Siman 262

Any lost object that is not worth a perutah at the time of loss and at the time of finding, one is not obligated to proclaim it. Even if it was worth a perutah at the time of loss and decreased in value, or if it was not worth a perutah at the time of loss and increased in value, he is not obligated, as it is said: "which is lost from him and you find it," and the Torah required that they have the status of a lost object at the time of loss and at the time of finding. But if it was worth a perutah at the time of loss and at the time of finding, even if it decreased in value in the interim, he is obligated. And likewise, if it decreased in value before the proclamation, he is obligated to proclaim, for since at the time of finding the obligation took effect upon him, it is not subsequently removed even though it decreased in value.

Even a lost object that is worth more than a perutah, if it belongs to many partners such that there does not reach a perutah's worth for each one, he is not obligated to return it. In what case does this apply? When it is known to him that they are partners in the lost object. However, in an ordinary case where he saw an object or a coin that fell from people who were walking together, he should not assume by saying that they are partners. There are detailed laws regarding this, as will be explained before us with the help of Heaven.

One who sees two people walking together and an object fell from one of them, even a thing that has no siman, he is obligated to return it because the loser never despairs, for he says, "Behold, no one was with me except this one who walked with me; surely he took it." And even though he does not admit it, "today or tomorrow I will seize from his property corresponding to the lost item," and he never despairs even regarding a thing that has no siman. And even if he despaired afterward, behold it came into his hand before despair and it is despair that is not from knowledge. But if three people walked together and an object fell from one of them, even a thing that has a siman, if another found it after the loser became aware that it was lost from him, behold it is his, for he certainly despaired. For he says, "Behold, it is certain that one of the two who walked with me took it, and behold I requested from them and they did not return it to me, and to claim from them with a strong hand is not in my power because each one will deflect himself onto his fellow." Therefore, he is also not permitted to seize from them, and he despairs immediately when he becomes aware of his loss.

And that which we said, that with three he is not obligated to return, this is when it is known to the finder that they are not partners; but if it is not known to him, we fear that perhaps they are partners, and a partner does not suspect his fellow. And even when it became known to him that it was lost and he requested it from them and they said they did not find it, he does not despair, saying that they want to distress him for a short time and will return the loss to him. Therefore, if he saw a sela or an object fall from two, he is obligated to return it, and likewise with three when it is not known to him that they are not partners. And therefore, if he saw from whom it fell, he shall return it to him; and if he did not see from whom among them it fell, if there is a siman in it, he shall announce it among them, and if there is no siman in it, it shall remain in his hand until Eliyahu comes or it is clarified by their admission to whom it belongs. And Chazal said [Bava Metzia 26b] that with three, when it is not known to him that they are not partners, even if the object is only worth two perutot, he is obligated to return it, even though there is not a worth of a peruta for each one, because we fear perhaps they are partners in this, and since each of them does not have a peruta, one of them waived his portion to his fellows, and behold there are two perutot for two. And if afterwards it became known that one did not waive to his fellows, behold it belongs to the finder; and even though it came into his hand before this became known to him, this is not like despair before knowledge, for in this it does not depend on his knowledge since there is not a worth of a peruta for each one. But if it was worth less than two perutot, it always belongs to the finder, and we do not fear perhaps two waived to one, for it is not the way for two to waive to one, and also we do not fear perhaps two of them are partners and one of them waived his portion to the second, for regarding three who are walking we only have to fear either that all of them are partners or that they are not partners at all [ibid. in Tosafot]. And with two, even if it is only worth a peruta, he is obligated to return it.

Some say that this which has been explained—that if one saw it fall from two people, he is obligated to return it because the owner suspects his fellow took it and does not despair—this is specifically when the finder saw that both of them searched for the lost object. But without this, he does not suspect that his fellow took it and assumes that another found it. Therefore, if there is no siman in it, it belongs to the finder if he found it after it became known to the owner of the lost object that it was lost from him, or if it was coins, which it is the way of a person to feel his pocket at all times, as will be explained. And similarly, that which was said that with three people we concern ourselves that they are partners, this is when he saw that all of them searched for it, as there is some proof for this, but without this, we do not concern ourselves [Tosafot ibid. and Rabbeinu Yerucham and see Shach and Netivot HaMishpat and it requires further study as to the law].

