because the adon did not say a word, one would think that if , in a case of normel kiddushin that if a man said achar 30 kidushin would be ok. however the gamora says in the last few words, it is because the adon did not say achar sheloshim, that both the case of normal kidushin and the case of shifkka, that man #2 wins out. It would seem that if the adon did say acaar sheloshim that in such a case the shifka would be bound to tha adon. Then in a case of normal kidushin , one might think if the man said achar 30 a valid case of kidushin would exist, ko mashma lan not so. Can the reason be that in a case of shifka , if the adon says achar it is as if he said maachav and the girl would be bound to the adon. Therefore in a normal case of kiddushin the man would think "all i need to say is achar and kiddushin would exist" . ko mashma lon not so the normal case of kidushin must specify maachav. Question , why is this reasoning not the case. please help
bruce kirshner, wilkes-barre u.s.a.
I am assuming that the "Ka Mashma Lan" of the Gemara is clear to you. Rashi explains that although we might think that since when the person bought the Shifchah it was with the understanding that if he would want to do Yi'ud with her he would be able to even if someone else had been Mekadesh her , and it should be as if he said "me'Achshav" (from now, working retroactively). "Ka Mashma Lan," therefore, that since he did not say me'Achshsav, even Yi'ud takes effect only mi'Kan ul'Habah.
To clarify, the Gemarah reads as follows. I might think that the reason the second Kidushin takes effect is only because the Adon had not said "l'Achar Sheloshim," but where he said "after thirty," even if he had not said "me'Achshav" it would suffice, and she would be Mekudeshes to the first man, "Ka Mashma Lan."
D. Zupnik