The Mishnah taught: If a man said, "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.)

The entire Mishnah is speaking about when she said, "I don't want this one, I want this one. I don't want this one, I want this one''. But if he said, "Be betrothed to me with this and this and this'' and she did not respond, they can all combine to make the value of a Perutah.

Question: Who is the tana that holds that the letter "vav'' (i.e. and) allows the combination of all of them?

Answer: R. Yehudah; but R. Meir holds that the letter "vav'' implies this or this. (This dispute appears in a Mishnah in the 5th Perek of Maseches Shavuos.)

R. Yirmiyah citing Rav: If a man said, "Be betrothed to me with this selah (coin) after 30 days''. If she lost/spent the money during the 30 days, she is still betrothed.

Even R. Shimon ben Elazar (who said that a loan is like a deposit, that only if a Perutah still remains at the time of betrothal, she is betrothed), agrees to this.

Question: Why is this case different to a loan?

Answer: The loan was not given for betrothal, but from the beginning, this money was given as betrothal money.

Question (our Mishnah): If she ate them (the dates) as he gave them, she is only betrothed if one of them is worth a perutah.

Conclusion of question (R. Elazar): Accordingly, (that if he originally gave the money for Kidushin, she is married), even if there was no Perutah left, she is married...?

Answer: The case of "she ate them'', refers to the earlier case of "Be betrothed to me with this one etc.'' - so one of them must be worth a Perutah. (But in the latter case where all of them can combine to make a Perutah, there is no need to have a Perutah at the end.)

Question: If "she ate them'' refers to the earlier case, the Mishnah taught that "If she ate them as he gave them, she is only betrothed if one of them is worth a perutah.'' (This implies that if the first one was worth a Perutah, she would be betrothed even if the others were not worth a Perutah. But did she not say "I don't want this one'', and the others are not worth a Perutah?!)

Answer (R. Elazar): This Mishnah follows the opinion of R. Shimon ben Elazar...

Beraisa: "Be betrothed to me with the deposit that I have in your hand'' and she then discovered that it was stolen or lost, if a Perutah still remains of it, she is betrothed; otherwise, she is not.

"(Be betrothed to me) with the loan that I have in your hand'' and she then discovered that it was stolen or lost, even if a Perutah did not remain, she is betrothed.

R. Shimon ben Elazar citing R. Meir: A loan is like a deposit - only if a Perutah remained, she is betrothed.

R. Elazar: R. Shimon ben Elazar follows R. Meir. Just as R. Meir said that whoever changes from the intent of the owner is called a thief; so R. Shimon ben Elazar said it in this case...

As R. Elazar explained that the case of dispute about a loan was when the lender told the borrower, "buy for me wheat'' and he bought barley. Here also, the woman is like the borrower. According to R. Shimon ben Elazar, she is like a thief, since she changed from the intent of the owner.

Question against R. Shimon ben Elazar: If it is considered theft, how could she become betrothed with it?

Question against first tana: If only less than a Perutah remain from the loan, how could she become betrothed with the value of extending the loan since nobody would pay a Perutah to extend such a small loan?!