## Nedarim Daf 34a

###### Nedarim 34a:1
[Nedarim 34a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/34a:1)

תְּנַן: מָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין עָלֶיהָ שָׂכָר — תִּפּוֹל הֲנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֲפִילּוּ בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי בַּעַל אֲבֵידָה אֲסוּרִים עַל מַחְזִיר נָמֵי מַהְדַּר — הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי מָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין עָלֶיהָ שָׂכָר תִּפּוֹל הֲנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 34a:2
[Nedarim 34a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/34a:2)

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי בַּעַל אֲבֵידָה אֲסוּרִים עַל מַחְזִיר לָא מַהְדַּר, אַמַּאי תִּפּוֹל הֲנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 34a:3
[Nedarim 34a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/34a:3)

אַחֲדָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 34a:4
[Nedarim 34a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/34a:4)

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּהַאי לִישָּׁנָא: פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי. חַד אָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי בַּעַל אֲבֵידָה אֲסוּרִין עַל מַחְזִיר, וּמִשּׁוּם פְּרוּטָה דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לָא שְׁכִיחַ. אֲבָל נִכְסֵי מַחְזִיר אֲסוּרִים עַל בַּעַל אֲבֵדָה — לָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מְהַנֵּי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Nedarim 34a:5
[Nedarim 34a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/34a:5)

וְחַד אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִכְסֵי מַחְזִיר אֲסוּרִים עַל בַּעַל אֲבֵידָה — מוּתָּר. דְּכִי מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ — מִידֵּי דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 34a:6
[Nedarim 34a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/34a:6)

תְּנַן: מָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין עָלֶיהָ שָׂכָר — תִּפּוֹל הֲנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֲפִילּוּ בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי מַחְזִיר אֲסוּרִים עַל בַּעַל אֲבֵידָה מַהְדַּר — הַיְינוּ דִּמְתָרֵץ מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 34a:7
[Nedarim 34a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/34a:7)

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּשֶׁנִּכְסֵי מַחְזִיר אֲסוּרִין, וְלָא מַהְדַּר, הֵיכִי מְתָרֵץ מָקוֹם? קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**