Commentaire sur Bava Metzia 2:16

These are the findings. He [the finder] found scattered fruit. The unspecified case is that the owner had despair, and they are [now] ownerless.

Introduction The second chapter of Bava Metziah deals exclusively with returning lost objects. According to Exodus 23:4 and Deuteronomy 22:1-4, a person has an obligation to return lost objects to their owner. The mishnah is concerned with which objects are included in this obligation and with the question of the owner claiming his object by identifying it.

Scattered Money. Since they don't have a noticeable marking, he [the owner] surely already had despair, and they are [now] ownerless. This is the reason for all of them.

Since the Torah states that a person must return lost objects, it is necessary to decide which lost objects must be returned. A society could not operate if every lost object had to be returned. Imagine if every time you found a pen, or a coin or some other small not valuable item, you had to spend time trying to find the owners. Furthermore, there are some lost items which could not be identified by their owner as belonging to them, such as money or mass produced merchandise. If a person should lose one of these types of things, meaning either something that cannot be identified as his or something of little value, he does not expect to ever have it returned. Such a situation is called in Hebrew “yeush” despair, and the legal consequence is that the finder may keep the lost object.

Sheaves. Small sheaves.

Which found objects belong to the finder and which ones must be proclaimed [in the lost and found]? These found objects belong to the finder: if a man found scattered fruit, scattered money, small sheaves in the public domain, cakes of figs, bakers’ loaves, strings of fish, pieces of meat, wool shearings [as they come] from the country of origin, stalks of flax and strips of purple wool, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “Anything which has in it something unusual, must be proclaimed. How is this so? If he found a fig cake with a potsherd in it or a loaf with coins in it [he must proclaim them].” Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: “New merchandise need not be proclaimed.” Section one lists objects that are either not identifiable as belonging to a specific person, or of little value. We will learn the opposites of these items, meaning things that are of value and identifiable in the following mishnah. Therefore we will explain them more fully later on. According to Rabbi Judah, if there was a unidentifiable object which had something unusual about it, he must proclaim it. (We will learn the process of proclaiming a lost object later in the chapter.) For instance, a normal loaf of bread could not be identified as belonging to a certain person, and therefore the finder may keep it. If, however, there was money in the bread, the owner could identify it, and therefore the finder must proclaim it. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, mass produced merchandise need not be proclaimed. This would be something akin to tupperware in our day. Certainly before the item has been used its owner would not be able to give any special identification marks. Therefore the finder may keep it.

In the public domain. Everybody threshes on them, and even if they [the sheaves] had a marker, it [the marker] was lost.

Belonging to a baker. They don't have a marker, since all of them [baker's bread] are the same. However, home-baked bread has a marker.

Brought from the country. [This is] to exclude those brought from a professional, as the next mishnah teaches.

Purple wool. Wool that was died purple, and it was combed to look like a tongue.

He found a cake. Of figs.

Merchandise. New items that aren't familiar looking, and the owner hasn't gotten used to how they look. This is because sometimes lost items are returned just from recognizing them, for example to a scholar who doesn't lie. These items that are known that their owner's haven't gotten used to how they look aren't obligated to be announced. The halacha is like Rabbi Shimon son of Elazar. When [is this true]? When you find them one by one. However, if you find them two by two, you are obligated to announce, since their number is a marker. Someone who finds something in the street, or a large plaza in a city that has a non-Jewish majority, even if it [the item] has a marker, there is no obligation to announce. [However], in a city with a Jewish majority, there is an obligation to announce.

In a vessel. A vessel has a marker.

