Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/259
Paragraph 1- If one sees the lost item of a Jew, he is required to make an effort to return it to its owner, as the verse states, “return, you shall return them.” If the finder took the item with intent to steal it, and the owner had not yet given up on the item, he would violate the commandment of “return, you shall return them to your brother,” “you shall not steal” and “you may not hide.” Even if he were to later return it, he has already violated “you may not hide.” If the finder took it with the intent to return before the owner had given up, and once the owner had given up he intended to steal it, he would only violate, “return you shall return them.” If the finder waited until after the owner had given up, he would only violate “you may not hide.”
Paragraph 2- When is this true? In a place where the finder is required to return from, in a place where there is reason to consider the item may be lost, the circumstances show it is a lost item and was not placed there intentionally, the item is worth a pertuah, there is an identifying mark on the body or the place of the item, he would make an effort to return the item if it were his and it is someone whom the finder is required to return a lost item to. If it was lacking any of these elements, however, the finder would not be required to return the lost item.
Paragraph 3- How so? If one finds an item in a place where Jews frequent, he is required to announce his finding because the owners have not given up hope. Even if the city is half-idolater, half-Jew, or even mostly-idolater, but the finder found it in a place where most of the passersby are Jews, he is required to announce. If the most of the city are idolaters, or even if most were Jews and he found it a place where most of the passersby are idolaters, however, he would not be required to return, even if he knew that it fell from a Jew and there was an identifying mark because the owners have certainly given up hope, such as where it is one of the items where one can assume the owner knew it fell immediately, as will be discussed. See later 262:3. There are those who say that if one lost sefarim, he would not give up, even in a place that is mostly-idolater.
Paragraph 4- Thus, if one finds barrels of wine in a city that is mostly-idolater, he is prohibited from benefiting from the wine and the barrel would be permitted. If a Jew comes and gives an identifying mark, it certainly belonged to the Jew and he had given up, and thus the finder would be allowed to drink it if it was sealed. See Yoreh Deah Siman 129 for this law.
Paragraph 5- Although by law in a place that mostly idolaters frequent, even if a Jew were to provide an identifying mark the finder would not be required to return it, it is still good and proper to go beyond the letter of the law and return it to the Jew that gave the identifying mark. If the finder is poor and the owner of the lost item is wealthy, the finder does not have to go beyond the letter of the law.
Paragraph 6- If a place is mostly-idolater, but most of the butchers are Jews, any animal or bird that is found in that place and is slaughtered would be permitted, and it would belong to the finder. If a bird grabbed a piece of meat and threw it, it would belong to the finder, even if the location was majority-Jewish, because the owners certainly gave up.
Paragraph 7- If one saves an item from a lion, beer, the tide of the sea or a flooding river, the finder can keep it, even if the owner is standing and protesting. Nevertheless, it is still good and proper to return, as was discussed in Paragraph 5. Although by law one is not required to return these lost items, if the king or court decreed otherwise, the finder would be required to return via government-regulation or the power of a court to declare something ownerless. Thus, the authorities ruled in a case of a boat that sunk in the seas where the ruler decreed even on the Jewish congregations that anyone who purchases a lost item that was rescued from the gentile is required to return it to its owner, that they must return it to its owners and they will only get whatever the owners give to them. If there are obstacles in the river that allow items that are floating to stay there and the item is something with an identifying mark, the presumption is that the owners have not given up hope. If it is something without any identifying mark and the owner is able to rescue it and is pursuing the lost item or the owner is not there but had he been there it is possible he could have rescued, the finder would not acquire the item. If it is something the owner could not immediately rescue, however, and the owner is standing still and not pursuing the item, he has certainly given up hope. In a default case he has not given up hope. If geese or chickens fled from their owners, they are ownerless and anyone who takes possession would acquire them. This is only where it would be impossible for their owners to return them.
Paragraph 8- If a river had a partition to trap fish, and Jewish workers are accustomed to create and repair it when it is broken, one who finds a lost item there must announce it. Similarly, in a place where most of the guards that are permanently there are idolaters, even if most of the people that come and go are Jews, one is not required to announce a found item.
Paragraph 9- One is also required to return lost real property, in that if he sees water coming to flood another’s field, he is required to build a fence in front of it to rescue the field.