Inference: Since it says "he admits", this connotes that according to Rabanan, even if Lo Savatan ha'Ayin (they are so new that he cannot recognize that they are his), he must announce.

Support: We find that Rabah bar bar Chanah said (above, 19a) "I recognize it (the Get that he lost)." A Get is not Savato ha'Ayin, for a man does not delay a Get in his hand. (He does not write it until he is ready to give it.)

Question: We do not find that Rabanan said so explicitly! (Pnei Yehoshua - perhaps Rabanan in our Mishnah hold that one need not announce anything without a Siman, and R. Shimon teaches that this is only for new Kelim!)

Answer: Since our Mishnah mentioned Kerichos, rings of pressed figs, strings [of fish] and loaves, he keeps them, and it is not common to recognize these matters...

This implies that in matters that it is normal to recognize, in every case he must announce them, even if Lo Savatan ha'Ayin, if he found them in a place where Rabanan are common.

Explanation: The number is a Siman.

Implied question: Our Mishnah taught that strings [of fish] and loaves, he keeps them!

Answer #1: If it is Derech Nefilah, this is fine, for then Minyan is not a Siman, for he does not know that they fell at once.

Answer #2: Or, it is Derech Hinua'ach, and there is only one string, ring [of pressed figs] or loaf. Even though it says "strings", this refers to in general (every time one finds a string).

Implied question: Below (25a), regarding collections of Peros and collections of coins, the Gemara asks "this shows that Minyan is a Siman." It does not reject this and say that this refers to collections in general, similar to the Reisha, which mentions strings, rings, loaves and Kerichos (but the finder found only one)!

Answer: This is because it should have taught only "gathered coins and gathered fruits", like it taught "scattered coins and scattered Peros."

Question: If so, why did we need the reason because the owner despairs? Even without this, [the finder keeps it,] for we may assumes that a Nochri lost it, for they are the majority!

Answer: We need [to permit] even if he knows that it fell from a Yisrael. [The Beraisa] says that the finder keeps it because the loser despairs;

[The loser] assumes that Nochrim took it. And even if a Yisrael will find it, he will not announce it, for he will assume that a Nochri lost it, for they are the majority!

Explanation: [Even when the majority are Yisre'elim], the finder keeps it. The reason is because there are improper people who will take it [so the owner despairs].

Version #1: According to this text, we are unsure if they argue even when the majority are Yisre'elim.

Version #2: Some texts do not have these words. Rather, it says "if you will say that [R. Shimon permits] even when the majority are Yisre'elim, do Rabanan argue when the majority are Nochrim, or not?"

According to this text, it is obvious that Rabanan argue when the majority are Yisre'elim, and he must announce, and we are not concerned for improper people [who would take it].

Support #1 (Mishnah): One must announce the following: he found Peros in a Kli, and all of the matters that have a Siman;

This connotes even in Reshus ha'Rabim, where many are found, he must announce, for it mentions Reshus ha'Yachid only regarding Kerichos. It is difficult to establish the Mishnah in a Simta (which is not considered Reshus ha'Yachid, and not Reshus ha'Rabim).

Support #2: Below, it says 'really, it is Rabanan. Does it say "the finder keeps it"?! It says "he need not announce", and he leaves it [and if a Yisrael gives a Siman, he returns it to him].'

Now, in any case we may resolve that Rabanan argue about when the majority are Yisre'elim, for it says "if the majority are Yisre'elim, he must announce"!

Conclusion: Rather, surely there is no doubt whether Rabanan argue about when the majority are Yisre'elim. It is obvious that they argue, due to our Mishnah, like I explained.

Explanation: [We ask who follows the majority] regarding a Metziah. This is not relevant to the argument about concern for the minority.

Question: If we want to resolve that Rabanan agree, we should say [to reject this] that [the Mishnah] is R. Shimon!

Answer: In any case we can resolve that we cannot say that R. Shimon holds that even when the majority are Yisre'elim, the finder keeps it, and Rabanan hold that even when the majority are Nochrim, he must announce;

If [the Mishnah] is like R. Shimon, if so when the majority are Yisre'elim, he must announce according to R. Shimon. If it is like Rabanan, if so [they hold that] when the majority are Nochrim, the finder keeps it.

Implied question: Why don't we establish [the Mishnah] when many are not common there?

Answer: Since it distinguishes between when the majority of the city are Nochrim, and when the majority of the city are Yisre'elim, this connotes that he found it in a place where most of the city are found;

If he found it in a place where most of the city are not found, he should not discusses the majority of the city, rather, if mostly Nochrim or Yisre'elim are frequent in the place it was found.