If one found an object from which the owners have despaired, such as if they said, "Woe for the monetary loss," even if it has a siman, it belongs to the finder if it came into his hand after the despair. Similarly, one who finds an object that proves that a long time has passed since it was lost from its owners, and it was found in a place that is not guarded, certainly the owners have despaired and it belongs to the finder, even if there is a siman on its body or in its location. And that which we said, that when one says "Woe for the monetary loss" it is despair, this is only regarding a lost object and the like, where also ordinarily it can be said that he despaired. But one who has a debt that is difficult to collect, even though he said "Woe for the monetary loss," this is not despair, for he said this out of doubt and not that he clearly despairs, as I wrote at the beginning of siman 98, see there. However, regarding a debt where the despair is also ordinary, such as an extortionist who was indebted to an Israelite and died, and he despaired such that he said "Woe for the monetary loss," it is despair. And even though over the course of time the matter developed such that it is in his power to collect, it is despair [and that which I wrote in siman 163, section 12, is well-settled].

It has already been explained that a lost object which came into the hand of the finder before despair must be returned even if the owner despaired afterward, for we maintain that despair without knowledge is not considered despair. There is a question regarding this: since despair is like hefker, why should the finder not acquire it even while it is in his hand, for he is acquiring from hefker? From this our teachers inferred that despair is not like absolute hefker [Tosafot Bava Kamma 66]. Certainly this is so, for with hefker a person declares the object ownerless with his knowledge and will, and he can only declare ownerless something that is in his possession; however, regarding something that is not in his possession, the declaration of hefker will not take effect. Despair is the opposite, for due to duress he removes himself from something that is not in his possession. In the Yerushalmi they learned that despair effects acquisition from that which is written, "which is lost from him," implying specifically that it is lost only "from him" and is found in the hand of another, in which case he is obligated to return it. But the despair of the owners, where it is lost from him due to the despair and also lost from all people because it has not yet come into the hand of a finder, behold, this belongs to the finder. Consequently, it is explained from this that when it came into the hand of the finder before despair he did not acquire it, for at the time it is lost from him, it is not lost from the hand of all people. And that which is written "is not lost and is found," meaning it is not lost and it is not found [this is the explanation of the Yerushalmi, chapter 2 of Bava Metzia, and this is the intention of Rashi in Bava Kamma 66b, s.v. "motzei aveidah," and Bava Metzia 22b].

And there are some of the great authorities who said that since ye'ush is not similar to hefker, the lost object does not leave the possession of the owner until it comes into the hand of the finder. And even though regarding hefker, as soon as he declares it hefker it leaves his possession, and if he desires to acquire his own hefker before another has acquired it, he must perform an act of acquisition to acquire it and by mere sight he does not acquire it; however, regarding ye'ush, even though he said "Woe for the monetary loss," it does not leave his possession until it comes into the hand of the finder. And if the owner saw the lost object after the ye'ush but before it came into the hand of the finder, he has acquired it by his sight alone. And these are words of reason, for since ye'ush is due to duress, once the duress has passed after he saw his object, the ye'ush has passed. And furthermore, it can be said that ye'ush is like a removal and a waiver to whoever shall find it, and when he found it afterwards, it was revealed that it was a waiver in error [and proof from what is written in the Gemara ibid. orphans are not capable of waiver; and see Netivot HaMishpat and Ketzot HaChoshen siman 406].

And as has been explained, the law of ye'ush regarding a lost object is like the ye'ush regarding theft; for just as with theft there is a requirement for ye'ush and a change of domain after the ye'ush, as is written in siman 353, so too with a lost object, one does not acquire it except through ye'ush and that it afterwards comes into the hand of the finder. And even according to those who hold there that a change of domain is effective even before the ye'ush, this is because the purchaser acquired it when the object was not in the domain of the owner but rather in the domain of the thief. This is not the case with a lost object, for when it has not yet come into the domain of the finder, it is still as if it is in the domain of the owner, and when he finds it before ye'ush, he is like a guardian over it, as is written at the beginning of siman 259. And regarding a thief this is not applicable, for behold, his intention is to steal and not to guard.

