(Mishnah): In a place where people pay for returning Aveidos, this amount is given to Hekdesh.

Version #1 (our text, Tosfos) Question: We understand according to the second opinion, who permits even when each is Mudar from the other. (The loser cannot take the money, nor can he pardon the finder from the usual payment, so the money must go to Hekdesh.)

But according to the first opinion, only Shimon (who is not Mudar) can return it. He can take the payment. Why must it go to Hekdesh?

Answer: It refers to one case (Shimon refuses to take the payment. Since he may not benefit Reuven by pardoning the payment, it must go to Hekdesh.)

Version #2 (Ran) Question: We understand according to the first opinion, who permits only Shimon to return to Reuven. (If Shimon refuses to take the money, he may not benefit Reuven by pardoning the usual payment, so) Reuven must give the payment to Hekdesh.

But the latter opinion allows either to return to the other. Why must the payment (always) go to Hekdesh? (Ran's teachers - when Reuven returns, Shimon may keep the payment! Ran - Reuven may take the payment, i.e. compensation for wages he lost due to returning the Aveidah. This is not considered benefit.)

Answer: The Seifa requires giving the payment to Hekdesh only in one case, i.e. when Shimon returns.

Version #2 (R. Ami or R. Asi): Reuven (the Mudar) may return Shimon's Aveidah.

It is rare that one saves money through Rav Yosef's law, so we are not concerned for this;

Shimon may not return Reuven's object, for this benefits Reuven.

(The other of R. Ami and R. Asi): Even Shimon may return. (He does not give to him anything,) he merely returns Reuven's property to him.

(Mishnah): In a place where people receive money for returning a lost object, this amount is given to Hekdesh.

Question: According to the second opinion, we can answer like above (e).

But according to the first opinion, only Reuven may return. Shimon can keep the payment. Why must it go to Hekdesh?

This is left difficult.

(Rava): An ownerless loaf was in front of Reuven. Reuven made it Hekdesh, then took it.

If he took it to eat it, he transgresses Me'ilah (benefiting from Hekdesh) for the full value of the loaf;

If he took it so that his children would inherit it, he transgresses Me'ilah according to his benefit (i.e. how much he would pay in order that they should inherit it).

Question (Rav Chiya bar Avin): If Shimon said to Levi 'my loaf is forbidden to you', and then he gave it to him, what is the law?

Does 'my loaf' mean 'as long as it is in my possession'?

Or, since he said 'to you', it is like Hekdesh to Levi and always forbidden.

Answer (Rava): Clearly, it is forbidden to Levi.

If it were permitted, why did he say 'my loaf is forbidden to you'? Will you say that he forbade it only if Levi will steal it?!

Rejection (R. Chiya bar Avin): Really, you can say that it is permitted. He said this to forbid it if Shimon will invite Levi to eat from it.