Siman 265

One who sees a lost object is obligated to return it for free if he is idle from work. However, if he is engaged in his work, he is not obligated to desist from his work and return it for free, as was written at the beginning of the previous siman. Nevertheless, if he was engaged in work and desisted from his work and returned the lost object, the owner of the lost object does not need to pay him according to the wage of the work he lost. Rather, the sages, of blessed memory, said [Bava Metzia 30b] that he pays him like an idle worker of that work from which he desisted. The explanation of these matters is, for example, if in his work he would have earned a dinar during that time, and he desisted from his work for the return of the lost object—where the lost object is worth much more—nonetheless, he does not need to pay him the dinar he lost. Rather, he gives him his wage according to what he would take for that time of his work in which he earns a dinar if he would not need to toil in the work and would sit idle. And if he would take half a dinar, he has only half a dinar, for in the return of the lost object there is no toil and exertion as there is in work. According to this, he takes nothing for the return itself, but only according to the desisting from work. And even though in the return there is also a bit of effort, nonetheless, one should not calculate payment for this, for the Torah obligated him in the effort of returning a lost object.

And some say that this is the explanation: that we also calculate the exertion of the returning, and its meaning is that "as an idle worker" is how much he would want to desist from his work and engage in its returning. For example, if he was engaged in work for which they pay two dinars, and if he were to be completely idle he would reduce three parts of the profit and would only take a dinar, and if they were to tell him to engage in light work such as returning a lost object he would take two dinars, one must give him two dinars. And this is not payment for returning a lost object, for on the contrary, he loses from his work, and we only estimate based on that which he does not toil in his work. And if the payment for the exertion of the returning is more than his work, one need not give him except according to the payment of the work, for he should not profit because of the returning. And that which it is permitted to take payment for returning, this is when the owners are not there and he returned it on his own; but if the owners are there and he did not stipulate with them, he has caused his own loss, and he has nothing but "as a completely idle worker" according to the first explanation, and not what he would take to exert himself in its returning. And by the law, he should not have taken anything at all since he did not stipulate, except that we estimate the mind of the owner of the lost object that "as a completely idle worker" is certainly pleasing to him. Therefore, in the previous siman regarding the rescue of the donkey of his fellow, we say that when the owners are there he takes payment for the exertion of the rescue and we do not calculate the damage to his donkey at all, because we are witnesses that there, it is certainly more pleasing to the owner this way, for it is much less than the value of the loss of his donkey [Sma].

And there are those who interpret "as an idle worker" that this is the explanation: that sometimes work in the city is scarce and the workers are idle, and at that time they are hired cheaply, and sometimes there is much work and work is expensive. And if this person returned the lost object at a time when they are hired at a high price, and he was delayed in its return for a duration in which he would have earned a sela, he does not give him a sela, but rather gives him as the time when work is scarce [Rashba in the name of early authorities]. And the reason for the matter is that the Torah obligated him in its return, only that he should not lose from his own, and this we derive from "Save when there shall be no needy among you" as is written there. And since this man is also accustomed to taking according to the cheap rate, behold this verse is fulfilled in him. And therefore, there regarding a donkey when the owners are not there, he takes for his donkey, but here he only takes as an idle worker because there one will not find a person who will manually lose his own, and therefore this verse is not fulfilled for him unless he takes for his donkey in full. But regarding a worker, since it is his way sometimes to also take cheaply, it follows that for him the verse is fulfilled even in such a case [so it appears according to all the interpretations, and examine this]. And nevertheless, we do not have the ability to compel him in this because he can say "it is my will to toil and earn more," and therefore if he wishes, he shall not involve himself with the lost object as will be explained. But if he did involve himself in it, the owner of the lost object does not have to pay him more, for the reason we have written.

If the owners are there and he stipulated before them that he shall take what he loses and the owners permitted him, or if he stipulated before three people, behold he takes according to his stipulation as is written there. In such a case, he is obligated to return it since they want to pay him the value of his loss. This is not similar to there, where he can say, "I specifically want my donkey." Also, the owners are obligated to give him everything they agreed upon, even more than what would be appropriate if another person were to labor in this, since he has such a loss. However, if they agreed to give him more than his loss, they do not need to give him the remainder, for even in a voluntary matter one does not need to give him in such a case as is written there, and all the more so regarding the mitzvah of hashavat aveidah [Sma]. And if the owners are not there and there are not three people, his own takes precedence if he does not want to lose from his work; for if he returns it, he will only take like an idle worker, and it is not similar to the donkey as has been written. We do not have the power to coerce him in this, and therefore the choice is in his hand not to involve himself at all in its return.