פירוש על קידושין 92:16

Rava derives three halakhic lessons from R. Ammi’s statement. First of all, kiddushin cannot be performed by forgiving a debt, as was stated above. Second, if one forgives a debt and at the same time gives the woman a perutah, she is thinking about the perutah and is betrothed. This is what happened in this situation. The first dates were a loan which he is now forgiving. And the last date is worth a perutah. Third, if she in the end does not want to be betrothed, she must return the money, which here refers to the first dates.

Rav says that the money returns to the giver and that we assume that he gave it to his sister to hold on to as a deposit. She must give it back to him. He did not tell her he was giving it to her as a deposit because he was concerned she would not accept it.

Shmuel agrees that the man knew that the kiddushin would not be valid, but he assumes that the man gave his sister the money as a gift. He did not tell her it was a gift because he thought she would be embarrassed to receive a gift from him (evidently she was not embarrassed that he asked her to marry him!).

Hallah, a portion of one’s dough given to a priest, is supposed to be separated from the dough and not from flour. If one separates it as flour, it is not hallah and if he gives it to the priest, the priest must return it. We do not assume that the man knew that he should not separate dough from flour and that he gave it as a gift to the priest. This is a difficulty on Shmuel who said that we do make such an assumption when it comes to kiddushin.

Shmuel resolves the difficulty by noting that this situation could lead to a problem. The priest might have some flour of his own that he wants to knead and bake. If this flour alone is less than five quarters of a kav, it is not liable for hallah. When he adds this flour in, he will think he need not separate hallah because this extra flour already had the mandatory hallah removed. Now when he eats the bread, he will be eating tevel, produce that has not had the appropriate gifts removed.

How could the priest make such a mistake—he should know that one does not separate hallah from flour? The answer is that people know that one should not separate hallah from flour, but they might err in the reasoning. They might think that its because giving the priest dough is easier for the priest. And if the priest is okay with receiving it as flour, then the hallah separation is valid. But this is not true—this separation is not valid at all.
So the difficulty on Shmuel is resolved—if the priest keeps this flour, a problem might occur. But no problem will occur if the woman keeps the kiddushin money.

Why not say that the hallah separated from flour belongs to the priest, but the dough still has to have terumah removed from it before the dough can be eaten. This would be the like the case of one who separates terumah from a perforated pot for produce in an unperforated pot. The produce in the unperforated pot must still be tithed, but that which was set aside is terumah and belongs to the priest.

The first answer is that when there are two pots or other type of container, the person will understand that the unperforated pot still needs terumah to be separated. The other pot cannot be used. But if we say that the priest gets to keep the hallah separated from flour, people will not think that more hallah needs to be separated from the dough before it can be eaten. This is a case of one container.

This is the same resolution that we saw yesterday. The man will think that since the priest accepted it, it is a valid separation of hallah and he will not separate more hallah from his dough.

The second solution is that the hallah must be returned to the owner not because the priest will make a mistake but because the owner will. The priest will know that that which he receives is not hallah. But the owner will not know that he still has to take out hallah. Therefore, we say it is not hallah.

This is essentially the same difficulty raised yesterday. The Talmud resolves it again—with two pots, the Israelite will understand that he must separate terumah again, even if we let the priest keep what he was given. But with one pot (i.e. the case of the hallah) the Israelite will think that he has separated hallah and he will eat the dough without separating again, which is considered eating tevel, untithed produce. To let him know that his dough may not be eaten until hallah is removed, the priest must return the hallah he was given.

The Talmud cites a source that refers to “one pot” and still the priest can keep the terumah even though the Israelite must separate terumah again. This contradicts what we said before about the Israelite not listening and again separating terumah if it is a case of one pot. In such cases, we should say that what he separated is not terumah otherwise he will come to think that he need not separate again.

In the case of separating terumah from bad produce to exempt good produce, this separation is valid terumah. The other produce can be eaten without separating more terumah, and the terumah he separated is real terumah. However, to prevent people from doing this, the rabbis made him separate terumah again. Thus in one container, even if the person does not separate terumah again, he will not be eating tevel (untithed produce). We can allow the terumah to remain with the priest without concern that a biblical violation will occur.

In the case of separating terumah from bad produce to exempt good produce, this separation is valid terumah. The other produce can be eaten without separating more terumah, and the terumah he separated is real terumah. However, to prevent people from doing this, the rabbis made him separate terumah again. Thus in one container, even if the person does not separate terumah again, he will not be eating tevel (untithed produce). We can allow the terumah to remain with the priest without concern that a biblical violation will occur.

If he said “with these” then he is betrothing her with all of the dates he is going to give her. Even if she eats one at a time she is already betrothed and is eating her own dates.