Inference: It implies here (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) that Rav Yirmiyah was a Talmid of Rav Huna.

Question: In Perek Tefilas ha'Shachar (B'rachos, Daf 27b) it implies that he was a Talmid Chaver of Rav ...

Question (cont.): Since it says there that 'Rav Davened the Kabalas Shabbos on Erev Shabbos', and that Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba said to him 'Did you make a division?' ...

Question (cont.): And since he did not say 'Did Mar make a division?' it proves that he was his Talmid Chaver?

Answer: It seems that there were two Rav Yirmiyahs.

Implied Question: And even though Rav said earlier (on Daf 44b) 'We suspect that the father gave his consent' ...

Answer: That speaks S'tam where he heard and was silent; but where he objected, he has indicated otherwise.

Clarification: There is no need to mention there where the father does not agree, that she is able to object, but she can object even where he does.

Question: How can her objection be valid after the father agreed. seeing as he has the power to betroth her against her wishes?

Answer #1: That is specifically at the beginning of the Kidushin ...

Answer #1 (cont.): But where she becomes betrothed without her father's consent and he agreed only afterwards, and you want to say that she is Mekudeshes because it is a merit for her ...

Answer #1 (cont.): We say that, seeing as his daughter objects, it is to her detriment, and had he known that she objects, he would not have agreed.

Answer #2: According to Rashi however, there is no Kashya whatsoever ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Rashi explains that since at the time that she accepted the Kidushin, her father did not give his consent, should she then come to retract before he does so, she can retract, and the father's subsequent consent is not valid.

Clarification: Meaning it is obvious that she will not become his wife by means of that Bi'ah ...

Reason: Because even if the father does not object, she will not be his wife on account of that Bi'ah, seeing as he seduced her not for the sake of marriage?

Clarification (cont.): Had he seduced her for the sake of marriage, it would have taught us that both she and her father can object; but now, what Chidush is it coming to teach us?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that what the Pasuk means is that if her father comes to betroth her to that seducer, she is able to object ...

Refutation: Since it is obvious that he can betroth her against her will.

Explanation #1: And the Gemara answers 'To teach us that he pays a K'nas like a Mefutah' - meaning that really it is speaking where he seduced her not for the sake of marriage, and it teaches us that if she objects, he must pay a K'nas ...

Explanation #1: (cont.): Because, just as the Pasuk connects the K'nas of a Mefutah to the objection of her father, so too is it connected to her objection.

Explanation #1: (cont.): Not that her objection is effective to prevent her from marrying him, because, if her father wants her to marry him, she cannot stop it ..

Conclusion #1: But that he must pay K'nas as if her father objected.

Conclusion #2: Alternatively, the difference will be there where he seduced her and she then made Yibum, in which case her objection is effective in preventing her from becoming his wife.

Clarification: This is a statement, stated as a proof.

Precedent: And this is how Rav Yosef tended to speak, like we find in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabos, Daf 28a) - 'If so, that is Targum's translation (of Tachash) 'Sasgona'.

Precedent (cont.): 'Abaye said to him 'She needs Kidushin ... ', and you cannot bring a proof from here.

Explanation #2: Some commentaries explain that Rav Nachman (bar Yitzchak) is coming to explain - 'Really, I will tell you, he seduced her for the sake of marriage' - and the text reads 'Ela Amar Rav Nachman ... '.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And don't say that there is a Kashya on Rav Asi who says 'her father but not her' ...

Reason: Because when the Gemara says here that she is able to refuse, it does not mean that she will not be his wife, because seeing as her father consented, she cannot refuse ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): But what it means is that 'he pays a K'nas like a Mefutah' - like other seduced women, where the father objects, as Rashi explains

Explanation #2 (concl.): In which case Rav Yosef asks 'I Hachi ... ?'

Clarification: Rashi explains that even if the first or the second (date) is worth a P'rutah, even though the last one is not, she is Mekudeshes.

Clarification (cont.): But it is a loan?' - since the Kidushin is not completed until she receives all of them, and she has already eaten the first two dates before she acquires them with her Kidushin, they are a loan by her?

Question: Seeing as they came to her as Kidushin, how can it be a loan ...

Source: When the Gemara later (on Daf 59a) says - 'If someone says to a woman "Be betrothed to me after thirty days", even if the (Kidushin) money has been used up, she is M ekudeshes' ...

Question (cont.): So we see that wherever the money is given to her in the form of Kidushin, it is not considered a loan?

Answer: One can draw a distinction in that there, the declaration was concluded before the money was used up ...

Answer (concl.): Whereas here, where the Kidushin is not completed until after the last handing over, during which time she ate the first and second dates ...

