1)

(a)The problem with our Mishnah 'ha'Kohanim ve'ha'Levi'im Makdishin ve'Go'alin ad Olam' - lies in the word 'Makdishin', which is out of place, because it applies equally to Yisre'elim.

(b)We cannot answer that it comes to preclude from the Yovel year itself (when a Yisrael cannot be Makdish) - since that holds good only according to Shmuel, but not according to Rav, who permits a Yisrael to be Makdish in Yovel, too (as we already learned).

(c)We initially counter this problem - by quoting the continuation of the Mishnah 'Bein Lifnei ha'Yovel, Bein le'Achar ha'Yovel', which applies to Yisre'elim as well.

(d)We therefore deal with both problems in the same way - by explaining that, since the Tana said 'Bein Lifnei ha'Yovel, Bein le'Achar ha'Yovel' and 'Ein Makdishin ve'Lo Go'alin' in the Reisha, it mentions them in the Seifa in order to create a balance.

2)

(a)What reason does our Mishnah give for asking the owner to open the bidding to redeem the field that he has been Makdish - because he pays an extra fifth, and it will be to Hekdesh's advantage if he redeems it.

(b)The Tana refers specifically to the time when the Yovel does not apply, because at the time that it does - the price is fixed as fifty Sela'im per Beis Chomer Se'orim, in which case there are no bidders.

(c)The Mishnah then discusses a field that the owner declares Hekdesh because it is a bad field - meaning that the expenses exceed the yield.

3)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, the owner opens the bidding with a bid of an Isar - which constitutes eight P'rutos.

(b)According to Rebbi Yossi, he bids an egg - which is permissible, due to the principle Shaveh Kesef ke'Kesef (objects are considered money).

(c)Upon accepting the owner's offer, the Gizbar comments that - he still owns the field (that he is trying to get rid of), and that it has cost him an Isar, to boot.

4)

(a)According to the Beraisa - one actually forces the owner to open the bidding.

(b)We reconcile this with our Mishnah, which says 'Omer lo', in two ways. One of them is by equating the two expressions, so that saying really means forcing. The other that - we initially ask him to open the bidding, but should he refuse, then we force to do so.

(c)Our Mishnah ascribes the request to open the bidding, either to the fact that the owner pays an extra fifth - or because the owner is generally fond of his property, and wants to redeem it anyway or because it is a Mitzvah for him to do so.

(d)Nevertheless, the Tana gives the least obvious of all the reasons - after taking the first two for granted (as if he was coming to add a less obvious reason to the two better-known ones).

5)

(a)We refute the suggestion that the Tana Kama (an Isar) and Rebbi Yossi (an egg) are arguing over whether we say Shaveh Kesef ke'Kesef or not - on the grounds that Shaveh Kesef ke'Kesef is a unanimously accepted principle ...

(b)... and the basis of their Machlokes therefore is - whether, seeing as an egg is worth less than four P'rutos, one is permitted to redeem Hekdesh using something whose fifth is less than a P'rutah (Rebbi Yossi) or not (the Tana Kama).

(c)The point of the Mishnah's final statement 'Nimtza Mafsid Isar ve'Sadeihu Lefanav' is - to present a S'tam Mishnah like the Rabbanan.

6)

(a)In a case where Reuven (the owner) offers ten Shekalim; Shimon, twenty; Levi, thirty; Yehudah, forty and Yisachar, fifty, and all but Reuven retract (but in the reverse order) - Beis-Din claims ...

1. ... ten Shekalim from the property of Shimon, Levi, Yehudah and Yisachar - the difference between the previous offer and their own (see Rabeinu Chananel).

2. ... from Reuven, in the event that he retracts too - ten Shekalim.

(b)And in a case where Reuven bids twenty Sela'im ...

1. ... and everybody else, twenty - then the field goes to Reuven (seeing as, when one takes into account the extra fifth, his is the higher offer [see Shitah Mekubetzes 1]).

2. ... and someone else, twenty one - then he has to pay twenty-six Sela'im (his own total plus the extra Sela that his rival bid.

3. ... and somebody else bids twenty-five - then, by the same token, he must pay thirty Sela'im.

(c)In the last two cases, he does not add a fifth on to the extra Sela and five Sela'im respectively, that he adds on to his own offer - because the owner only needs to add a fifth on to his own offer, but not on to the difference between his own and his rival bidder's.

(d)The Mishnah finally rules in a case where the owner bids twenty Sela'im and someone else bids twenty-six that - provided he is willing to pay thirty-one Sela'im plus a Dinar (which will be explained in the Sugya), he has the first right on the field. Otherwise, the right of redemption passes over to the rival bidder (since he outbid him).

7)

(a)Rav Chisda establishes our Mishnah, which obligates Yisachar and Yehudah to pay ten Sela'im each, specifically where Yehudah does not also retract. If he does - then Yisachar will have to share the difference between his offer and that of Levi (thirty Sela'im [even though Yehudah does not need to share the difference between his own offer and that of Yisachar, with which he is not connected]).

