The Gemara asks: But don’t you understand it by itself from this verse? Since the verse compares the Jewish people to teruma, the categorization of “holy” evidently applies to teruma as well. Ravin the Elder interpreted it before Rav: The difference is that with regard to tithe the verse states: “It is for the Lord,” which indicates: As it is, it should be, as consecrated.

§ The mishna teaches: And if he betrothed a woman with consecrated property belonging to the Temple treasury, if he does so intentionally he has betrothed her, and if he does so unwittingly he has not betrothed her; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says the opposite: If he did so unwittingly he has betrothed her, but if he does so intentionally he has not betrothed her. Rabbi Ya’akov said: I learned two halakhot from Rabbi Yoḥanan, the halakha of an unwitting error involving tithe according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the halakha of an unwitting error involving consecrated items according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir. In both of these cases the woman is not betrothed with the items.

He proceeds to explain. One of these halakhot is because the woman does not want to become betrothed with the item, and the reason for the other is because neither the man nor the woman wants it. He adds: And I do not know which of them is due to the woman alone, and which is due to both parties. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Let us see which reason is applicable to which case. It must be that with regard to second tithe, which may be eaten only in Jerusalem, it is not satisfactory for her to be betrothed with it due to the trouble of transporting it all the way to Jerusalem to enjoy it, whereas it is satisfactory for him to betroth her with it, since he acquires a woman by itself, i.e., by the tithe alone, without having to spend additional money of his own. But in the case of consecrated items, it is not satisfactory for the two of them that consecrated property be desacralized by their using it for betrothal.

And Rabbi Ya’akov said the opposite is more reasonable. Couldn’t it be said that in the case of second tithe it is not satisfactory for her to be betrothed with it due to the trouble of transporting it all the way, and it is not satisfactory for him to betroth her with it due to the danger of an accident along the way. If the second tithe gets lost on the way to Jerusalem, she will not have derived any benefit from it. It will cause her distress to think she received nothing for her betrothal, and he does not want to cause her distress. But in the case of consecrated items, granted that with regard to her, it is not satisfactory for her that consecrated property be desacralized through her, but why wouldn’t it be satisfactory for him to acquire a woman by itself, without the expenditure of redeeming a consecrated item? Therefore, the reasons for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement cannot be determined by logic alone.

Rava inquired of Rav Ḥisda: According to Rabbi Meir, a woman cannot be betrothed by receiving consecrated money, but what is the halakha with regard to the money he gives her for betrothal: Does the money become desacralized as a result of the act of betrothal, as is usually the case when one uses a consecrated item for his own benefit? Rav Ḥisda said to him: If the woman is not betrothed, how can the money become desacralized? Since the money has not actually been used, nothing has changed with regard to its status.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin inquired of Rav Ḥisda: What is the halakha with regard to a sale: If one unwittingly uses consecrated money to purchase an item, does the sale take effect? Rav Ḥisda said to him: Even with regard to a sale he does not acquire the item.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin raised an objection to him: The halakha is that if a man deposited a bundle of money with a money changer, the latter may not use the money. If the money changer untied the bundle and used the money, and it turned out that it was consecrated, the money changer is liable to bring an offering for the misuse of consecrated property, since he acted without the permission of the depositor. If the money was not in a bundle, the money changer has the right to use it, since the depositor knows that a money changer frequently distributes money. Consequently, in this case, if the money was consecrated, it is the depositor who is liable to bring an offering for the misuse of consecrated property, since the money changer is considered to have acted with his awareness. If one deposited the money with a homeowner, i.e., not a money changer, the latter may not use it in either case, and he is liable to bring an offering for the misuse of consecrated property if he does. With regard to a storekeeper, the tanna’im disagree: The same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a homeowner; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yehuda says: The same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a money changer.

The Gemara analyzes this: They disagree only with regard to that issue: As one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a money changer, and one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that the same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a homeowner. But everyone agrees that if the storekeeper did spend the money, he has misused consecrated property. This indicates that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, whatever transaction he performed did take effect. The Gemara rejects this: Rabbi Meir stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as follows: According to me, if he spent the money he has also not misused consecrated property, but according to you, at least concede to me that the same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a homeowner. And Rabbi Yehuda said to him: No, I do not concede to you even with regard to this point, as I hold that the same halakha applies to a storekeeper as to a money changer.

The Gemara records a discussion as to the reasons for the rulings of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rav says: