Arakhin 27b — the Talmud in English

and therefore:

the owners give

under compulsion

twenty-six,

that is, twenty-one as principal, according to the amount by which the second raised its value, and five added as a fifth on the amount of the principal that they initially stated.

And if one said after the owners had said twenty: “It is mine”

for twenty-two

which is less than the owners’ twenty-five],

the owners give

under compulsion

twenty-seven,

namely, the twenty-two raised by the second, and a fifth on what the owners initially said.

And if one said:

“For twenty-three,” the owners give twenty-eight,

twenty-three for the principal and five for the fifth.

And if one said:

“For twenty-four, the owners give twenty-nine.”

And if one said:

“For twenty-five, the owners give thirty” ,

and the reason for this law is explained in the Gemara.

And the reason throughout our Mishna is:

the owners do not add

the

fifth to his increase

in the measure of the principal beyond what the owners said they would give as principal; but the principal itself they are obligated to give in the same amount.

And if

one said: “It is

it

mine for twenty-six,”

and he adds in his redemption beyond the owners’ principal and fifth, which is twenty-five,

if the owners wish to give thirty-one,

that is, twenty-six according to the measure of the principal raised by the second, and an additional fifth of their principal,

and one dinar,

additional],

, the owners take precedence. And if not,

if they did not wish to redeem at all, they are not compelled, and

they say to him

to the one who said twenty-six:

“You have reached it”

it is yours]! Since the second does not reduce what the owners wished to give with the fifth.

Gemara:

Rav Hisda said:

This that we learned in the Mishna, that if the one who said he would give fifty retracted, they take as collateral from his assets only ten,

was stated only when the one of forty stands in his place,

and did not retract from what he agreed to redeem it for forty!

But

if

the one of forty does not stand in his place,

for he too retracted, and the consecration sells it to the one of thirty,

they divide into thirds

they divide the entire loss of the twenty sela that the consecration loses

between them,

in the following manner: the one of fifty gives fifteen sela, and the one of forty five sela. The reason is that those ten sela in excess of the forty sela, which only the one of fifty was obligated to give, he pays alone; and the remaining ten sela, to which both were obligated, since both agreed to redeem the land for forty [the one of fifty, who agreed to fifty, also agreed to redeem it for forty, which is included in fifty], they divide equally between them.

And we object to this from that

we learned

in our Mishna:

If he retracted

also

the one of forty, they take as collateral from his assets ten.

According to Rav Hisda, this is difficult:

Why

does the one of forty give all ten,

let

also

the one of fifty with him

five sela, and he will give five, as Rav Hisda said?

And we resolve: the Mishna’s intention is not according to its plain meaning, that the one of forty retracted together with the one of fifty who retracted, but the Mishna is speaking here in a situation

where there is no one of fifty

at all, who initially raised the redemption price of the one of forty; and since this is so, the one of forty alone gives the entire ten that he caused the Temple treasury to lose.

We raise another difficulty from the continuation of the Mishna, where we learned:

retracted

also

the one of thirty, ten is collected from his property;

and according to Rav Hisda this is difficult:

why, and let the one of forty give

who retracted first

with him

together with the one of thirty?

And we answer:

where there is no one of forty

at all.

We raise another difficulty from the continuation of the Mishna, where we learned:

retracted

also

the one of twenty, ten is collected from his property;

and it is difficult:

why, let the one of thirty give with him

together with the one of twenty?

And we answer:

where there is no one of thirty

at all.

And we raise an objection:

if so,

that they divide it among them when both retracted, and in accordance with Rav Hisda,

say the latter clause

of our Mishna:

if the one of ten retracted, they sell it at its value and collect from the one

of

ten the remainder.

And it is difficult: why

should the one of twenty give with him? And if you say: here too

the Mishna is speaking

where there is no one of twenty

at all,

if so,

why is it written

“from the one of ten”

which implies that they come to clarify from whom they collect, whereas since he alone comes to redeem it,

“from him” should have been required?!

And we answer:

rather, Rav Hisda said

to resolve the difficulties from our Mishna in another manner:

it is not difficult; here,

what we said above, that “they divide it among them,” is speaking of the one of fifty and the one of forty who retracted

at the same time,

for the retraction of the one of fifty caused the Temple treasury to lose twenty [since the one of forty also retracted], and the retraction of the one of forty likewise caused the Temple treasury to lose ten; and since this is so, they divide among them that loss of ten which both of them caused.