And these must be proclaimed: if a man found fruit in a vessel, or an empty vessel; or money in a bag, or an empty bag; piles of fruit or piles of money; three coins one on top of the other; small sheaves in the private domain; home-made loaves of bread; wool shearings as they come from the craftsman’s shop; jugs of wine or jugs of oil, these must be proclaimed. Since this list is the opposite of the list mishnah one, it will help to line them both up in a table. Found objects which need not be proclaimed. Found objects which must be proclaimed. 1) scattered fruit, 2) scattered money, 3) small sheaves in the public domain, 4) cakes of figs, 5) bakers’ loaves, 6) strings of fish, pieces of meat, 7) wool shearings [as they come] from the country of origin, 8) stalks of flax and strips of purple wool 1) fruit in a vessel, or an empty vessel; 2) or money in a bag, or an empty bag; piles of fruit or piles of money; three coins one on top of the other; 3) small sheaves in the private domain; 4) 5) home-made loaves of bread; 6) 7) wool shearings as they come from the craftsman’s shop; 8) 9) jugs of wine or jugs of oil 1+2) Scattered fruit and money cannot be identified by the owner. However, if the fruit or money is in a container or piled up, the owner may be able to identify the container or the size and place of the pile and therefore the finder must proclaim. 3) Small sheaves in the public domain cannot be identified by where they were found, because people may have moved them. However, in the private domain they can be identified by the place where they were found. 4) Bakers loaves are of standard size and shape and therefore cannot be identified. Home-made loaves will all look different and therefore the owner could identify them. 7) Wool which has not been processed, nor imported will all look the same and therefore could not be identified. However, if it has been processed by a craftsman, it would be identifiable and therefore must be proclaimed.

As it is. Empty.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Try to translate some of the categories of the mishnah into modern day items. For instance, if one found a wallet, must he proclaim it? What about a book? A grocery bag full of groceries? A computer?

Heaps of fruit. Their marker is either their number or location.

Three coins stacked one on top of another. Or more. The announcer announces "I found coins", and he [the one who lost it] comes and says "Such and such [were their number] and they were placed on top of another".

Behind a ledge. A closed wall of wood or reeds.

Introduction In mishnayoth one and two we learned which lost objects a person may keep and which he must declare as lost. In mishnah three we learn a third category: objects that seem to be lost but may not be touched. There are some things that may not have been lost but rather put in their current place by their owner so that the she could return and get them later. One who sees such things should not touch them lest the owners later have difficulty finding the object. Mishnah four deals with lost items found in different places inside stores.

Fence. of stones.

If a man found pigeons tied together behind a fence or a hedge or on footpaths in the fields, he may not touch them. If a person finds pigeons tied together in a place where they may have been left on purpose by their owner, he must leave them there. Perhaps the owner had brought his pigeons with him to the field in order to slaughter them and eat them later for his dinner. (Remember they had no refrigeration, so one would not want to slaughter something in order to eat it later). Rather then carry them around with him in the field he tied them up so that they would not fly away, and he put them behind a fence. If the person were to find them and take them in order to proclaim them as a lost item the owner would have to go looking for them. Therefore the mishnah says they shouldn’t be touched.

Tied-together fledglings. in their wings. [They were tied] in a way that everyone does, and a knot like this isn't a marker.

If he found an object in the dungheap and it was covered up he may not touch it, but if it was exposed he should take it and proclaim. If a person finds an object hidden in a dungheap, he may assume that someone put it there to hide it and will come back for it later. In such a case he should not take it. If, however, it is exposed then thieves might come along and take it. In such a case the finder should take it and proclaim it as a lost item.

Don't touch them. Since we say a person hid them, and if he takes them the owner doesn't have a marker. Therefore he [the finder] should leave them until their owner will come and take them.

If he found it in a pile of stones or in an old wall it belongs to him. If he found it in a new wall and it was on the outside [of the wall] it belongs to him. If it was on the inner side it belongs to the householder. But if the house had been hired to others, even if a man found something within the house, it belongs to him. If one finds something in an old wall or under a pile of stones, and it is apparent that it has been there for quite a while, then he may keep it. It can be assumed that the owners forgot about it (yeush, despair) and therefore the item is legally ownerless. If, however, he were to find something in a new wall, he cannot make such a blanket assumption. If the item is on the outer part of the new wall, he may keep it, since anyone from the public domain may have put it there. (We are assuming that the object does not have a sign by which the person who lost it could identify it.) If it was on the inner part of the wall it belongs to the householder. Finally, if the house owner were using his house as an inn and place where many people passed through, then a found item there belongs to the finder. Although the item was in another person’s house, since the house was occupied by many people we cannot make an assumption as to who owned the item.

Covered don't touch it. Since this isn't a lost item that includes the transgression "You are not allowed to hide yourself [from it]", since it is in a guarded spot.

Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah three: What do you think he should do if he were to find pigeons tied up but not behind a fence, for instance in a public place? Should he leave them there? Should he pick them up and proclaim them? Or do they belong to the finder?

