Question

We talked about this in the past. I just wanted to know something. In the Talmudic passage in Kiddushin 5a, there appears a common feature from money and intercourse to teach that a wedding canopy as well effects betrothal. Then an objection is raised, namely that in intercourse and with money there is great benefit (and perhaps that is responsible for the taking effect of the betrothal) whereas with a wedding canopy, there is not.
In the first book, Talmudic Logic, you add a column, as though “great benefit” is another result. But it sounds to me that actually this is a microscopic parameter and not just another result. That is, the Talmud itself is doing the work of suggesting that there is a shared parameter for money and intercourse that is absent in a wedding canopy.
So is it really correct to add this as a column?