Here,

in our Mishna, which states: “the one of forty [and likewise all the others] retracted,” it is speaking of their retracting

one after the other,

so that after the first retracted, the second retracted, and so on. It follows that the retraction of the first caused the Temple treasury to lose only ten, for the second was still standing in his place at the time of the first one’s retraction; therefore he does not participate in the loss of the other retractions, and each one pays only ten.

And we support this:

it was likewise taught: if all of them retracted at once, they divide it among them;

and ostensibly it is difficult:

but we learned in the Mishna:

the one of forty retracted,

ten is collected from his property,

from the one of forty alone,

ten,

and the one of fifty does not participate with him?

Rather, is it not

necessarily that our Mishna is speaking of their retracting one after the other, and therefore they do not divide it, while the beraita is speaking of their retracting at once, and therefore they divide it; and if so,

derive from it in accordance with Rav Hisda, derive from it!

There are those

who stated Rav Hisda’s resolution as a resolution of this,

who posed it as a difficulty [that the scholars of the academy raised a contradiction] from the Mishna against the beraita:

[that the scholars of the academy raised a contradiction] from the Mishna against the beraita:

we learned

in our Mishna:

if the one of ten retracted, they sell it at its value and collect “from the one of ten” the remainder,

and from the fact that it says “from the one of ten,” it implies that there was also another who wanted to redeem it for twenty and retracted, and nevertheless only this one of ten pays the Temple treasury;

but it was taught: they divide it among them;

and if so, even in our Mishna the one of twenty should participate in payment of the loss? And as a resolution of this contradiction,

Rav Hisda said: it is not difficult; here

in the beraita:

at once; here

in the Mishna:

one after the other.

We learned in the Mishna:

the owners say twenty and every person says twenty,

the owners take precedence because they add a fifth.

And we raise an objection:

is it to say—

that the fifth

which the owners add

is preferable

to the principal that every person gives?!

And we juxtapose

from a beraita:

the householder says

who wishes to redeem his second tithe

for a sela, and another

who is not the owner

says: for a sela and an issar; the one of a sela and an issar takes precedence, because he adds to the principal; here, even though with second tithe the owners also add a fifth, and with the fifth the owners add more than the other [for a fifth of a sela is a dinar, which is twenty-four issars], nevertheless they follow only the principal. Why, then, is it explained in our Mishna that the owners are preferable because of the fifth?!

Получается, что хотя и при выкупе второго маасера владельцы добавляют пятый, и с учетом пятого они дают больше, чем другой [поскольку пятый от сэла — динар, то есть двадцать четыре иссара], учитывают лишь основную сумму. Почему же в нашей Мишне говорится, что владельцы имеют преимущество благодаря пятому?!

And we answer: there is a distinction between the redemption of consecrated property and the redemption of second tithe:

here

in our Mishna, which is speaking of consecrated property,

for the fifth is a profit of the Temple treasury,

for all of it goes to the Temple treasury—

the fifth is preferable. There

in the beraita, which is speaking of the redemption of second tithe,

for the fifth is the profit of the householder,

for he eats everything in Jerusalem; therefore they say:

the principal,

which is the essence of the redemption,

redeems well,

and anyone who gives more in his redemption has a better redemption. But

the fifth,

which is not of the essence of the redemption, and only he benefits from it,

we are not concerned with it. [

Unlike this with consecrated property, since it is preferable to add a greater profit to the Temple treasury, they therefore follow even the fifth.]

We learned in the Mishna:

one said: “It is mine for twenty-five”; the owners give thirty.

And they raise a difficulty concerning this example, in which the second wants to give the amount of the principal together with the owners’ fifth:

and let the owners say: a man has come in our place

[a person has come in our place] to redeem it, giving the Temple treasury the same sum that they initially said they would give, [for the owners who said twenty, together with the fifth, amount to twenty-five, like what this one gives], and why do they compel the owners to redeem it?

And we resolve:

Zeira said:

what they said in the Mishna, “the owners say twenty,” is not precise; rather,

the owners said

when they initially opened the bidding that they would give twenty sela and additionally

a dinar.

And if so, it is impossible to allow the second to redeem it, since he is giving less than what the owners would give together with the fifth [which amounts to twenty-five sela and one-quarter of a dinar]; therefore the owners are obligated to redeem it. Consequently, they give the amount of the principal—twenty-five sela—as this one said, and add another five sela and one-quarter dinar, which is the measure of the fifth of the principal that they initially said [twenty sela and a dinar].

And we raise a difficulty:

and let it teach

explicitly in the Mishna that the owners say twenty and additionally

a dinar.

And we answer: the

tan­​nay was not precise

in detailing the dinars, and he teaches only the number of complete sela.

