the owner gives twenty-six sela and takes the field. He pays the twenty that he initially offered; plus five sela, which is one-fifth of the total future sum, i.e., one-quarter of his initial offer. In addition, he adds one sela, the difference between his initial offer and that of the other person, so that the Temple treasury will not receive less than the twenty-one sela offer proposed by the other person. If the owner says he will pay twenty sela and another person said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-two sela, the owner gives twenty-seven sela and takes the field.

If the owner says he will pay twenty sela and another said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-three sela, the owner gives twenty-eight sela and takes the field. If the owner says he will pay twenty sela and another said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-four sela, the owner gives twenty-nine sela and takes the field. If the owner says he will pay twenty sela and another said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-five sela, the owner gives thirty sela, as the owner adds one-fifth only to the amount that he bid, and does not add one-fifth to the addition of that other person.

If the owner said he will pay twenty sela and one other person said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-six sela, if the owner wished to pay thirty-one sela and a dinar the owner takes precedence; and if not, the treasurer says to the other person: The field has come into your possession based on your bid, as it is more than the Temple treasury can compel the owner to pay.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one said: The field is mine for ten sela, and another said for twenty, and another said thirty, and another said forty, and yet another said fifty; and then the one who bid fifty reneged on his offer, the treasurer repossesses from his property up to ten sela, and it is redeemed by the one who bid forty. In this manner, the Temple treasury does not lose. Rav Ḥisda says: The mishna taught that the treasurer repossesses ten sela from the one who initially offered fifty sela only when the one who offered forty stands in his place and intends to purchase the field, as the Temple treasury would have lost only ten sela.

But if the one who offered forty does not stand in his place, i.e., he too reneged on his offer, then the additional amount they had offered is divided between the one who initially offered fifty and the one who offered forty, as follows: The one who offered fifty pays all ten of the difference between fifty and forty, but he must also pay half of the extra ten that is the difference between the offer of forty and the previous offer of thirty. The reason is that the one who bid fifty agreed to that extra ten that raised the price from thirty to forty. In sum, the one who offered fifty pays fifteen, and the one who said forty pays five.

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from that which we learned in the mishna: If the one who bid forty reneged on his offer, the treasurer repossesses from his property up to ten sela. The Gemara explains the objection: According to Rav Ḥisda, there is a difficulty: Why does the mishna rule that his property is repossessed by ten sela? Let the one who offered fifty give together with him, and therefore the one who offered forty should give only five. The Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where there is no one who offered fifty sela.

The Gemara further objects: The mishna also teaches that if the one who bid thirty reneged on his offer, the treasurer repossesses from his property up to ten sela. But according to Rav Ḥisda, why is only his property repossessed? Let the one who offered forty give together with him. The Gemara again responds: The mishna is referring to a case where there is no one who offered forty sela. The Gemara persists: The mishna states that if the one who bid twenty reneged on his offer, the treasurer repossesses from his property up to ten sela. According to Rav Ḥisda, why is only his property repossessed? Let the one who offered thirty give together with him. Once again, the Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where there is no one who offered thirty sela.

The Gemara asks: If so, then say the latter clause of the mishna: If the one who bid ten reneged on his offer, the treasurer sells the field at its value and collects the remainder from the property of the one who bid ten, to complete the sum of ten sela. Why is payment collected only from the one who offered ten? Let the one who offered twenty give together with him. And if you would say that here too, there is no one who offered twenty sela, then if so, why does the mishna state: And collects from the one who bid ten? The mishna should have stated simply: And collects from him, as there is no one else who submitted an offer.

Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: This is not difficult. Here, when the potential loss incurred by the Temple treasury is divided, they reneged on their offers simultaneously; whereas there, in the mishna, where only one individual must cover the loss, two individuals reneged one after the other. The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita: If all of them reneged at once they divide the potential loss incurred by the Temple treasury between them. Now didn’t we learn in the mishna: The treasurer repossesses from his property up to ten sela, without any mention of a division? Rather, must one not conclude from the baraita that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, who holds that when two individuals renege on their offers simultaneously they divide the loss between them? The Gemara comments: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the case.

The Gemara notes that there are those who raise this baraita as a contradiction: We learned in the mishna that if the one who bid ten reneged on his offer, the treasurer sells the field at its value and collects the remainder from the property of the one who bid ten. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that they divide the potential loss to the Temple treasury between them? Rav Ḥisda said: This is not difficult. Here in the baraita they reneged on their offers simultaneously, whereas there, in the mishna, two individuals reneged one after the other.

