Siman 261

It has already been explained that anything which is evident that it is not a lost object, such as an ax or a garment at the side of a fence, one may not touch it. Similarly, if one found a donkey or a cow or a horse grazing on the road during the day, this is not a lost object, even several days one after another, for it is the way of people to leave their animals to graze on the road. But at night, or if he sees a donkey and its vessels are overturned, or if he sees a horse with a wagon running without a person, it is evident that it is a lost object. And if he saw them grazing early in the morning and at the turning of the day toward evening, if he saw them three consecutive days, it is evident that it is a lost object, and he takes it and proclaims. And in our country, they leave the horses and the animals in the villages to graze all night on the fields in the summer outside the village, and therefore it is forbidden to touch them. The general principle of the matter is that this thing depends on the assessment of the finder and according to the custom of the country.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [Bava Metzia 31a] that when one sees a cow running on the road, if its face is toward the city, this is not a lost object, and if its face is toward the field, this is a lost object. And if one finds it grazing among the vineyards, he is obligated to return it, and even though it will not be lost, behold it is damaging the vineyard, and he is obligated regarding the loss of land as was written in siman 259. And so too, if he sees an animal, a goat, or a horse in the garden of his fellow, he is obligated to remove it from there because of the loss of land. And it is obvious that if it is in the garden of a violent person, where there is a concern that he will kill it when the violent person sees it in his garden. Therefore, if he knows that when he removes it, it will return by itself to the owners, he only needs to remove it from the garden. And if he knows that it will not return to the owners by itself, if he knows whose it is, he brings it to the house of the owners if he does not have a lack of honor in this; and if not, he takes it and proclaims it. And so too in a place where they pay a fine for animals found grazing in the field of another, he is obligated to remove it and save the money of the owners. And if it is not according to his honor, provided that he would also not lead his own animal, he is exempt, as was written in siman 263.

If one found a cow standing outside the techum and it is recognizable that it is straying and it is possible that it will flee from the owners, he is obligated to return it. But if it was grazing on herbs, he shall not touch it, for this is not a lost object. And so too if he found it standing in a stable, even if it is not guarded in such a stable, nevertheless, if the stable does not cause the animal to stray such that it would flee from it—for example, it does not have openings on its four sides—this is not a lost object, and the owners will come and take it. And there are those who say that if the stable is outside the techum, he is obligated to return it. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that everything is according to the matter and there is no dispute here at all, and even the first opinion admits that if it appears according to the matter that it is not guarded such that it will flee or they will steal it, that he is obligated to return it.

One who loses his money or his objects willfully, we do not attend to him to return it, since he himself does not care for his money. How so? If one saw that another placed his cow or his horse in a stable that has no door and did not tie it and went away, or threw his purse in the street and went away, this is a willful loss of money. And even though it is forbidden for the one who sees them to take them, for he did not declare them hefker but only failed to guard them properly, nevertheless, to return them he is also not required, as it is said, "which shall be lost," excluding a willful loser. And some say that such a stable is not called a willful loss, for many people do so, and therefore if there is a concern that it will be lost, one is obligated to return it. And in a place where there is a complete willful loss, such as one who throws his purse into a public domain, some say that it is hefker and whoever is first acquires it, for he certainly declared them hefker in his heart, and hefker in the heart is hefker [Shach], and see what I wrote in siman 273. But in a case where he did not care to guard properly, such as one who handed over coins or objects to minors and the like, or who stood his animals in a place that is not guarded at all, granted that the finder is not obligated in their return, nevertheless this is not hefker; and on the contrary, if he took them into his hand, he is obligated in their guarding, as I wrote in siman 188 [and according to what I wrote, that which they questioned in Bava Batra 88a is answered].