(א) לֹֽא־תִרְאֶה֩ אֶת־שׁ֨וֹר אָחִ֜יךָ א֤וֹ אֶת־שֵׂיוֹ֙ נִדָּחִ֔ים וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ֖ מֵהֶ֑ם הָשֵׁ֥ב תְּשִׁיבֵ֖ם לְאָחִֽיךָ׃ (ב) וְאִם־לֹ֨א קָר֥וֹב אָחִ֛יךָ אֵלֶ֖יךָ וְלֹ֣א יְדַעְתּ֑וֹ וַאֲסַפְתּוֹ֙ אֶל־תּ֣וֹךְ בֵּיתֶ֔ךָ וְהָיָ֣ה עִמְּךָ֗ עַ֣ד דְּרֹ֤שׁ אָחִ֙יךָ֙ אֹת֔וֹ וַהֲשֵׁבֹת֖וֹ לֽוֹ׃ (ג) וְכֵ֧ן תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה לַחֲמֹר֗וֹ וְכֵ֣ן תַּעֲשֶׂה֮ לְשִׂמְלָתוֹ֒ וְכֵ֣ן תַּעֲשֶׂ֗ה לְכׇל־אֲבֵדַ֥ת אָחִ֛יךָ אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאבַ֥ד מִמֶּ֖נּוּ וּמְצָאתָ֑הּ לֹ֥א תוּכַ֖ל לְהִתְעַלֵּֽם׃ {ס} (ד) לֹא־תִרְאֶה֩ אֶת־חֲמ֨וֹר אָחִ֜יךָ א֤וֹ שׁוֹרוֹ֙ נֹפְלִ֣ים בַּדֶּ֔רֶךְ וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ֖ מֵהֶ֑ם הָקֵ֥ם תָּקִ֖ים עִמּֽוֹ׃ {ס}
(1) If you see your fellow’s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your fellow. (2) If your fellow does not live near you or you do not know who he is, you shall bring it home and it shall remain with you until your fellow claims it; then you shall give it back to him. (3) You shall do the same with his ass; you shall do the same with his garment; and so too shall you do with anything that your fellow loses and you find: you must not remain indifferent. (4) If you see your fellow’s ass or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it; you must help him raise it.
These verses appear in the midst of a list of commandments for the Jewish people. This particular mitzvah is an expansion upon one that is mentioned earlier in the Torah:
(ד) כִּ֣י תִפְגַּ֞ע שׁ֧וֹר אֹֽיִבְךָ֛ א֥וֹ חֲמֹר֖וֹ תֹּעֶ֑ה הָשֵׁ֥ב תְּשִׁיבֶ֖נּוּ לֽוֹ׃ {ס}
(4) When you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, you must take it back to him.
What is so important about this commandment that it appears not only twice, but that the second occurrence expands upon the first?
Returning a lost item to the owner
עד דרש אחיך. וְכִי תַעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁיִּתְּנֵהוּ לוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּדְרְשֵׁהוּ? אֶלָּא דָּרְשֵׁהוּ שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא רַמַּאי (בבא מציעא כ"ז; עי' ספרי):
עד דרש אחיך [AND IT SHALL BE WITH THEE] UNTIL THY BROTHER ENQUIRES [FOR IT] — But would it ever enter your mind that one could give it back before he enquires for it (Scripture distinctly states that you do not know to whom the animal belongs)?! But the meaning of the verse is: Thou shalt make diligent enquiries of him that he should not be a fraudulent claimant (Bava Metzia 27b. 28a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 223:4).
והשבתו לו. שֶׁתְּהֵא בוֹ הֲשָׁבָה, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל בְּבֵיתְךָ כְּדֵי דָּמָיו וְתִתְבָּעֵם מִמֶּנּוּ. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ, כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה וְאוֹכֵל יַעֲשֶׂה וְיֹאכַל וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה וְאוֹכֵל יִמָּכֵר (בבא מציעא כ"ח):
והשבתו לו AND THOU SHALT RESTORE IT TO HIM — it is necessary that there be some restoration — that it (the animal) should not eat in your house to its own value, and you claim this from him (in which case there is no actual restoration of what has been lost). From here, they (the Rabbis) derived the law: Whatever works and requires food (as, for instance, oxen, etc., the cost of whose food is set off by the value of its labour) should work and eat; whatever does not work but requires feeding (as, for instance, sheep) should be sold and the money restored to the man who lost it (Bava Metzia 28b).
Mishnah Bava Metzia 2:5
(5) This mishna is an excerpt from a halakhic midrash concerning lost items, based on the verse: “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” (Deuteronomy 22:1, 3). The garment was also included in the generalization that one must return all of these items. And why did it emerge from the generalization that is should be specified? To draw an analogy to it and to say to you: What is notable about a garment? It is notable in that there are distinguishing marks concerning it and it has claimants asserting ownership, and its finder is obligated to proclaim his find. So too with regard to any item concerning which there are distinguishing marks and it has claimants asserting ownership, its finder is obligated to proclaim his find.
