The Gemara asks: But didn’t he vow that he is prohibited from partaking of food, and those items are not food items? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The mishna is referring to a case where he says: Benefit from your food is forbidden to me, which includes any benefit associated with food.

The Gemara asks: Say that the result of a vow formulated in that manner is that he may not chew wheat kernels belonging to the one from whose food benefit is forbidden and place them on his wound, as that is a benefit that results from food. However, that vow does not render items used in the preparation of food forbidden. Rava said that the mishna is referring to a case where he says: Benefit that leads to preparation of your food is forbidden to me.

Rav Pappa said: Borrowing from him a sack in which to bring produce, or a donkey upon which to bring produce, or even merely a basket, each renders benefit that leads to food, and this benefit is forbidden. Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: If he seeks to borrow a horse upon which to ride or a ring with which to be seen when attending a feast, to create the impression that he is wealthy, what is the ruling? Is it prohibited to borrow these items, since having them in one’s possession may indirectly result in his being served before others or being served higher-quality food; and therefore, borrowing those items provides benefit that leads to food? With regard to traversing and walking on his land that facilitates one’s quick return home, enabling him to eat sooner, what is the halakha?

The Gemara proposes: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: However, he may lend him a garment, and a cloak, and nose rings, and finger rings. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of that situation? If we say it is a case where it is not the borrower’s intent to be seen with them, and therefore there is no benefit that leads to food, does this need to be said? The vow rendered only food forbidden. Rather, isn’t this halakha stated even in a case where he borrowed those items to be seen with them, and it is taught in the mishna that he may lend it to him?

The Gemara refutes this. No, actually the mishna is referring to a case where he borrowed those items with the intention not to be seen with them. In response to the question: Is it necessary to say so, the Gemara answers that it is not necessary to teach this halakha. However, since it is taught in the first clause: He may not lend him, when listing the matters that may not be loaned, the tanna taught the latter clause of the mishna with a parallel formulation: He may lend him. Rav Pappa’s dilemma remains unresolved.

MISHNA: And with regard to any item that one does not use in the preparation of food, in a place where one rents items of that kind, that item is forbidden. Meaning, one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow is prohibited from borrowing this type of item from the one who vowed and imposed the prohibition. This is because one can use the money saved by borrowing the item rather than renting it to purchase food.

GEMARA: The Gemara states: By inference, one may conclude that the first clause of the mishna, which states that the one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow is prohibited from deriving benefit from utensils used in the preparation of food, e.g., a sieve or a strainer, applies even if they are in a place where one does not rent items of that kind but typically lends them at no cost. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this mishna? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that overlooking is prohibited in the case of one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow.

MISHNA: With regard to one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another, if that other person chooses, he may contribute the half-shekel to the Temple on his behalf, and repay his debt, and return his lost item to him, and the one prohibited from benefiting is not considered to have benefited from him. In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, that benefit should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property.

GEMARA: The mishna allowed one who vowed and imposed the prohibition to pay the financial obligations of the one who is prohibited by vow to derive benefit from him. Based on this, the Gemara concludes: Apparently, repaying his debts is tantamount to merely driving away a lion from him, and it is permitted. He is not actually giving him anything. Rather, he is preventing potential future harm. That is not considered a benefit.

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that in performing the actions listed in the mishna one is merely preventing harm? Rav Hoshaya said: This