יא אמר רבא שמע מינה מדרבי אמי תלת שמע מינה המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת ושמע מינה המקדש במלוה ופרוטה דעתה אפרוטה
11 - Said R'Johanan: Behold a table, meat and knife, yet we have no mouth to eat!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah stands before us, but it is inexplicable.');"><sup>16</sup></span> Rab and Samuel said: After all, it refers to the firs clause, but it teaches what is most noteworthy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it states it is unnecessary (to teach this, but even this) .');"><sup>17</sup></span> [Thus:] It is unnecessary to teach that if she lays them down she is [betrothed] only if [one] is worth a perutah, and not otherwise. But if she eats them, I might argue that since her benefit is immediate, she resolves to cede herself [even for less than a perutah]. Hence we are informed [otherwise]. R'Ammi said: After all, it applies to the second clause; and what is meant by, UNLESS ONE OF THEM IS WORTH A PERUTAH? Unless the last is worth a perutah. Said Raba: From R'Ammi's [explanation] three [corol - laries] may be inferred; [i] If one betroths with a debt, she is not betrothed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Otherwise there is no need to particularise the last.');"><sup>18</sup></span> [ii] If one betroths [a woman] with a debt and a perutah [i.e., cash], her mind is set upon the perutah,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For here he betroths her with all the dates. But those she has eaten are a debt, as explained above, whilst the last, worth a perutah, is the coin actually given. Since the betrothal is valid, we must assume that she regards the last only, for if she regarded the debt and wished to be betrothed thereby, she could not.');"><sup>19</sup></span>