(5) This mishna is an excerpt from a halakhic midrash concerning lost items, based on the verse: “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” (Deuteronomy 22:1, 3). The garment was also included in the generalization that one must return all of these items. And why did it emerge from the generalization that is should be specified? To draw an analogy to it and to say to you: What is notable about a garment? It is notable in that there are distinguishing marks concerning it and it has claimants asserting ownership, and its finder is obligated to proclaim his find. So too with regard to any item concerning which there are distinguishing marks and it has claimants asserting ownership, its finder is obligated to proclaim his find.
Chizkuni
לא תראה את אחיך או את שיו נדחים, “do not inactively watch the ox or sheep of your brother which has gone astray” (voluntarily or against its will); this law applies even in war time when you are on the way to the front; what applies to these categories of domestic animals applies to all categories of domestic beasts.
השב תשיבם לאחיך, “you must make every effort to restore these animals to your brother.” The Torah is so serious about this demand that it repeats it with slightly different wording in the verse immediately following.
לא תראה את אחיך או את שיו נדחים, “do not inactively watch the ox or sheep of your brother which has gone astray” (voluntarily or against its will); this law applies even in war time when you are on the way to the front; what applies to these categories of domestic animals applies to all categories of domestic beasts.
השב תשיבם לאחיך, “you must make every effort to restore these animals to your brother.” The Torah is so serious about this demand that it repeats it with slightly different wording in the verse immediately following.
Kli Yakar on Deuteronomy 22:1
The rabbis interpreted (Brachot 19b), with regard to the laws of returning a lost object, it is stated: “You shall not see the ox of your brother or his sheep go astray and ignore them; return them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1). The baraita explains that the seemingly extraneous expression and disregard them must be understood to give license that at times you disregard lost objects and at times you do not disregard them.
For example, a respected elder for whom it is socially inappropriate [to chase after an ox, is exempt from this mitzvah.] And similarly, someone may be exempt in the manner described by the rabbis (Avot 4:18), "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says...do not seek to see your friend at the time of their humiliation." For there is no distinction between physical or financial humiliation, they are equivalent in the circumstance when it is impossible to rescue them [from that humiliation] and return whatever it is that has wandered off.
This is what the text is referring to when it literally says, "Do not see the ox of your friend or the sheep that has wandered off," i.e. when they are so completely astray, that they might as well be submerged in the river. In such circumstances, [when the text literally says,] "you should ignore them", [it means that] it is necessary for you to conduct yourself as if you had not seen.
Certainly, when the verse says, "you must take it back", it is teaching us that if you have the means to take them back, if they are not so completely astray, but rather it is possible for you [individually] to return that which has wandered away, then you shall return them to your fellow; you are obligated to try to see, in order to rescue them.
The rabbis interpreted (Brachot 19b), with regard to the laws of returning a lost object, it is stated: “You shall not see the ox of your brother or his sheep go astray and ignore them; return them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1). The baraita explains that the seemingly extraneous expression and disregard them must be understood to give license that at times you disregard lost objects and at times you do not disregard them.
For example, a respected elder for whom it is socially inappropriate [to chase after an ox, is exempt from this mitzvah.] And similarly, someone may be exempt in the manner described by the rabbis (Avot 4:18), "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says...do not seek to see your friend at the time of their humiliation." For there is no distinction between physical or financial humiliation, they are equivalent in the circumstance when it is impossible to rescue them [from that humiliation] and return whatever it is that has wandered off.
This is what the text is referring to when it literally says, "Do not see the ox of your friend or the sheep that has wandered off," i.e. when they are so completely astray, that they might as well be submerged in the river. In such circumstances, [when the text literally says,] "you should ignore them", [it means that] it is necessary for you to conduct yourself as if you had not seen.
Certainly, when the verse says, "you must take it back", it is teaching us that if you have the means to take them back, if they are not so completely astray, but rather it is possible for you [individually] to return that which has wandered away, then you shall return them to your fellow; you are obligated to try to see, in order to rescue them.
What if an object does not have an owner?
הֶפְקֵר - Hefker
Hefker is a legal status of an object that is ownerless. It comes from the Hebrew Mishnaic word פקר which means to set free. When a lost object's owner cannot be found, it is given this status.
Hefker is a legal status of an object that is ownerless. It comes from the Hebrew Mishnaic word פקר which means to set free. When a lost object's owner cannot be found, it is given this status.
(א) בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, הֶבְקֵר לָעֲנִיִּים, הֶבְקֵר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ הֶפְקֵר, עַד שֶׁיֻּפְקַר אַף לָעֲשִׁירִים, כַּשְּׁמִטָּה. כָּל עָמְרֵי הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁל קַב קַב וְאֶחָד שֶׁל אַרְבַּעַת קַבִּין וּשְׁכָחוֹ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שִׁכְחָה:
(1) Bet Shammai says: [That which is] made ownerless only in regard to the poor is indeed ownerless. But Bet Hillel says: it is not ownerless unless ownership is renounced even for the rich, as in the case of the sabbatical year. [If] all of the sheaves in a field are a kav each, and one is four kavs and that one is forgotten: Bet Shammai says: it is not considered forgotten. But Bet Hillel says: it is considered forgotten.
הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹּאכַל נוֹתֵן לְאֶחָד לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה וְהַלָּה מוּתָּר בָּהּ אִם אֵין עִמָּהֶם אַחֵר מַנִּיחַ עַל הַסֶּלַע אוֹ עַל הַגָּדֵר וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הֵן מוּפְקָרִים לְכׇל מִי שֶׁיַּחְפּוֹץ וְהַלָּה נוֹטֵל וְאוֹכֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר:
If the one who vowed to render benefit from him forbidden and the one for whom benefit is forbidden were traveling together along the road and the one for whom benefit is forbidden does not have anything to eat, the one who from whom benefit is forbidden gives food to one other person as a gift, and it is permitted for that person for whom benefit is forbidden to eat the food because it no longer belongs to the one from whom benefit is forbidden. If there is no other person with them, the one who vowed places the food on the nearest rock or on the nearest fence and says: These food items are hereby rendered ownerless and are available to anyone who wants them. Then that person for whom benefit is forbidden takes and eats the food. Rabbi Yosei prohibits doing so.
Interestingly, during a Shmita year, all produce is declared Hefker as well. In that case, it is available for anyone and everyone's consumption.
(כב) וּֽבְקֻצְרְכֶ֞ם אֶת־קְצִ֣יר אַרְצְכֶ֗ם לֹֽא־תְכַלֶּ֞ה פְּאַ֤ת שָֽׂדְךָ֙ בְּקֻצְרֶ֔ךָ וְלֶ֥קֶט קְצִירְךָ֖ לֹ֣א תְלַקֵּ֑ט לֶֽעָנִ֤י וְלַגֵּר֙ תַּעֲזֹ֣ב אֹתָ֔ם אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃ {פ}
(22) And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I the LORD am your God.
(א) וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה בְּהַ֥ר סִינַ֖י לֵאמֹֽר׃ (ב) דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם כִּ֤י תָבֹ֙אוּ֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י נֹתֵ֣ן לָכֶ֑ם וְשָׁבְתָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ שַׁבָּ֖ת לַיהֹוָֽה׃ (ג) שֵׁ֤שׁ שָׁנִים֙ תִּזְרַ֣ע שָׂדֶ֔ךָ וְשֵׁ֥שׁ שָׁנִ֖ים תִּזְמֹ֣ר כַּרְמֶ֑ךָ וְאָסַפְתָּ֖ אֶת־תְּבוּאָתָֽהּ׃ (ד) וּבַשָּׁנָ֣ה הַשְּׁבִיעִ֗ת שַׁבַּ֤ת שַׁבָּתוֹן֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה לָאָ֔רֶץ שַׁבָּ֖ת לַיהֹוָ֑ה שָֽׂדְךָ֙ לֹ֣א תִזְרָ֔ע וְכַרְמְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תִזְמֹֽר׃ (ה) אֵ֣ת סְפִ֤יחַ קְצִֽירְךָ֙ לֹ֣א תִקְצ֔וֹר וְאֶת־עִנְּבֵ֥י נְזִירֶ֖ךָ לֹ֣א תִבְצֹ֑ר שְׁנַ֥ת שַׁבָּת֖וֹן יִהְיֶ֥ה לָאָֽרֶץ׃ (ו) וְ֠הָיְתָ֠ה שַׁבַּ֨ת הָאָ֤רֶץ לָכֶם֙ לְאׇכְלָ֔ה לְךָ֖ וּלְעַבְדְּךָ֣ וְלַאֲמָתֶ֑ךָ וְלִשְׂכִֽירְךָ֙ וּלְתוֹשָׁ֣בְךָ֔ הַגָּרִ֖ים עִמָּֽךְ׃ (ז) וְלִ֨בְהֶמְתְּךָ֔ וְלַֽחַיָּ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּאַרְצֶ֑ךָ תִּהְיֶ֥ה כׇל־תְּבוּאָתָ֖הּ לֶאֱכֹֽל׃ {ס}
(1) The LORD spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai: (2) Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When you enter the land that I assign to you, the land shall observe a sabbath of the LORD. (3) Six years you may sow your field and six years you may prune your vineyard and gather in the yield. (4) But in the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath of complete rest, a sabbath of the LORD: you shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard. (5) You shall not reap the aftergrowth of your harvest or gather the grapes of your untrimmed vines; it shall be a year of complete rest for the land. (6) But you may eat whatever the land during its sabbath will produce—you, your male and female slaves, the hired and bound laborers who live with you, (7) and your cattle and the beasts in your land may eat all its yield.
What are the benefits of declaring something "ownerless"?
What do you think should be done for something that is deemed Hefker?
What do you think should be done for something that is deemed Hefker?