§ The mishna teaches: If the owner says he will pay twenty sela and any other person says he will pay twenty sela, the owner’s offer takes precedence because he adds one-fifth. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that an offer of the owner, which perforce includes an additional one-fifth, is preferable to a higher offer for the principal submitted by another? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 4:3): If one is unable to transport his second-tithe produce to Jerusalem to consume it there, the produce is redeemed and the redemption money is spent on food in Jerusalem. If the owner of second tithe says he will redeem it for one sela and one other says he will redeem it for one sela and one issar, the offer of one sela and one issar takes precedence, because he adds to the principal.

The Gemara answers: Here, where the additional one-fifth is a gain of the Temple treasury, a calculation that includes the one-fifth is preferable. By contrast, there, where the additional one-fifth belongs to the owner, i.e., the Temple treasury gains nothing from it, as the redemption money for second-tithe produce belongs to the owner and must be taken to Jerusalem for him to spend it there, let the principal be redeemed for a proper sum, and we do not care about the additional one-fifth.

§ The mishna teaches that if the owner says he will pay twenty sela and one other person said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-five sela, the owner gives thirty sela. The Gemara suggests: And let the owner say: A man has come in my place [baḥarikin] to redeem the field, as even when accounting for the one-fifth that I must add, my offer stands at twenty-five sela, identical to this man’s offer. Why, then, am I forced to redeem the field for a greater sum? The Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where the owner initially said he would pay twenty sela and an additional dinar, one-quarter of one sela. When the additional one-fifth is taken into account, the owner’s offer is greater than twenty-five sela.

The Gemara asks: But if so, let the mishna teach explicitly that he offered an additional dinar. The Gemara responds: The tanna was not meticulous with regard to the mention of small sums of money such as one dinar. The Gemara asks: And was the tanna not meticulous? But isn’t it taught in the mishna that in a case where one said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-six sela, if the owner wished to pay thirty-one sela and a dinar the owner takes precedence? Rather, Rava said: The mishna is referring to a case where the owner said he would redeem it for twenty sela and one peruta, and the tanna was not meticulous with regard to mentioning such a tiny sum.

§ The mishna teaches that even when the owner must give the amount offered by the second person for the field, he adds one-fifth only to the amount that he himself bid, as he does not add one-fifth to the addition of the other person. Rav Ḥisda says: The mishna taught that the owner does not add one-fifth to the addition of the other person only when the consecrated property was not appraised by three people. But if the consecrated property was appraised by three people, and the field was found to be worth the amount offered by the other person, the owner does add one-fifth to the addition of the other person.

The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say the owner adds one-fifth to the addition of the other person and Beit Hillel say the owner does not add that one-fifth. The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of this baraita? If it is discussing a case where the field was not appraised by three people, then what is the reasoning of Beit Shammai for their ruling that the owner must add one-fifth to the addition of the other person? Rather, the baraita must be referring to a case where the field was appraised by three people and the appraisal matched the offer of the other person. The owner must therefore add one-fifth to the addition of that other person.

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav Ḥisda says his statement in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? This is difficult, as there is a principle that the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. The Gemara responds: Actually, the baraita is referring to a case where the field was not appraised by three people, and Beit Shammai are stringent and rule that the owner must nevertheless add one-fifth to the addition of the other person. Rav Ḥisda rules in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel that the owner adds one-fifth to the addition of the other person only when the field was appraised by three people.

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, the baraita is referring to a case where the field was appraised by three people and the appraisal matched the offer of the other person; and one should reverse the opinions, i.e., Beit Shammai say that even in such a case the owner does not add one-fifth to the addition of the other person. The Gemara asks: But according to this interpretation, let the dispute be taught alongside the other rare instances of leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel (see tractate Eduyyot, chapters 4 and 5). Yet, this dispute does not appear there. Rather, one must accept the previous answer, that the baraita is actually discussing a case where the field was not appraised by three people, and Beit Shammai are stringent.

§ The mishna teaches that in a case where the owner offers to pay twenty sela and one other person said: The field is hereby mine for twenty-six sela, if the owner wished to pay thirty-one sela and a dinar, the owner takes precedence. The Gemara elaborates: If the owner wished to pay the additional sum, then yes, he redeems the field, but if the owner did not wish to do so, no, he is not forced to redeem it.

The Gemara explains that the reason is that the owner can say: A man has come in my place to redeem the field for a higher sum, since even when accounting for the additional one-fifth that I must give, my offer amounts to a total of only twenty-five sela, whereas this other person has offered to pay twenty-six. Nevertheless, if the owner chooses to redeem the field, he gives the other person’s offer, twenty-six sela, plus an additional one-fifth of his initial offer, for a total of thirty-one sela.

The Gemara asks: And the additional dinar that the owner gives, what is its purpose? Rav Sheshet said this is what the mishna is saying: If the owner wished from the outset to give based on a calculation that reaches thirty-one sela and one dinar, the owner takes precedence.