Ketubot 108a (קח.) — the Talmud in English

He weighs out for him [

on his behalf]

the

half-

shekel,

which each Israelite contributes in order to purchase public offerings from it.

And he pays his debt

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

and returns his lost item—

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

But

when

one takes payment

for returning a lost item, if he returns the item 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 item. Conversely, 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 fall to the Temple treasury!

That is, the one prohibited by vow pays the Temple treasury the fee customarily paid for returning a lost item, and thus neither of them derives benefit from the other.

The Gemara discusses the statement of that Mishna:

Granted,

it is understandable that he

weighs out his shekel for him—

since his fellow gains no monetary benefit from this, but only

a mitzva

in general

does he perform,

by weighing out the half-shekel on his behalf.

For even if he had not weighed it out for him, he would still have a share in the public offerings.

As we learned: “They collect

three baskets with the money of the “half-shekel,” and from the money “collected” in the baskets from all the money, they bring public offerings. And when they collected the money by filling the three baskets, they intended that the collection should be

for that which was lost,

for those who had contributed and whose shekel was lost,

and for that which had been collected,

for the shekels collected by the agents of the court but not yet here, as they had not managed to bring them,

and

even

for that which would be collected in the future,

even if it was ultimately not collected at all.”

And that is the meaning of

“and he returns his lost item”—

he too is performing a mitzva.

But he pays his debt;

how is this permitted? After all,

he benefits him!

The one prohibited by vow gains a monetary benefit from the one who imposed the vow, since he paid his debt!

Rav Oshaya said: This

Mishna

is in accordance with whom?—

It is

Hanan’s view, who says

in our Mishna that when a person supports the wife of his fellow with the intention of lending this money to her husband until he returns it, he

has lost his money,

since he did not tell 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 as a loan, with the expectation that he would later repay him, the other would not have been required to pay him, because he had not informed him that he was paying his debt as a loan, he may now pay his debt as a gift, since in any event the debtor who is prohibited by vow is not required to pay the one who imposed the vow and paid his loan.

And Rava said: You may even say

that this Mishna is in accordance with

the Rabbis,

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

What are we dealing with here?—

With one who borrowed on the condition that he would not repay

the debt, so that the lender would neither demand it from him nor pressure him; therefore, he gains no benefit from the payment of the debt.

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

Granted, Rava

is properly understood as to why he

did not state his answer in accordance with Rav Oshaya: He establishes it

since it is preferable to establish the Mishna

in accordance with the Rabbis,

and not in accordance with Hanan’s opinion.

But Rav Oshaya: For what reason did he not state his answer in accordance with Rava?

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

because he is not obligated to repay it until he wishes to; nevertheless, when the one who imposed the vow pays the debt of the one prohibited by vow, he provides him with benefit.