If money was found between (the shofar for) shekalim and (the shofar for) gifts — if it were nearer to "shekalim," it goes to "shekalim"; (if it were nearer) to "gifts," it goes to "gifts." [For it is written (Deuteronomy 21:3): "And it shall be, the city closest to the slain one, etc." And, according to the view that where "majority" points in one direction, and "nearness" in another, we follow "majority," the instance in our Mishnah is (understood to be) one in which the amounts in "shekalim" and "gifts" are equal.] If it were equi-distant, it goes to "gifts," [which are of a higher order than shekalim, all of it going for burnt-offerings, whereas with "shekalim," sometimes sin-offerings are brought, which are eaten by the Cohanim. Moreover, the left-overs of shekalim go for repair of the walls and its towers.] Between "wood" and "frankincense" — if nearer to "wood," it goes to "wood"; if nearer to "frankincense," it goes to "frankincense." If equi-distant, it goes to "frankincense." [For frankincense is itself an offering, whereas wood is merely ancillary to an offering.] Between "kinin" and burnt-offering fledglings" — if nearer to "kinin," it goes to "kinin"; if nearer to 'burnt-offering fledglings," it goes to "burnt-offering fledglings." If equi-distant, it goes to "burnt-offering fledglings." [The Yerushalmi queries: It stands to reason that if found near "burnt-offering fledglings" it goes for that; for since by Torah law nearness is a criterion, it is as if it certainly came from that (shofar). But if it is found equi-distant from both, where, being uncertain, we rule for the higher-order "burnt-offering fledglings" — with what will a woman who brought this money find atonement? It might have fallen from obligatory kinin, and if burnt-offering fledglings are sacrificed for it, how is she atoned for? And they answer: Beth-din, who are appointed over the kinin take from the congregation the amount of money that was found, bequeath it to the owner of the money that was found and sacrifice kinin for it on the possibility (that it was intended for that), and the sin-offering is not eaten.] Between chullin and ma'aser sheni — if nearer to chullin, it goes to chullin; if nearer to ma'aser sheni, it goes to ma'aser sheni. If equi-distant, it goes to ma'aser sheni. This is the rule: We follow nearness (even) for the lenient ruling and equi-distance for the stringent ruling.

Money found before (i.e., in the marketplace of) animal sellers is always ma'aser [i.e., even the entire year (and not only on the festival). For the festival pilgrims do not manage to spend all of their ma'aser sheni money on the festival and they leave it with their relatives or close friends to eat the entire year in Jerusalem. And the essential mitzvah of eating ma'aser sheni is (through) peace-offerings. Therefore, most of the beasts sold in Jerusalem all the days of the year are bought with ma'aser money. And even though the money might have fallen from the sellers and already been redeemed, still, since the buyers are in the majority, many people buying from one merchant, we say that it is the buyers' money and was not redeemed, and, therefore, ma'aser.] (If it were found) in the Temple Mount, it is chullin. [Even on the festival, when most of the money that men carry is ma'aser money, still, it is ruled to be chullin, for we rule according to the majority of the year and assume that it fell before the festival.] In Jerusalem [not in the animal market], during the festival, it is ma'aser. [We do not rule according to the majority of the year, for the streets of Jerusalem were swept every day, and if it had fallen before then, it would have been found.] The other days of the year it is chullin. [But the Temple Mount was not swept. For, being high, the wind swept it and removed all of the dust. (Also, it was forbidden to enter the Temple Mount with dust on one's feet, so that dust did not abound there.)]

If meat were found in the azarah, limbs are (ruled to be) burnt-offerings [Since they are cut in the manner specified for burnt-offerings, it is evident that they are burnt-offerings]; pieces are sin-offerings, [for only sin-offerings and guilt-offerings are eaten in the azarah.] In Jerusalem, they are peace-offerings, [most of the meat eaten in Jerusalem being peace-offerings]. Both [whether they are found in the azarah or in Jerusalem] must undergo "transformation of form" and be burned. [For they became unfit by removal of attention and may not be eaten. But they may not be "cheapened" and burned until they are unfit of a certainty. Therefore, they must undergo "transformation of form" by becoming unfit through nothar (remaining beyond the permitted period of eating), which, in the instance of peace-offerings, is until the third day (after sacrifice)]. If it were found in the borders [the cities of Israel], limbs are carrion, [which is generally cut into limbs which are thrown into the streets for the dogs], and pieces are permitted, [it not being the practice to cut carrion into pieces. But it was the practice to cut kosher meat into small pieces to sell them to Jews or to place them into a pot. (This, in a city where all are Jews. But in a city where there are gentiles, even pieces are forbidden.)] And during the festival, when meat is plentiful [and the limbs are not cut into small pieces but cooked as they are], even limbs are permitted.

