I was thinking about the Gemara Bava Metzia page 43a on my way back from the sea, and it occurred to me a question that the Rambam decided the law like Rav Huna in terms of lost objects but like Rav Nachman in terms regular deposits. I mean to say that in terms of regular deposits , if a person gives unsealed money to a friend to guard for him, the friend is a paid guard (not a borrower) until he uses the money. Chapter 7 law 6 in borrowing and deposits. In terms of lost objects, if one has a lost object that will deteriorate in time until the owner can pick it up, then the finder sells it, and saves the money in expectation that the owner will pick up the money someday. In the meantime, he can use the money as a borrower. There, the Rambam decided the law is that he is a borrower even before he uses the money. In terms of hedesh, if one gives unsealed hedesh to a money changer, not the depositer nor the money changer are liable for meila, unlike either Rav Nachman nor Rav Huna in Bava Metzia page 43. The question is that in one place the Rambam decided like Rav Huna, then in another place he decided like his opposite, Rav Nachman and in a third place he decided like neither. I did see however that Rav Shach, Rav Nachum of the Mir and Shmuel Rozovski of Ponovitch all deal with the question raised by Tosphot that in the case of the lost object, the finder seems to be a borrower of money, not a borrower of an object, while the Rambam says specifically he is a borrower of an object.-----------------------I was thinking about the גמרא בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''אon my way back from the sea and it occurred to me a question that the רמב’’ם decided the law like רב הונא in terms of lost objects but like רב נחמן in terms regular deposits. I mean to say that in terms of regular deposits , if a person gives unsealed money to a friend to guard for him, the friend is a paid guard (not a שואל) until he uses the money. פרק ז' הלכה ו' בהלכות שאלה ופיקדון. In terms of lost objects, if one has a lost object that will deteriorate in time until the owner can pick it up, then the finder sells it, and saves the money in expectation that the owner will pick up the money someday. In the meantime, he can use the money as a שואל. There, the רמב’’ם decided the law is that he is a שואל even before he uses the money. In terms of הקדש, if one gives unsealed הקדש to a money changer, not the מפקיד nor the money changer are liable forמעילה, unlike either רב נחמן nor רב הונא in בבא מציעא מ''ג. The question is that in one place the רמב’’ם decided like רב הונא, then in another place he decided like his opposite, רב נחמן and in a third place he decided like neither. I did see however that רב שך, רב נחום של המיר and שמואל רוזובסקי של פונוביטש all deal with the question raised by תוספות that in the case of the lost object, the finder seems to be a לווה of money, not a שואל of an object, while the רמב’’ם says specifically he is a שאול of an object.-----------------I assume that these roshei yeshivot answer my question while in the meantime they are answering their own question. however, I have not yet read what Rav Nachum or Rav Shmuel Rozovski wrote, and the section on this in Rav Shach is hard to understand.---------------------I assume that these ראשי ישיבות answer my question while in the meantime they are answering their own question. However, I have not yet read what ר' נחום or ר' שמואל רוזובסקי wrote, and the section on this in רב שך is hard to understand.------- Even though Rav Shach and Rav Nachum are answering a different question it seems to me that based on what they are saying the answer to my question about the lost object is that laws of lost objects are different from laws about deposits, and that the major difference is based on a Gemara that says the Torah requires the guard of a lost object to guard it and if it might deteriorate in time, he must sell it and guard the money from the sale. None of that is voluntary. Therefore, a higher degree of responsibility comes upon the finder. [He is liable as a borrower even before he uses the money like Rav Huna.]-------------Even though רב שך and רב נחום are answering a different question, it seems to me that based on what they are saying, the answer to my question about the lost object is that laws of lost objects are different from laws about deposits, and that the major difference is based on a גמרא that says the תורה requires the guard of a lost object to guard it, and if it might deteriorate in time, he must sell it and guard the money from the sale. None of that is voluntary. Therefore, a higher degree of responsibility comes upon the finder. [He is liable as a שואל even before he uses the money like רב הונא.]------------Still, I wonder how can it make any sense to say the Rambam decided like one opinion in one place, and like its opposite in another? For this reason, I think Rav Shach never attributes the law of lost objects in robbery and lost objects 13 law 17 to Rav Huna, but rather says it is the fact that the Torah obligates him to guard the object that makes him into a borrower immediately even before he uses the money (of the sale of the object.)