Nedarim 33 - November 27, 3 Kislev

If one says in a language of a vow, "I will not eat from someone" they are forbidden from benefitting from their food or even borrowing utensils that are used to prepare food. Why is this the case if one specified eating and not preparing the food? How far is this taken - is one forbidden to borrow a bag in which to put food one is purchasing or a horse to ride on to get the food, jewelry to wear to make one look important so they will get food, use one's house as a shortcut to get to a place where they will get food? Can we find an answer for this question in the language of our Mishna? The next Mishna says that if the item one is borrowing is not a food-related item but generally is rented, then that is forbidden as well, as the person can now use the money they saved to buy food. The Gemara derives from here that the food-related items mentioned in the previous Mishna that is forbidden must be forbidden even if they generally don't rent them out for money, which would then mean that the Mishna follows Rabbi Eliezer who holds that even items that don't have an actual monetary value are forbidden. One who is forbidden to benefit from another, the other person can give their half shekel to the Temple treasury, can pay back their loan, and can return their lost item. However, if generally one gets paid for returning a lost item and the person did not demand the money, the money must be given to the Temple so as to not allow the person to benefit from the other. The Gemara connects this Mishna with a debate between Chanan and the sons of the high priests that appeared in Ketubot 107b. Does the Mishna follow Chanan as he held that preventing someone from a financial loss is not considered benefit? Or can it be explained according to the sons of the high priests as well? There is a debate between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi about whether in the reverse case of returning lost items, if the returner was forbidden to benefit from the one who lost something, would it be forbidden or permitted because while returning the lost item, the returner is exempt from giving charity to a poor person. Is that considered a benefit, or is it too uncommon that the poor person would come looking for money at exactly that moment and therefore not considered a benefit?