Answer: Despite the fact that he normally holds 'Lo Mehani', here he holds 'Mehani' ...

Answer (cont.): And when the Gemara says 'If it is not Kadosh ... ', it means to ask 'If it is no Kadosh, why does the Torah mention 'that he sinned' ...

Source: If it is because he transgressed on the Torah's command, since the Torah has already written (in Bamidbar 18:30) "When you separate the best from it", and Ibid, Pasuk 12) "All the best of the corn, and all the best of the wine and the oil", implying that one must always give the best ...

Source (cont.): It is obvious that he has transgressed ...

Source (cont.): So why does it see fit to add the Pasuk "And you will not bear a sin on it, when you separate the best from it" (Ibid, Pasuk 32) - when it is obvious?

Source (cont.): It must therefore be that the Torah writes it to teach us that somebody who separates from the basd on to the good is guilty of two sins

Source (concl.): He sinned inasmuch as he transgressed the Torah's command to separate from the best and he sinned on his T'rumah by giving from the bad on to the good.

Answer (cont.): Hence the Gemara says 'From here we see that if someone who separates from the bad on to the good, his T'rumah is valid' (See Masores ha'Shas).

Implied Question: The reason that the Tana divided them into two parts - the Reisha, which says 'be'Eilu' and the Metzi'asa - 'be'Zu u'be'Zu' - even though he rules in both cases 'Im Yesh be'Chulan ... ', is ...

Answer: Because he wants to draw a distinction in the Metzi'asa, between 'Ocheles' and 'Maneches', as the Gemara goes on to explain.

Clarification: The Gemara is not querying Rava ...

Clarification (cont.): But it refers to above, where the Gemara explained 'Haysah Ocheles' of the Mishnah - that it refers to the Reisha according to Rav and Shmu'el, and to the Seifa according to Rebbi Ami.

Clarification: And the Seifa (of the current Beraisa) - ' "With this one", and she took it and ate it; "and also with this one, and also with this one' is a P'rat, like "Hiskadshi Hiskadshi', and the Tana says 'Ocheles' to teach us the Din of Shaveh P'rutah.

Clarification (cont.): He also needs to teach us the Din where she puts it down, to teach us that even though the benefit from it is imminent, she is not Mekudeshes for less than a Shaveh P'rutah.

Clarification (cont.): And this does not conform tothe Tana Kama of the Metzi'asa, which states ' "be'Zu u'be'Zu", if there is a P'rutah altogether, she is Mekudeshes' ...

Reason: Because according to Rebbi, it is a P'rat, and each one needs to be worth a P'rutah.

Clarification (concl.): But they are authored by two independent Tana'im, the one who learned the one did not learn the other.

Source: Rebbi's statement is cited in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 30b).

Clarification: This means that according to the Tana Kama of Rebbi Shimon, she is not Mekudeshes, because the loan is in the R'shus of the borrower, and according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar she is, because is in the R'shus of the creditor.

Question: Why can we still not say that Rav's statement is a Machlokes Tana'im - since when he says 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh Einah Mekudeshes', he cannot hold like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar?

Answer: Rav can in fact, hold like him, and there is no Kashya - Because Rav's ruling 'Einah Mekudeshes' speaks by a loan which she has begun to spend, where he says that she is not betrothed, even if a Shaveh P'rutah remains ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar is speaking about a loan which is still intact ...

Implied Question: And even though Rebbi Shimon ... said 'If a Shaveh P'rutah remains, she is Mekudeshes' ...

Answer: He may well be speaking where it was stolen or lost, where she did not touch it, but if she began to spend it, she is not Mekudeshes.

Clarification: He is referring to the owner not being able to retract ...

Clarification (cont.): But as far as being Chayav Onsin is concerned, he is Chayav even before he has used it ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek ha'Sho'el (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 99a) - that he is Chayav Onsin from the time that he makes the Meshichah.

Clarification: But as far as her Sh'tar-Chiov is concerned, she is not Mekudeshes.

Question: What is the difference between them, bearing in mind that both of them are loans?

Answer: Certainly, her loan, that she has already acquired, in which case he does not give her anything new, seeing as the money was hers before the Kidushin, it is obvious that she is not Mekudeshes ...

Answer (cont.): But where he gives her somebody else's loan, he is giving her something new that she did not have beforehand, he says that she is Mekudeshes ...

Reason: Because even though the money is not intact, nevertheless it is a gain for her as if it was.

Halachah: One can prove from here that the Halachah is not like Rebbi ...

Proof: Since the Gemara could just as well have said that both opinions hold like Rebbi, that 'handing over the letters alone is effective' (Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah) ...

Proof (cont.): And in the case of the woman too, it is speaking where he handed her the Sh'tar ...

Reason: And the reason of the Chachamim who say that 'she is not Mekudeshes' is because they hold that, when handing over the Sh'tar, one needs to say 'Acquire it together with all its Shibudim' - and he did not do that.

Machlokes: And their Machlokes is concerning Rav Papa's ruling - that just as Rav Papa says that one is required to write in the Sh'tar 'Acquire it together with all its Shibudim', so too must one say it verbally, according to the opinion that holds 'Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah'.

Proof (concl.): But since the Gemara opted to say that 'They both do not hold like Rebbi', it proves that the Halachah is not like him.

Two Opinions: There are two versions in the Gemara in Perek ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah (Bava Basra, Daf 77a), one that reads 'Halachah Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah', the other 'Halachah de'Ein Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah' ...

Proof: This Sugya however favors the latter version - 'Ein Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah' (See Masores ha'Shas).