Question: The owner of the rockpile or wall, his Chatzer (in which the rockpile or wall is) should acquire [the Aveidah] for him!

Answer: A Chatzer does not acquire something that it is possible that it will never be found, like here, that it is hidden in the thickness of the wall.

Support #1: This is proven below (26b). A Mishnah says that if one found [coins] in a store or moneychanger's room, he keeps them;

The Chatzer (property) of the grocer or moneychanger does not acquire for him because the coins are small, and they are not destined to be found.

Support #2: (A Mishnah (below, 26b) says that if Reuven bought Peros from Shimon and found coins inside, Reuven keeps them.) Below (27a), it says that he keeps them only if he bought from a wholesaler. We do not say that Shimon acquired them when they were in his property!

Question #1: We say that Safek Hinua'ach, one may not take it!

Question #2: Here, even if he took it, the place should be a Siman, and he should announce!

Question #3: It connotes that our Mishnah discusses even if he has a Siman, for the Gemara wanted to establish our Mishnah to discuss a knife or wallet. Due to a different question, it established it to discuss tufts of wool or pieces of silver!

Answer: We discuss when it is rusted, similar to an old wall. Presumably, the owner already sought it, did not find it, and despaired;

However, when it is from the middle [of the wall] and further in, it belongs to the owner of the house [and wall]. A person forget his items for a long time [in his house, and does not despair].

Explanation: We discuss when he found in such a case that it seems that it is an Aveidah. (Shach CM 260:13 - this is like Tosfos says in the coming Dibur, that the Ba'al ha'Bayis lives with them. Others hold that only Nochrim lived there. If so, it need not look like an Aveidah.)

Explanation: [We should say that it is from the last one there, i.e. the Ba'al ha'Bayis. Presumably, he lived with the tenants. Before they left, they searched for their belongings and swept and did not forget anything;

We should not attribute the Metziah to them, rather, to the Ba'al ha'Bayis, who remains last in his house;

This is like coins, which [in our Sugya] we attribute to the last one there, because they sweep the markets every day.

Even if there is no Siman, the Ba'al ha'Bayis does not despair from what he leaves in the house, for he holds that he will find it today or tomorrow, since there are no strangers living in his house with him.

Explanation (cont.): When we answer that he hosted three people, even if there is a Siman, [the owner] despairs.

Implied question: Why don't we attribute that [the coins] fell from the sellers, and they were already redeemed onto the animal [sold]?

Answer #1: We attribute to the buyers, for they are the majority. One seller sells to many people.

Answer #2: We leave [the coins] on their Chazakah. They were Ma'aser [and we are unsure if they were redeemed].

Question: We say in Berachos (62b) that one may not enter Har ha'Bayis with coins wrapped in his garment;

If so, presumably they are Hekdesh, and fell from people bringing [half-Shekalim] to the chamber in Nisan!

Answer: The Isur to enter [Har ha'Bayis..] is only with coins wrapped in his garment publicly. It seems that he carries them for business, and it is disgraceful. In such a case, it is forbidden even for Hekdesh [coins]!

One may enter [with coins] in his hand. (See Tosfos Pesachim 7a (DH b'Har, who answers that one may enter with covertly).)

Question: They are swept only due to Sheratzim, lest they be Metamei Taharos, and not due to coins;

In Nidah (56b), it is proven that a Mavoy is not Muchzak to be checked [not to have] Sheratzim. Even though they swept it, it does not help, since they did not check for Sheratzim while sweeping. (Likewise, sweeping Har ha'Bayis for Sheratzim should not help for coins, since they did not check for coins!)

Answer: Since they check for Sheratzim, that there should not be even a bone ka'Adashah (the size of a lentil), it is impossible that they would not find coins that are there.

Question: We should establish our Mishnah to be when it was found in a cavity. It would not be found through sweeping!

This is proven in Pesachim (7a) regarding a box used for Ma'aser and Chulin coins. Even though he swept the box, we attribute [what is found] to the majority of coins used there, and not to the last [coins used there], when they are found in a cavity!

Answer: There is a cavity that is checked through sweeping, like it says in Nidah (56b, i.e. it is shallow), and there is a cavity or crack that is deep, and it is not checked through sweeping, like the case in Pesachim;

Our Mishnah, which taught "in the house", does not connote that he found in a cavity or crack that is very deep that it would not be found while sweeping.

Explanation: Less than three [Nochrim] is not called a majority. (Maharsha - because the Ba'al ha'Bayis lives there, and the Nochrim merely stay a night or two in the inn, if there are only two, we would not attribute found objects to the Nochrim. Pnei Yehoshua - the Ba'al ha'Bayis despairs from what he loses only when there are many, i.e. at least three.)

