Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, i.e., it is not my fault that we are not getting married, she is not required to return the betrothal money. Here too, let him say: Give me my groomsman and I will rejoice with him.

Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? Shmuel’s statement is referring to a case where the original recipient, in reciprocation, rejoiced with the brother who brought the gifts of groomsmen during the seven days of the wedding feast, but did not suffice to repay him before the brother died. Since it was the usual practice to send the gifts of groomsmen after the groomsman rejoiced with the betrothed man for seven days, he is obligated to reciprocate the gifts of groomsmen, and the yavam cannot claim them for himself.

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Shmuel’s statement that a betrothed woman can claim: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, is a dispute between tanna’im? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who betrothed a woman and then he divorces her or dies, if she is a virgin, she collects two hundred dinars in payment of her marriage contract. And if she is a widow, she collects one hundred dinars. In a place where people were accustomed to return the betrothal money when the betrothed man or woman died, they return it. In a place where people were accustomed not to return the betrothal money, they do not return it. This is the statement of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Actually they said: In a place where people were accustomed to return it, they return it; in a place where people were accustomed not to return it, they do not return it.

The Gemara clarifies: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is identical to the opinion of the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Natan. Rather, is it not that the difference between them concerns the validity of the claim: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him?

And the statement in the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: With regard to one who betrothed a woman and then the betrothal is terminated, if she is a virgin, she collects two hundred dinars in payment of her marriage contract, and if she is a widow, she collects one hundred dinars. In what case is this statement said? It is said where he retracted, i.e., he died or divorced her. But with regard to where she died, the halakha is as follows: In a place where people were accustomed to return the betrothal money, they return it; in a place where people were accustomed not to return the betrothal money, they do not return it. And this applies specifically to where she died; but if he died, they do not return it. What is the reason for this? It is because she can say: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him. This is the statement of Rabbi Natan.

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came to say: Actually they said: Whether he died or whether she died, in a place where people were accustomed to return it, they return it; in a place where people were accustomed not to return it, they do not return it, and she cannot say: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him.

The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, everyone agrees that she can say: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, and in a case where he died, everyone agrees that she does not have to return the betrothal money. They disagree in a case where she died, and here it is with regard to the question of whether betrothal money is given as a sunk cost, i.e., that it is not returned even if the betrothal is not consummated, that they disagree. Rabbi Natan holds that betrothal money is not given as a sunk cost, and in a place where people were accustomed to return it, they return it. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that betrothal money is given as a sunk cost.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the baraita teach that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, in a place where people were accustomed to return it, they return it? This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not hold that the betrothal money was given as a sunk cost. The Gemara replies: This is not referring to the betrothal money, which is not returned in any event. This is what the baraita is saying: But with regard to presents, which the betrothed man sent his betrothed following the betrothal, certainly in a place where people were accustomed to return them, they return them.

The Gemara notes: The dispute between these tanna’im, in the following baraita, is like the dispute between those tanna’im just mentioned, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where the man betrothed a woman with a talent of silver, equivalent to six thousand dinars, if she was a virgin she collects in payment of her marriage contract two hundred dinars over and above this amount, and if she was a widow she collects one hundred dinars over and above this amount. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A virgin collects two hundred dinars and a widow one hundred dinars, and she returns the rest of the betrothal money to him. Rabbi Yosei says: If he betrothed her with twenty, he gives her thirty halves; if he betrothed her with thirty, he gives her twenty halves, as the Gemara will explain.

The Gemara clarifies the baraita: With what are we dealing? If we say the baraita is referring to when she died, is she entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract? Rather, perhaps the baraita is referring to where he died, in which case why does Rabbi Yehuda state that she returns the rest of the betrothal money to him? Let her say: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him. Rather, perhaps the baraita is referring to the case of the wife, i.e., the betrothed, of an Israelite, who committed adultery, who cannot claim that she is available to marry her betrothed, as it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse with him. The Gemara challenges: This is also difficult, as with what circumstance is the baraita dealing? If it is referring to where she committed adultery willingly, is she entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract? Rather, it is referring to a case of rape. But in that case, she is permitted to him. Why should she return the betrothal money?

Rather, the baraita is referring to the wife, i.e., the betrothed, of a priest, who was raped and is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her betrothed. She therefore cannot claim: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, yet she is entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract, and the tanna’im disagree with regard to whether betrothal money is given as a sunk cost: Rabbi Meir holds that betrothal money is given as a sunk cost. Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is not given as a sunk cost. And Rabbi Yosei is uncertain if it is given as a sunk cost or not.

The Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei’s opinion: And since it is uncertain whether or not she is required to return the betrothal money, therefore, she returns only half the money: If he betrothed her with twenty sela, which are equivalent to eighty dinars, she owes him forty dinars. Yet, if she is widowed or divorced, she is entitled to one hundred dinars in payment of her marriage contract, so he or his estate gives her thirty halves of a sela, which are equivalent to sixty dinars, so that she receives one hundred dinars in all. If he betrothed her with thirty sela, which are equivalent to one hundred twenty dinars, she owes him sixty dinars. Since she is entitled to one hundred dinars in payment of her marriage contract, he gives her twenty halves of a sela, equivalent to forty dinars.

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: In every place where they were accustomed to return the betrothal money, they return it. And the interpretation of this statement is that it is referring to Neharde’a. The Gemara asks: With regard to the rest of Babylonia, what is the halakha? Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: The presents are returned and the betrothal money is not returned. Rav Pappa said: The halakha is that whether he died or whether she died or whether he retracted his agreement to the betrothal and divorced her, the presents are returned and the betrothal money is not returned. If she retracted her agreement to the betrothal and requested a divorce, even the betrothal money is returned.

Ameimar said: The betrothal money is not returned. This is a rabbinic decree, lest people say that betrothal takes effect with her sister. If the betrothal money is returned, people are likely to think that the betrothal is retroactively nullified and that the man can betroth her sister, whereas in fact the betrothal was not retroactively nullified and he cannot betroth her. Rav Ashi said: Her bill of divorce proves for her that she was betrothed, so this concern is not in effect. The Gemara comments: And this statement of Rav Ashi is a mistake, since there are those who heard about this, i.e., the return of the betrothal money, but did not hear about that, i.e., the bill of divorce.

§ The mishna teaches: If the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated after the father’s death, they are reciprocated to the middle, because gifts of groomsmen are a legal debt owed to the father, collectible in court. The Sages taught (Tosefta 10:8): Five statements were said with regard to gifts of groomsmen: They are collectible in court; and they are reciprocated only at their relevant time, i.e., at the time of the groomsman’s own wedding; and they are not subject to the prohibition of interest, i.e., it is permitted to reciprocate with a gift of greater value than the original gift;