Arakhin 54

הבעלים נותנין עשרים ושש בעשרים ושתים הבעלים נותנין עשרים ושבע בעשרים ושלש הבעלים נותנין עשרים ושמונה בעשרים וארבע הבעלים נותנין עשרים ותשע בעשרים וחמש הבעלים נותנין שלשים שאין מוסיפין חומש על עלויו של זה

THEN THE OWNER MUST PAY TWENTY-SIX.

אמר אחד

[IF ONE BID] TWENTY-TWO, THE OWNER MUST PAY TWENTY-SEVEN.

הרי שלי בעשרים ושש אם רצו הבעלים ליתן שלשים ואחד ודינר הבעלים קודמין ואם לאו אומר לו

IF TWENTY-THREE, THE OWNER MUST PAY TWENTY-EIGHT.

הגעתיך:

IF TWENTY-FOUR, THE OWNER MUST PAY TWENTY-NINE.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב חסדא

IF TWENTY-FIVE, THE OWNER MUST PAY THIRTY, FOR THEY NEED NOT ADD ONE FIFTH TO WHAT THE OTHER BIDS MORE.

לא שנו אלא שבן ארבעים עומד במקומו אבל אין בן ארבעים עומד במקומו משלשין ביניהן

IF ONE SAID: 'I WILL ACQUIRE IT FOR TWENTY-SIX',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thereby outbidding the owner's original bid plus the added fifth.');">¹</span>

תנן

AND IF THE OWNER WAS WILLING TO PAY THIRTY-ONE AND ONE DENAR IN ADDITION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One sela' contains four denars, so that the full fifth of twenty-six is thirty-one sela's and one denar.');">²</span>

חזר בו של ארבעים ממשכנין עד עשר אמאי

THE OWNER COMES FIRST.

ליתן בר חמשין בהדיה

AND IF NOT, WE SAY TO THE OTHER: 'IT HAS BECOME THINE.

דליכא בן חמשים

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Hisda said: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if the bidder of fifty recanted they take pledges from his property up to (no more than) ten sela's.');">³</span>

חזר בו בן שלשים ממשכנין מנכסיו עד עשר אמאי

was taught only if he who bid forty stands by his bid, but if he who bid forty does not stand by his bid, then we divide it among them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The loss divided among the bidders of fifty and forty, the former becoming responsible for fifteen (sharing the loss in the difference between forty and thirty) , the latter for five sela's.');">⁴</span>

וליתן דבן ארבעים בהדיה

We learnt: IF HE THAT BID FORTY RECANTED, THEY TAKE PLEDGES FROM HIS POSSESSIONS UP TO TEN SELA'S.

דליכא בן ארבעים

But why so?

חזר בו בן עשרים ממשכנין מנכסיו עד עשר אמאי

Let him who bid fifty pay with [alike] him [the ten sela's which he outbid]? - It refers to the case where there was no one who bid fifty.

ליתן דבן שלשים בהדיה

IF HE WHO BID THIRTY RECANTED, THEY TAKE PLEDGES FROM HIS POS SESSIONS UP TO TEN SELA'S.

דליכא בן שלשים

But why so?

אי הכי אימא סיפא

Let him who bid forty pay together with him [the ten sela's which he outbid]? - It refers to the case where there was no one who bid forty.

חזר בו של עשר מוכרין אותה בשויה ונפרעין משל עשר את המותר ליתב דבן עשרים בהדיה

IF HE WHO BID TWENTY RECANTED, THEY TAKE PLEDGES FROM HIS POSSESSIONS UP TO TEN SELA'S.

וכי תימא ה"נ דליכא בן עשרים אי הכי נפרעין משל עשרה

But why so?

נפרעין ממנו מיבעי ליה

Let him who bid thirty pay with him? - It refers to the case where there was no one who bid thirty.

אלא אמר רב חסדא לא קשיא

But if that be so, read the last part: IF HE THAT BID TEN RECANTED THEY SELL IT FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH, AND COLLECT WHAT REMAINS FROM HIM WHO BID TEN.

