces of meat and does not regard it as an uncertainty? In a corresponding manner, when the mishna says that meat found in the form of limbs is presumably that of carcasses, this is regarded as a certainty, such that one who eats this meat is flogged for having violated the prohibition against eating the meat of a carcass that was not properly slaughtered.

Rabbi Krispa said further in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, with regard to meat that was found in the form of whole limbs: If the meat was found strung together on strings like beads, it may be presumed that the meat is kosher, and it is therefore permitted. It was further taught in a baraita with regard to meat of an unknown source: If one bought meat in a town that has ten stores, nine stores selling the non-kosher meat of a carcass and one store selling the meat of a properly slaughtered animal, and he was confused about them, not remembering from which store he made his purchase, he must be concerned that perhaps he bought non-kosher meat. However, the meat is forbidden only because of an uncertainty, and if he ate it he is not liable to receive lashes. And if a piece of meat was found in the marketplace and it is not known from which store the meat came, one follows the majority of meat stores. Since in this scenario the majority of stores sell non-kosher meat, the found meat is presumed to be non-kosher. As for the reverse case, if nine stores were selling the meat of a properly slaughtered animal and one store was selling the non-kosher meat of a carcass, and one bought meat in one of the stores but was confused about them, not remembering from which store he made his purchase, he must be concerned that perhaps he bought non-kosher meat. And if a piece of meat was found in the marketplace and it is not known from which store the meat came, one follows the majority of meat stores, and presume that the meat is kosher.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Meat that is found in the hand of a gentile is regarded as if it were found in a large public square [pelatya], and so its status is determined in accordance with the majority of stores in the town. It is related that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Ḥaggai, was supporting Rabbi Mana, helping him walk, when he saw a certain Roman [Armai] lopping off a piece of flesh from his horse and taking it out for sale. Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Mana: Is this what Rabbi Yoḥanan meant when he said: Meat that is found in the hand of a gentile is regarded as if it were found in a large public square, and so one follows the majority of stores in the town? If so, then if the majority of the town's stores are owned by Jews, this meat should be treated as kosher. But surely it isn't, as we saw where it came from. Rabbi Mana said to Rabbi Elazar: Thus said Rabbi Yosei my teacher about Rabbi Yoḥanan's ruling: This ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan's applies only where they saw the gentile exiting from a butcher shop belonging to a Jew with a piece of meat in his hand. It is further related that a certain man in Tzippori was walking and he wanted to buy a piece of meat [kufad] from the butcher, but the butcher did not give him the meat, as they were at odds with each other. The man asked a certain Roman to buy the meat on his behalf, and he brought him the meat. The man later said to the butcher: Did I not in the end take the meat from you against your will? The butcher said to him: Did I not give him the non-kosher meat of a carcass, and so the meat you received from him was not kosher? Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: An incident like this came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said about this: It is not within his power to prohibit all the butcher shops [makkulin] of Tzippori on that day; since the majority of meat shops in that city belong to Jews, the butcher's claim that he gave the Roman non-kosher meat is not to be believed.

It is related that Rav went down there to Babylonia and saw that they were lenient about meat of unknown origin, and he was stringent with them. The Gemara now reports what it is that Rav saw: A certain man went