(a) Bearing in mind that the fact that the Beraisa issues the same ruling in both the Reisha ('Hiskadshi li be'Aeilu') and the Metziasa ('Hiskadshi li be'Zu u've'Zu'), why does the Tana divide them into two separate cases?

(a) Rashi comments that the Gemara is not asking on Rava ('Lo Shanu Ela de'Amar lah be'Zu be'Zu u've'Zu ... '. Then who is the Gemara querying?

(a) How will we now classify the Seifa 'be'Zu Natlaso ve'Ochlaso, ve'Od be'Zu ve'Od be'Zu ... '?

(b) What would the Din have been if she had not eaten the dates?

(c) Then why does the Tana present the case where she did?

(a) Why can the author of the Metziasa 'be'Zu u'be'Zu u'be'Zu, im yesh be'Chulan Shaveh Perutah, Mekudeshes' not also be Rebbi? What would Rebbi say in that case?

(b) How will we then reconcile the Metziasa with the Seifa?

(c) Where is Rebbi's Din cited?

TOSFOS DH ELA MILVEH BI'RESHUS BA'ALIM LA'CHAZARAH IKA BEINAIHU

(a) In practical terms, why does ...

1. ... the Tana Kama of the Beraisa rule that, even if a Perutah of the loan remains, the woman is not divorced?

2. ... R. Shimon ben Elazar hold that she is?

(b) Why does Rav (who holds 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh Einah Mekudeshes) still appear to be a Machlokes Tana'im? Why can he not hold like R. Shimon ben Elazar?

(c) How do we nevertheless reconcile Rav with R. Shimon ben Elazar? When does he hold 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh Einah Mekudeshes, and when will he concede that she is Mekudeshes?

(d) How will we then explain the words 'Im Nishtayer Shaveh Perutah ... ' said by Shimon ben Elazar?

(a) In what regard is this Halachah applicable?

(b) Why can it not refer to becoming obligated to pay for Onsin?

(c) Based on the Gemara in Bava Metzia, at which point does he become Chayav for Onsin?

(a) What will the Din then be if the man betroths her with Shtar-Chov Didah (that he has against her)?

(b) What is the reason for this distinction? If she is not betrothed when the man returns her own Shtar-Chov, on what grounds should she be betrothed when he gives her somebody else's?

(c) Why do we not say in the latter case too, that he has not given her anything?

(a) What does Rebbi say?

(b) In fact, the Gemara could have said that both opinions hold like Rebbi, and they are arguing over Rav Papa. What does Rav Papa say?

(c) What would then have been the reason of the Chachamim for saying that the woman is not betrothed?

(a) What can we now extrapolate from the Gemara's current conclusion ('de'Kuli Alma Leis l'hu d'Rebbibbi')?

(b) The Gemara in Bava Basra presents two versions of the Halachah. What are they?

(c) Which of the two texts does our Gemara support?