Nedarim 67

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 תיפול הנאה להקדש

We learnt: WHERE PAYMENT IS TAKEN FOR THIS, THE BENEFIT MUST ACCRUE TO HEKDESH. Now, that is well on the view that even if the finder must not benefit from the loser's property, he may also return it: hence it is taught: WHERE PAYMENT IS MADE FOR THIS, THE BENEFIT MUST ACCRUE TO HEKDESH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the finder cannot benefit from the loser, he cannot receive his fee from him; on the other hand, the loser is liable for it; therefore it goes to hekdesh; v. p. 104, n 2, for the reverse case. ');">¹</span>

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

But on the view that if the finder may not benefit from the loser he must not return it, why should the benefit accrue to hekdesh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he may not return it, there is no fee. ');">²</span>

אחדא קתני

— This law refers to one case only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the loser may not benefit from the finder. This is the interpretation of the passage according to our text. But the text of Ran is reversed, and (with its explanation) is as follows: This is well on the view that only if the loser may not benefit from the finder it may be returned, but not in the reverse case. Hence, the fee must go to the Temple treasury. if it is beneath the finder's dignity to accept it, for were the loser to retain it, he would be benefiting from the finder. But on the view that even if the finder must not benefit from the loser it may be returned, why must the fee go to the Temple treasury? If the finder declines it, the loser may retain it, since here is no prohibition upon him. If on the other hand the finder wishes to accept it, why may he not do so: in accepting it he is not benefiting from the loser, but merely being paid for lost time? The Talmud replies that though the law permitting the return of the lost article applies to both cases, the statement that the fee must go to the sanctuary applies only to one, viz., where the loser may not benefit from the finder. ');">³</span>

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

Others report it in the following version: R. Ammi and R. Assi differ thereon: one said: This was taught only if the finder may not benefit from the loser's property. R. Joseph's <i>perutah</i> being rare; but if the loser may not benefit from the finder's property, he may not return it, because he [the finder] benefits him. While the other maintained: Even if the loser may not benefit from the finder's property, he may return it, for he is only returning his own.

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

We learnt: WHERE PAYMENT IS TAKEN FOR THIS, THE BENEFIT MUST ACCRUE TO HEKDESH. Now that is well on the view that even if the loser may not benefit from the finder, he may also return it: thus he justifies WHERE [etc.],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law referring to this case, as explained above, where it is beneath the finder's dignity to accept the fee. ');">⁴</span>

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

but on the view that if the loser may not benefit from the finder, he may not return it, how is WHERE [etc.] explained?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then it may be returned only if the loser may benefit from the finder; but in that case, why must the fee be given to hekdesh? If the finder does not accept it, the loser may retain it for himself. ');">⁵</span>

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

This is a difficulty.