Study Bava Kamma folio 99B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Rava said another interpretation: Everyone agrees that the obligation to pay a wage is incurred continuously from the beginning of the period a craftsman is hired to its end; and everyone agrees that with regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed; and everyone agrees that
But with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he added a jewel [nofekh] of his own for her. R' Meir holds that if a man betroths a woman with a loan and one peruta, her mind is focused on the peruta. Therefore, in this case the jewel serves as the betrothal money. And the Rab
And R' Meir and the Rabbis disagree in the dispute between these tanna’im. As it is taught in the Tosefta (Kiddushin 3:4): If one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me with the payment for which I have worked for you, she is not betrothed, as the payment is a loan, since she already owes him this mon
The baraita cites a third opinion: And R' Yehuda HaNasi says: Actually they said that the halakha is that regardless of whether he said: With the payment for which I have worked for you, or whether he said: With the payment for which I will work for you, she is not betrothed. But if he added a jewel
The Talmud clarifies the dispute: What difference is there between the first tanna and R' Natan? The difference between them is with regard to a wage: Is the obligation incurred continuously or only upon the completion of the work? The difference between R' Natan and R' Yehuda HaNasi is the issue