027b – המקדיש שדהו – פרק שמיני – ערכין, דף כז ע”ב

Mishnah: The owners give twenty-six against twenty-two.

הבעלים נותנין - against their will.

עשרים ושש - Because the owners said twenty, and with the fifth the sum comes to twenty-five; if we gave it to the other one at twenty-one, the consecrated property would lose. So the owners give against their will that sela which this one added to the principal, and the twenty-five is theirs. But for the sela that this one added, they do not add a fifth.

The owners give twenty-seven against twenty-three.

The owners give twenty-eight against twenty-four.

The owners give twenty-nine against twenty-five.

The owners give thirty, since a fifth is not added on top of this one's raised bid.

One said: It is mine for twenty-six.

If the owners are willing to give thirty-one and a dinar, the owners take precedence.

And if not, he tells him: I have reached you.

Rav Chisda^[1] said: They taught this only where the son of forty stands in his place (keeps his undertaking).

גמ' לא שנו - They taught this only where the property of the son of fifty is pledged only for ten sela, but where the son of forty stands in his place and does not withdraw. But if the son of forty withdrew, they divide the twenty sela below fifty down to thirty among them: the son of fifty pays fifteen and the son of forty pays five, since in those ten that the son of fifty said above the son of forty, the son of forty is not liable together with him for the loss. And the ten that the son of forty added over the son of thirty are answered by the case of forty, since forty is included in fifty.

But if the son of forty does not stand in his place, they divide the sum among them (in thirds).

We learned: If the one of forty withdrew, his property is pledged^[2] up to ten. Why should the son of fifty not pay together with him, since there is no son of fifty?

דליכא בר נ' - that no one says more than forty; the Mishnah teaches each matter in its own terms.

If the son of thirty withdrew, his property is pledged up to ten. Why should the son of forty not pay together with him, since there is no son of forty?

If the son of twenty withdrew, his property is pledged up to ten. Why should the son of thirty not pay together with him, since there is no son of thirty?

If so, let the Mishnah state the final clause: If the one of ten withdrew, they sell it at its worth and collect the surplus from the ten, and let the son of twenty pay together with him.

ליתיב בר עשרים בהדיה - Let the son of twenty pay with him; he too is answered by [the rule of] ten, since the Mishnah says "from the ten," which implies that there is another one.

And if you say: indeed, there is no son of twenty.

If so, it should have said: they collect from the ten, from him.

Rather, Rav Chisda said: This is not a difficulty. Here, they withdrew all at once^[3]; there, one after another.

חזרו בהן בבת אחת משלשין ביניהן - they divide among them, as Rav Chisda [says]. The Mishnah refers to a case where they withdrew one after another, for then the son of fifty said to the treasurer: when I withdraw, I leave you the son of forty.

It is taught^[4] as well: If all withdrew together, they divide [the loss] among them.

משלשין ביניהן - they divide among them. The first two or three are secured, and the last two lose. For if all withdrew and the treasurer sold it at its worth, and it fell short, the son of fifty pays [the shortfall] of his own bid, the son of forty pays half of the tithe, and the son of thirty pays a third, and the son of forty, the son of thirty and the son of twenty all said thirty; and the ten of the son of twenty they pay among all four, and the five that fell short of the son of ten they pay among the five. [Translation of this note is doubtful.]

But we learned: The property is pledged up to ten.

Rather, does this not show that [the law is] as Rav Chisda says?

Conclude from it.

Some raise a difficulty^[5] against them.

איכא דרמי להו מירמא - some raise a difficulty against them. The Gemara did not teach Rav Chisda's ruling on its own, but through the resolution of the Mishnah and the beraisa, which contradict one another.

We learned: If the one of ten withdrew, they sell it at its worth and collect the surplus from the ten.

But it is taught: They divide [the loss] among them.

Rav Chisda said: This is not a difficulty. Here, all at once; there, one after another.

The owners say twenty, and every person says twenty, etc.

Does this mean that the fifth takes precedence?

And they raise a contradiction^[6]: The householder says a sela; another says a sela and an isar^[7]; the sela-and-isar bid takes precedence, because it adds to the principal.

