I have several questions about how this stipulation works.
Is it based upon the principle that something said in front of 3 people is presumed to become known by the general public?
Does the high rate earner need the Beis Din's permission?
Could a counter-balancing stipulation be made by a frugal person that such a stipulation as the gemara has no effect on his property being returned, he will only reimburse at the rate of a common laborer?
... {
and not directly related:
If a person finds a lost animal which should be held for say 12 months, and incurs feed costs for 10 months, and then the animl runs away and becomes lost, and found by a second finder, who again feeds the animal for 10 months....
Person A is the original owner. Person B, the first finder, is supposed to sell the animal if feed costs would exceed the animal's value.
Person C, the second finder, has no way of knowing that Person B used up some of that budget.
Does person B have a LIEN against the value of the animal to collect reimbursement for his feed costs? Is this a higher priority than person C's feed cost, that person A must first reimburse B, and only then reimburse person C, and if cost of feed to B and C exceed the value of the animal, is person A stuck to pay both in total more than the value of the animal?
... }
This matter is relevant to the stipulation matter to me since it was told to me by a rabbi that the high rate of pay reimbursement could not exceed the value of the lost item.
Robert
This is not based on the premise of making something known by saying it over in front of three people. It is based on the potential finder not overestimating how much he should be paid in order to retrieve the lost object, which may not even be worth what he thinks. This is why the Mishna requires that if there are three people present, and the owner is not present (according to most opinions), these three people can act in a certain capacity as a Beis Din in order to estimate whether or not it is worth it for the owner of the lost object to have this person continue to try to retrieve the lost object. The finder says that he is prepared to lose work and take a certain amount of money for his services. If the impromptu Beis Din says that it is a good deal for the owner and gives permission, it is a done deal. A person who makes this "counter-stipulation" you are referring to would only be accomplishing something if the people who happen to form the Beis Din know about it. If they do, they would never let the prospective finder charge more than the owner is willing to pay. This is because this entire Halachah is solely established for the benefit of the owner, not for his detriment. The Rabbi who told you that the high rate of pay reimbursement cannot exceed the value of the lost item is indeed correct, as stated by Tosfos (31b,DH "Im Yesh"). There are various reasons why an owner might prefer to pay the entire value of the object which went lost, such as if the object were his personal horse or other animal which he has trained (see Tosfos at length).
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose