Nedarim 34a — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna: Where payment is taken for it, the benefit shall fall to the Temple treasury.

Granted, according to the one who says

specifically

when the property of the one who returns the lost item

is forbidden to the owner of the lost item,

he returns his lost item to him,

but

if his property

of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one who returns it—

he does not return it,

he does not return his lost item to him,

this is what it teaches: Where payment is taken for it—

the benefit shall fall to the Temple treasury.

But according to the one who says

that

even

when

the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one who returns it, he nevertheless returns it, why shall the benefit fall to the Temple treasury?

The owner of the lost item should give the one who returns it his payment! For although the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one who returns it, even so, it is permitted for him to take his payment from him.

For the Gemara said above concerning zevina derami al apeih [an item from which the seller wishes to rid himself], that its sale is considered the benefit of the seller, and not the benefit of the buyer. And the practical difference is when the buyer is forbidden by vow to derive benefit from the seller: it is permitted for him to take from him an item from which the seller wishes to rid himself. And the reason is that such a transaction is available to the buyer in many places; therefore, even though it comes into his possession from the one who imposed the vow, this is not considered benefit.

If so, the same is true here: in a place where payment is given for it, namely, when he is idle from the rock [Ran], even though the owner of the lost item gives him payment, this is not considered that he benefits from him, for that payment was already available to him! And since this is so, why shall the benefit fall to the Temple treasury? The owner of the lost item can pay the one who returns it! And we answer: In truth, the first clause of our Mishna, in which we learned that he returns his lost item, speaks both when the property of the one who returns it is forbidden to the owner of the lost item, and when the reverse is the case. But the latter clause, in which we learned that the benefit shall fall to the Temple treasury—

it teaches one case.

That is, only when the property of the one who returns the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item.

There are those who teach it in this wording

there are those who taught the sugya in this wording]:

They disagree about it

concerning the words of our Mishna

Rav Ami and Rav Asi.

One said: They taught this

that it is permitted to return a lost item,

only when the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one who returns it,

for then it is permitted for the one forbidden by vow to return [the item] to the one who imposed the vow.

And

there is no reason to prohibit it

on account of Rav Yosef’s peruta,

because the one forbidden by vow benefits by not needing to give a peruta to a poor person, because this matter

is uncommon.

But

if

the property of the one who returns the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item—

he does not return it to him

the one who imposed the vow to the one forbidden by vow,

because he benefits him

by returning his lost item to him. [ and this benefit is preferable to paying his debt, because here he brings the benefit to him directly. And furthermore, if he does not return it to him, it is possible that the lost item will be entirely lost to him] .

And one said: Even

if

the property of the one who returns the lost item is forbidden to

the owner of the lost item—

it is permitted

to return it to him, since

when he returns it to him—

he is returning to him something belonging to himself,

and he is not giving him anything of his own.

We learned in the Mishna: Where payment is taken for it, the benefit shall fall to the Temple treasury.

Granted, according to the one who says that even when the property of the one who returns the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item—

he returns it; this is how he explains

that which we learned

“where”

where payment is taken, the benefit shall fall to the Temple treasury: this speaks of a case in which the property of the one who returns the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item.

For then, if the one who returns the lost item does not wish to take his payment, the benefit shall fall to the Temple treasury. For if not, the one forbidden by vow would benefit from the one who imposed the vow by not needing to pay him.

But according to the one who says that when the property of the one who returns the lost item is forbidden, he does not return it,

and he holds that our Mishna speaks only when the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one who returns it,

how does he explain

that which we learned

“where”?

For in such a case, the one who returns it can take the payment for himself, even though he is forbidden by vow to derive benefit, as was explained above!

And we conclude: Indeed, according to his view,

it is difficult.