There is no one hundred dinars here, as he has not yet given her one hundred dinars, and there is no collateral here, since this collateral is not a gift but merely a security. He has therefore not given her anything. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman from the following baraita: If he betrothed her with collateral, she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to collateral belonging to other people, which was in the possession of the man who betrothed her, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak.

As Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From where is it derived that a creditor acquires collateral, i.e., that the individual in possession of the collateral has the actual rights to it? As it is stated: “You shall surely restore him the pledge when the sun goes down that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; and it shall be righteousness to you” (Deuteronomy 24:13). If the creditor does not acquire the pledge or collateral, from where does this considering his return of the collateral as righteousness stem? The creditor is not giving an item belonging to him; why is this considered a righteous act? Rather, from here it is derived that a creditor acquires collateral to a certain extent.

The Gemara relates: The sons of Rav Huna bar Avin bought a certain maidservant on the condition that they would pay with copper perutot. They did not have the money at the time, and therefore they gave a piece of silver [naskha] for her as collateral. Ultimately, the price of the maidservant increased and the sellers wanted to cancel the sale. They came before Rabbi Ami for his ruling and he said to them: There are no perutot here, and there is no piece of silver here either. There was no valid act of acquisition at all because they did not actually give the money, and the collateral does not transfer ownership.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:9): If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and she took it from his hand and threw it into the sea, or into the fire, or into anything that destroys, she is not betrothed. The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: The baraita indicates that she is not betrothed only if the one hundred dinars are destroyed, but if she threw the coins before him but did not destroy them, that is a betrothal. Why should this be? By throwing the coins at him she is effectively saying to him: Take this; I do not want your betrothal.

The Gemara answers: The tanna of the baraita is speaking using the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to state in a case where she throws the money before him that it is not a betrothal, as her action indicates that she does not want to be betrothed. But when she throws it into the sea or into the fire, one might say that since she is obligated to pay for the money he gave her, perhaps she betrothed herself with the money she received. And as for the reason why she did this act of destroying the money, she thought: I will test this man to see if he is an individual of an angry temperament or not. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that even in that case it is not a betrothal.

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:9): If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and she said to him: Give the money to my father, or: Give the money to your father, she is not betrothed. If she said: Give the money to my father, or Give the money to your father on the condition that he accepts them for me, she is betrothed.

The Gemara comments: The baraita taught the case where she said: Give the money to my father, to convey the far-reaching nature of the halakha of the first clause. If she simply said that he should give the money to anybody else, even her own father, whom it can be assumed she wants to benefit, she is still not betrothed. And the baraita taught the case where she said: Give the money to your father, to convey the far-reaching nature of the halakha of the latter clause. If she said that someone else should receive the money on her behalf, it is a valid betrothal even if she said the money should be given to his father.

The Gemara cites a similar case. If he said to her: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and she said to him: Give them to so-and-so, she is not betrothed. But if she said to him: On the condition that he accepts them for me, she is betrothed. The Gemara comments: It is necessary to issue this ruling, despite the fact that it is apparently identical to the previous halakha.

The Gemara elaborates: This is because if the tanna had taught us only the case where she said: Give the money to my father, or: Give the money to your father, one would say that it is in that case there, when she said: On the condition that one of these relatives accepts them for me, that it is a betrothal, as she relies on them and she thinks: They will do my bidding for me and will hold this money on my behalf. But if she says: Give it to so-and-so, someone who is not related to either of them, no, the betrothal is not valid.

And conversely, if the tanna had taught us only the case of so-and-so, one might say: It is here, when she said: Give it to so-and-so, that it is not a betrothal, as she is not close to him and is not interested in giving him this money as a gift. But if she said: Give the money to my father, or: Give the money to your father, to whom she is close, one might say that she gave it to them as a gift, i.e., she accepted the sum as her betrothal money and decided to give it as a gift. If so, she should be betrothed. It was therefore necessary for the tanna to issue both rulings and clarify that she is not betrothed in either case.

The Sages taught: If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with one hundred dinars, and she said to him: Place them on a rock, she is not betrothed. And if the rock was hers, she is betrothed. Rav Beivai raises a dilemma: If the rock was the property of both of them, what is the halakha? No answer was found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

The Gemara discusses a similar case. If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with a loaf of bread, and she said to him: Give it to a dog, she is not betrothed. And if this dog was hers, she is betrothed. Rav Mari raises a dilemma: If a dog was chasing her to bite her, and she said to him: Give the loaf to the dog, what is the halakha?

The Gemara presents the two sides of the dilemma: Does one say that she commits herself to betrothal and transfers herself to him through this benefit that she receives by being rescued from the dog? Or perhaps she can say to him: By Torah law you are required to rescue me, due to the injunction: “Neither shall you stand idly by the blood of your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:16), and therefore she is not betrothed with the loaf because she does not owe him anything. This problem is also left unanswered, and the Gemara again states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

If a man said to a woman: Be betrothed to me with a loaf of bread, and she said: Give it to a poor person, she is not betrothed, even if it was a poor person who is dependent upon her, i.e., a poor person who regularly receives food from that woman. What is the reason for this? She could say to him: Just as I am required to give charity to him, so too you are required to give charity to him. Therefore, this donation is not an indication that she has agreed to the betrothal.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who was selling