Question: If it is hidden, why does he touch it?

If it is because [the wasteheap] will be cleared away, the one who clears it away will take it and announce!

Answer: Perhaps the one who clears it away will be a Nochri, or perhaps he will not find it, and he will cast it outside with the refuse.

Question: Why does he announce? He should take it for himself, for when the owner does not find it, he will despair, and say that an improper person took it, even though there is a majority of Yisre'elim;

This is the reason why R. Shimon permits when the majority are Yisre'elim!

Answer: It is Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as, for when he takes it, the loser does not yet know that it was taken.

Distinction: When the majority are Nochrim, the finder keeps it, for we assume that Nochrim hid it, for they are the majority.

Explanation: He did not want to say that he holds like Rabanan, for if so, he should resolve that Rabanan agree about a majority of Nochrim;

In any case, we can resolve that the Halachah follows [R. Shimon ben Elazar] when the majority are Nochrim.

Explanation #1: He returned [the lost donkeys] themselves, even though he needed to give only their value;

Citation (below, 28b - Mishnah): Anything that works and eats, one cares for it for 12 months. From then and onwards, he sells it, and guards the money.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): He found them after 12 months from when they were lost.

Objection: What is the source that due to this, [according to letter of the law] it belongs to the finder? The loser does not despair, for he thinks that the finder thinks that they were lost recently, and he will announce!

Explanation: We learn [going beyond the letter of the law] below (30b) from "Asher Ya'asun.

Question #1: Why don't we bring the verse here, like we bring below in the episode of R. Yishmael, and in Bava Kama (100a) regarding the episode of R. Chiya, of showing a coin to a moneychanger [who said that it is good], and it was found to be Pasul?

Question #2: Below (83a) we bring a different verse "Lema'an Telech b'Derech Tovim", which is from Kesuvim, and we abandon the verse "Asher Ya'asun", which is from Torah!

Answer: We bring the verse "Asher Ya'asun" only when others are obligated and he is exempt, e.g. showing a coin;

Others, who need to learn, are obligated [if they erred]. R. Chiya [who was an expert] was exempt. He went beyond the letter of the law and paid, like the law of others.

Similarly, in the episode of R. Yishmael, who was a Chacham and it was not according to his honor (to help the man load) went beyond the letter of the law [to consider himself obligated, and he bought the load to exempt himself], like others.

Here, in our Sugya, he returned them after 12 months, all are exempt. Therefore, we do not bring the verse here;

In any case, due to going beyond the letter of the law he needed to return [the donkeys themselves], since he does not lose money through this.

Distinction: Below (83a), regarding the load carriers who broke his barrel and caused him a large loss, he need not lose due to going beyond the letter of the law. Therefore, we brought the verse "Lema'an Telech b'Derech Tovim."

Observation: The Yerushalmi in Avodah Zarah connotes like this [that the text says Rav].

Even according to the texts that say Abaye, it is a proper question from meat that was hidden from the eye.

Implied question: The Halachah does not follow Rav, like I explained above (23b), since the Gemara in Chulin (95b) asks "how may Rav eat meat?"!

Answer: In any case, it is a proper question, since the finder saw that the bird cast them there. Even the one who argues with Rav agrees here that it is forbidden. I can say that it took [the meat] from a city that is mostly Nochrim.

Explanation: The Gemara answers that the case is, the finder saw that the bird took the meat from a city in which most of those who slaughter are Yisrael.

Assertion: The same applies if they were stolen. Even though [the thief] transgressed stealing, he would not transgress Neveilah.

Support: The Tosefta explicitly teaches a Beraisa "if they were lost or stolen." Here it mentions only [if they were] lost, for this is the common case.

Reference: In Chulin (12b), it explains that R. Yehudah's words were Nir'im (seemed correct) to R. Chananya when he found them in a wasteheap in the market, for even R. Chananya argues with him only when he found them in a wasteheap in the house;

In the episode here, he found them on the road, without a wasteheap. This is like a wasteheap in the house.

Implied question: (Why did R. Ami ask R. Asi?) Everywhere, R. Ami is mentioned before R. Asi, like it says (Gitin 59b) "R. Ami and R. Asi were the most esteemed Kohanim of Eretz Yisrael"!

Answer: Even though R. Ami was greater than R. Asi, it is not astounding that he came in front of him to ask, for he was his colleague.

Observation: However, if the text says R. Aba, this is difficult, for R. Aba was R. Ami's Talmid, like is proven regarding the ingot of R. Aba (Shevu'os 47a). Why would [R. Ami] come in front of [his Talmid R. Aba to ask]?