(Rava): (The Mishnah says that if she was eating them, she is Mekudeshes only if one was worth a Perutah by itself). This is only if he said '(be Mekudeshes to me) with this, and with this, and with this';

If he said 'with these', even if she was eating them, she is Mekudeshes as long as the combined value is at least a Perutah. She eats her own dates (that she received for Kidushin).

Support (Beraisa): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me with an acorn, with a pomegranate, and with a nut', or he said 'be Mekudeshes to me with these', if the total value is at least a Perutah, she is Mekudeshes.

If he said 'with this, and with this, and with this', if the sum value is at least a Perutah, she is Mekudeshes;

If he said 'with this', and she took it and ate it, 'with this', and she took it and ate it, 'and also with this, and also with this', she is Mekudeshes only if one was worth a Perutah by itself.

Question: What is the case of 'with an acorn, with a pomegranate, and with a nut'?

Suggestion: He said to her 'or with an acorn, or with a pomegranate, or with a nut'.

Rejection: If so, she would be Mekudeshes only if one is worth a Perutah by itself!

Answer #1: Rather, he said 'with an acorn and with a pomegranate, and with a nut'.

Rejection: If so, that is the same as 'with this, and with this, and with this'! (The Mishnah would not teach both cases.)

Answer #2: Rather, he said 'with these'.

Question: The second clause teaches 'with these'. This implies that the Reisha is not this case!

Answer: The second clause explains the first. 'Be Mekudeshes to me with an acorn, with a pomegranate, with a nut' means that he said 'with these';

The Seifa teaches 'if she was eating them, she is Mekudeshes only if one was worth a Perutah by itself.' The Reisha (when he said 'with these') did not distinguish between eating them and storing them. (This is like Rava.)

This is like the opinion that the Seifa of the Mishnah (when she was eating them) refers to the second clause (when he said 'with this, and with this, and with this');

'She is Mekudeshes only if one was worth a Perutah by itself' refers to the last one;

Rav and Shmuel say that the Seifa of the Mishnah refers to the first clause (when he said 'be Mekudeshes to me with this, be Mekudeshes to me with this'). The Mishnah teaches that even when she eats them, one must be worth a Perutah;

Question: How do they explain our Beraisa? Every clause in the Beraisa deals with one encompassing Kidushin! (Why must one be worth a Perutah by itself?)

Answer: Rebbi says that whether one says '(tomorrow, I will eat from the Korban) k'Zayis (an olive's worth, and I will eat) k'Zayis (outside the permitted place)', or 'k'Zayis and k'Zayis' these are separate statements (regarding disqualifying the Korban due to Pigul). Our Beraisa is like Rebbi. (Whether one says 'with this, with this' or 'with this, and with this' these are separate acts of Kidushin.)

(Rav): If a man was Mekadesh a woman with money he previously lent to her, she is not Mekudeshes, for a loan is given to be spent. (She already acquired the money, and merely needed to repay the loan. He merely pardons her debt, he does not give her anything new.)

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about Rav's law.

(Beraisa): If a man was Mekadesh a woman with a loan, she is not Mekudeshes. Some say, she is Mekudeshes.

Suggestion: The first Tana holds that a loan is given to be spent. The first Tana says that it is not.

Rejection (Seifa): All agree that this acquires regarding a sale.

If a loan is given to be spent, how can it acquire?!

Rejection (Rav Huna): No, the Beraisa is when he said that he is Mekadesh her with 100 Dinarim, and he gave only 99.

The first Tana says that she is not Mekudeshes, for she is ashamed to ask for the last Dinar (so she does not agree to 99);

The latter Tana says that she is not ashamed to ask for the last Dinar (so she accepts 99, expecting to get the last one later).

Suggestion: If so, Tana'im argue about R. Elazar's law!

(R. Elazar): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me with 100 Dinarim', and he gave to her one Dinar, she is Mekudeshes, and he must pay the rest.

Rejection: No. Tana'im argue about whether she is ashamed to ask for the last of 100 Dinarim. All agree that she is not ashamed when he owes 99 of the 100.

Question (Beraisa): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me with the deposit I left with you', and she went and found that it was stolen or lost, she is Mekudeshes only if a Perutah of it remained;

Regarding a loan, she is Mekudeshes even if a Perutah does not remain.

R. Shimon ben Elazar says, a loan has the same law as a deposit.

The Tana'im argue about whether a Perutah must remain from the loan, but all agree that she is Mekudeshes through a loan!

(Rava): This Beraisa is erroneous! How can we explain the case of a deposit?

If she accepted responsibility for it (she owes him, for it was lost), this is just like when she owes him a loan!

If she did not accept responsibility, why does the Seifa discuss a loan? It should distinguish within the case of a deposit, and teach that sometimes she is Mekudeshes (when she accepted responsibility), even when nothing remained!

Answer (Rava): One must correct the Beraisa to say 'regarding a loan, she is not Mekudeshes even if a Perutah remains. R. Shimon ben Elazar says, a loan is like a deposit.'

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer #1 (Rabanan): They argue about whether a lender may take back a loan before the borrower spent any of it. They similarly argue about who loses if the money was lost before any was spent.

Rejection (Rabah): No. All agree that the borrower pays if the money is lost, even before any was spent;

When one borrows an object, he must return the same object. If it is lost (even through Ones), he pays for it;

When one borrows money, he need not return the same coins. All the more so, if the coins are lost, he must pay (since the lost coins did not belong to the lender)!

Answer #2 (Rabah): They argue (only) about whether or not a lender may take back a loan before the borrower spent any of it.

Question: Rav Huna taught that if one borrowed an axe, once he chops with it, he acquires it (to use it for the promised time). Before chopping, he did not acquire it;

Suggestion: The Tana'im argue about Rav Huna's law!

Answer: No. They argue only about money, for one who borrows money need not return the same coins;

One who borrows an object must return the same object. All agree that before using it, the lender may retract.

Suggestion: The following Tana'im argue about whether or not a loan can be Mekadesh.

(Beraisa #1 - R. Meir): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me through this loan document', or he authorized her to collect a debt that others owe to him, she is Mekudeshes;

Chachamim say, she is not Mekudeshes.

Question: What is the case of the loan document?

Suggestion: It is for a loan that others owe to him.

Rejection: This is the next case, a debt owed to him by others!

Answer: Rather, it is for a debt that she owes to him. They argue about whether or not one can be Mekadesh a woman with money that she owes him.

Rejection: Really, the document is for a loan that others owe to him. They argue both about a loan with a document, and a Milveh Al Peh (a loan for which no document was written).

Question: Regarding a loan with a document, what do they argue about?

Answer #1: They argue like Rebbi and Chachamim:

(Beraisa - Rebbi): One acquires a document when it is handed to him;

Chachamim say, he acquires it only if the giver also writes a second document to transfer ownership of the first document.

(In Beraisa #1, he gave the document to her, without writing a second document.) R. Meir holds like Rebbi, and R. Meir's Chachamim (those who argue with him) hold like Rebbi's Chachamim.

Answer #2: R. Meir and his Chachamim all hold like Rebbi. They argue about Rav Papa's law:

(Rav Papa): If one sells a document, he must write (or say) 'acquire it, and all the liens it has.'

R. Meir does not hold like Rav Papa. Chachamim hold like Rav Papa.