And we raise an objection:

and did he not

the tan­​nay of our Mishna precisely detail dinars?!

But it teaches

in the latter clause:

if the owners wanted to give thirty-one “and a dinar,” the owners take precedence,

so the tan­​nay does teach—even where necessary—also dinars?

And we answer:

rather, Rava said: the owners said

when they initially opened the bidding “We will give twenty sela and additionally

a peruta,”

and it follows that together with the fifth [which amounts to five sela and one-quarter peruta] they would have given more than what the second gives [namely twenty-five] by one and one-quarter peruta; therefore the owners redeem it.

And the tan­​nay was not precise

in mentioning that they add a peruta, since it does not amount to the measure of a dinar.

We learned in the Mishna:

for they do not add a fifth to his increase

of this one.

Rav Hisda said: they taught

that the owners do not add in the measure of the fifth more than the amount resulting from the calculation according to the measure of the principal that they initially stated

only when the value of the consecrated property was not appraised

at

three

appraisers, according to the amount of the principal that the other raised.

But when the consecrated property was appraised at three,

as the other raised his offer,

they add

the measure of the fifth, giving according to the amount resulting from the fifth of the principal that the second raised.

And we support this:

it was likewise taught: Beit Shammai say, they add

also in the fifth according to the amount of the principal that the other raised,

and Beit Hillel say: they do not add.

And we explain:

what are the circumstances

of the dispute in which Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree?

If it was not appraised

at three in accordance with the other’s increase, and he raised it on his own,

what is the reason of Beit Shammai,

who hold that the owners must add a fifth to this one’s increase?!

Rather, it was appraised

the consecrated property at three, and therefore Beit Shammai said that they add—here it is proven in accordance with Rav Hisda’s words.

And we raise an objection:

let us say that Rav Hisda said [his ruling] in accordance with Beit Shammai?!

For Beit Hillel hold that they do not add, even though their dispute is when the consecrated property was appraised at three?!

And we answer:

actually, [they disagree] when it was not appraised,

and Beit Shammai

Beit Shammai,

who hold that they add—and we raised the difficulty: why do they add?—their reason is because they

are stringent,

with an extraneous stringency, to add a fifth also to this one’s increase. [And according to this answer, the proof for Rav Hisda is rejected.]

If you wish, say: actually,

the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is

when it was appraised,

and concerning what was difficult for us—that if so Rav Hisda is in accordance with Beit Shammai—we answer:

and reverse

the statements of Beit Hillel and the statements of Beit Shammai, and teach as follows:

Beit Shammai say: he does not add,

and Beit Hillel say that he adds, since it was appraised; and Rav Hisda spoke in accordance with Beit Hillel. [And the proof for Rav Hisda is restored.]

And we refute the “if you wish, say” according to which Beit Shammai are more lenient than Beit Hillel and hold that he does not add:

and let him teach it among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel,

which are enumerated in tractate Eduyot.

And we return to the first answer:

rather, actually,

the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is

when it was not appraised, [

and this is among the stringencies of Beit Shammai],

and Beit Shammai

hold that they add because they

are stringent,

even when it was not appraised.

We learned in the Mishna:

one said: “It is mine for twenty-six”,

if the owners wanted to give thirty-one and a dinar, the owners take precedence.

And we explain:

“wanted”—

yes [they redeem it],

[тогда они ее выкупают];

“did not want”—

no,

and the reason is:

the owners say,

the owners

a man has come

to redeem it

in our place [in our stead], for his redemption is no less than the principal and fifth of the owners, so let him redeem it.

[то есть на нашем месте], ведь его выкуп не меньше основной суммы и пятого владельцев, и пусть он выкупит ее.

And we raise an objection:

“and a dinar”,

which the owners must add to thirty-one if they want to redeem it—as explained in the Mishna—

what is its function [what need is there for it], since when they give thirty-one, the measure of the principal that the other raised, together with the fifth of their principal, that is sufficient?!

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said:

what they said in the Mishna, that with thirty-one and a dinar the owners take precedence, is not according to its plain meaning; it is not speaking of their having initially said twenty.

Rather,

this is what it says: if the owners initially wanted

[when they initially opened the bidding]

to give

in the redemption of the field a sum of money such that the

за выкуп поля такую сумму денег, чтобы

calculation

at the end—when a fifth is added to it and it is joined to the twenty-six sela that the other raised—

comes to thirty-one

sela

and a dinar,

the owners take precedence and are compelled to redeem it for thirty-one sela and a dinar.