One who finds a lost object is not obligated to proclaim it except for an item that has a siman on the body of the lost object, or even if there is no siman on its body but rather in its number, or its knots, or its measurement, or its weight; or even if it has none of these, but there is a siman in the place where the lost object was found, such as where it is recognizable that it was placed there intentionally and afterward they forgot it. Then the finder shall proclaim, "I found such-and-such a lost object," and the owners shall provide a siman: "You found it in such-and-such a place." And that which was explained in siman 260, that if it was certainly placed one should not touch it, that is when the place is somewhat guarded; but in a place that is not guarded at all, he takes it and proclaims. And if there is no siman in this at all, even in its place, such as where it is recognizable that it was by way of falling—if it is a matter where it can be assumed that the owners felt it immediately when it fell from them, such as where due to its weight he certainly felt it or due to its importance, behold this belongs to the finder, for he despaired immediately when he knew it fell since it has no siman, and it came into his hand permissibly. And if these details are not present, he must return it even though they despaired afterward, since it came into his hand before despair. And this is what the sages, of blessed memory, called "despair without knowledge" (ye'ush shelo mada'at), and it means that if the loser had known of the loss he would have despaired, but since he did not yet know that it was lost, it is not relevant to say that he despaired.

Therefore, our sages, of blessed memory, said that one who finds scattered coins, or circles of pressed figs—which are figs that were pressed together to make circles—or baker's loaves which are all identical and have no siman, or strings of fish that have no siman neither in their knot nor in their number because everyone strings them thus, or pieces of meat that have no siman, such as in a place where all pieces are equal in their weight as has been explained in section 21, and similarly tongues of purple wool—which is wool combed and drawn out like a tongue and dyed purple—or fleeces of wool that are not dyed, and similarly bundles of flax—which is flax that after they comb it they tie it, and everyone ties them identically and they have no siman—and similar to these from other things that have no siman, behold these belong to the finder. For in all of these, the owners presumably felt their fall before this person found them, either due to their importance, like coins, as a person feels his pocket at all times, or due to their weight, like bundles of flax. And all these things are not typically placed down, and certainly they came there by way of falling, and since they have no siman, the owners presumably despair. But one who finds loaves of a homeowner, or dyed fleeces of wool, or pieces of meat and fish, if they have a siman, such as if it was cut unlike how everyone cuts, and similarly any thing that has a siman, he is obligated to proclaim.

If one found scattered fruit, if it is recognizable that they were placed there, he shall not touch them; and if it is recognizable that it was by way of falling, they are his, for presumably the owner became aware of this immediately and despaired because it is a food item, and they are like coins which one feels for at every moment. And some say that this is specifically if the finder knows that the owner despaired, but in an ordinary case we do not say that he became aware and despaired, for it is not similar to coins [Tur], and as I have written in siman 260, section 16, and there it was explained if he found them in the place of the threshing floor, see there.

If one found small bundles of stalks in a place where people walk through, such as a reshut harabim, a side-path, or unplanted fields, these belong to him because they have no siman, as they are all identical. Also, from the perspective of the location, they have no siman because they are rolled about by the feet of man and the feet of animals and are not found in the place where they initially fell, and the owner of the lost object becomes aware of this immediately. If he found them in a reshut hayachid or in a planted field that is not a thoroughfare for the public, if he found them in the manner of a fall, such as when they are scattered, these belong to him. If he found them in the manner of placement, he is obligated to proclaim, for even though they have no siman, the location constitutes a siman. However, if he found them as sheaves, which are large bundles, whether in a reshut harabim or in a reshut hayachid, he takes them and proclaims, for they are not moved from their place by the walking of the feet of men, and there is a siman of location in this. And know that a location is not a siman in a place where it is common for people to place such objects there, such as barrels on the bank of a river; it is not a siman because everyone unloads their burden there, and so too anything similar to this. See in section 15.

The Tur wrote: One who finds a barrel of oil, wine, dried figs, or grain before the storehouses have been opened is obligated to proclaim, because there is a siman in their markings. However, after the storehouses have been opened, they have no siman and he is not obligated to proclaim. Furthermore, even if he provides a siman for them, it is of no avail, for perhaps he sold it and he recognizes the siman within it. Thus far his words. For regarding anything that stands for sale, we concern ourselves that he sold it, like a coin that stands for expenditure; and see what I wrote in section 17. He wrote further that this applies specifically to full ones, where all their measurements are equal, but if they are lacking, they have a siman in the measurement within them. Thus far his words. And so too regarding anything similar to this.

One who finds heaps of fruit, or fruit in a vessel, or a vessel as it is, is obligated to announce, for there is a siman in the vessel; and regarding the fruit, if there are many heaps, the number is a siman, and if it is one heap, the location is a siman [Gemara]. And with fruit, it is not the way of people to tread upon them and roll them from place to place. And likewise, even things that are typically trodden upon and rolled, such as small bundles that do not have a siman of location as explained in section 13, if there is a siman in the bundles themselves, even if he found them in a public domain, he is obligated to announce. We are not concerned that since it is their way to be trodden upon, the siman was trodden away and the owners despair of it, for we establish that a siman likely to be trodden upon is a siman [Gemara]. And so too anything similar to this.