He found it in a stone-pile or an old wall these belong to him. Since he [the finder] can say to the owner [of the pile or wall] this [found item] belonged to the Amorites that our ancestors inherited. This is only if the item is very rusty, that it is noticeable that it has been hidden for a very long time.

From the middle to the outside. In one of the holes adjacent to the public domain. If he found it from half the thickness of the wall to the outside, it is his, since we say one of the passerbys placed it there and forgot. The rust on it proves it has been there a long time, and the owner has surely despaired. This rule is specifically with gold or silver pieces and the like. However, if it was a vessel with money in it, if the vessel's mouth faces outside it belongs to him [the finder]. If the vessel's mouth faces inward, it belongs to the owner [of the wall].

Even inside the house it belongs to him. Since we don't know who they belong to, and the owner had despair.

If he found them in a store they're his. This is referring to something without a marker. The owner who dropped it has had despair, since everyone enters there [the store].

If he found [something] in a shop, it belongs to him. But if he found it between the counter and the shopkeeper it belongs to the shopkeeper. If a person finds something in a shop, for example a cheap pair of sunglasses, and it is not an item sold in the shop, he may keep it. (Again, we can assume that this was an object without an identifying mark and therefore it could not be proclaimed.) Even though the item was found on the shopkeeper’s property, since many people come in and out of the store it could have belonged to any of them. If, however, the object was found behind the counter, the assumption is that the shopkeeper himself lost it. Therefore it belongs to him.

Between the counter. that the shopkeeper sits in front of, which he always takes from and places on to sell [things], and the money that he is given he places in it, and nothing ever falls except from the shopkeepers hand.

If he found it in front of the money-changer it belongs to him. But if between the stool and the money-changer it belongs to the money-changer. The rule here is the same as the rule in the previous section. If the item was found in a place where many people mill about, then it belongs to the finder. If it is found in a place generally occupied only by the money-changer, then it belongs to the money-changer.

In front of of the money-changer, these belong to him [the finder]. Since we say that they fell from those who brought money to exchange. The table interrupts between the money-changer and the money that was found, and if they fell from the money-changer they should have found them between themselves and the seat the table is placed on.

If a man bought fruit from his fellow or if his fellow sent him fruit and he found coins therein, they belong to him. But if they were tied up he must take them and proclaim them. If a person receives a bundle of fruit and there were a few coins scattered amongst the fruit he may keep the coins. If, however, there was a bag of coins, he must proclaim the bag, as we learned in mishnah two.

Someone who purchases fruits from their friend etc. For example their friend is a merchant who purchased this produce or these fruits from many people, and he doesn't know who these belonged to, and since they don't have a marker the owner has despair. However, if the one who is selling the fruits took them himself from his land, then the money is definitely his, and there is a obligation to return them.

Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah four, section three: Why don’t we assume that the scattered coins belong to the person who gave him the fruit? In other words, why is he not obligated to return the coins to the person who gave him the fruit?

If they were tired. Their knot or their number is a marker.

In the general rule of all of these. In the general category of "All the lost items of your brother".

Introduction Mishnah five is actually a midrash, an exegetical explanation, of Deuteronomy 22:3. The midrash tells us general rules with regards to which items must be returned to the one who lost them. Mishnah six discusses how long a lost item must be proclaimed. As we go through the second chapter of Bava Metzia you will notice that the subjects dealt with are in the order in which they occur when someone finds a lost object. First we learn which items must be proclaimed and which items belong to the finder. Then we learn the process of proclamation. Finally, we will learn what a person must do with the object if no one claims it.

Why was it specified. "And thus shall you do to his garment".

A garment was also included amongst all these things (which one must proclaim, listed in Deut. 22:3). Why was it mentioned separately? To compare [other things] to it: to teach you just as a garment is distinct in that it has special marks and it has those who claim it, so too everything that has special marks and those who claim it must be proclaimed. Deuteronomy 22:1-2 begin with a general command to return lost items. The specific item mentioned is an ox or a sheep. Verse 3 continues (JPS translation): “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.” If we read the verse carefully, we will notice that it is superfluous. First the Torah mentions a lost ass and garment and then everything else. The question which our mishnah asks is why should garment be mentioned separately. The answer is that a garment is paradigmatic for which types of items must be proclaimed. First of all a garment has distinctive marks on it by which its owner could identify it. This is still generally true today but would have been especially true in Mishnaic times when everything was sewn by hand. Second of all, a garment has people who would claim it. It is a valuable enough item that someone who lost it will almost always want it back. Any item which does not fit these two categories, distinctive and of a certain, minimal value, need not be returned.

