Contradiction with Leviticus 19:13
This verse instructs to not defraud or rob your neighbor, while Deuteronomy 22:2 suggests holding onto the neighbor's property until it can be returned.
Leviticus 19:13: Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob [him]: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
Contradiction with Matthew 7:12
This verse, known as the Golden Rule, emphasizes treating others as you would want to be treated, which can be seen as contradicting holding a neighbor's property even temporarily.
Matthew 7:12: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Contradiction with Exodus 23:4
This verse instructs to return an enemy's stray animal directly, whereas Deuteronomy 22:2 indicates taking the animal to your house and keeping it until the neighbor comes for it.
Exodus 23:4: If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.
Contradiction with Proverbs 3:28
This proverb advises not to say to your neighbor "come back tomorrow" when you have the means to help them immediately, which could be seen as contrasting with the idea of holding onto their property for an extended period.
Proverbs 3:28: Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and to morrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee.
Paradox #1
Deuteronomy 22:2 suggests returning lost property to its owner. The moral conflict could arise when considering situations where returning the property might cause harm or be unethical. For example, if the owner uses their property to harm others, returning it could support unethical actions, conflicting with a general moral duty to prevent harm.