[בעה"ב אומר בסלע - The householder who redeems his own second tithe^[8] adds a fifth, as it is written: "And if a man will redeem of his tithe" (Vayikra 27:31). A different redeemer does not add a fifth. [The Mishnah:] "The householder says a sela; another says a sela and an isar … which adds to the principal." Even though the householder wants to give more, a fifth of a sela is a dinar and a dinar is twenty-four isarin (see Kiddushin 12a).

Here, where the fifth^[9] is an extra [gain] to the consecrated property, the fifth takes precedence.

There, where the fifth is the householder's own surplus, the principal can properly be redeemed; we do not mind the fifth.

התם - There, regarding second tithe, the fifth is the householder's own surplus: whether principal or fifth, all of it is his, and he eats all of it in Jerusalem. For us there is only the commandment of redemption, so that he does not eat it outside the borders without redeeming it; the main redemption is by the principal. Even though its value is more, we do not mind, since the surplus of its value benefits only him.

One said: It is mine, etc.

[If it was bid at] twenty-five, the owners give thirty.

אמר אחד בעשרים וחמש הבעלים נותנים שלשים - against their will. One may ask: why do we compel the owners? So far we compelled them, because we cannot give it to the others, since their principal is not like the principal-and-fifth the owners named first. So we return it to the owners against their will, and since we return it to the owners, they must give the principal as the others do. But now that this one said twenty-five, let it be given to him, since his principal is like the principal-and-fifth the owners named first; the Gemara raises this difficulty.

And let the owners say [their bid]: a man came in khariqin [translation doubtful], and the owners said a dinar.

ולימרו בעלים אתא גברא בחריקין - And let the owners say [their bid]: a man came "in khariqin", in our place, one who wants to give as we do. Until now they returned it to us because of the loss to the consecrated property; but now, why do you want to compel us?

And let [the Mishnah] teach a dinar; it is not exact.

דאמור בעלים ברישא דינר - the owners said a dinar first, more than twenty, since the reckoning of principal and fifth reaches twenty-five and a dinar. If we gave it to this one there would be a loss to the consecrated property; therefore we return it to the owners against their will.

וליתני - And let [the Mishnah] teach at its beginning: the owners say twenty and a dinar.

לא דק - It is not exact to teach "dinar"; it should give the sela reckoning.

But it teaches a dinar at the end, so it is exact about dinarim.

אם רצו הבעלים כו' - And we do not compel them, since the principal is like the principal-and-fifth they named first. The Gemara explains this dinar: what is it doing here?

והא קתני - But it teaches a dinar at the end, so it is exact about dinarim.

Rather, Rava said: the owners said a prutah^[10], and [the Mishnah] is not exact about prutot.

אלא אמר רבא דאמור בעלים - Rava said: the owners first said a prutah, and [the Mishnah] is not exact about prutot.

A fifth is not added on his increase^[11], etc.

Rav Chisda said: [This applies] only if the consecrated property was not appraised by three^[12].

שלא נישום הקדש בשלשה - that the consecrated property was not appraised by three people, meaning that three people did not value the land at what that other one said.

But if the consecrated property was appraised by three, they add [the fifth].

אבל - But if three appraised it as this one said, the owners add a fifth to his increase against their will, and we do not require ten. Even though the appraisal of consecrated property requires ten, as we say in Sanhedrin (2b) that land is appraised by nine and a priest, here the Gemara teaches a special point: since three said it, we do not go back to ten, and they add the fifth to the increase.

It is taught: Beit Shammai^[13] say they add; Beit Hillel say they do not add.

What is the case? If it was not appraised, what is the reason of Beit Shammai?

Rather, if it was appraised: should Rav Chisda, who follows Beit Shammai, say it was never appraised? Beit Shammai are stringent.

If you like, say it was always appraised, and reverse: Beit Shammai say one does not add.

And let it be taught among the lenient^[14] [rulings] of Beit Shammai and the stringent [rulings] of Beit Hillel. Rather, it is always that it was not appraised, and Beit Shammai are stringent.

