a siman is found on an object -the owner was miyaesh because he did not realize there was a siman
what is the obligation of the finder-al pi din and lifnai mishuras hadin--(letter of the law; and what is more than required and what is reccommended) ---
I suppose that since the owner was miyaesh and the finder knew he was miyaesh- the finder can keep the object--but later a siman was discovered so the object could be returned---according to the law the finder can keep the object but he should return it---or is it possible that even though the owner was miyaesh--because there was a siman the finder must make an effort to find the owner and return the object...what is required by the letter of the law and in any event -it seems it is best toreturn the object--thank you in advance for your assistance in undertsanding--it has been more than 30 years since I have thought about bava mitziyah and the issues of yi'ush so I am rusty on some basic principles perhpas---
po, california
The Achronim debate whether Ye'ush b'Ta'us (mistakenly despairing) is effective or not. Rav Yaakov Blau (Pischei Choshen, vol I, Aveidah, 2:5), after bringing many opinions on the matter, decides that if the Ye'ush was based on an obvious mistake - he was told that his belongings were swept away by a river - then the Ye'ush is not effective. It would seem that our case would also be considered an obvious mistake - he didn't know that there was a Siman - and therefore the finder would have to return it.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch, however, holds that Al Pi Din he doesn't have to return the object. The reasoning is that all Ye'ush is essentially b'Ta'us - i.e. if the loser knew that it would be found by a frum Jew he wouldn't have had Ye'ush, and therefore it doesn't help that he didn't know about the Siman (this Sevara is mentioned by some of the earlier Poskim, see Pischei Choshen above). He does say, though, that Lifnim m'Shuras ha'Din he should return the object.
Kol Tuv,
Yonasan Sigler
This is not a Psak Halachah.