Question: Why does our Mishnah discuss telling a friend, and a previous Mishnah (50a) discusses telling a Shali'ach (to be Mekadesh a woman in a certain place)?

Answer: In each case, it teaches a bigger Chidush:

In our Mishnah, one might have thought that it is considered deceit only if a Shali'ach is Mekadesh her to himself, for a man relies on a Shali'ach, but if he asked a friend, it is not called deceit;

Our Mishnah teaches that this is not so. Even regarding a friend, it is deceit.

In the previous Mishnah, one might have thought that the Kidushin is invalid only if a friend was Mekadesh her elsewhere, she is not Mekudeshes, for the sender did not expect his friend to exert himself to find her anywhere else. (Therefore, he was authorized to be Mekadesh her only where he specified);

One expects a Shali'ach to exert himself. One might have thought that the sender merely suggests where to find her, but the Shali'ach is authorized to be Mekadesh her anywhere. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Ravin Chasida went to be Mekadesh a woman to his son; he was Mekadesh her to himself.

Question: The Beraisa says that this is deceitful!

Answer: Her father did not agree to be Mekadesh her to Ravin's son.

Question: Ravin should have told his son before being Mekadesh her to himself (to avoid suspicion)!

Answer: He was afraid that someone else would be Mekadesh her in the interim.

Rabah bar bar Chanah gave money to Rav to buy a certain land. Rav bought it for himself.

Question: The Beraisa says that this is deceitful!

Answer: The residents of the area were thugs who would not allow (most) people to buy land from them. They respected Rav and would allow him, but would not allow Rabah bar bar Chanah.

Question: Rav should have told him before buying it for himself!

Answer: He was afraid that someone else would buy it in the interim.

Rav Gidal sought to buy a certain land. R. Aba bought it. Rav Gidal complained to R. Zeira, who told this to R. Yitzchak Nafcha.

R. Yitzchak Nafcha (to R. Aba): If a poor man seeks to get something, and someone else takes it, how do we view this?

R. Aba: The latter is a Rasha.

R. Yitzchak Nafcha: Why did you buy the land that Rav Gidal wanted?

R. Aba: I didn't know that he wanted it.

R. Yitzchak Nafcha: You should let him buy it from you.

R. Aba: It is the first land I bought. It is a bad omen to sell it. He may have it for a gift.

Rav Gidal did not want a gift, for "one who hates gifts will live." R. Aba did not want to use it, for Rav Gidal had wanted to buy it. The land was left Hefker for Chachamim.

(Mishnah): Similarly, if Reuven told Leah, be Mekudeshes to me after 30 days...

Question: What is the law if no one was Mekadesh her in the interim?

Answer (Rav and Shmuel): She is Mekudeshes, even if the Kidushin money has been consumed.

This is because there is no problem with the Kidushin money. It is not a loan, nor like a deposit;

It is not a deposit. A deposit belongs to the giver, whereas this money belonged to her.

It is not like (pardoning a) loan (that she owes to him). A loan was given to be spent (from the beginning), and when he pardons it to be Mekadesh her, he does not give her anything (new). Here, he gave the money for Kidushin!

Version #1 - Question: If no one was Mekadesh her in the interim, can she cancel the Kidushin?

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): She can. Her latter words are Mevatel (revoke) her initial words.

Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): She cannot. Words cannot be Mevatel words.

Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): If Reuven appointed Shimon to be a Shali'ach to separate Terumah, and cancelled the Shelichus before Shimon separated Terumah, the Terumah is invalid.

This shows that words (the cancellation) can annul words (the appointment)!

Answer: Giving Kidushin money to a woman is not mere words. It is like an action;

Words cannot annul an action.

Question (Mishnah): If Reuven made Shimon a Shali'ach to divorce Reuven's wife, and Reuven caught up with Shimon, or sent Levi to tell him that the Get is invalid, it is invalid.

Giving a Get to a Shali'ach is like giving Kidushin money to a woman, and words can annul it!

Answer: No. As long as the Get did not reach his wife, it is mere words. Words can be Mevatel words.

Question (Reish Lakish - Beraisa): All Kelim can become able to receive Tum'ah through intent. They cease to be Mekabel Tum'ah only through an action done to change them.

An action can be Mevatel actions and words. Intent cannot be Mevatel actions or intents.

Granted, intent cannot annul actions. However, according to R. Yochanan, intent can be Mevatel intent!

Answer: Regarding Tum'ah, intent is considered like action, like Rav Papa taught:

Contradiction (Rav Papa): It says "when (one) will (actively) put (water on food, it becomes Huchshar to receive Tum'ah)" but we read this like "when will be (passively) put"!