ששה דברים - six matters: some of the lenient rulings of Beit Shammai and the stringent rulings of Beit Hillel.

One said: It is mine for twenty-six, etc.

If the owners are willing, yes; if not, they do not say [anything]. A man came in khariqin with a dinar; what is it doing here?

ודינר מאי עבידתיה - And the dinar, what is it doing here? You said: a fifth is not added to this one's increase.

Rav Sheshet said: This is what [the Mishnah] means: if the owners at the outset want to give the sum that comes to thirty-one and a dinar.

מעיקרא - from the outset, when he first opened the bidding.

ליתן חשבון המגיע - to give the sum that comes, on this one's increase, to thirty-one and a dinar.

למימרא דחומש עדיף ורמינהי בעל הבית אומר בסלע - Difficult. R. Elchanan^[15] asks: what is the question? For there is no difficulty: the owners say twenty, everyone says twenty, and the owners take precedence, etc.; and here it is taught that another takes precedence. And what is the question? The owners' precedence applies only when no other redeems it at a higher price. And from the end there is no difficulty either: it is taught one said: it is mine for twenty-one, the owners take precedence and give twenty-six, and here it is taught that another takes precedence. So too here, this is not a difficulty, for it is not a matter of principle but because it adds to the principal, which is twenty. And so in the Mishnah it is only reasonable that the owners take precedence, since they too add to the principal when they give twenty-six, one more than the twenty, and the fifth for the principal, which is twenty-one. Perhaps he asks: why are the owners compelled to pay a sum that the other said, with its fifth, over what he said? The Mishnah teaches that the owners give twenty-six and twenty-seven. And here it is taught that when the owners say a sela and the other says a sela and an isar, the other takes precedence; and we do not compel the owners to give a sela and an isar with the fifth, while the Mishnah teaches of a sela and an isar takes precedence and does not teach the owners give five dinarim, principal and fifth, and an isar. The answer is that here the fifth is the surplus of the consecrated property, so the fifth takes precedence and we compel the owners; there, the fifth is the householder's surplus.

תניא בית שמאי אומרים מוסיפין - It is taught: Beit Shammai say they add — the Tosfos text says: this is so in the book of R. Tam, and the Gemara lacks it is taught; if one reads it, one can explain it so: it is taught too, since there are those who hold that they add when it is appraised, whether like Beit Shammai or like Beit Hillel. The Gemara seeks a reading according to Rav Chisda. But it seems more likely that the Gemara reads it is taught without too.

Notes

1. 1. Rav Chisda – a Babylonian Amora of the third generation.
2. 2. Is pledged – the court holds the withdrawing party's property as security for the sum he undertook to pay.
3. 3. All at once – all withdrew together; one after another – each withdrew in turn. The Gemara distinguishes the two cases to resolve the conflict.
4. 4. Beraisa – a Tannaitic teaching not included in our Mishnah.
5. 5. Some raise a difficulty – they set the Mishnah against the beraisa as contradictory.
6. 6. And they raise a contradiction – the Gemara brings a beraisa that seems to conflict with the preceding ruling.
7. 7. Isar – a small coin; a dinar is twenty-four isarin (as in Rashi here).
8. 8. Second tithe – tithe set aside from produce in years one, two, four and five of the shemittah cycle and eaten in Jerusalem; it may be redeemed for money, and the redeemer adds a fifth.
9. 9. The fifth – the added fifth payable when redeeming consecrated property or second tithe (Vayikra 27:15, 31).
10. 10. Prutah – the smallest coin.
11. 11. Increase – the amount raised by the other bidder for consecrated property.
12. 12. Appraised by three – consecrated property is valued by three appraisers.
13. 13. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel – the two schools of Tannaim, whose disputes recur throughout the Mishnah and Gemara.
14. 14. Lenient rulings of Beit Shammai and stringent rulings of Beit Hillel – the points named in Rashi's "six matters".
15. 15. R. Elchanan ben Yitzchak (Rabbenu Elchanan), a leading Tosafist (France, 12th century). [General knowledge.]