Rav descended to Bavel and saw that they were lenient (to leave meat in the possession of gentiles) and he was stringent with them.

A person went to wash his meat in the river and left it there. When he returned, he wished to take it back.

Rav prohibited the meat to him as (perhaps) the river washed it away and brought a piece of Neveilah meat there instead.

A person was walking in the marketplace carrying meat. A vulture swooped down and snatched it from him and then threw it down.

Rav prohibited the meat to him as (perhaps) it was Neveilah meat, as the vulture had thrown it down and then taken the other one.

The River Ginai washed away some wineskins. The case came before R. Yitzchak b'R. Elazar who said, "Let the wine merchants recognize their knots".

Wine containers were found in the Synagogue of Buli. The case came before R. Yirmiyah, who said, "Let the markers (those who paint markings on the containers) recognize their work".

A roasted kid was found in the street of Gufta and they permitted it on two counts; on account of being a lost item (that does not need to be returned) and on account of the majority of the people that travel the roads.

On account of being a lost item - as a Beraisa taught - one who saves an item from a lion, from troops, from the tide, from the river bank (where the river often overflows), from a public highway or from a large marketplace, he may keep it, as the owners give up hope (of retrieving it).

On account of the majority of the people that travel the roads (who are Jewish) - despite the concern that a gentile may have slaughtered it.

In the end, the roasted kid was found to have come from the house of Rebbi.

A circular cheese was found in the inn of Levi and they permitted it on two counts - on account of being a lost item and on account of the majority of the people that travel the roads.

On account of being a lost item - as a Beraisa taught - one who saves an item from a lion, from troops, from the tide, from the river bank (where the river often overflows), from a public highway or from a large marketplace, he may keep it, as the owners give up hope (of retrieving it).

On account of the majority of the people that travel the roads (who are Jewish) - despite the possibility of it being cheese of a gentile (which would have prohibited it).

In the end, it was found to belong to R. Elazar b'R. Yosi.

Question (R. Mana to R. Yosi): But we see Rabbanan announcing it (even though it was found in a public place)?!

Answer (R. Yosi to R. Mana): If you would find something there, would you not keep it? Your father, R. Yonah, did not say this. He said, "If only when I would find such an item, it would be found from Piyusa and outside (where are there are many passers-by)!"

Nevertheless, when R. Yonah found a lost item in such a place, he did not keep it.

(Mishnah): If an animal was found between Yerushalayim and Migdal Eder, or within the same distance in any direction, males are ruled to be Olos and females are Shelamim.

(R. Yehuda): Those suitable to be Pesach offerings may be used as such, if found within 30 days of Pesach.

Originally, they would take collateral from the finder until he brought its libations.

People began to leave the animal and escape. Beis Din instituted that its libations would come from communal funds.

(R. Shimon): Beis Din instituted seven laws, and that is one of them.

(The 2nd law): If a gentile sent an Olah offering from overseas together with (money for) its libations, they are offered from his money. If not, they are offered from communal funds.

(The 3rd law): If a convert died (without inheritors) and he left sacrifices, if he had libations set aside, they are brought. If not, they are brought from communal funds.

(The 4th law): It is a stipulation of Beis Din, that if a Kohen Gadol died, his Minchah is brought from communal funds (until the next Kohen Gadol is appointed).

(R. Yehuda): It is brought from funds of his inheritors, and it is brought complete (rather than half being brought in the morning and half in the afternoon, as the Kohen Gadol brings).

(The 5th law): They stipulated that the Kohanim were permitted to benefit from the salt and wood (of Hekdesh to prepare the edible parts of the sacrifices).

(The 6th law): And that they would not transgress the prohibition of Meilah (benefitting from Hekdesh) for using the ashes of the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer).

(The 7th law): Disqualified nest offerings should be replaced from communal funds.

(R. Yosi): The seller who supplies the nests must replace the disqualified nests.

(Gemara - R. Hoshiya Rabah): The (first law of the) Mishnah teaches about one who (finds an animal and) wishes to (settle its status by) redeeming it for money etc.

(R. Yochanan to R. Hoshiya Rabah): Do we tell a person to transgress Meilah with Kodshim? Rather, Chazal followed the majority - if the majority are males, they are Olos. If the majority are females, they are Shelamim.

Question: Can Shelamim not come from both males and females?