Just as a garment is special. An unspecified garment has a marker, and all garments have an owner that is claiming it, since it was made by someone and didn't come from nowhere.

Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah five: According to the criteria listed in the mishnah what types of items in our society would need to be proclaimed and which would not?

So too anything that has claimants. This is to exclude something that was despaired upon. And despair is when you hear him say "Woe to my loss of purse".

His neighbours. The neighbours of the place where the item was found, lest it belongs to one of them.

For how long must a man proclaim [what he has found]? Until all of his neighbors know of it, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “At the three Pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the lest festival, to allow him three days to go back to his house, three days to return and one day on which to proclaim his loss.” According to Rabbi Meir a person must proclaim the lost objects until all of his neighbors know. Rabbi Judah’s suggestion reflects a law that would have been most applicable when the Temple in Jerusalem stood. When the Temple stood people would come to Jerusalem to proclaim and claim there lost items, no matter where they were lost. It was assumed that a person would come on at least one of the three Pilgrimage Festivals, Sukkot, Pesach and Shavuoth. Therefore the item should be proclaimed for these three festivals. In addition, there were seven days added after the end of the last festival to give the person a chance to go home, check to see if he had lost the object and then to return to Jerusalem to claim the lost item.

In order that each one will go their home in three days. from when he hears the announcement and knows if he lost anything, and if he sees he lost it he'll return [there] in three [days] and announce for one day "I lost it and these are its markers", and the halacha is like Rabbi Yehudah. Since the Temple was destroyed, they [the sages] enacted that announcements should be made in the synagogues and study halls. And since the aggressors increased, those that say "Lost items go to the King", they [the sages] enacted that he [the finder] should inform his neighbours and those he knows and that's sufficient.

Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah six: How do people proclaim lost items in our society? How does that differ from the way they would do it in Mishnaic times?

Anything which does work and eats. If the lost item is something that you can feed with the produce of its work, for example an ox or a donkey.

If he (the named what was lost but could not describe its distinctive marks, he should not give it back to him. And it should not be give to a [known] deceiver, even if he describes its distinctive marks, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “Until your fellow claims it”, [which is to say] until you inquire about your fellow, if he is a deceiver or not.
Whatsoever works and eats, let it work and eat [while in the finder’s care]. But whatsoever does not work and eat should be sold, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “And you shall return it to him”, See how you can return it to him.
What shall be with the money [from the sale]?
Rabbi Tarfon says: “He may use it, therefore if it is lost he is responsible for it.”
Rabbi Akiva says: “He may not use it, therefore if it is lost he is not responsible for it.”
Mishnah seven deals with two subjects: 1) Under what circumstances should the person return the lost object to the claimant? 2) What should the finder do with the object if no one claims it?
Section one: If the person who claims the item is not able to state its distinctive marks, the finder should not return the item to him, lest the item really belong to someone else. If the claimant has a reputation for being a deceiver, then even if he states the distinctive marks, the item shouldn’t be given to him. This is learned through a pun on a word in Deut. 22:2. The verse states that the item should remain with the finder until the person who lost it claims it. The Hebrew word for claim, doresh, can also mean to interrogate. The Mishnah then switches the order of the verse. Instead of the person who lost the item claiming it from the finder, the finder interrogates the person who lost the item, to find out whether he is known to be a deceiver.
Section two: There are two possibilities for dealing with an unclaimed item. If it is something that can be used and the worth of its use will compensate for its upkeep, then it may be used. For instance, a lost cow may be milked to pay for its food. After all, it is unfair to the finder that he should have to pay for the upkeep without receiving compensation. Such a system would indeed discourage people from protecting other people’s lost items.
If the lost item could not work to pay for its feed than it should be sold. The mishnah learns this from the verse which demands that he return the item to the person who lost it. If the item did not earn money and just decreased in value, the finder would not be doing any favors to the loser by holding on to it. For instance if one were to find an expensive cake, that had identifying marks on it. Obviously one couldn’t save the cake for a long period of time or it would eventually be worthless. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the loser for the finder to sell and then return the value.
According to Rabbi Tarfon, the money from this sale may be used by the finder, and therefore if it is lost or stolen he is responsible to restore it. Since he gets the benefit of its use, he has extra responsibility over the item. According to Rabbi Akiva, the money may not be used. Since he doesn’t get the benefit of the use of the money, he is not responsible if it is lost.

