Clarification: This speaks when the Yovel does not apply - because that is when it is redeemed for its value, and it is therefore beneficial to Hekdesh to begin with the owner, on account of the extra fifth.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas at the time when the Yovel applies, it is redeemed according to its seeds - fifty Sela'im for each Kur of barley seeds.

Clarification: Moreover, it is speaking about a Sadeh Achuzah in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash, where there is a benefit to Hekdesh ...

Clarification (cont.): Because if he redeems it when the Beis-Hamikdash is not standing, he is permitted, even Lechatchilah, to redeem it for a Shaveh P'rutah (See Tosfos Yom-Tov) ...

Reason: Since there is no benefit for Hekdesh - seeing as it goes to waste ...

Source: As the Gemara will explain later at the end of the Perek (Daf 29a) - 'When a person who declared his property Cherem came before Rav Yehudah, he told him to to take four Zuzim, to redeem his property with it and throw it in the river, at which point his property will become permitted to him.

Question: How is it possible to find a time during the era of the Beis-Hamikdash where there is no Yovel?

Answer: When Yisrael are in exile, since Yovel requires all its inhabitants living in Eretz Yisrael.

Question: How could this have occurred in the life-time of Rebbi Yossi, seeing as he did not live during the era of the Beis-Hamikdash, in which case it would not have been necessary to open the proceedings with the owner?

Answer #1: He argued on the tradition that was handed down concerning this episode that took place during the era of the Beis-Hamikdash.

Answer #2: Alternatively, even not during the era of the Beis-Hamikdash, the Din of redeeming via the owner first applies ...

Reason: Based on the Pasuk (in Vayikra 27) "Im Lo Yig'al ... ve'Nimkar".

Question: Why is forcing necessary here more than all the cases cited in in Mishnah at the end of the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 13a) ...

Question (cont.): 'The Mitzvah of redemption precedes that of breaking the neck (of a first-born donkey)'; 'The Mitzvah of Ye'idah (of an Amah ha'Ivriyah) precedes that of redemption'; 'The Mitzvah of Yibum precedes that of Chalitzah'; 'The Mitzvah of redeeming via the master (of a Tamei animal that he was Makdish to Bedek ha'Bayis) precedes that of anybody else' ...

Question (concl): And the Gemara there learns all the cases from Pesukim, yet we do not find forcing other than in the current case?

Answer: The case here is different, since it can cause a Takalah, in the event that people derive Hana'ah from it.

Clarification: There is a Machlokes in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 53b) - One opinion holds 'be'Chumcho', the other, 'Bo', even though there is not a fifth in the Chomesh.

Clarification (cont): Presumably, an egg is worth a P'rutah.

Question: What is the Kashya, asks Rebbi Elchanan ...

Refuted Explanation #1: It cannot be that the Mishnah says that if both the owner and somebody else offers twenty, the owner takes preference, whereas here (the Mishnah in Ma'ser Sheini) the Tana rules that the other person comes first? ...

Refutation: Because what would be the Kashya - since the reason that the owner takes precedence is only where nobody else offers more?

Refuted Explanation #2: Nor can the Kashya be from the Seifa of the Mishnah - 'If someone say I will take it for twenty-one, the owner comes first and pays twenty-six, whereas ere, the Tana rules that the other person comes first?

Refutation: This too, is no Kashya - seeing as the reason (here) is only because he adds to the Keren which is a Sela (See Avodah Berurah), by the same token, the Din in our Mishnah gives precedence to the owner who also adds to the Keren ...

Refutation (cont.): By giving twenty-six, one more than on the twenty, since the fifth is on account of the Keren which is twenty.

Authentic Explanation (Question): Perhaps what the Gemara is asking is - Why do we force the owner to add to the offer of the other person plus a fifth, more than what he is offering, as it says 'That the owner gives twenty-six' or 'twenty-seven' ...

Authentic Explanation (Question [cont.]): When here the Tana says that when the owner offers a Sela and someone else, a Sela plus an Isar, the latter takes precedence, and we don't force the owner to give as Sela and an Isar plus a fifth ...

Authentic Explanation (Question [cont.]): Seeing as it states that 'The Sela plus an Isar takes precedence' - and not that the owner must pay five Dinrim, which is the Keren plus a fifth plus an Isar.

Authentic Explanation (Answer [concl.]): And the Gemara answers - 'Here where the fifth is to the benefit of Hekdesh, the fifth takes precedence; therefore we force the owner, whereas there the fifth is to the benefit of the owner (i.e. Hekdesh does not benefit).

Clarifying Text: This is the correct text, and so it appears in the Seifer of Rabeinu Tam ...

Clarifying Text: And not 'Tanya Nami Hachi'.

Reinstating refuted Text: However, if one reads the refuted text, this is how we must explain it - 'There is a Beraisa thaat supports the fact that one adds to the assessment, ,either like Beis Shamai or like Beis Hillel.

Explanation: And the Gemara is trying to bring a proof for Rav Chisda.

Conclusion: At the end of the day however, it is preferable to read 'Tanya' without 'Nami Hachi'.