כאן בבת אחת כאן בזה אחר זה

But let him who bid twenty pay with him [the ten sela's]?

תניא נמי הכי

And if you would say.

חזרו כולן כאחד משלשין ביניהם

Here, too, it refers to the case where there was no one who bid ten, then instead of teaching AND COLLECT WHAT REMAINS FROM HIM WHO BID TEN, it should state: 'And collect from him'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the text reads: 'From him who bid ten', the inference is justified that there is one who bid twenty too, yet we are not taught that the sum lost is to be collected from both. This is a refutation of R. Hisda's view.');">⁵</span>

והא אנן תנן

- Rather, said R'Hisda, this is no difficulty.

ממשכנין מנכסיו עד עשר

One case refers to their recanting simultaneously, the other, if they do so one after the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When all recanted simultaneously the charge is distributed among them, but if one after the other recants, one imposes upon each the difference between his bid and the next highest bid.');">⁶</span>

אלא לאו שמע מינה כדרב חסדא שמע מינה

Thus was it also taught: If all of them recanted simultaneously, one distributed it among them.

איכא דרמי להו מירמא תנן

But we were taught: THEY TAKE PLEDGES FROM HIS POSSESSION UP TO TEN SELA's?

חזר בו של עשר מוכרין אותה בשויה ונפרעין משל עשר את המותר

Hence it is evident therefrom that the explanation is like R'Hisda.

והתניא

That is evident.

משלשין ביניהם

Some put it in the form of a contradiction.

אמר רב חסדא לא קשיא

We learnt: IF HE WHO BID TEN RECANTED, THEY SELL IT FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH, AND COLLECT WHAT REMAINS FROM HIM WHO BID TEN.

כאן בבת אחת כאן בזה אחר זה:

But it was taught: 'We divide it among them'? - R'Hisda said: This is no contradiction, one case speaks of their recanting simultaneously, the other, if they do so one after the other.

הבעלים אומרים בעשרים וכל אדם בעשרים וכו':

IF THE OWNER BID TWENTY AND ANY OTHER MAN BID TWENTY etc. Shall we say that the added fifth has preference?

למימרא דחומש עדיף

But I will point out a contradiction.'

ורמינהו

If a householder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to the second tithe which can be converted into money to be taken to Jerusalem there to be expended on food. V. Lev. XXVII, 31.');">⁷</span>

בעל הבית אומר בסלע ואחד אומר בסלע ואיסר של סלע ואיסר קודם מפני שמוסיף על הקרן

bid a sela' and another bid a sela' and an issar, he who bid a sela' and an issar has preference, since he adds to the principal value'? - Here where the fifth is the profit of the Sanctuary, the fifth has preference, but there, where the fifth is the profit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the second tithe, both the original sum and the added fifth remain the possession of the householder, the only restriction upon him being the obligation to consume the whole sum in Jerusalem, after having redeemed the second tithe in the country. In that case we allow the preference to a bidder who goes, by even one issar, above the bid of the householder, even though the householder adds one fifth, since that fifth as well as the whole sum, remains his private property the Sanctuary's interest not being involved at all. But when the consecrated field is to be redeemed, the fifth added by the owner is the profit of the Sanctuary, both the original amount and the addition being received by its treasurer, therefore the preference is with him who offered the additional fifth.');">⁸</span>

הכא דחומשא רווחא דהקדש הוא חומש עדיף התם דחומשא רווחא דבעל הבית קרנא תיפרוק שפיר חומשא לא איכפת לן:

of the householder, a goodly capital sum is preferable [for redemption], but the fifth does not concern us.

אמר אחד

IF ONE SAID: I WILL ACQUIRE IT FOR etc. IF TWENTY-FIVE, THE OWNER MUST PAY THIRTY.

