‘If only you had been on good terms with me, I would have given you a portion of the fatted ox which I had prepared yesterday!’ He replied: ‘I did eat of the choicest meat’. ‘Where did you get it?’ asked the other. ‘That gentile who bought [the animal from you] gave me a portion’, he replied. Said the other, ‘I did indeed prepare two, but that one became trefah’. Said Rabbi, Are we to prohibit all the meat stalls [today] because of that fool who acted improperly? Rabbi here is consistent with his principle, for he said: Where the meat stalls [kept by gentiles are supplied with meat by] Israelite butchers, any meat found in the possession of the gentile is permitted. Some there are who give this version: Rabbi said: ‘Are we to prohibit all the meat stalls because of that fool who wanted to annoy his fellow’? Now the only reason is because he wanted to annoy his fellow, but where there was no such intention [all the meat stalls would be] forbidden. Surely it was taught: Rabbi says: Where the meat stalls [kept by gentiles are supplied with meat by] Israelite butchers, any meat found in the possession of the gentile is permitted! — Here it is different, for the forbidden meat is clearly established. Rab said: Meat which had disappeared from sight is forbidden. An objection was raised. Rabbi says: Where the meat stalls [kept by gentiles are supplied with meat by] Israelite butchers, any meat found in the possession of the gentile is permitted! — It is different where it is found in the possession of the gentile. Come and hear: If there were nine meat shops, all of them selling ritually slaughtered meat and one shop selling carrion, and a man bought meat from one of them but he does not know from which of them he bought, it is forbidden because of the doubt; but if meat was found, one goes after the majority. — Here too [we must suppose] that it was found in the hand of a gentile. Come and hear: We have learnt: If one found [raw] meat in the city one must determine [the meat] according to the majority of butchers; if it was cooked meat one must determine it according to the majority of the people that eat meat. And should you say that here too [we must suppose] that it was found in the hand of a gentile, [then why is it said.] ‘If it was cooked one must determine it according to the majority of the people that eat meat’? Let us see whether the gentile has it in his possession or the Israelite! — Here we must suppose that he [the finder] was standing by and kept his eye on it all the time. Come and hear: [We have learnt:] If meat was found within the borders, if it was an entire limb it is deemed to be nebelah, but if it was a cut [from a limb] it is permitted. And should you say that here too we must suppose that he [the finder] stood by keeping his eye on it all the time, then why is it deemed to be nebelah in the case of an entire limb? — Is not this intended [as an objection] against Rab's teaching? But with regard to it there has been reported: Rab said: It is permitted only in so far as it is not deemed to be nebelah, Levi however said, it is permitted to be eaten. This rule of Rab was not expressly stated but was inferred from the following incident. Rab was once sitting by the ford of the Ishtatith Canal when he saw a manᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