Because when it fell, he does not despair (abandon it) - And even though, he abandons it now, it is a general coincidence; and he was not prepared to abandon them as first.

Come and hear, one who finds coins, etc. - It is a wonder: Since it already brought a difficulty from our mishnah about scattered coins, why does it also challenge from this baraita? And also why did Rabbi Yitzhak not say his piece about our mishnah? And it can be said that it was stronger for it to raise a difficulty on the baraita, since it implies that it is the [finder's] in all cases - even in the case where there is an identifying mark, since it establishes the reason to be because the multitudes are found there. And it is also implied [that this is the case] even though the owner of the lost object was still in the study hall when [the finder] picked it up, and he didn't know that it had fallen from him.

And exempt from tithes - In Tractate Peah 4:1, it is shown that it is only when he renders it ownerless before the end of the work [on the produce] that it is exempt from tithes. But if he renders it ownerless after the end of the work, when he was already obligated in tithes, there is nothing in this. And here too is it is speaking about after the end of the work, such that they have not yet dried - as it is shown in Beitzah 34b, the chapter [entitled] Hamevie - that the end of the work of figs that are ready to be spread out in the field and to be made into dried figs, is not until they are dried. And even if the finder claimed them before they dried, they are [still] exempt from tithes, as we say in Bava Kamma 28a, "One who renders his vineyard ownerless and arose early in the morning and harvested it [...] is exempt from tithes." But it is not like this concerning consecrated property (hekdesh). As if he consecrated [it] before the end of the work and it was redeemed before the end of the work, it is [still] obligated in tithes, as it is somewhat shown in the chapter [entitled] HaOmer (Kiddushin 62b).

The fig tree, too, one knows that [the figs] fell - The explantion: Granted, [in the case of] the fig trees, [taking the figs is] permissible - since it is common that they fall, [the owner] abandons them from the beginning. For he thinks that the finder will take them, for [the latter] did not know that it fell from a tree, but rather thinks that it fell from passers-by. But with olives and carobs, it is forbidden, for they are not prone to falling. Even though if [the owner knew that it fell], he would abandon [it] - as passers-by would take [it], since they would assume that it fell from [other] passers-by. [But] now that they did not know, they would think [the olives or carobs] did not fall - [so] it would be forbidden, as it would be abandonment without awareness. But according to Rava, why would it be forbidden? And if you will say, "If it is the law to assume [the fruit came from] passers-by, and not from the tree adjacent to it, why is it forbidden with olives and carobs" - one can say that according to the law, we certainly do not assume [it was] from passers-by, but from the tree; however, the owners will abandon [the fruit nevertheless], as they think that passers-by who are not upstanding will decide upon a dispensation for the fruit that they find, and assume they were from passers-by. And if you will say, "If so, what is the challenge it presents to Rava; let us say that olives and carobs are forbidden because even after the owners know that they fell, they do not abandon [them], since they know that the finder will not take them; as he will assume that they fell from the tree, as is the truth, since one should not assume [they were] from passers-by - one can say, if they do not abandon [them in the case of] the fig tree, why would [the figs] be permitted? However there are books [of the Talmud] that have the variant, "an olive is different, since its olive tree (zaito) proves about it." For with this, that which we raised as a difficulty is answered. That is to say that since they are below the olive tree, the owners will think that the finder will not take them, to assume [them] from passers-by. But "a fig becomes disgusting with its fall" - the explanation is, it gets dirty and is disgusting to him, so he renders it ownerless. But in most books, we have the variant, "since its appearance (chazuto) proves about it; and even though the olives fall, [the finder] knows that the place of a person is that person's" - the explanation is, olives that fell are similar to olives [still] standing on the tree; and therefore even when the owners know they fell, they will not abandon [them], as they know that the ones that find them will not take them. But "a fig dissolves (nimiset) with its fall" - this is the variant in Arukh - nimiset without an aleph - so they are not similar to those on the tree. And also we can follow the variant [that has] nimaeset (becomes disgusting) - and because it becomes dirty, it is not similar to a fig on the tree.