A coin has no siman, for they are all made in one form, and thousands exist like the one found. And even if he said it is marked with the seal of such-and-such a king, and even if he said "my name is written upon it," nevertheless we do not return it to him, because it is intended for expenditure, and perhaps he spent it and it fell from another. And some say that a crack in a coin is a siman, for with such a siman it is like all other vessels; and it is not similar to his name being written upon it, which is not a siman, for when one writes his name on his coins, he presumably wrote his name on all the coins in his possession, and therefore this is not a siman. But a crack is not in all coins, and we do not fear that perhaps he spent it and it fell from another and he comes to deceive, for we recognize the man that he is not a deceiver. And if we do not recognize him, he truly needs to bring proof that he is not a deceiver, as will be explained in siman 267. Therefore, we do not fear regarding any lost object that perhaps he sold it and knows its simanim and it fell from another. And according to this opinion, also regarding government notes which are all made in one form, if he gave a siman that there is a cut upon it in such-and-such a place, or some other siman that does not exist in all of that kind, and all the more so if he gives a siman in the mark of its number, it is a siman [as mentioned above according to this opinion].

But from the wording of the Tur that we cited in section 14, it is explicitly implied that regarding anything intended for sale or for expenditure, the siman is of no consequence, even if the siman is unique to this find, because we suspect him that he sold it and knows its simanim, and he recognizes the siman within it. And even though we do not suspect a person of being a deceiver, nevertheless, regarding an item intended for sale or for expenditure, we do suspect. But regarding all other lost objects, we do not suspect, because they are not primarily for sale, and why should we suspect a person who is not established as a deceiver? However, wine barrels which are intended for sale, and coins which are intended for expenditure and are constantly passed from hand to hand, we suspect for deception. According to this, there is no valid siman for a coin. And so it is implied from the wording of the Rambam, chapter 14 of Gezeilah, law 10, who wrote that therefore he despairs, since because it is intended for expenditure, he does not rely on the siman [and so it is implied from the wording of the Shas (25b): perhaps he expended it, etc.]. And it appears to me that even according to the opinion of the Tur, this only applies to ordinary people; although they are not established as deceivers, nevertheless, they are also not known as men of truth and established in their fitness. But if this loser is established in fitness and as a man of truth, even the Tur admits. And also for the Rambam, one could say according to the first opinion [see there in the Maggid Mishneh who wrote the words of the Ramban, and they are the words of the Nimukei Yosef in the name of the Ran; it is implied that he admits to this, and examine carefully].

If he found many coins and it is evident that they are not there by way of falling but rather by way of placement, he is obligated to proclaim, for the owner of the lost item can provide a siman in the number or in the location. And some say that location is not a siman for coins because they are small in their quantity and it is impossible to pinpoint the location [Rosh], and there is no siman in this except for the number; and he proclaims, "I found coins," and this one says how many and takes them when he identifies the number. And with two, even if they are by way of placement, the number is not a siman, for the minimum of "coins" is two. And if he found them by way of falling, behold these are his. Therefore the sages, of blessed memory, said that one who finds scattered money, behold these are his, and even if some of them were one on top of the other, they are like scattered ones. But if he found a pile of money that is placed by way of placement, he is obligated to proclaim, and the loser shall provide a siman in their number. And so too if he found three coins one on top of the other and they are made like a tower—and that is when the bottom one is very wide, and the middle one is narrower than it, and the top one is narrower than the middle one—or if they were placed like a ladder, which is to say most of the middle one is on top of the bottom one and most of the top one is on the middle one, or if there was one here and one here and one on top of them in a manner that if he inserts a splinter between them they would be lifted at once, he is obligated to proclaim. And if they were placed in a circle like a ring, or one after the other in a straight row, or if they are placed like a segol where each one is opposite the air between the two across from it, behold this is a doubt whether this is called "by way of placement" or perhaps even in falling they could fall in such patterns. And since it is a doubt, he shall not take them. And some say that a doubt regarding a prohibition is to be stringent, and he shall take them and proclaim [ibid.]. And the opinion of the Rambam regarding one who took them was explained in siman 260, section 16. And some say that in those placed like towers, he can provide a siman in their placement, that they are placed in this manner, and so too in a ladder, and in one here and one here and one on top [Rashi, Bava Metzia 25a; and according to his commentary, this "proclaims the number" does not refer to towers, and examine this closely].