Answer (cont.): One can therefore say that they are a loan by her.

Implied Question: Although it is not up to her to become betrothed for less than a P'rutah, as we learned in the first Perek (Daf 3a) ...

Answer: Nevertheless, one makes a Tzerichusa easily (even if it does concur with the Halachah)]. Tosfos Yeshanim.

Clarification: If he said to her 'Be betrothed to me with this P'rutah, this one and this one!', and before the Kidushin is completed, he retracts from the Kidushin ...

Clarification (cont.): We do not say that the money he handed her before retracting is a Matanah, but a Pikadon, which must be returned to him.

Precedent: Similarly, we say here that - When he said to her 'Be betrothed to me with this date, this one and this one!', and before he finishes speaking, she has already eaten the first two ...

Precedent (cont.): What she ate is a loan, and the Kidushin takes effect only on what is still there - which is why the last date needs to be worth a P'rutah ...

Proof: Because if generally the money would be a Matanah, if the Kidushin is not completed the initial money would be hers, and would not need to be returned ...

Proof (cont.): Then where he completed his words for the sake of marriage, like in this case, the Kidushin would take effect even on the dates that are no longer there, and what she ate was her own ...

Proof (cont.): Because even though generally, it would not be Kidushin since it is a Matanah by her - once he retracts from the Kidushin ...

Proof (cont.): Here, where he did not retract, granted, when she ate the first ones he had not yet concluded the Kidushin, nevertheless, he betroths her also with the first ones, seeing as she received them in the form of Kidushin ...

Proof (concl.): Because it is comparable to where 'the money is spent' later (on Daf 59a), where the Gemara says that she is Mekudeshes, since it was given to her in the form of Kidushin, even if only the first one is worth a P'rutah, or even if only all of them combined are.

Clarifying Machlokes: It may well be that it is in this point that Rav & Shmu'el and Rebbi Ami argue ...

Opinion #1: Inasmuch as Rav & Shmu'el hold that 'Generally, the money is a Matanah', and it goes without saying that the last one need not be worth a P'rutah, but she is Mekudeshes even if they all combine ...

Opinion #1 (cont.): In which case, how can it ('be'Zu u'be'Zu u'be'Zu') refer to the Seifa ... which says that 'One of them must be worth a P'rutah'?

Opinion #1 (concl.): And it must therefore refer to the Reisha, as Tosfos explained.

Opinion #2: Whereas Rebbi Ami holds that generally, the money must be returned, as Tosfos explained.

Clarification: The Gemara initially establishes it on account of the problem with the Kohen, and not on account of the owner ...

Reason: Because the Kohen himself knows when he is Mochel, but the owner does not know that he is] Tosfos Yshanim.

Alternative Text: Some commentaries have the text 'Itmar', without a 'Daled' ...

Correct Text: And they are right, seeing as the Machlokes does not belong here at all ...

Proof #1: Since even the opinion that holds by his sister - 'the money must be returned', that is because 'A person knows ... and he therefore gives the money as a Pikadon' ...

Proof #1 (cont.): Whereas here, where he does not know whether it will take effect or not, he may well have given it as a Matanah.

Proof #2: Moreover, if the text reads 'de'Itmar', there will be a Kashya from Rav on to Rav ...

Proof #2 (cont.): Since earlier we explained that he did want to establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Ami, who establishes on the Seifa, because he holds that 'the money is a Matanah', and here he says that 'it must be returned'?

Correct Text (cont.): It therefore appears that the correct text is 'Itmar' - since it is an independent issue.

Ramification #1: In that that the Kohen does not need to return it ...

Ramification #2: And that the owner is not obligated to separate T'rumah again from the pot without a hole ...

Reason: Because, seeing as the initial Chiyuv T'rumah is only mi'de'Rabbanan, they said that pot without a hole requires no further rectification.

Clarification: According to the opinion there (Temurah, Daf 4b) that holds 'Whatever the Torah says "Don't do", and one does it, it is effective' (I Avid, Mehani), because otherwise, why does he receive Malkos, it makes sense to say that 'Someone who takes T'rumah from the bad on to the good, his T'rumah is valid', because if it would not be Kadosh, what sin did he perform?' ...

Introduction to Question: But according to the opinionthat holds 'If he does it, it is not effective' (I Avid, Lo Mehani), and the reason that he receives Malkos is because he transgressed a command of the Torah ...

Question: Why does the Gemara say here that if it is not Kadosh, what sin has he performed?' ...

Question (cont.): Perhaps it really is not Kadosh, and nevertheless he has performed a sin by transgressing a Torah command?