Ketubot 108a — the Talmud in English

He weighs for him [

for him]

the

half of

his shekel,

which every Israelite contributes in order to purchase communal sacrifices from them.

And pays his debt,

and thereby exempts him from the creditor to whom he is indebted,

and returns his lost property —

for the reasons that will be explained in the Gemara below.

And

however,

in a place where they take payment

for returning a lost object, if he returns his lost object to him for free, the one who lost it gains the payment that he would have had to pay for the return of his lost object. And, on the other hand, the one returning it cannot take payment from his fellow, since he too is forbidden by vow to derive benefit from him.

Therefore,

the benefit should go to the Temple treasury!

That is, the one forbidden by vow pays the Temple treasury the fee for the labor that they customarily pay for returning a lost object, and thus neither of them benefits from the other.

And the Gemara discusses the words of that Mishna:

Granted,

it is understandable that he

weighs his shekel for him —

since there is no monetary profit for his fellow in this, but only

a mitzva

merely

he performs,

by weighing the half-shekel for him.

For even if he had not weighed it for him, he would have had a share in the communal sacrifices.

As we learned: “They contribute,”

they fill three collection boxes with the money of the “half-shekel,” and from the money that was “contributed” into the boxes from all the money, they bring communal sacrifices. And when they contributed the money, by filling the three boxes, they would have in mind that the contribution would be

for that which was lost,

for those who contributed and whose shekel was lost,

and for that which was collected,

for the shekels that agents of the court collected but are not here, since they did not manage to bring them,

and

even

for that which is destined to be collected,

even if it was not collected at all in the end.

And that is:

and returns his lost property —

he likewise performs a mitzva.

But he pays his debt for him,

how is this permitted? Is it not that

he thereby causes him to profit!

The one forbidden by vow has a monetary profit from the one who imposed the vow, since he paid his debt!

Rav Oshaya said: This

Mishna

is whose

is it? —

It is Hanan’s! For he says

in our Mishna that a person who supported the wife of his fellow with the intention of lending this money to her husband until he returned

has lost his money,

since he did not say to the husband, at the time that he supported his wife, that he was giving her the money as a loan, even though that was his intention!

And since if he had paid his debt for him as a loan, so that he would later have to repay him, the latter would not have had to pay him, because he had not informed him that he was paying his debt as a loan, he may now pay his debt for him as a gift, since in every case the borrower who is forbidden by vow does not have to pay the one who imposed the vow who pays his loan.

And Rava said: You may even say

that this Mishna is like

the Sages,

who obligate him to pay him even if he did not explicitly inform him that he was giving this as a loan.

Here, with what are we dealing? —

With one who borrowed on condition not to repay

the debt, so that the lender would not claim it from him and would not pressure him, and therefore he has no profit from the payment of the debt.

And the Gemara discusses the explanation of the dispute between Rava and Rav Oshaya:

Granted, Rava,

properly

did not say like Rav Oshaya, for he establishes it

since it is preferable to establish it

like the Sages,

and not according to Hanan’s view.

But Rav Oshaya: for what reason did he not say like Rava?

Rav Oshaya could say to you: Granted that he has no benefit

because he is not obligated to repay him except when he wishes, nevertheless, when the one who imposed the vow pays the debt for the one forbidden by vow, he benefits him.