it must be liable for it if he destroys it, like lost gold. The saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "It is for you," does not prevent the obligation of its liability, for he has permitted the eating and spending of lost gold and silver after announcing it, and said: "It is like the rest of your wealth" (17). Then we reached a consensus on the obligation of its liability; the same applies to the sheep. There is no difference in the permissibility of eating it between finding it in the wilderness or in the city. Malik, Abu 'Ubayd, the companions of al-Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir said: He may not eat it in the city, because it is possible to sell it, unlike the wilderness. Our evidence is that what is permissible to eat in the wilderness is permissible in the city, like other edible things, and because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "It is for you," without differentiating. Furthermore, eating it is justified by what we mentioned regarding the elimination of the need to spend on it, and this (18) is more pronounced in the city than in the wilderness.

Second, that he keeps it for its owner and spends on it from his own wealth, without taking ownership of it. If he wishes to spend on it, intending the expenditure to be on behalf of its owner, and he has witnesses for that, then does he have the right to be reimbursed for the expenditure? There are two narrations. One of them is that he is reimbursed for it. This was explicitly stated by him in the narration of al-Marwadhi regarding a bird that hatched eggs among some people; he ruled that the chicks belong to the owner of the bird, and he is reimbursed for the fodder if he was not doing it voluntarily. 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz ruled in the case of someone who found a lost animal and spent on it, and its owner came, that the owner is liable to him for what he spent. This is because he spent on the lost property to preserve it, so it was like the owner's wealth, like the expenses for dates and grapes. The second narration is that he is not reimbursed for anything. This is the opinion of al-Sha'bi and al-Shafi'i. Al-Sha'bi did not favor the ruling of 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz because he spent on another's wealth without his permission, so he is not reimbursed for it (19), just as if he had built his house. It differs from grapes and dates, as drying them and spending on them in that case might be more beneficial for the owner because the expenditure does not recur, whereas for an animal, the expenditure recurs, and it might consume its value, so selling it or eating it was more beneficial; for that reason, the one who spent on it did not seek reimbursement for what he spent. Third, that he sells it and preserves its price for its owner, and he has