while it is still before him, he is under no obligation to announce it in the hope that its owner will appear, nor to keep it until it spoils. Rather, he may choose to give it away in charity or, if he is poor and in need, to eat it himself. Should its owner later come forward and identify it, the finder must reimburse him if he has eaten it; but if he gave it away in charity, the owner may choose between accepting the reward or demanding compensation, just like any other lost property. If it perished while still in the finder’s possession, he bears no liability.
Some scholars have said that the finder is never liable for any food that spoils quickly—such as a sheep found in the wilderness—but the first view is sounder.
As for trivial, negligible items like a single date, a morsel of bread, or one raisin, these may be eaten outright, and there is no accountability for them.
If the finder were to sell perishable food and hold the proceeds in trust in case its owner later identifies it, that would be praiseworthy.
I do not approve of a wealthy person’s eating anything from lost property, yet if he does so after the year of public announcement, there is no sin. Mālik said: should the owner afterward claim it, he has the same choice previously mentioned.
Food that does not spoil quickly and can be stored—such as all kinds of grain and dried fruit—follows the general rules for lost property. If, after the year has passed, the finder keeps it for some time and then fears that it may deteriorate and lose its benefit, whereupon he eats it or gives it away in charity to prevent spoilage, and the owner later appears, its ruling is—as I have just explained—the same as that of food that perishes quickly.
Whoever finds a sheep in a lonely stretch of land where it is in danger from wild beasts is, according to Mālik, not required to make any announcement; he may give it away in charity or slaughter and eat it. If he does give it away in charity and its owner later appears, Mālik’s well-known position is that the finder owes no compensation. Some of Mālik’s students, however, held that he must compensate the owner if he ate it, and this is also the view of a number of scholars.