----------------Still, I wonder how can it make any sense to say the רמב''ם decided like one opinion in one place, and like its opposite in another? For this reason, I think רב שך never attributes the law of lost objects in גזלה and אבדה פרק י''ג law י''ז to רב הונא, but rather says it is the fact that the תורה obligates him to guard the object that makes him into a שואל immediately, even before he uses the money (of the sale of the object.)------So at this point I think I should make clear the approach of Rav Shach. It is this. Tosphot askes why is the finder liable as a borrower. Is it not the case that to be a borrower we need that all the benefit comes to the borrower? But in our case of the finder of the object, his guarding it is for the benefit of the loser. So, he must be a borrower of money. I believe that Rav shach understood in his explaining the Rambam that the reason the finder is a borrower of an object is because the Mishna does not say he is liable for large accidents when he uses the money. rather, it says he is liable immediately because he can use the money. that can not be because of the law of Rav Huna because we do not posikin that like rav huna, rather he is liable because the torah obligates him to guard the object. so, everything is clear as far as that goes. the only loose end is the mishna where a gizbar lends money of hedesh to a shulchani, in which case the Rambam holds neither is liable for meila. But why not? Is it not the case that one is liable for meila just by using an object of hekdesh? why here the Rambam seems to require also a change in ddomain.? I might mention that on page 96 in fact Rav Huna says if one borrowers a axe of hekdesh he is liable if he chopped wood with it, but the gemara there concludes he is liable for meila immediately when there is a change of domain. that is right when the borrower has picked up the ax. However, we do not go with Rav Huna so this is not a question.-------------------So at this point I think I should make clear the approach of Rav Shach. It is this. Tosphot askes why is the finder liable as a borrower. Is it not the case that to be a borrower we need that all the benefit comes to the borrower? But in our case of the finder of the object, his guarding it is for the benefit of the loser. So, he must be a לווה of money. I believe that רב שך understood in his explaining the רמב’’ם that the reason the finder is a שואל of an object is because the Mishna does not say he is liable for אונסים גדולים when he uses the money. Rather, it says he is liable immediately because he can use the money. That can not be because of the law of רב הונא because we do not פוסקים that like רב הונא, rather he is liable because the תורה obligates him to guard the object. So, everything is clear as far as that goes. The only loose end is the משנה where a גזבר lends money of הקדש to a שלחני, in which case the רמב’’ם holds neither is liable for מעילה. But why not? Is it not the case that one is liable for מעילה just by using an object of הקדש? Why here the רמב"ם seems to require also a change in --- שינוי בעלים I might mention that on page צ''ו in fact רב הונא says if one שואל a axe of הקדש he is liable if he chopped wood with it, but the גמרא there concludes he is liable for מעילה immediately when there is a change of רשות. That is, right when the borrower has picked up the axe. However, we do not go with רב הונא so this is not a question.-----However, there is another problem on that decision of the rambam in laws of meila chapter 7 law 10. that is that some achronim (keren ora on tractate meila chapter title one who derives benefit from hedesh,., or sameach laws of meila chapter 6, umudai or chapter 106, all brought in rav shach laws of meila chapter 6 law 10 ) hold the rambam's opinion is that meila applies only for use of hedesh, not change of domain. But here we see the Rambam holds the money changer is not liable even though he used the hekdesh, and the gizbar is not liable only because there was no change of possession, but only a loan. ----------------------However, there is another problem on that decision of the רמב''ם in laws of מעילה פרק ז' הלכה י'. That is that some אחרונים (they are the קרן אורה on מסכת מעילה פרק הנהנה מן הקודש, אור שמח laws of מעילה chapter ו', עמודי אור chapter ק''ו, all brought in ר' שך laws of מעילה chapter ו' law י' ) hold the opinion of the רמב''ם is that מעילה applies only for use of הקדש, not change of domain. But here we see the רמב''ם holds the money changer is not liable even though he used the הקדש, and the גזבר is not liable only because there was no change of possession. To tosphot change of domain alonr can make one liable. I asked Rav Brodi of Natanya, and he answered that the Rambam holds you need both to derive benefit and change of domain [in order to be liable].