And similarly, one who finds needles, or hooks, or nails, and the like: if he found them lying one by one, even if he found many, these are his, for they have no siman. But if he found them two by two, it is recognizable that this is the manner of placement; and if they are two pairs, and all the more so if more, he is obligated to proclaim, for the number constitutes a siman. And this one shall proclaim, "I found needles," and that one shall say the number is four or more. And the same law applies if only three were placed together, it constitutes a siman, for three constitutes a siman of number. And why did the sages, of blessed memory, not say that he should not touch them—as with coins when they are in the manner of placement and in a protected place? It appears to me that regarding small items, there is no place that would be protected, and therefore he should take them and proclaim. And one should not raise a difficulty from what I wrote in section 13 regarding small bundles that are rolled by the feet of man and beast, and if so, also with coins and needles, would the loser not despair because they will be rolled by feet and it will not be recognizable that this was the manner of placement? Yet in the Gemara it implies that even if he found them in a place where many people tread, he must proclaim. For it can be said that rolling by feet only applies to an object that is high from the ground, which obstructs the feet of the walker, and therefore they are rolled by the feet of those walking; this is not the case with small items such as these which do not obstruct the feet of the walker, we do not fear rolling by feet for they tread upon them.

If one saw a coin fall from his fellow into sand or into dust, it is permitted to take it, for he certainly despaired. And even if he saw him bring a sieve to sift the sand or the dust to search for it, we are not concerned for him, for we say that he certainly despaired, and that which he sifts the sand and the dust is because he reasons: "Just as it fell from me, so too it presumably fell from others, and perhaps I will find something." However, if he says immediately upon losing it, "I will bring a sieve and sift it," it is forbidden to take it, for we see that he does not despair [it appears to me].

Even items that do not have a sign in their physical essence, if found with some variation such that through the variation there is a sign, but it could be said that the sign occurred on its own, it is a sign and he must proclaim. How so? If he found a round cake of pressed figs and inside it was a shard, or a loaf and inside it were coins, and similarly anything like this, he is obligated to proclaim, for a sign that can occur on its own is a sign. And some say it is not a sign, for the loser despairs even if he placed the sign, because he reasons that the finder will take it for himself, as he will reason that the sign occurred on its own [see Rashi 23a]. And similarly, items that have no sign but are found in their essence with a variation, he is obligated to proclaim. How so? If he found a piece of meat with an unusual cut, or a bitten fish, for the bite is a sign, and similarly anything like these; since there is a variation in their essence, he is obligated to proclaim, for the owners did this as a sign. But a piece of meat that is not unusual in its cut is his, for even if he gives a sign that it is from the thigh or from the neck, it is not a sign, for there are many like these. And if he specified the weight, it is a sign, unless it is in a place where all pieces are equal in weight [Gemara]. Therefore, in our country where the pieces are not equal in weight, he is obligated to proclaim, and the loser shall give the weight as a sign.

If one finds an object that has no siman placed inside a vessel that has a siman, such as a vessel with fruit inside it or a purse with coins inside it, he returns the fruit to the one who provides a siman for the vessel and the coins by the simanim of the purse. But if they are not placed inside them, such as a vessel and fruit in front of it, or a purse and coins in front of it, the fruit and the coins are his, and the vessel and the purse he takes and proclaims. And if the circumstances indicate that the fruit and the vessel belong to one person, he is obligated to proclaim. How so? If the back of the vessel was facing the fruit, behold these are his, for if they fell from the vessel, its front would have been facing the fruit; therefore, if the front of the vessel was facing the fruit, we are concerned that perhaps they spilled from the vessel. And if the vessel had rims, even though its front is toward the fruit, behold these are his, for if they had spilled from the vessel, some of them would have remained inside the vessel, as the rims would have held back some of them. Therefore, if some of the fruit was in the vessel and some on the ground, he is obligated to proclaim. And some say that if they were fruit that are prone to slide out of the vessel, in any case it belongs to the one who provides a siman for the vessel. And the main principle is that it depends on the circumstances, for there are fruits that roll even to the back of the vessel, like apples and all types of round fruit. And similarly with a purse and coins in front of it, if the circumstances indicate that the purse and the coins belong to one person and they fell from the purse, to the one who provides a siman for the purse, the coins shall also be returned.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said that if one found a donkey with a saddle upon it, one who provides a siman for the saddle, we return the donkey to him as well. And it appears that this is when he provides an explanation for why he does not have a siman for the donkey, such as that it is new to him or the like. But without this, is his falsehood not proven? And if he states simanim for the donkey and they are not found upon it, we do not return the donkey to him. And likewise if a horse was found harnessed to a wagon, for we return the one based on the simanim of the other when he provides an explanation as to why he does not know the simanim of the other.

