“You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep wandering, and disregard them; you shall return them to your brother…And so shall you do with his donkey; and so shall you do with his garment; and so shall you do with every lost item of your brother, which shall be lost from him, and you have found it; you may not disregard it” (Devarim 22:1-3).
The Talmud (Bava Metzia 27a) tells us that lost items are categorized as clothing by our Sages. Clothing has certain distinctive details. There are people who claim ownership, and the finder is obligated to publicize his find. So too the finder is obligated to publicize any item he finds that has distinctive features and a person will be able to identify the item as belonging to him.
The Mishna says further (ibid. 33a) if one finds his rebbe’s lost item and his father’s lost item, returning his rebbe’s lost item takes precedence, as his father brought him into this world, and his rebbe brings him into the World-to-Come by teaching him Torah.
R’ Mordechai Glick points out a seeming contradiction, because in Shemos (21:15, 17) the Torah law is that one who strikes or curses his parent, who brought him into this world, incurs death, yet, although he is punished, one who hits or curses his rebbe (the one who brings him into the Next World) is not put to death.
R’ Mordechai Glick explains that the specific punishment for an aveirah is contingent upon the level of the crime itself. There is a big difference between a transgression that is committed on purpose and one that is committed involuntarily. We also know that a ganav (thief, who steals secretly,) is punished more harshly than a gazlan (robber, who steals openly,) despite the fact that they both stole from another person. The reason is because a thief is, in fact, demonstrating that although he fears people, he does not fear Hashem, Who sees him stealing. The gazlan, on the other hand, is not concerned that people know he is robbing them.
Thus, on a spiritual level the rebbe is greater than the father, therefore his property is returned first. But with regard to the transgression itself, obviously that it is more egregious to hit or curse one’s own parent than the rebbe, and therefore the punishment is harsher.
The Kav HaYashar points out that although hashavas aveidah (returning a lost item,) may seem like a “light” mitzvah, it is, in fact, a weighty commandment. If a person finds a lost item and does not take the responsibility of trying to return it, he will need to rectify this oversight some time later in life. On the other hand, one who takes the time and shoulders the responsibility of trying to return a lost object will merit immeasurable reward.
The great R’ Aharon of Belz always sought to accrue merits for the Jewish people. When he would hear of someone returning a lost item to its owner, he would ask the individual who was performing this praiseworthy mitzvah of hashavas aveidah to keep in mind all of the Jewish people. Since not everyone gets the opportunity to perform this mitzvah there were those who would possibly not merit that privilege in their lifetime.
The Vilna Gaon also brings our attention to the difference in verbiage when the Torah commands us concerning hashavas aveidah where it says (Shemos 23:4), “If you encounter an ox or donkey of your enemy wandering, you shall return it …,” and the mitzvah of loading and unloading a burdened animal, where the pasuk says (ibid. 23:5), “If you see the donkey of someone you hate crouching under its burden ….”
The Vilna Gaon expounds that an enemy conceals his anger and presents as a friend, whereas one who hates another person openly displays his hospitality. Accordingly, the individual who hates the owner of the burdened donkey will have to work much harder to quell his evil inclination in order to help the person he hates, than one who is merely returning a lost item to his enemy.
A bachur found fifty dollars in the beis medrash of the Yeshiva Porat Yosef when such an amount was a large sum of money. He went to ask the rosh yeshiva, R’ Benzion Abba Shaul, whether he could keep the money, as it says (Bava Metzia 21b) that one who finds coins in the synagogues or in the study halls, or any place where many people are found, the coins belong to him….
R’ Benzion Abba Shaul immediately took out fifty dollars from his pocket. He gave the money to the bachur as a present, and then instructed him to go into the beis medrash and find out who had lost the money.
The bachur actually found the owner looking for the money. It was a poor avreich with a large family who had just borrowed the money from a gemach and then misplaced the money. He was very gratified and appreciative to have the sum returned to him.
R’ Benzion then pointed out how easy it is to perform an act of kindness for another person. Even though the bachur could legitimately have kept the money, one should always try to act lifnim mishuras hadin – beyond the letter of the law. R’ Benzion noted that when the Mishnah says that the money belongs to him it does not mean that it is prohibited to publicize that he had found money. There are situations when it is proper to act lifnim mishuras hadin.