(א) לֹא תִרְאֶה אֶת שׁוֹר אָחִיךָ אוֹ אֶת שֵׂיוֹ נִדָּחִים וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ מֵהֶם הָשֵׁב תְּשִׁיבֵם לְאָחִיךָ.
...
(ג) וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לַחֲמֹרוֹ וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְשִׂמְלָתוֹ וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְכָל אֲבֵדַת אָחִיךָ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאבַד מִמֶּנּוּ וּמְצָאתָהּ לֹא תוּכַל לְהִתְעַלֵּם.
1. You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray and ignore them; return them to your brother
...
3. So shall you do with his donkey, so shall you do with his garment, and so shall you do with every lost thing of your brother...
What is the logic of this mitzvah?
What is the obvious redundancy in the text?
What does each category teach us?
- Garment
- Donkey
- Ox
- Sheep
What are the parameters of this mitzvah?
- What can you keep?
- What are you obligated to announce?
- Introduce the concept of a "Siman"?
Items without a siman:
- Found in public domain
- Found in private domain
- Scattered
- Placed
- Crowded or not
Items with a siman always announce, except where there is obvious "Ye'ush".
What constitutes ye'ush?
- Verbal
- Action
- Time
Other details:
- Shape and size
- Hearing of owners yeush
- Valueless items
- Process of proof - deception and witnesses
- Objects that require maintenance
- Below one's dignity to get involved with
- Kohen and cemataries
Understanding the metaphysical and psychological application:
- Treachery & Deception ("Frenemy")
- Stubbornness & Apathy
- Aggression
- Meekness & Spinelessness
Talmud, Bava Metzia 27a
Raba said: Why did the Torah enumerate ox, ass, sheep and garment?
They are all necessary: For had the Divine Law mentioned 'garment' alone, I would have thought: That is only if the object itself can be identified by witnesses,
or the object itself bears marks of identification. But in the case of a donkey, if only its saddle is attested or its saddle bears marks of identification, I might think that it
is not returned to him. Therefore the Torah wrote ‘donkey,' to show that even the donkey [is returned] in virtue of the identification of its saddle.
For what purpose did the Divine Law mention 'ox' and 'sheep'?' — 'Ox', that even the hair of its tail, and 'sheep', that even its shearings [must be returned].
If so, let the Torah mention 'ox', showing that even the the hair of its tail [must be returned], and the shearings of a sheep [which are more substantial] would be obvious?
Rather, said Raba… 'sheep' in connection with a lost article, is incomprehensible [i.e. superfluous] according to all opinions.
Rema, Orach Chaim, 1:1
One should not be embarrassed before those that scoff at his service of G‐d Almighty.