We discuss when they are still in the house. If not, [what is found] belongs to the Ba'al ha'Bayis, for he is last (like Tosfos said above, DH v'Neizal).

Explanation: This explains Bar Kapara, who said "to three people." He discusses even to three Yisre'elim;

Even Rabanan (who argue with R. Shimon ben Elazar) and say that when the majority are Yisre'elim, he must announce, here the finder keeps it, like [the Gemara] explains, for [the loser] despairs.

Question: Why must we say that there are three? It suffices to have two and the Ba'al ha'Bayis, for each will say that his colleague (one of the other two) took it, like we say below about a coin that fell from [one of] three people!

Answer #1: Less than three do not suffice, for I can say that one of the tenants lost it, and they do not suspect the Ba'al ha'Bayis;

Therefore, [if there are only two] the loser does not despair. He thinks that surely his colleague took it, and he will return it to him.

Answer #2: He wants to establish it even when the Ba'al ha'Bayis is not with them.

Explanation #1: Even if there is no Siman [he must return it], for [the loser] never despairs.

We discuss when both of them sought it before the finder came and found it. Therefore, [the loser] thinks that his friend took it when he looked for it with him;

He never despairs, for he thinks "he will return it to me when I shame him in public, and I will rebuke him that he found it

Support: This is why we say below "I can say that they are partners", since we saw them searching together.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): [He must return it] due to Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as. (We rule that it is not Yi'ush.)

Rejection: Rava holds that [Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as] is Yi'ush, and he explains below Rav Nachman's teaching;

It is unreasonable to say that [Rava] retracted after he was refuted [since the Gemara does not say so].

Explanation (Rashi): [He does not despair, for he thinks] that he will force him to swear Heses.

Question #1: One cannot make someone swear based on a Safek claim!

Answer: We can say that he claims "I know that no one else was there, other than him."

Question #2: In the days of Bar Kapara, they had not yet enacted Shevu'as Heses!

Rather, even without a Shevu'ah, he does not despair, like I explained.

Explanation: This is when there are not three Perutos, rather, only two. In any case, he need not return it;

If all three are partners, there is not enough [a Perutah, for a Mitzvah] to return to each of them;

If they are not partners, the loser despairs, for each of the other two will dispel him to his colleague (say that the other took it).

Question #1: We should be concerned lest two of them are partners. They do not suspect each other. They do not despair, for both will make a Vadai claim against the third!

Question #2: In Version #2, why does it say that they are partners, and one of them pardoned his friend? We should say that two of them are partners, and they do not suspect each other. They will say that surely, the third took it!

Answer #1: Surely, when there are only two, one will claim Vadai against his colleague. However, when there are three, he does not claim Vadai against the third, even if two of them are partners;

Granted, they do not suspect each other. Still, he thinks that [perhaps] his partner took it to pain him until a long time [and then he will return it];

This is like it says below, that if there are three Perutos they do not despair, for they think that their colleague took it, and hides it from them to anger and pain them for a long time, and at the end he will return it.

Answer #2: Since all three of them go together, we should not say that two of them are partners. Either all of them are partners, or each is alone.

Question: Lo Sigzol is called Nitak l'Aseh (the Mitzvas Aseh to return what he stole is the correction for the Lav, therefore one is not lashed for it) in Chulin (141a);

If so, since regarding Gezeilah it is not a gift, also "Hashev Teshivem" (the Mitzvah to return an Aveidah) he should fulfill!

Answer: ["It is a mere gift"] refers only to the Lav "Lo Suchal Lehis'alem" that he transgressed, for he did not return it before Yi'ush. (Indeed, he fixes Lo Sigzol and fulfills "Hashev Teshivem"!)

Implied question: In Kidushin (34a), Hashavas Aveidah is considered an Aseh she'Ein ha'Zeman Gerama (it applies at all times, therefore women are obligated. Maharam - Tosfos asks why it needed to say so. In any case women are obligated, for they are obligated in the accompanying Lav, Lo Suchal Lehis'alem!)

Answer: [It needs to teach that women are obligated] in a case like here [that Hashavas Aveidah applies without the Lav].

Question: Why is there no Lav of "Lo Sigzol"?

Suggestion: It is because it came to his hand b'Heter.

Rejection: There is a Lav for withholding wages, like it says below (61a, even though the employer had his money b'Heter)!

Answer: There, when he intends to steal, the owner (the worker) did not despair. Here, [the owner] already despaired.

Version #1: Rashi's text does not say "wrapped", for if [they were wrapped,] there is a Siman, so he must announce!

Rebuttal (and Version #2): The text can say "wrapped". The case is, mostly Nochrim are found there. The finder keeps it, even if there is a Siman, for the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Elazar regarding this (where mostly Nochrim are found).