One who purchases produce from his fellow, or if his fellow sent him produce as a gift, and he found money within them: if they are bound in a cloth, he is obligated to proclaim, as the knot is a siman if it is an unusual knot; and likewise the number of coins is a siman, and likewise the signs of the cloth are a siman, for it is like a purse with money inside it. But if they are scattered one by one within the grain, behold these are his. And this is specifically when the grain is not from the fields of the seller himself, such as if he purchased them from a merchant or from a homeowner who purchased them from a merchant, for the merchant himself buys from several people, and therefore whoever they belonged to has already despaired since there is no siman on the coins. However, if he purchased them from a homeowner who threshed the produce from his own fields himself or by means of his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, he is obligated to return them, for they certainly belong to him; and even if they fell from his slaves and maidservants, what a slave acquires, his master acquires. But if he threshed them by means of day laborers, he does not have to return them to the owner of the grain, for perhaps they fell from the laborers. And such is the law regarding a merchant himself who purchased produce from a homeowner and found money within them: he must return them to him. And this is specifically when he has not yet delayed for a duration in which he could have mixed them with his own produce; but if he delayed in his possession for this amount of time and afterwards found them, they are his, for certainly the owners despaired when they estimated that he mixed them with his produce, and they came into his hand after the despair; and a person is prone to feel his purse at every hour and became aware of this. And likewise, if he found them after he delayed long enough to sell to others, behold they are his, for he despairs because he reasons that he already sold them to another [Shach], and this depends on the standing of the man and his business.

One who finds a vessel among vessels whose forms are all equal, being all made in one image, they have no siman unless there is some siman in it that is not due to its form. Similarly, an object made in workshops where such objects are made by the thousands has no siman in its form unless there is another siman in it that is not due to its form. However, even though there are no simanim for these vessels and objects, nevertheless, each person has teviut ayin to recognize his object and his vessels. This applies only to a vessel or object that he used for a long time and his eye was satiated by seeing them; then he has teviut ayin in them. But new vessels and objects that the eye has not been satiated with have no teviut ayin in them. However, regarding teviut ayin, one should not grant credibility to every person who does not lie, since in this matter one must rely only on his credibility and not on a siman. Therefore, our sages, of blessed memory, said that we do not return a lost object based on teviut ayin alone except to a talmid chakham who is known not to change his word at all except for matters of peace, or by way of humility—such as if they ask him, "Are you proficient in such-and-such a tractate?" and he says he is not proficient, and the like. Similarly, if they ask him, "Did you sleep on this bed?" and he answers, "I did not sleep," even though he slept on it, because he fears they might find something unseemly on it and he will be disgraced. Similarly, if they ask him if the host received him with a pleasant countenance, and he does not say that he received him well so that improper people do not jump upon the host. Similarly, when he is meticulous about his shirt to turn it so that the seams do not show. To such a talmid chakham, if it is not a new vessel or a new object, even though he cannot give a siman for it, nevertheless one is obligated to show it to him, for perhaps he will recognize it by teviut ayin; and if he says, "It is mine," we return it to him. Every talmid chakham is under the presumption that he does not change his word except in the matters we have written, until the finder brings proof that he is not careful to avoid lying even in mundane matters. The opinion of the Tur is that this applies only when he found it in a place where talmidei chakhamim are common, such as in a synagogue or a beit midrash, but otherwise he is not obligated to proclaim it. However, from the wording of the Rambam it is implied that in any place he found it, if the talmid chakham comes and says that he recognizes it by teviut ayin, one is obligated to return it to him. It is possible that even the Tur only said that he is not obligated to proclaim it, but if the talmid chakham comes and says he recognizes it by teviut ayin, one is obligated to return it to him. Also in this time, there is the law of a talmid chakham for this, for the matter does not depend on wisdom but on fear of Hashem; for whoever is known to be a fearer of Heaven and is known not to lie is believed based on teviut ayin. That which our sages, of blessed memory, associated this with a talmid chakham is because one who occupies himself with Torah is presumably a fearer of Hashem [it appears to me].