One may use it [to do work] and feed it. Don't sell the found item, since all people are pleased with their animal which recognizes them already, and has trained it to their liking. [However] you are not obligated to take care of it forever, rather a chicken and a large animal you take care for 12 months. Calves and baby horses for pasture, meaning that they aren't grown to fatten them up, and similarly kids and sheep, you take care of them for 3 months. Calves for fattening you take care of for 30 days. Geese and roosters, small ones you take care of for 30 days and big ones (which eat a lot) you take care of for 3 days. After this time you take them for yourself and assess their value, or you sell them to others and hide the money.

Therefore if they [the money] were lost he is responsible. Since the Rabbis permitted him to use them [the money], even though he didn't use them, he is considered as if he used them, and he is responsible. The halacha is like Rabbi Tarfon regarding the value of a lost item which was sold. However, money itself that was lost, for example he found money in a purse or three coins that were on top of another, he is not to use them at all.

Once in 30 days. Since they get moldy if you delay opening them. All of their books were made like a scroll.

Introduction Mishnah eight deals with a finder must care for the lost object while it is in his possession. Mishnah nine deals with the definition of lost objects which the finder must return. The mishnah also deals with the finder’s rights to claim lost wages while taking care of the lost object.

Roll. From their beginning to their end to allow air to enter.

This mishnah is concerned with the proper care given to lost objects. The finder has a responsibility to return the object to its owner in as best condition as possible. Therefore our mishnah tells us which things must be done with certain objects for their upkeep. In addition the mishnah lists certain things that shouldn’t be done lest the lost object is damaged.

For the first time. What he has never learnt. This is because he would require leaving it [open] in front of him for longer.

If he found scrolls he must read them once every thirty days, and if he does not know how to read he should unroll them. But he may not learn from them something he has not yet learned, nor may another read with him. Scrolls (made of parchment) must be unrolled once every thirty days in order to air them out and prevent them from becoming brittle. If he wishes to read from it while he unrolls it he may. He may not however learn with another person lest they both pull the scroll and tear it. Nor may he learn something new which would require more intense and longer reading and a greater likelihood of damage to the scroll.

And another should not read with him. Since this one pulls towards himself and this one pulls towards himself and it will break.

If he found clothing he must shake it out once every thirty days, and spread it out for [the clothing’s] own good, but not for his own honor. Clothing must be shaken out once every thirty days. He may spread it out in his house but he should not do so to improve the way his home looks (for his honor) but only to air out the garment.

Spread it out for its sake. To allow it to air out so moths won't destroy it.

[If he found] silver or copper vessels he must use them for their own good but not so as to wear them out. [If he found] vessels of gold or glass he may not touch them until Elijah comes. Silver and copper vessels should be used occasionally to prevent rust. They may not however be used in a way that would wear them out. Glass and gold vessels, which are the most expensive and fragile, may not be used at all.

For their sake. This is because they get moldy in the ground. You need to put them in the ground since this is how they are guarded. Therefore they should be used occasionally.

If he found a sack or a large basket or anything that is not generally carried about, he may not carry it. Finally, containers that are not generally carried need not be carried in order to air them out. The implication is that things that are generally carried about should be aired out.

But don't wear them out. Don't use them for a long time until they wear out.

Questions for Further Thought:
• How does the subject of mishnah eight differ from the subject at the end of mishnah seven?

Don't touch them. Gold doesn't get moldy in the ground. Similarly glass. Further it [glass] is easy to break.

Which is undignified to pick up. Something that is degrading to him. The Torah said "And you hid yourself from them", [implication is] that sometimes you can hide, for example an elder and it's beneath his dignity.

What is considered a lost item. That it is apparent that the owner isn't aware that the item is there.

What counts as lost property? If he found an ass or a cow grazing on the path, this does not count as lost property. But if he found an ass with its trappings turned over, or a cow running in the vineyards, this is lost property. An animal that is merely grazing without its owners nearby is not considered a lost animal. However, if its trappings, meaning the load that it was carrying or the saddle on its back, were overturned or somehow misplaced, chances are that it is a lost object. So too, if the cow was running in an inappropriate place, such as the vineyard, it is in all likelihood a lost cow.

