And conclude from it that generally, money that was given for a betrothal that did not take effect is returned. It is not viewed as a gift, but as a loan that must be repaid. This is evident from the fact that all the dates except the last one are considered a loan that must be repaid.

§ It was stated: In the case of one who betroths his sister by giving her money, Rav says: The money of the betrothal must be returned by his sister, as this betrothal does not take effect. And Shmuel says: This money is considered to be a gift that she may keep. The Gemara clarifies their respective opinions. Rav says: The money must be returned, since a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he decided to give the money to her for the sake of a deposit. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And let him explicitly say to her that he is giving her the money for the sake of a deposit. The Gemara answers: He thought she would not accept it from him.

And Shmuel maintains: The money is considered to be a gift, because a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with his sister, and he decided to give the money to her for the sake of a gift. The Gemara again raises a difficulty: And let him explicitly say to her that he is giving it to her for the sake of a gift. The Gemara answers: He thought it would be embarrassing to her and she would refuse to accept the money. He therefore attempted to give it to her by an alternative method.

Ravina raises an objection from a mishna (Ḥalla 2:5): In the case of one who separates his ḥalla, the portion of dough that must be given to a priest, from flour, before it has been made into dough, the portion he has separated is not ḥalla. Since the Torah states: “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart” (Numbers 15:20), ḥalla can be separated only from dough. And if the priest fails to return the flour it is considered stolen property in the priest’s possession. Ravina asks: And why is it stolen property in the priest’s possession? In this case too, let us say as Shmuel does: A person knows that one cannot separate ḥalla from flour, and he gave the flour for the sake of a gift.

The Gemara answers: There it is different. The priest must return the flour because otherwise a ruinous situation may emerge from it. How so? Sometimes the priest has, on his own, less than five-fourths of a kav of flour, i.e., he has less than the amount necessitating the separation of ḥalla, and he also has this flour, which gives him a total of more than five-fourths of a kav, the amount necessitating the separation of ḥalla. He will knead all this flour together and will think his dough has been made ready with regard to ḥalla, since he did not have enough of his own flour to require the separation of ḥalla and he had added flour that had been separated as ḥalla to it. And he will then come to eat it in its untithed state, as the flour he received was not in fact ḥalla. Therefore, the Sages required him to return the flour.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say that a person knows that one may not separate ḥalla from flour? How can the priest make such an error? The Gemara answers: He knows the halakha but he does not know the reason for the halakha. He knows that one cannot separate ḥalla from flour, but he does not know the reason, as he thinks: What is the reason one may not separate ḥalla from flour? Due to the labor of the priest, i.e., to prevent the priest from having to knead it himself. And as far as the labor of the priest goes, he thinks: I have relinquished the right to have the non-priest knead it for me.

The Gemara asks a question based on a comparison to a similar case: But why must the priest go to the effort of returning the flour to its owner? Let the separated flour be considered teruma, i.e., ḥalla, by rabbinic law, and it should not be eaten by the priest until he removes ḥalla for it from somewhere else, in order to make it ready to be eaten. Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Demai 5:10): If one separated teruma from produce grown in a perforated pot, which is obligated in terumot and tithes by Torah law, for produce that had grown in a non-perforated pot, which is not obligated in terumot and tithes according to Torah law; although the separating of teruma did not take effect, and the putative teruma is still untithed produce, it is considered to be teruma and remains in the possession of the priest, and it may not be eaten until he removes teruma and tithes for it from somewhere else. The same halakha should apply in the case of the ḥalla.

The Gemara answers: With regard to things that are in two separate containers, the priest will listen. Since the priest is well aware of the difference between a perforated and a non-perforated pot, he will accept the ruling of the Sages to separate teruma an additional time. With regard to something that is in one container, he will not listen. He does not see any difference between receiving flour or dough, and he will not accept the ruling of the Sages to separate ḥalla an additional time. Consequently, they required him to return the flour.

And if you wish, say that the tanna has a different concern: Actually, a priest will listen even with regard to something in a single container, and the concern is that the prior owner of the flour will think that his dough has been made ready to eat and he will come to eat it in its untithed state.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say that a person knows that one may not separate ḥalla from flour? The Gemara answers: He knows the halakha but he does not know the reason for the halakha. He knows that one cannot separate ḥalla from flour, but he does not know the reason, as he thinks: What is the reason one may not separate ḥalla from flour? It is due to the labor of the priest. And as far as the labor of the priest goes, he thinks: The priest has accepted that task upon himself.

The Gemara makes a suggestion based on a comparison to a similar case: But let it be teruma, i.e., ḥalla, and he should separate teruma again. Didn’t we learn a similar idea in a mishna (Demai 5:10): If one separated teruma from produce grown in a non-perforated pot for the produce of a perforated pot, it is teruma by rabbinic law, but he must separate teruma again to render the produce grown in the perforated pot ready to eat. The Gemara answers: We have already established that with regard to things that are in two separate containers, one will listen, but with regard to something that is in one container, one will not listen.

The Gemara questions this assumption: And will one not listen to a ruling to separate teruma a second time from a single container? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Terumot 3:1): In the case of one who separated a cucumber as teruma to give to a priest, and that cucumber was found to be so bitter that it was inedible, or if he separated a melon and it was found to be spoiled, his separation is still teruma, but he must separate teruma again? The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is full-fledged teruma by Torah law, and even if he does not listen and separate teruma again, no Torah law will be violated.

What is the source from which it is extrapolated that it is full-fledged teruma by Torah law? It is from a statement of Rabbi Ilai, for Rabbi Ilai says: From where is it derived that one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce, i.e., in order to fulfill the obligation of separating teruma from the high-quality produce, that his teruma is teruma? As it is stated with regard to teruma: “And you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof” (Numbers 18:32). The verse is saying to give the best part as teruma, and one who gives a bad portion has committed a transgression. Nevertheless, the verse indicates that the separated produce is teruma; if it were not sacred as teruma why would one bear a sin? If one’s action were to no effect, he has not sinned. From here it is derived that if one separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce, his teruma is teruma.

Rava said: