Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses an interesting case where a man attempts to enact marriage to a person to whom he is forbidden, such as a sister. Usually marriage is enacted via an exchange of an object of value (classically, a gold ring). In this situation, since the marriage is obviously impossible, what did he intend to do with the object of value or the money? This is subject to a dispute between Rav and Shmuel:
Rav says: The money he gave for the betrothal is returned, since the betrothal does not take effect. Shmuel says: This money is a gift, meaning that he wished to give a gift to his sister and he did so in this manner. 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 purpose of a deposit. And Shmuel says: 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 purpose of a gift.
Sefer Daf Al Daf quotes Sefer Nitzotze Ohr who suggests that this Rav’s position here is dependent on his directive regarding the ethics of gifts, discussed in Gemara Shabbos (10a);
Rav said as follows: One who gives a gift to his friend needs to inform him
The Gemara proves this idea from the fact that God conducted himself in this manner, informing Moshe and the Jewish people regarding the gift of Shabbos. Since Rav holds that one must inform a recipient of a gift, the man in our case could not have intended to give a gift, as he gave it in this backhanded manner, without making his intentions explicit.
What is the purpose behind this ethical requirement? Rashi (Shabbos ibid) explains that it both makes it easier for the person to accept the gift, as he feels your good will, and it enhances the sense of love and connection.
People can sometimes offer gifts, but out of fear of intimacy, avoid expressing the romantic thoughts or feelings behind them. Or a person might have other resentments, and so passive aggressively refrain from a robust expression of generosity that comes along with the gift.
Some may feel that doing loving things is enough, even if not verbally expressed. While it is a generosity of sorts, it can be maddening to the receiver who wants to feel more acknowledgement. On the screenplay of Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye and Golde exemplify the connecting spouse trying to get some validation from the emotionally avoidant spouse:
Tevye: It's a new world, Golde…A new world!…Love...Golde...Do you love me?
Golde: Do I what? !Ssh!
Tevye: Do you love me?
Golde: Do I love you?
Tevye: Well?
Golde: With our daughters getting married, and this trouble in the town, - you're upset, you're worn out, -go inside, go lie down. — Maybe it's indigestion!
Tevye: Ah, no, Golde, I'm asking you a question. Do you love me?
Golde: You're a fool.
Tevye: I know. But do you love me?
Golde: Do I love you?
Tevye: Well?
Golde: For 25 years, I've washed your clothes, cooked your meals, cleaned your house, given you children, milked your cow. After years, why talk about love right now?
Tevye: Golde.
Golde: The first time I met you Was on our wedding day -
Tevye: - I was scared
Golde: - I was shy
Tevye: - I was nervous
Golde: - So was I
Tevye: But my father and my mother said we'd learn to love each other, and now I'm asking, Golde, Do you love me?
Golde: I'm your wife
Tevye: I know. But do you love me?
Golde: Do I love him?
Tevye: Well?
Golde: For 25 years, I've lived with him, fought with him, starved with him. For 25 years, my bed is his, if that's not love, what is?
Tevye: Then you love me?
Golde: I suppose I do.
Tevye: And I suppose I love you, too
While the dialogue does not go as well as Tevye might as hoped. These simple, impoverished and persecuted Jews from Anatevka, see no choice but to accept each others’ form of attachment without a full resolution.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)