Beraisa #1: One could betroth with an item that she stole from him.

Beraisa #2: One cannot betroth with such an item.

R. Mana: There is no dispute - Beraisa #1 refers to an item that could be retrieved from her, so it is considered the property of man.

Beraisa #2 refers to an item that could not be retrieved, so it is considered to be her property.

R. Yosi bei R. Bun citing R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak: Beraisa #1 refers to a stolen item for which the owner gave up hope of receiving it back.

Beraisa #2 refers to when the owner had not given up hope.

R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan: The earlier Beraisa (see earlier daf 46-1 (l) 1.) refers to when he said, "...with the deposit that I have in your hand'', but if he said, "...with everything that I have deposited in your hand'', she is not betrothed unless it all still exists.

Explanation: Why is it different to a loan? A loan is given to be spent but this is not.

Question (against R. Abahu): But our Mishnah taught - "If she ate them as he gave them, she is only betrothed if one of them is worth a perutah''. But according to R. Abahu, she would only be betrothed if all of them remained (at the time of the Kidushin, like a deposit, since his intention was that all of the pieces should be present at the time of the Kidushin. So why did the Mishnah say "one of them'')?

Answer: That statement of the Mishnah was not referring to the latter case of "Be betrothed to me with this date. Be betrothed to me with this one. If one of them is worth a perutah, she is betrothed; if not, she is not betrothed'', but rather to the earlier case of Mishnah (If he said, "...with this and with this'', if their total value is a perutah, she is betrothed) - when she was understood to be saying, "I don't want this one, I want this one. I don't want this one, I want this one'' (See earlier, daf 46-1) (b)) - therefore if one was worth a Perutah she is betrothed.

Question: If so, did we not learn about that case that "If she ate them as he gave them, she is only betrothed if one of them is worth a perutah''...but according to R. Abahu, they must all remain?!

Answer (R. Abun): Didn't we say that the tana is R. Yehudah who holds that the letter 'vav' connects!

R. Yochanan: (We learn in a Mishnah in Maseches Shavuos that if Reuven claimed that Shimon is holding his wheat, barley and spelt and Shimon made a Shevuah that he did not have them; if he later admitted, he must make a Shevuah on each species.) According to R.Yehudah, if he is found to have made a false Shevuah and he connected the three species using 'vav's, sometimes he would need to bring one sacrifice (if each of the species was worth 1/3rd of a Perutah) and sometimes three sacrifices (if each was worth a Perutah or more)...

Just as in the laws of Shevuos he could be required to bring either one or three sacrifices, so too here in Kidushin, all of the dates are combined in one case (that if together they are worth a Perutah she is betrothed) and separate in another case (that she is betrothed from any one - therefore, if she ate them as she received them and one had been worth a Perutah, she is betrothed).

If he said, "Be betrothed to me with this selah'' and she said "Throw it in the sea/river'', she is not betrothed. If she said, "Give it to a poor man'', she is betrothed.

Question: Either way nothing reached her hand, so why is she betrothed in the 2nd case and not in the 1st case?

R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan: She is receiving the benefit of helping the poor rather than receiving the actual money.

R. Pinchas: This follows either R. Zeira or R. Hila who comment on the following Beraisa...

Beraisa: A person can tell his worker, "Take this dinar and use it for your food'' or "Take this dinar and use it for your drink'', we are not concerned that the worker might buy with it Sheviis produce, Maaseros or Yayin Nesech.

But if he told him, "Go out and buy for yourself a loaf and I will pay you for it'' or "Go out and buy a measure of wine and I will pay you for it'', we are concerned that he bought these prohibited things.

R. Zeira: The shopkeeper became the shaliach of the employer to give the worker and it is as if the employer fed the worker these prohibited things.

R. Hila: The worker acquires from the shopkeeper for the employer and then acquires it for himself.

Here also, according to R. Zeira, the husband became the shaliach of the wife to give to the poor man.

R. Hila: The poor man acquires for the woman and then acquires it for himself.

Question: What is the practical difference between R. Zeira and R. Hila?

Answer #1: If the shopkeeper was a cheresh (deaf/mute) - according to R. Zeira, there is no marriage as a cheresh cannot become a shaliach; according to R. Hila, she is married.

Answer #2: If the worker was a cheresh, according to R. Hila, there is no marriage as a cheresh cannot give to others; according to R. Zeira, she is betrothed.