Nedarim 34

תנן מקום שנוטלין עליה שכר תפול הנאה להקדש בשלמא למאן דאמר אפילו בשנכסי בעל אבידה אסורים על מחזיר נמי מהדר היינו דקתני מקום שנוטלין עליה שכר תפול הנאה להקדש

We learned in the mishna: In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, the benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that even in a case where the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one returning the lost item, he returns it to him. This explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, the benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property.

אלא למאן דאמר כשנכסי בעל אבידה אסורים על מחזיר לא מהדר אמאי תפול הנאה להקדש

However, according to the one who says that in a case where the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one returning the lost item, he may not return it to him, and the mishna is referring exclusively to a case where the property of the one returning the lost object is forbidden to the owner of the lost object, why should the benefit fall into the category of consecrated Temple property? It is not prohibited for him to benefit from the property of the owner.

אחדא קתני

The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna teaches about only one of the cases: The property of the one returning the lost object is forbidden to the owner, and the one returning the lost object refuses to accept compensation. In that case, the owner of the lost item benefits from the one returning the lost object by allowing him to keep the compensation. Therefore, the benefit is donated to the Temple treasury.

איכא דמתני לה בהאי לישנא פליגי בה רבי אמי ורבי אסי חד אמר לא שנו אלא בשנכסי בעל אבידה אסורין על מחזיר ומשום פרוטה דרב יוסף לא שכיח אבל נכסי מחזיר אסורים על בעל אבדה לא מהדר ליה משום דקא מהני ליה

There are those who teach the dispute in this formulation: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagree about this. One said: They taught this only in a case where the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one returning the lost item, and the concern due to the peruta of Rav Yosef is not a concern, because it is not common. However, in a case where the property of the one returning the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item, he may not return it to him, due to the fact that in doing so he benefits him.

וחד אמר אפילו נכסי מחזיר אסורים על בעל אבידה מותר דכי מהדר ליה מידי דנפשיה קמהדר ליה

And one said: Even if the property of the one returning the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item, it is permitted to return it to him, as when he returns it, he is returning to him something of his own and is not giving him anything new.

תנן מקום שנוטלין עליה שכר תפול הנאה להקדש בשלמא למאן דאמר אפילו בשנכסי מחזיר אסורים על בעל אבידה מהדר היינו דמתרץ מקום

We learned in the mishna: In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, the benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that even if the property of the one returning the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item he returns it to him, this is the reason that it is necessary to resolve the halakha in a place where one takes payment.

אלא למאן דאמר בשנכסי מחזיר אסורין ולא מהדר היכי מתרץ מקום קשיא

However, according to the one who said that in a case where the property of the one returning the lost item is forbidden to the owner of the lost item he may not return it to him, how does he explain the halakha taught with regard to a place where one takes payment? Since the mishna is referring to a case where the property of the owner of the lost item is forbidden to the one returning the lost item, why is it prohibited for the owner of the lost item to keep the payment? It is not prohibited for him to benefit from the property of the one returning the lost item. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult.

אמר רבא היתה לפניו ככר של הפקר ואמר ככר זו הקדש נטלה לאוכלה מעל לפי כולה להורישה לבניו מעל לפי טובת הנאה שבה

Rava said: In a case where there was a loaf of ownerless bread before a person, and he said: This loaf is consecrated, if he took the loaf to eat it, he misused consecrated property. His repayment to the Temple for that misuse is based on the loaf’s entire value. However, if his intent was not to take the loaf for himself but to bequeath it to his sons, he misused the consecrated property, and his repayment to the Temple is based on the discretionary benefit that he derived from the fact that his children are indebted to him for the bequest, as he himself derived no direct benefit from the loaf.

בעא מיניה רב חייא בר אבין מרבא ככרי עליך ונתנה לו במתנה מהו ככרי אמר לו כי איתיה ברשותיה הוא דאסור או דלמא עליך אמר ליה עילויה שויתיה הקדש

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin raised a dilemma before Rava. If one said to another: My loaf is konam for you, and then he gave it to him as a gift, what is the halakha? Should one infer: My loaf is forbidden, i.e., he said to him that when the loaf is in his possession, that is when it is forbidden, but when he gives him a gift, it is no longer in his possession and it is no longer forbidden? Or, perhaps the inference is: Forbidden to you, i.e., he said to him that he rendered the loaf for him like a consecrated item that is forbidden even after the loaf is no longer in his possession.

אמר ליה פשיטא דאף על גב דיהבה ליה במתנה אסור אלא ככרי עליך לאפוקי מאי לאו לאפוקי דאי גנבה מיניה מיגנב אמר ליה לא לאפוקי דאי אזמניה עלה

Rava said to him: It is obvious that although he gave it to the other person as a gift, it is forbidden. Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin asked him: But if that is so, when he said: My loaf is forbidden to you, with emphasis on the word my, what does it come to exclude? Does it not come to exclude a case where he stole it from him, as in that case it is permitted? The same would be true if he gave it to him as a gift. Rava said to him: No, it comes to exclude a case where he invited him to eat from the loaf before he vowed. In that case, that part of the loaf that he invited him to eat is his, and the owner cannot render it forbidden. However, even if he invited the other person before he vowed, the entire loaf remains forbidden if he gave it to him as a gift.