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.