Commentary for Bava Metzia 47:17

כדאמר רב פפא באשפה שאינה עשויה לפנות ונמלך עליה לפנותה הכא נמי באשפה שאינה עשויה לפנות ונמלך עליה לפנותה

but we deal here with Synagogues<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'houses of assembly', or 'meeting places,' not Jewish houses of prayer. It is in this sense that the term is used here. ');">¹⁶</span> of heathens. But how can this be applied to 'houses of study'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the term 'Synagogues' could be interpreted as meaning secular meeting places used by Gentiles, how could the term [H] applied only to Colleges where Jewish law is studied and expounded, mean anything but Jewish Colleges frequented by Jews? ');">¹⁷</span> — [The reference is to] our houses of study in which heathens stay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jewish Colleges situated outside the Jewish quarters and guarded by Gentile watchmen placed there for the purpose. ');">¹⁸</span> Now that you have arrived at this conclusion [the reference to] 'Synagogues' [can] also [be explained as meaning] our Synagogues in which heathens stay. Come and hear: If one finds therein<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a city inhabited by Jews and heathens. ');">¹⁹</span> a lost object, then if the majority are Israelites it has to be announced, but if the majority are heathens it has not to be announced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mak. II, 8. ');">²⁰</span> Now who is the authority that lays it down that we go according to the majority if not R. Simeon b. Eleazar? You must therefore conclude that R. Simeon b. Eleazar says this only where the majority are heathens, but not where the majority are Israelites! — [No.] This is the view of the Rabbis. But then you could conclude therefrom that the Rabbis accept R. Simeon b. Eleazar's view in the case where the majority are heathens! — Admittedly, therefore, this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This cited Mishnah. ');">²¹</span> represents the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, and his ruling applies also to a case where the majority are Israelites, but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This cited Mishnah. ');">²¹</span> we deal [with a case where the money was] concealed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it was not lost at all, and if the majority were Israelites the finder would have to announce it. ');">²²</span> But if it was concealed, what has [the finder] to do with it? Have we not learnt: 'if one finds a vessel in a dungheap, if covered up he may not touch it; but if uncovered he must take it and announce it'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the article may have been thrown on the dungheap accidentally (Mishnah, infra 25b). ');">²³</span> — As R. papa explained:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">²⁴</span> [The reference is] to a dungheap which is not regularly cleared away, and which [the owner] unexpectedly decided to clear away — so here also [the reference is] to a dungheap which is not regularly cleared away, and which [the owner] unexpectedly decided to clear away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the finder must take the article away and announce it. (Cf. infra 25b.) Had the owner of the dungheap been in the habit of clearing it away regularly the person who placed the article there could not have claimed it, as the 'loss' would have been a deliberate one. ');">²⁵</span>

Rashi on Bava Metzia