## Ketubot Daf 108a

###### Ketubot 108a:1
[Ketubot 108a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108a:1)

שׁוֹקֵל לוֹ אֶת שִׁקְלוֹ, וּפוֹרֵעַ אֶת חוֹבוֹ, וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֲבֵידָתוֹ. וּבְמָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין שָׂכָר — תִּפּוֹל הֲנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the other **may contribute his shekel for him,** i.e., it is permitted for the second individual to donate the half-shekel from his own money to the Temple on behalf of the first one, who is prohibited by the vow from deriving benefit; **and he may repay his debt** for him, i.e., if the one prohibited by the vow owes money to a third party, the one from whom he may not derive benefit may pay off that debt on his behalf. **And he may return to him his lost object, and in a place where one takes a wage** for returning a lost article, **the benefit** paid for the return of the item **goes to** the Temple treasury of **consecrated** property.


###### Ketubot 108a:2
[Ketubot 108a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108a:2)

בִּשְׁלָמָא שׁוֹקֵל לוֹ אֶת שִׁקְלוֹ — מִצְוָה קָעָבֵיד. דִּתְנַן: תּוֹרְמִין עַל הָאָבוּד וְעַל הַגָּבוּי וְעַל הֶעָתִיד לִגָּבוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses this mishna: **Granted, he may contribute his shekel for him,** as **he** thereby **performs a mitzva.** The one prohibited by the vow from deriving benefit does not derive any direct benefit from this action, as even if he did not pay the half-shekel, all Jews have a share in the communal offerings brought in the Temple, **as we learned** in a *baraita*: **One** performs the **collection** of money from the chamber with the intention that the ceremony apply to money **that is lost, and** money **that has** already **been gathered** but has not yet been brought to the Temple, **and** money **that will be gathered in the future.** This shows that even if one did not give a half-shekel, the communal offerings are nevertheless sacrificed in his name.


###### Ketubot 108a:3
[Ketubot 108a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108a:3)

וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֲבֵידָתוֹ נָמֵי מִצְוָה קָעָבֵיד. אֶלָּא פּוֹרֵעַ לוֹ אֶת חוֹבוֹ, הָא קָמִשְׁתָּרְשִׁי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** concerning the *halakha* that **he may return to him his lost object, he also performs a mitzva** by means of this action. However, with regard to the statement that **he may repay his debt** for him, this is problematic because it **provides a gain for** the one prohibited by the vow from deriving benefit; if he did not repay the person’s debt, that person would have to pay it from his own pocket. Consequently, it should be considered as though the one prohibited from deriving benefit received money.


###### Ketubot 108a:4
[Ketubot 108a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108a:4)

אָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָא מַנִּי? חָנָן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אִיבֵּד אֶת מְעוֹתָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Oshaya said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Ḥanan, who said** in the mishna: He has **lost his money.** In other words, this is referring to a case in which he repays a debt that the other does not really have to repay at all, and therefore he is doing a favor to the creditor, not to the one who is prohibited from deriving benefit.


###### Ketubot 108a:5
[Ketubot 108a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108a:5)

וְרָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, שֶׁלָּוָה עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא לִפְרוֹעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said: You** can **even say** that this is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, and here we are dealing with** a situation where the borrower **borrowed** money **on the condition that he** need **not pay it back** until he chooses to do so. In that case, if the one from whom this borrower may not derive benefit repaid the debt for him, he performed a favor only to the lender, not to the borrower.


###### Ketubot 108a:6
[Ketubot 108a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/108a:6)

בִּשְׁלָמָא רָבָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: דְּמוֹקֵים לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן. אֶלָּא רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרָבָא? אָמַר לָךְ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: נְהִי דַּהֲנָאָה לֵית לֵיהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes these opinions: **Granted, Rava did not say** his statement in accordance with the explanation **of Rav Oshaya, as he establishes** the mishna in *Nedarim* not only in accordance with the view of Ḥanan, but also **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis. However, what is the reason** that **Rav Oshaya did not say** that the mishna is referring to a loan that did not have to be repaid, **in accordance with** the explanation of **Rava?** The Gemara answers that **Rav Oshaya** could have **said to you: Although** in this type of loan **there is no benefit to** the borrower, as he need not repay it within a certain period of time,