This is not a lost item. You are not obligated to return it, since it was intentionally placed there.

If he returned it and it escaped again, and he returned it and it escaped again, even four or five times, he is obligated to return it [yet again], since it is stated (Deut. 22:1): “You shall surely return it to your brother”. A person is obligated to return his fellow’s lost object no matter how many times it runs away. This is learned from the verse in Deuteronomy. In the Hebrew verse there is a repetition of the word which means to return. Grammatically this is normal Biblical Hebrew. However, the Rabbis assumed that such repetitions contained additional legal information. In this case they learn that no matter how many times the animal may have been lost and found, one is still obligated to return it.

Running between the vineyards. It's legs are being destructive.

If [the finder] lost time at work that was worth a sela (an amount of, he may not say to the owner, “Give me a sela”. Rather the owner need only pay him the wages of an unemployed laborer. If there was a court of law in the that place the finder may stipulate before them [for damages for time lost]. If there was no court of law, before whom can he stipulate? His comes first. A person who has already found and returned another person’s lost object cannot claim all of the wages which he lost while busying himself with the lost object. Since the owner of the animal may not have wanted someone to return his animal if he would have to pay such a large sum of money, he is not obligated to pay. All that the finder can claim is the minimal wage that an unemployed laborer would accept to have some work to do for the day. However, if before he begins to deal with the lost animal the finder makes a stipulation in front of a court that if he should lose time at work while returning the animal that he would recover the loss, then the owner must pay him. (Ostensibly if the loss of work was greater than the worth of the animal the court would not have agreed to such a condition.) If there is no court in front of which to make such a stipulation, his own work takes precedent over the loss of others.

You shall surely return them. The torah included [in this statement] many returnings.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah nine, section one: Why might one consider an animal grazing on a path to be a lost animal? In other words, why might this law not be obvious?
• Mishnah nine, section four: Why does his own work take precedence over the lost objects of others? Is this law just encouraging selfishness?

Don't say to him [the owner] give me a sela. Since this one [the owner] says to him [the finder] "If you had done your normal work, you would have been very burdened, now [that you instead took care of this item] take according to what you actually were burdened."

Like an idle laborer. How much a person would be willing to reduce his wage to avoid this difficult work that he is doing and do this light work [taking care of the item].

If there is a court there. If he doesn't want to be idle from his work. Since his wages are high, what can he do? If there are three men there, he stipulates in front of them and says "See that I am paid such and such. It is not possible [for me] to be idle and take a small wage, if you will tell me that I will take and be paid my [normal] wages. I will then take care of this lost item."

His own takes precedence. And he leaves the lost item.

He found it in a stable. Even though it [the animal] isn't secured in it, for example [the stable] isn't locked.

Introduction Mishnah ten deals with three subjects. 1) Further defining what is a lost object. 2) Potential conflicts between the commandment of returning lost objects and other commandments. 3) The commandment mentioned in Exodus 23:5 to help a person whose ass has fallen under its burden. The verse states: “When you see the ass of your enemy lying under its load and you would refrain from raising it, you must surely raise it with him.” A similar commandment appears in Deuteronomy 22:4. Mishnah eleven deals with conflicts between helping return his father’s lost object, his teacher’s lost object and his own lost object.

If it was in a cemetary. And he [the finder] is a Kohen. He shouldn't become impure [to retrieve it]. This is because returning a lost object is a positive commandment, "You shall surely return it to your brother". [However,] with impurity for a Kohen, it is the positive commandment of (Leviticus 21:6) "They shall be holy", and the negative commandment of (Leviticus 21:1) "They shall not become impure for a soul of their nation". And a positive commandment does not push aside a positive commandment plus a negative commandment.

If he found an [animal] in a stable, he is not responsible for it [even though the stable door was loose and unguarded. But if he found it in the public domain he is responsible for it. If he finds the animal in an improperly closed and unguarded stable he is not obligated to treat the animal as lost. Only if it was roaming in the public domain is he obligated to help return it to its owner.

Or he says to him don't return it. And the lost item is in a place that it is a mitzvah to [retrieve and] return. He [the finder] should not listen to him [his father]. As it is written (Leviticus 19:3) "A man should fear their mother and father, and my Sabbaths he should guard", [this teaches us] that if your father tells you go and break the Shabbat, don't listen to him. Similarly with all other commandments.