Answer: What does he do? He transfers them to Chulin (by waiting until they get a blemish and then redeeming them) and he then buys an Olah with the money.

(R. Zeira): Just as you said (earlier - end of Daf 11) that it is a stipulation of Beis Din that the excess be brought as Olah offerings; so too here, it is a stipulation of Beis Din that the lost animals be brought as Olos.

Question (R. Yosi to R. Yaakov bar Acha): Is that not intentional transgression?

Answer (R. Yaakov bar Acha to R. Yosi): No, since it is a stipulation of Beis Din.

(R. Yasa): While I was still there (in Bavel), I heard Rav Yehudah ask Shmuel - if a person separated his Shekel and then died, what is the law?

(Shmuel to Rav Yehudah): It falls as a pledge (into one of the Nedavah boxes discussed earlier - Daf 18a).

(R. Yochanan): Excess funds of the Kohen Gadol's tenth of an Eifah should be thrown into the Dead Sea.

(R. Elazar): (Disagreeing) They should fall as a pledge.

(R. Yochanan): The tenth of an Eifah of the Kohen Gadol is first halved and then consecrated.

(R. Shimon ben Lakish): (Disagreeing) It is first consecrated and then halved.

Question against R. Yochanan (Mishnah in Menachos): He offers half and half is lost...? (If a Kohen Gadol died after bringing his morning Mincha, the replacement Kohen Gadol brings a new full tenth and divides it. Why is the second half lost if he did not consecrate it?)

Answer: Even excess funds are thrown into the Dead Sea (and the second half of the tenth of an Eifah, which is unconsecrated, is also viewed as excess funds).

Question against R. Yochanan (Mishnah in Menachos): We find that two halves are offered and two halves are lost.

Conclusion of question (Beraisa on that Mishnah): The half left from the first (deceased Kohen Gadol) and the half left (unused) from the second (Kohen Gadol), both must be left for their forms to change (i.e. until they become Nosar) and they are then taken to the place of burning. (According to R. Yochanan, why would this need to be done if they were not consecrated?!)

Answer: Explain it like R. Yishmael, that the tenth of an Eifah container consecrates.

When the Kohen approaches to serve for the first time, he brings his tenth of an Eifah and himself performs its service.

If either a Kohen Gadol or a regular Kohen served before bringing their tenth of an Eifah, their service is valid.

R. Mana wanted to say that if on the very day that a Kohen began his service, he was appointed Kohen Gadol, he brings two tenth of an Eifah offerings, one for his inauguration and one for the day's obligation.

The Pasuk states (Vayikra 6:14), "(repeatedly) baked" - when it is brought, it is baked; it is not baked early in the morning.

Question: But we learn in a Mishnah (in Maseches Tamid) that (before daybreak) they assigned the one who made the Chavitin ('griddle-cakes') to make them. (This implies that they are in fact prepared before daybreak?)

Answer (R. Chiya bar Acha): That refers to making hot water for the scalding, (but the actual baking was not done until later).

(R. Yasa citing R. Chanina): He first fries it and then bakes it.

(R. Acha citing R. Chanina): He first bakes it and then fries it.

The Pasuk states (ibid), "(repeatedly) baked" - this means that it should be baked after it is partially boiled.

(Rebbi): Bake it when it is beautiful (rather than after it is fried, when the oil and pan darkens it).

(R. Dosa): Bake it many times (as the word Tufinai is plural).

This dispute corresponds with the other dispute - the one who says 'Bake it when it is beautiful is like the one who said bake it and then fry it. The one who says 'Bake it when it is partially boiled' is like the one who said fry it and then bake it.

Question: Is this the case, not only if the Kohen Gadol died, but even if he became Tamei or was rejected because he had a blemish?

Answer (R. Yehuda bar Pazi - Beraisa): Even if he was rejected because he had a blemish.

Question: From where do we know that if a Kohen Gadol died and they did not (yet) appoint another in his place, that his Mincha is brought from the property of his inheritors?

Answer: The Pasuk states (Vayikra 6:15), "From his sons, shall prepare it".

Question: I might say that he brings it by halves?

Answer: The Pasuk states (ibid). "it", meaning all of it. These are the words of R. Yehuda.

(R. Shimon): It only comes from communal funds, as it says (ibid), "An eternal law", from the One with which the covenant was made.

"It shall be completely burned" - bring it complete for the burning.