Support #1 (Rav Yosef for himself - Beraisa): "(An Eved Ivri is redeemed by returning what remains) from the money of his purchase" - a slave is acquired through money, not through grain or Kelim.

Question: Why does it say that grain and Kelim cannot acquire a slave?

Suggestion: They can never acquire a slave.

Rejection: "He will give back his redemption" includes Shavah Kesef! (We learned above that he can be redeemed with what can be used to buy him.)

Suggestion: The grain and Kelim are not worth a Perutah.

Rejection: If so, why did the Beraisa specify grain and Kelim? Even money less than a Perutah cannot acquire him!

Answer: Rather, they are worth a Perutah, but they were not appraised, so their value is not known.

Rejection: Rabah explains the Beraisa to say that money is a valid acquisition of a slave, but not the acquisition done with grain and Kelim, i.e. Chalipin.

Question: Rav Nachman holds that only Kelim can make Chalipin. If so, how can Rabah explain the Beraisa?

Answer: Really, the grain and Kelim are not worth a Perutah. The Beraisa specified grain and Kelim, lest one think that only money less than a Perutah cannot acquire;

One can benefit immediately from grain and Kelim (but one does not benefit from money until he buys something). One might have thought that a slave acquires himself to a master for them, even if they are not worth a Perutah. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

Support #2 (Rav Yosef for himself - Beraisa): If a man said 'I give this calf (or this garment, to Ploni the Kohen) for Pidyon ha'Ben (to redeem my firstborn son)', this does not work;

If he said 'I give this calf (or this garment to Ploni) for five Sela'im for Pidyon ha'Ben, it works.

Question: What is the case?

If they are not worth five Sela'im, how can he say they are like five Sela'im to make the redemption work?!

Answer: Rather, they are worth five Sela'im. However, if he does not fix their value, they are not like money, and cannot redeem.

Rejection: Really, they are not worth five Sela'im. The case is, the Kohen accepted them in place of five Sela'im;

Rav Kahana accepted a turban in place of the five Sela'im for Pidyon ha'Ben. To him, it was worth five Sela'im.

(Rav Ashi): This works only for a great man like Rav Kahana, who needs a turban, but not for regular people.

Mar bar Rav Ashi paid 13 for a turban that was worth only 10. (Because he was a great man, he needed it more than other people.)

(R. Elazar): A man said 'be Mekudeshes to me with 100 Dinarim', and he gave her one Dinar, she is Mekudeshes, and he must give the rest.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It is as if he said 'be Mekudeshes to me with a Dinar on condition that I give you 99 more'.

(Rav Huna): Saying 'on condition that' is like saying (the Kidushin should take effect) 'from now'.

Question (Beraisa): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me with 100 Dinarim', and he was counting out the money as he put it in her hand, he or she may retract until the last Dinar is given.

Answer: The case is, he said 'be Mekudeshes to me with these 100 Dinarim'.

Question: In the Seifa, he said 'with these 100 Dinarim', so the Reisha must be when he said '100 Dinarim', without saying 'these'!

(Seifa): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me with these 100 Dinarim', and they were found to be only 99, or one of them was copper (instead of silver), she is not Mekudeshes;

If one of them was a bad Dinar, she is Mekudeshes, and he must exchange it for a proper Dinar.

Answer #1: Also in the Reisha he said 'these 100.' The Seifa explains the Reisha;

He or she may retract until the last Dinar is given. This is when he said 'be Mekudeshes to me with these 100 Dinarim'.

Support: Presumably, this is correct. If the Reisha teaches that when he said 'with 100 Dinarim' they can retract, we would not need to teach about 'with these 100 Dinarim'!

Rejection: Perhaps the Seifa was taught to show that in the Reisha, he did not say 'these'!

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The case when he counts out the money is different, for then she intends to be Mekudeshes with the full amount.

Question: What is the case in which one Dinar was found to be copper?

Suggestion: If she knew that one was copper, she accepted it!

Answer #1: The case is, he gave her at night, and she did not know.

Answer #2: It was concealed among the other coins, so she did not notice at the time.

Question: What is the case of a bad Dinar?

Suggestion: If people do not accept it for a Dinar, this is like a copper Dinar!

Answer (Rav Papa): People accept it reluctantly.

(Rava citing Rav Nachman): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me for a Maneh', and he gave her a security, she is not Mekudeshes;

Since the Maneh is not here, the security takes no effect.

Question (Rava - Beraisa): If a man was Mekadesh a woman with a security, she is Mekudeshes.

Answer: That refers to a security for the loan of a third party, like R. Yitzchak taught:

(R. Yitzchak): "To you it will be Tzedakah (returning the security in its proper time)" - this shows that a lender acquires the security;

If he did not acquire it, it would not be called Tzedakah to return it!

Rav Huna's children agreed to buy a slave for Perutos (small copper coins). They did not have Perutos with them. They left a piece of precious metal for a security. The value of the slave increased (and the seller wanted to retract).

R. Ami: The coins were never given, so the security has no effect.

(Beraisa): If a man told a woman 'be Mekudeshes to me with a Maneh', and she took it and threw it into the sea, a fire, or another place where it will be lost, she is not Mekudeshes.

Inference: Had she thrown it back at him, she would be Mekudeshes!

Question: She shows that she does not want it!

Answer: The inference is wrong; rather, the Beraisa teaches a bigger Chidush:

Not only if she throws it back at him, she is not Mekudeshes. Rather, even if she throws it to a place where it will be lost and she will have to pay, she is not Mekudeshes.

One might have thought that she accepts the Kidushin, and is testing to see if her husband gets angry easily. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me with a Maneh', and she said 'give it to my father' or 'to your father', she is not Mekudeshes;

If she said 'on condition that he receive it for me', she is Mekudeshes.

The Beraisa teaches 'my father' for a Chidush in the Reisha, that she is not Mekudeshes. 'Your father' is a Chidush in the Seifa, that she is Mekudeshes.

(Continuation of Beraisa): If she said 'give it to Ploni', she is not Mekudeshes. If she said 'on condition that he will receive it for me', she is Mekudeshes.

All the cases must be taught.

Had it taught only 'my father' and 'your father', we would think that only then she is Mekudeshes when she said 'on condition that he receive it for me', for she relies on them;

Had it taught only about Ploni, we would think that only then she is not Mekudeshes when she said 'give it to Ploni', for she does not feel so close to him, but had she said 'give it to my father' or 'to your father', she accepts Kidushin and wants to give it to one of them for a gift. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me with a Maneh' and she said 'put it on the rock', she is not Mekudeshes. If it was her rock, she is Mekudeshes.

Question (Rav Bivi): If they were partners in the rock, what is the law?

This question is unresolved.

(Beraisa): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me with a loaf, and she said 'give it to the dog', she is not Mekudeshes. If it was her dog, she is Mekudeshes.

Question (Rav Mari): If the dog was chasing her, what is the law?

With the Hana'ah that she is being saved, she is Makneh herself (to him);

Or, can she say 'the Torah obligated you to save me!' (I deluded you to get you to fulfill your obligation.)

This question is unresolved.

(Beraisa): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me with a loaf', and she said 'give it to this Oni (poor man)', she is not Mekudeshes, even if the Oni relied on her for his food.

This is because she can say 'also you must feed Aniyim.'