הרי הוא שלי כו':

But let the owner say: A man has come in our stead'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is willing to make a payment that includes the sum plus the added fifth from the owner. Hence no loss will be sustained by the Sanctuary. Why compel him then to give thirty?');">⁹</span>

בעשרים וחמש נותנין שלשים

- Said Ze'ira:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Sh. Mek.');">¹⁰</span>

ולימרו הבעלים

It speaks of the case where the owner had bid one denar [over twenty].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, with the added fifth, would make his offer amount to more than twenty-five.');">¹¹</span>

אתא גברא בחריקין

Then let [the Mishnah] mention that denar? - He [the Tanna] was not particular to mention [a mere denar].

דאמור בעלים דינר

But [yet] it teaches: If the owner was willing to pay thirty-one sela's and one denar, the owner has preference? - Rather, said Raba, it was a case where the owner bid an additional perutah and [the Tanna] was not particular [to mention it].

וליתני דינר

FOR THEY NEED NOT ADD ONE FIFTH TO WHAT THE OTHER BIDS MORE.

לא דק

R'Hisda said: This was taught only [for the case] where the consecrated object was not yet valued by three,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the basis of the last bid. Although, as a rule, valuations for the Sanctuary require the presence of ten (Sanh. 2a) . here an exception is de facto recognized.');">¹²</span>

ולא

but if the consecrated object was valued by three, he must add [the fifth].

והא קתני

It was also taught thus: Beth Shammai say: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owners.');">¹³</span>

אם רצו הבעלים ליתן שלשים ואחד ודינר בעלים קודמין

must add, whilst Beth Hillel Say: They need not add.

אלא אמר רבא

Now how shall we imagine this case?

דאמור בעלים פרוטה ולא דק:

If it [the consecrated object] has not yet been valued, what is the reason for the view of Beth Shammai?

שאין מוסיפין חומש על עלויו כו':

Rather must we take it that it has been valued.

אמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא שלא נישום הקדש בג' אבל נישום הקדש בג' מוסיפין

Shall we, then, assume that R'Hisda is of the view of Beth Shammai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ultimate decision in a matter of conflict between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel is, as a general rule, in accord with the latter. How then could R. Hisda, an Amora, adhere to the view of Beth Shammai?');">¹⁴</span>

תניא נמי הכי בית שמאי אומרים

In reality [assume] that it has not been valued, but Beth Shammai are nevertheless stringent.

מוסיפין ובית הלל אומרים

Or if you like, say: Indeed, it was valued and [the Baraitha] is to be reversed: Beth Shammai say.

אין מוסיפין

They need not add [etc.].

היכי דמי

But then let it be taught among the cases in which Beth Shammai are less stringent and Beth Hillel are more stringent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are recorded in 'Ed. and assumed to be all the rare cases in which the Schools reverse their usual role, the Hillelites being more stringent, and the Shammaites more liberal. The fact that the Mishnah in 'Ed. does not include this case indicates that the report here of such an additional unusual decision must be erroneous.');">¹⁵</span>

אי לא נישום מאי טעמא דבית שמאי

- Rather, Indeed it was not valued, but Beth Shammai are nevertheless stringent.

אלא דנישום

IF ONE SAID: I WILL ACQUIRE IT FOR TWENTY-SIX etc. If he [the owner] is willing, good, if not, [we do] not compel him, for he can say: 'A man has come in my stead'.

לימא רב חסדא דאמר כבית שמאי

What is the function of the [one] denar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Mishnah stated: They need not add one fifth to what the other bid.');">¹⁶</span>

לעולם דלא נישום ובית שמאי מחמירין

- R'Shesheth said: This is what it means.

אי בעית אימא

If the owner originally wanted to give a sum amounting [with the extra addition of the last bid] to thirty-one [sela's] and one denar

לעולם דנישום ואיפוך בית שמאי אומרים

אין מוסיף

וליתניה גבי קולי ב"ש וחומרי בית הלל

אלא לעולם דלא נישום וב"ש מחמירין:

אמר אחד הרי היא שלי בעשרים ושש כו':

רצו אין לא רצו לא אמרי

אתא גברא בחריקין

ודינר מאי עבידתיה

אמר רב ששת ה"ק

אם רצו בעלים מעיקרא ליתן חשבון המגיע לאחד ושלשים ודינר