פירוש על נדרים 4:2

שוקל לו שקלו – the half-shekel that everyone from Israel is obligated for in each yer for the needs of the community sacrifices. But the person making he vow is able to pay his portion [for the one-half shekel] for him, for he is performing a mere Mitzvah.

Introduction This mishnah and the remainder of the chapter teach what a person can do with/for his friend, even though he is under oath not to give any benefit to him.

ופורע לו חובו – here are those who establish it especially regarding a debt that the borrower made a condition/stipulation with the lender that he should not pay back the debt other than when he wanted and the creditor is not able to pressure him, but now he doesn’t benefit him at all when he pays back his debt. But there are those who establish it for every debt that is in the world, which is not other than preventing the creditor that he should not make a claim against him, for the preventing of a claim is not within the category of benefit.

If one is under a vow not to benefit from his neighbor, [his neighbor] may pay his shekel, pay off his debts, and return a lost article to him. Where payment is taken for this, the benefit should become sacred property. When the Temple still stood every Jew had to send a half shekel every year for the upkeep of the Temple. Even if Reuven cannot receive benefit from Shimon, Shimon may pay his half shekel. Similarly, Shimon may pay off Reuven’s debts. Both of these are permitted because Shimon is not giving money directly to Reuven. Shimon may also return a lost object to Reuven because he is only returning to Reuven what is already his. Furthermore, all Shimon is doing is fulfilling the mitzvah of returning lost objects. If people customarily offer financial rewards to someone who returns a lost object, Shimon may not turn down Reuven’s offer of a reward, because by doing so he would be giving financial benefit to Reuven. If Shimon does not want to just take the money, he may donate it to the Temple by making it sacred property. Other commentators explain that this last clause refers to a case where neither party may benefit from the other. They are still allowed to return each other’s lost property, for that is a mitzvah. However, if a reward is given it must go to charity. The one who returned the lost object cannot take the reward nor can the one who received it not give the reward, for in either case, someone would have received financial benefit.

ומחזיר לו אבדתו – whether the property of the one returning [the object] are forbidden on the person who lost [the object] or whether the property of the person who lost [the object] are forbidden on the person who returns [the object], because he is performing a Mitzvah [of restoring/returning a lost object].

ובמקום שנוטלין עליה שכר תפול הנאה להקדש – when both of them take a vow of deriving any benefit from each other, if he akes the reward, it is found that he benefits, and if he doesn’t take the reward, it is found that he provides benefit [to the other], therefore, that benefit should fall to the Temple property. But we don’t say that he should bring the benefit to the Dead Sea (literally, Salt Sea), because his benefit is forbidden upon him like something given to the Temple property, therefore, all benefit that comes to his hand from him is Temple property/dedicated to a sacred purpose.