If it was in a cemetery he need not contract uncleanness because of it. If his father said to him, “Contract uncleanness”, or if he said to him, “Do not return it”, he may not listen to him. This section deals with conflicting commandments. If a Kohen (priest) sees a lost object in the cemetery into which he is forbidden to enter since he would thereby contract ritual uncleanness, he is not obligated to take care of the object. If his father tells him to break a commandment, either the commandment that a Kohen may not enter a cemetery or the commandment that one must return lost objects, he should not listen to his father. Even though there is a commandment to respect one’s parents, respect does not include transgressing another commandment. [Note, this is an extremely important principle with many implications in our lives.]

He went and sat down. The owner of the donkey.

If he unloaded [the ass fallen under its load] and reloaded it and again unloaded it and reloaded it, even four or five times he is still obligated, for it is written, “You must surely raise it with him”. If the owner went and sat down and said, “Since the commandment is upon you, if you wish to unload, unload”, he is not obligated, for it is written “with him”. But if the owner was aged or sick, he is obligated. The Torah states that a person must help raise another person’s fallen ass. Even if he has to do so several times, he is still obligated. This is learned from the Torah’s repetition of the Hebrew word “raise”. From the fact that it was used twice the Rabbis conclude that the commandment applies even if it must repeatedly be performed. (For a similar teaching see mishnah nine). The owner of the animal must help the other person raise the animal and cannot sit idly and watch. This is learned from the word “with him” at the end of the verse. Only a sick or old person who could not help is exempt from doing so.

It's a commandment from the Torah to unload. for free.

It is a commandment from the Torah to unload but not to reload. Rabbi Shimon says, “To reload as well.” Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, “If the beast was carrying more than its proper load he is not obligated [to help unload it], for it is written, “under its load”, [which is to say] a load which it is able to endure. The Rabbis disagreed with regards to the extent of the help that needs to be given to the person who’s ass has fallen. Some said that he must only raise the animal and some said that he must help reload as well. Rabbi Yose the Galilean adds that he need not help an owner who put too large of a load on the animal. The owner should have been more careful and does not deserve to be helped for his own negligent act.

But don't load. for free; rather for pay.

Questions for Further Thought:
Mishnah ten, section two: Why shouldn’t a Kohen enter a cemetery and become unclean in order to take care of the lost object? Does this mishnah mean that ritual cleanliness is more important than returning lost objects or is there another explanation?Mishnah ten, section four: What would be the result if the person was obligated to help unload an ass even if too great a load had been placed upon it?

Rabbi Shimon says even load. for free. The halacha is not like Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yossi HaGlili says etc. The halacha is not like Rabbi Yossi.

His lost item comes first. Since the verse says (Deuteronomy 15:4) "There will be no destitute amongst you", [this indicates] you should be cautious that you don't become destitute.

If a man found his own lost property and his father’s, his own takes priority. If his own and that of his teacher, his own takes priority.
If he found his father’s and his teacher’s, his teacher’s takes priority for his father brought him into this world, but his teacher who taught him wisdom brings him into the world to come. If his father was a Sage, his father’s takes priority.
If his father and teacher each were carrying a load, he must first relieve his teacher and afterward relieve his father.
If his father and teacher were each taken captive, he must first ransom his teacher and afterward his father. But if his father was a Sage, he must first ransom his father and afterward his teacher.
In the beginning of this mishnah we learn that one’s own financial loss takes priority even over that of a father or a teacher (of Torah). The Torah expects people to help others but it also understands that people have a natural desire to help themselves.
The remainder of the mishnah deals with conflicts between helping his father and helping his teacher. In all of them we learn that his teacher (one who teaches him Torah) takes priority. Through this mishnah we can see how much the Rabbis valued learning and Torah study. His father brings him into this world and for that the Torah commands that he respect and fear his father. However, the teacher brings him into the world to come, and this is a greater responsibility even then being a father. Therefore the teacher receives even more respect than the father. However, if his father is a Sage, meaning learned in Torah, he deserves greater respect from his son than does another teacher/Sage, and he therefore takes priority.

His Rabbi's comes first. This is referring to his main Rabbi, who he learnt most of his wisdom from. So too all the times in the Mishnah it mentions "His Rabbi" coming before his father, this is only referring to his main Rabbi.