Arakhin

THEN THE OWNER MUST PAY TWENTY-SIX. [IF ONE BID] TWENTY-TWO, THE OWNER MUST PAY TWENTY-SEVEN. IF TWENTY-THREE, THE OWNER MUST PAY TWENTY-EIGHT. IF TWENTY-FOUR, THE OWNER MUST PAY TWENTY-NINE. IF TWENTY-FIVE, THE OWNER MUST PAY THIRTY, FOR THEY NEED NOT ADD ONE FIFTH TO WHAT THE OTHER BIDS MORE. IF ONE SAID: ‘I WILL ACQUIRE IT FOR TWENTY-SIX’,1 AND IF THE OWNER WAS WILLING TO PAY THIRTY-ONE AND ONE DENAR IN ADDITION,2 THE OWNER COMES FIRST. AND IF NOT, WE SAY TO THE OTHER: ‘IT HAS BECOME THINE. GEMARA. R. Hisda said: This3 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.4 We learnt: IF HE THAT BID FORTY RECANTED, THEY TAKE PLEDGES FROM HIS POSSESSIONS UP TO TEN SELA'S. But why so? 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. IF HE WHO BID THIRTY RECANTED, THEY TAKE PLEDGES FROM HIS POS SESSIONS UP TO TEN SELA'S. But why so? 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. IF HE WHO BID TWENTY RECANTED, THEY TAKE PLEDGES FROM HIS POSSESSIONS UP TO TEN SELA'S. But why so? Let him who bid thirty pay with him? — It refers to the case where there was no one who bid thirty. 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. But let him who bid twenty pay with him [the ten sela's]? And if you would say. 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’?5 — Rather, said R. Hisda, this is no difficulty. One case refers to their recanting simultaneously, the other, if they do so one after the other.6 Thus was it also taught: If all of them recanted simultaneously, one distributed it among them. But we were taught: THEY TAKE PLEDGES FROM HIS POSSESSION UP TO TEN SELA's? Hence it is evident therefrom that the explanation is like R. Hisda. That is evident. Some put it in the form of a contradiction. 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. 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. IF THE OWNER BID TWENTY AND ANY OTHER MAN BID TWENTY etc. Shall we say that the added fifth has preference? But I will point out a contradiction. ‘If a householder7 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 profit8 of the householder, a goodly capital sum is preferable [for redemption], but the fifth does not concern us. IF ONE SAID: I WILL ACQUIRE IT FOR etc. IF TWENTY-FIVE, THE OWNER MUST PAY THIRTY. But let the owner say: A man has come in our stead’?9 — Said Ze'ira:10 It speaks of the case where the owner had bid one denar [over twenty].11 Then let [the Mishnah] mention that denar? — He [the Tanna] was not particular to mention [a mere denar]. 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]. FOR THEY NEED NOT ADD ONE FIFTH TO WHAT THE OTHER BIDS MORE. R. Hisda said: This was taught only [for the case] where the consecrated object was not yet valued by three,12 but if the consecrated object was valued by three, he must add [the fifth]. It was also taught thus: Beth Shammai say: They13 must add, whilst Beth Hillel Say: They need not add. Now how shall we imagine this case? If it [the consecrated object] has not yet been valued, what is the reason for the view of Beth Shammai? Rather must we take it that it has been valued. Shall we, then, assume that R. Hisda is of the view of Beth Shammai?14 In reality [assume] that it has not been valued, but Beth Shammai are nevertheless stringent. Or if you like, say: Indeed, it was valued and [the Baraitha] is to be reversed: Beth Shammai say. They need not add [etc.]. But then let it be taught among the cases in which Beth Shammai are less stringent and Beth Hillel are more stringent?15 — Rather, Indeed it was not valued, but Beth Shammai are nevertheless stringent. 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’. What is the function of the [one] denar?16 — R. Shesheth said: This is what it means. 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 the difference between forty and thirty), the latter for five sela's. are not taught that the sum lost is to be collected from both. This is a refutation of R. Hisda's view. imposes upon each the difference between his bid and the next highest bid. on food. V. Lev. XXVII, 31. 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. sustained by the Sanctuary. Why compel him then to give thirty? here an exception is de facto recognized. with the latter. How then could R. Hisda, an Amora, adhere to the view of Beth Shammai? 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.