(b)Consequently, Yisachar will then have to pay Hekdesh - fifteen Sela'im (his own ten, plus half of the difference between the ten of Levi and Yehudah's offers), and Yehudah the other half.

(c)Our Mishnah appears to prove Rav Chisda wrong - since, even though all of the subsequent bidders retracted, each has only to pay the difference between his own bid and the previous bidder.

(d)Therefore, when the Mishnah says that Yehudah, Levi and Shimon retracted, he tries to interpret it to mean (not that they all retracted, one after the other, but) that - each one is an independent case, and only the one mentioned actually retracted.

8)

(a)The problem that remains however, is with Reuven and Shimon (the owner and the first rival bidder) - both of whom seem to have retracted, in which case Reuven ought to pay five Shekalim, and Shimon, fifteen (as we explained above).

(b)We cannot also establish the Mishnah in two separate cases, with Reuven bidding in one and Shimon, in the other (like we explained by the others) - because then, the Tana ought to have said (not 'Nifra'in mi'shel Eser Asarah, but) Nifra'in Mimenu'.

(c)To reconcile Rav Chisda with our Mishnah, we therefore establish his case where they all retracted simultaneously, whereas our Mishnah speaks where they retracted one after the other. Rav Chisda will concede there that Yisachar will only pay ten Sela'im (and likewise the others) - because he (Yisachar) can argue that when he retracted, Yehudah's offer of forty Sela'im was still intact (so why should he have to share the costs of the difference between his (Yehudah's) and Levi's offer with him?

(d)We cite a Beraisa in support of Rav Chisda - which specifically states 'Chazru Kulan ke'Echad, Meshalshin Beinehen'.

(e)Alternatively, Rav Chisda - comes initially to reconcile the Beraisa with our Mishnah (by establishing the latter where they retracted one after the other, as we explained.

9)

(a)The Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini rules that if Reuven wants to redeem his Ma'aser Sheini for a Sela, whereas Shimon offers to pay a Sela and an Isar - it is Shimon who takes precedence (because he added to the principle (and we do not take the extra fifth that the owner pays into account).

(b)We reconcile this with our Mishnah, which, in similar circumstances, gives precedence to Reuven to redeem his field from Hekdesh, because we count the fifth as part of the payment - by pointing out that by Ma'aser Sheini, the person who redeems it is the one who benefits (so we only contend with the principle and not with the fifth), whereas in our Sugya, it is Hekdesh who benefits (so we make sure that whoever offers the overall higher sum redeems it (so that Hekdesh should benefit).

10)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if the owner bids twenty-five Sela'im and his rival bidder thirty, we force him to accept it. The problem with that is - why the owner is not exempt, on the grounds that he has left a replacement, who is willing to pay just as much as him.

(b)Initially, we answer by establishing the Mishnah where Reuven actually bid twenty-five Sela'im plus a Dinar (a quarter of a Sela), and we answer the Kashya ...

1. ... that if this is so, why did the Tana not say so - Lo Dak (the Tana did not bother to insert in the Mishnah an amount that is less than a Sela).

2. ... that we already know this from the Seifa, where the Tana does cite a case where the owner offers to pay an extra Dinar - by amending the previous answer to where he adds the tiny figure of an extra P'rutah (of which there are a hundred and ninety-two in a Dinar).

(c)Rav Chisda qualifies the ruling in our Mishnah, that the owner does not add a fifth on to his rival's bid - by confining it to where Beis-Din did not yet officially assess the field, but once they did, then he indeed does.

11)

(a)We learned a Beraisa in support of Rav Chisda, where Beis Shamai say 'Mosifin', and Beis Hillel say - 'Ein Mosifin'.

(b)The problem with this, assuming that Beis-Din ...

1. ... did not yet assess the field is - to then understand Beis-Shamai's reasoning.

2. ... did already assess the field is that - Rav Chisda will then hold like Beis Shamai.

12)

(a)In the first answer, we establish the Beraisa where Beis-Din did not yet assess the field and Beis-Shamai - simply go le'Chumra.

(b)In the second answer, the Tana is speaking where they did - and we switch the opinions of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, in which case, Rav Chisda will hold like Beis Hillel.

(c)We reject the second answer however - because this Machlokes is not among the six that are listed in Iduyos, where Beis Shamai goes le'Kula and Beis Hillel, le'Chumra.

13)

(a)In the last case, where the rival bidder bids twenty-six Sela'im, our Mishnah rules that if the owner so wishes, he can pay thirty-one Sela'im and a Dinar. We do not obligate him to redeem the field - because he can argue that he left a replacement, as we explained earlier.

(b)The problem with the extra Dinar that we cite is that - it seems to contravene the principle that we cited earlier, exempting the owner from paying a fifth on the excess of the rival-bidder's offer.

(c)And we answer that - we are merely informing him that should he wish to exercise his right to redeem the field, then that is what he will have to pay. Nobody is forcing him to pay it.