Answer: It suffices that 'water will be put' similar to "one will put", i.e. the owner of the food wants the water to be put.

Version #2 - Rav Zevid (Mishnah): Similarly, if Leah authorized a Shali'ach to be Mekadesh her to a man (and he accepted from David), and Leah accepted Kidushin from Levi, whichever Kidushin came first is valid.

Question: If neither of them received Kidushin for her, can she cancel the Shelichus?

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): She can. Her latter words are Mevatel her initial words.

Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): She cannot. Words cannot be Mevatel words.

Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): If Reuven made Shimon a Shali'ach to separate Terumah, and cancelled the Shelichus before Shimon separated Terumah, the Terumah is invalid.

Answer (Rava): The case is, Reuven himself separated Terumah before Shimon. All agree that an action can be Mevatel words.

Question (Reish Lakish - Beraisa): All Kelim can become able to receive Tum'ah through intent. They cease to be Mekabel Tum'ah only through an action that changes them.

An action can be Mevatel actions and words. Intent cannot be Mevatel action or intent.

Granted, intent cannot be Mevatel an action. According to R. Yochanan, intent should be Mevatel intent!

Answer (R. Yochanan): Regarding Tum'ah, intent is considered like action, like Rav Papa taught:

Contradiction (Rav Papa): It says "when (one) will (actively) put (water on food, it becomes Huchshar to receive Tum'ah)" but we read this like "when will be (passively) put"!

Answer: It suffices that 'water will be put' similar to "one will put", i.e. the owner of the food wants the water to be put.

Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): If Reuven made Shimon a Shali'ach to divorce Reuven's wife, and Reuven caught up with Shimon, or sent Levi to tell him that the Get is invalid, it is invalid.

This refutes Reish Lakish.

The Halachah follows R. Yochanan, even according to Version #1.

Even though one could say that giving Kidushin money to a woman is like an action, words can be Mevatel it.

Contradiction: We said that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan. However, the Halachah follows the following teaching of Rav Nachman!

Question: If a man was Mevatel a Get that he gave to a Shali'ach, can he later use the Get?

Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): Yes.

Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes): No.

The Halachah follows Rav Nachman (his latter words cannot be Mevatel the power of the Get to divorce)!

Answer: The husband didn't intend to annul the Get itself, only the Shelichus.

Version #1 (Mishnah): She is Mekudeshes to the second man (Moshe).

(Rav): She is forever Mekudeshes to Moshe.

(Shmuel): She is Mekudeshes to him until the 30 days end. Then, Moshe's Kidushin vanishes, and the Kidushin of the first man (Reuven) is completed.

Question (Rav Chisda): How does Moshe's Kidushin vanish?!

Answer (Rav Yosef): You find this difficult because you learned that Rav and Shmuel argue about the middle case of the Mishnah (after 30 days). Rav Yehudah learns that they argue about the Seifa. He has no difficulty!

Version #2 (Mishnah): If he said 'from now and after 30 days', she is Mekudeshes and not Mekudeshes.

(Rav): She is forever Mekudeshes and not Mekudeshes.

(Shmuel): She is Mekudeshes and not Mekudeshes until the 30 days end. Then, Moshe's Kidushin vanishes, and Reuven's Kidushin is completed.

Rav is unsure whether 'after 30 days' is a Tenai (a stipulation, you are Mekudeshes to me from now, on condition that I do not retract within 30 days), or a retraction (of 'from now');

Shmuel is sure that 'after 30 days' is a Tenai. Since Reuven did not retract within the 30 days, she is Mekudeshes to him.

Rav and Shmuel argue like the following Tana'im.

(Beraisa): (If one said 'you are divorced with this Get) from now and after my death', she is divorced and not divorced;

Rebbi says, such a Get is valid.

Question: Rav should have said that the Halachah follows Chachamim, and Shmuel should have said that the Halachah follows Rebbi (so we would know that not everyone agrees to the law)!

Answer: It would not suffice to say this;

Had Rav said that the Halachah follows Chachamim, one might have thought that this is only regarding divorce, since he comes to separate from her (perhaps he wants to delay it, and retracted from 'from now');

Regarding Kidushin, he comes close to her (and wants it to take effect immediately, so) perhaps 'after 30 days' is only a Tenai!

Had Shmuel said that the Halachah follows Rebbi, one might have thought that this is only regarding divorce, since a Get cannot work after death (surely he wants it to work from now), but regarding Kidushin, perhaps he retracts and wants it to take effect after 30 days!