If a beast were found between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder, or a similar distance on all sides, the males are burnt-offerings, [for we assume that it came from Jerusalem, and most of the males in Jerusalem are burnt-offerings]; the females are peace-offerings, [for most of the females (in Jerusalem) are peace-offerings]. R. Yehudah says: What is fit for a Pesach offering [a one-year-old male from lambs or goats] is a Pesach offering, [and the finder may sacrifice it as his Pesach offering. If the owner comes afterwards, the finder compensates him for it ] (this,) before the festival thirty days [i.e., from the time they begin to review the halachoth of Pesach and people separate their Pesach offerings. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]

In the beginning, they would take pledges from its finder until he brought its libations. [They would take a pledge from one who found a burnt-offering or a peace-offering until he brought its libations at his own expense — three esronim for a bullock, two esronim for a ram, one issaron for a lamb] — whereupon he would leave it and run, [so as not to be liable for its libations] — whereupon beth-din instituted that its libations come from the congregation.

R. Shimon said: Seven things [(following)] were instituted by beth-din. And this (above, 7:5) is one of them. (The others follow:) If a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad, [it being expounded (Leviticus 22:18): "A man, a man, etc.", whereby we are taught that gentiles bring vow and gift-offerings as Jews do] — if he sent (money for) libations along with it, we offer his (libations); if not, we offer (libations) from the congregation. Likewise, if a proselyte died and left offerings, if he has libations, we offer his; if not, we offer from the congregation. And it is a condition of beth-din concerning a high-priest that died that his meal-offering be offered from the congregation. [This refers to the tenth of the ephah that the high-priest offers up every day, half in the morning, half in the evening. It is offered from the congregation, it being written (Leviticus 6:15): "chak olam" — This chak (provision) shall be from the olam; that is, from the congregation — from the terumah of the lishkah.] R. Yehudah says: From the heirs, [it being written (Ibid.): "And the anointed priest, in his place, of his sons," the connotation being: "And the anointed priest, if he died — in his place, one of his sons should offer it."] And it was offered complete. [When it came from the congregation, according to R. Shimon, or from the heirs, according to R. Yehudah, it was offered up as a complete issaron and not as a half issaron. R. Shimon derives it from (Ibid.): "It shall be entirely smoked" — that it not be smoked by halves, but entirely, when it comes from the congregation. R. Yehudah derives it from: "…of his sons shall offer it," i.e., When one of his sons, his heir, offers it after his father's death, he shall offer it and not its half. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah that it comes from the heirs. As to its being stated in our Mishnah that it is a "condition of beth-din," (rather than Torah law), according to R. Shimon, that it comes from the congregation, the gemara explains that there were two ordinances. In the beginning, it was offered by Torah law from the congregation, it being written "chak olam." When they saw that the lishkah was being "pressed," they instituted that it be collected from the heirs. When they saw the heirs offending (i.e., not providing it), it was re-established as Torah law. So that now it is offered by the congregation on condition of beth-din that it be re-established as Torah law.]

(Beth-din instituted) that the Cohanim may make use of the salt and the wood (of hekdesh) [only for the eating of offerings. But as far as chullin is concerned, they may not make use of it even for the salting of chullin eaten in the azarah together with the offerings so that the offerings be eaten in satiety.], and (they instituted) that the ashes of the red heifer not be subject to me'ilah (abuse of consecrated property). [For by Torah law its ashes are not subject to me'ilah, it being written (Numbers 19:9) "it is a sin-offering" — it (the red heifer) is subject to me'ilah, but its ashes are not subject to me'ilah. When they saw people "cheapening" the ashes, they decreed that they (the ashes) be subject to me'ilah. When they saw them shunning sprinklings of doubtful (instances of dead body uncleanliness), they re-established it as Torah law (that the ashes not be subject to me'ilah)], and (they instituted) that unfit kinin be replaced by the congregation. [Those who are obligated to offer kinin bring money and place it in the shofar. Beth-din take the money and buy kinin and the owners leave and rely upon beth-din to sacrifice their kinin. If the kinin fly away or are found to be unfit, it is a condition of beth-din that they buy others from the money of the lishkah and bequeath them to the owners so that they thereby fulfill their obligation.] R. Yossi says: He who supplies the kinin replaces the unfit ones. [The one who regularly supplies the kinin (i.e., the one who stipulates with the treasurers to sell them all the kinin that they need for a certain sum) — he is obliged to replace whatever is found to be unfit. (As we learned above (4:9): "He (the supplier) does not receive his money until it (the flour or the wine) is accepted upon the altar." So that if the wine turns sour or the flour becomes wormy, it is returned to the merchant.) Similarly, if the bird becomes unfit after it is bought, it is returned to the buyer and he returns the money. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi. For thus is it stated in the Yerushalmi: "It is a condition of beth-din that the supplier of the kinin replaces (the birds) that are lost or that become unfit."]