Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/264

Paragraph 1- If one lost an item and encountered his item and another’s lost item and is able to return both, he is obligated to return them. If he is not able to return both, his item would take precedence even over his father’s and Rabbi’s, as the Rabbis have deduced from, “but, there not shall not be a poor person among you.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, a person should go beyond the letter of the law and not say my item comes first unless there is a clear loss. If he is always exact with this, he will throw off the yoke of doing kindness and will eventually needs others to assist him.

Paragraph 2- If one encounters his father’s lost item and his Rabbi’s lost item and his father and Rabbi were of equal stature, his father would take precedence. If they were not of equal stature, his Rabbi would take precedence, assuming the Rabbi is his primary Rabbi whom he learned most of his Torah knowledge from. See Yoreh Deah 242:34.

Paragraph 3- If one left his lost item and returned another’s lost item, he would only get the payment he earned. How so? If a river was drowning his donkey and another’s donkey, and his was worth 100 while the other’s was worth 200, and he left his and saved the other’s, he would only get payment he earned. If he told the owner he will save his but then he must pay him the cost for his donkey, or he made this condition in front of court, the owner would be required to give the finder the value of his donkey. Even if the donkey ends up coming up on its own, he would receive what he conditioned. The donkey would be ownerless, however, and whomever takes possession first would acquire it. If the owner of the donkey is not there, even if the finder did not make a condition it is as if he made the condition. See later Siman 265.

Paragraph 4- If one went down to rescue but did not rescue, he will only receive the payment he deserves. This is only where he made a condition with the owner. If he did not make a condition with the owner and he went down to rescue but did not rescue, he would not even receive the standard payment because he did not help him. The same is true where the donkey came up on its own. If he rescued, however, the donkey-owner cannot say his donkey would have come up without his rescue. Rather, he is required to pay him his wages. Similarly, if two individuals where imprisoned and one incurred expenses and the second would have been released without the other’s assistance, he is not required to pay him anything since he did not make any condition. If he was only released because of the other’s efforts, he cannot say he did not need his efforts because I have power, even if that is true. He would still be required to pay him what he benefits, as determined by the courts. This seems correct to me. If it appears to the court that he did not increase expenses for the other and even just for himself he would have incurred all these expenses, the other would not be required to pay him because it is a case where one benefited and the other did not lose out. Thus, there are those who rule that if one rescues his books and another’s books and he did not need to increase expenses for the other, the other would not be required to pay him anything. It seems to me that this is only where the finder went down originally to rescue his own and ended up also rescuing the other’s. If he went down for both of them, however, the other would be required to give him what he benefited given that he also rescued the others, as was discussed. This seems correct to me. Similarly, in any case where a person does some kind of work or favor for another, the other cannot say you did it for free given that I didn’t instruct you. Rather, he must pay him his wages.

Paragraph 5- Similarly, if two people were coming on the road, and one had a barrel of wine and the other had a jar of honey, and the jar of honey cracked, and before the honey spilled onto the ground, the wine-owner spilled his wine and rescued the honey into the barrel, he would only receive the standard payment. If the wine-owner said he will save the honey but you need to pay me for my cost, or he made this condition in front of court, he would be required to pay him and the wine-owner would be required to spill out his wine to save his honey since the owner said he will pay him. There are those who disagree. If the wine spilled to the ground, it is ownerless, and whomever rescues would be rescuing for himself. There are those who say that even if the honey did not yet spill but the jug was broken enough that it would spill and the owner did not rescue, the honey would be ownerless. The same is true for anything similar, such as where there was a fire in the city and the Jews fled from the city out of fear of the fire, and one person rescued, whatever he rescued would be his because it is as if he acquired ownerless property.

Paragraph 6- If one individual was coming with a barrel of honey and the other had empty jugs, and the barrel of honey cracked and the owner of the barrels says he will not rescue this honey in his barrels unless he pays him ½ or 1/3 dinar, and the owner of the honey agreed and said yes, he has toyed with him, and he would only have to pay what he deserves because he did not cause him any loss.

Paragraph 7- Similarly, if one fled from prison and there was a ferry in front of him and he told the driver to cross him and he will pay a dinar, and the driver crossed him, he would only receive the wage he earned. If the driver was a hunter and the prisoner said to stop hunting and cross me, he would give whatever they agreed up. The same applies to anything similar. There are those who say that the concept of only receiving what was earned only applies to anything where one does not typically pay a lot. With respect to something that one does pay a lot, however, such as swearing demons or medical care, he would be required to pay whatever price was set. With respect to matchmaking, one would only receive what he earned, even if he made a condition to pay him more.

Paragraph 8- When is this true? Where he did not pay the other yet. If he paid, however, in all these cases he would not be able to remove the money.