(Abaye): According to Rav, if Reuven said 'you are Mekudeshes to me from now and after 30 days', then David said 'you are Mekudeshes to me from now and after 20 days', then Moshe said 'you are Mekudeshes to me from now and after 10 days' (and she wants to marry someone else), she needs a Get only from the first and last men, not from the middle man.

This is because either way we judge it, she is Mekudeshes to the first or last man. If 'and after so and so days' is a Tenai, she is Mekudeshes to the first man. If it is a retraction, she is Mekudeshes to the last man.

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that 'from now and after 30 days' has both connotations, and there is an (independent) doubt about what each man meant, so she needs a Get from every man;

Abaye teaches that this is not so. It means the same for every man.

(Ula): R. Yochanan says, in this way ('you are Mekudeshes to me from now and after 30 days', 'from now and after 20 days'...) she can be Mekudeshes to any number of men.

(Rav Mesharshiya Brei d'Rav Ami): R. Yochanan holds that each man was Mekadesh her in a way that leaves room for another man to be Mekadesh her.

Question (R. Chanina - Beraisa): If a man said 'you are divorced) from today and after my death', the Get is valid and invalid. If he died (without children), she does Chalitzah, not Yibum.

This supports Rav (we are unsure whether 'after my death' is a Tenai or a retraction).

This does not refute Shmuel. He says that the Beraisa is like Chachamim. Shmuel holds like Rebbi (that it is surely a condition).

But according to R. Yochanan, he leaves a remnant. Such a divorce is totally invalid. Yibum should be permitted!

Answer #1 (Rava): A Get and death of the husband both permit a woman. Death permits the remnant that the Get did not permit.

Objection (Abaye): A Get prevents her from doing Yibum. Death brings her to do Yibum!

Answer #2 (Abaye): Rather, the Get is totally invalid. Mid'Oraisa, she may do Yibum.

Chachamim decreed that she must do Chalitzah (not Yibum), lest women do Yibum after a Get given 'from today if I die' (which is valid).

Question: We should decree to require Chalitzah after a Get 'from today if I die', lest women come to remarry without Chalitzah after a Get 'from today and after I die' (which is invalid).

Answer: If we decree that she do Chalitzah, women may come to do Yibum!

Question: We should likewise decree that she should not do Chalitzah with a Get 'from today and after I die', lest she come to do Yibum!

Answer: Mid'Oraisa, she may do Yibum. This is forbidden only mid'Rabanan.

(Mishnah): If Reuven was Mekadesh a woman 'Al Menas (on condition) that I will give you 200 Zuz', she is Mekudeshes, and he must give her;

If he said 'Al Menas that I will give you within 30 days', if he gave within 30 days, she is Mekudeshes. If not, she is not Mekudeshes.

If he said 'Al Menas that I have 200 Zuz', she is Mekudeshes if he has;

If he said 'Al Menas that I will show you 200 Zuz', she is Mekudeshes if he shows her.

If he shows her (other people's money) on the table (on which he changes money for a profit), she is not Mekudeshes.

(Gemara - Rav Huna): ('She is Mekudeshes' immediately,) and he must give her;

(Rav Yehudah): '(She will be Mekudeshes)' when he gives her.

Rav Huna says that she is Mekudeshes immediately. Giving is mere fulfillment of the Tenai;

Rav Yehudah says that she is Mekudeshes when he gives. That is when the Kidushin takes place.

Question: What is the practical difference between the opinions?

Answer: If she accepted Kidushin from Shimon before Reuven paid her.

According to Rav Huna, Shimon's Kidushin is Batel (if Reuven eventually gives). According to Rav Yehudah, she is Mekudeshes to Shimon.

They argued similarly about divorce.

(Mishnah): If Reuven divorced his wife 'Al Menas that you will give to me 200 Zuz', she is divorced, and she must give him;

(Rav Huna): ('She is divorced' immediately,) and she must give him;

(Rav Yehudah): '(She will be divorced)' when she gives him.

Rav Huna says that she is divorced immediately. Giving is mere fulfillment of the Tenai;

Rav Yehudah says, the divorce occurs only when she gives him.

Question: What is the practical difference between the opinions?

Answer: If the Get was torn or lost before she gave him:

According to Rav Huna, the Get is valid (if she eventually gives). According to Rav Yehudah, she is not divorced.

They needed to teach the argument in both cases.

Had they taught only about Kidushin, one might have thought that that is when Rav Huna said that it works immediately, for he comes close to her. Regarding divorce, he separates from her. Perhaps he intends that it take effect only after she gives.

Had they taught only about divorce, one might have thought that that is when Rav Huna said that it works immediately, for he is not ashamed to demand the money from her. Regarding Kidushin, she is ashamed to demand the money from him, perhaps they do not intend that it take effect until he gives. (Even though he gains if she never demands the money, he knows that she is reluctant to accept Kidushin that takes effect from now due to her shame to demand the money.)

Question #1 (Beraisa): Reuven divorced his wife 'Al Menas that you will give to me 200 Zuz', even if the Get was torn or lost before she gave him, she is divorced;

She may not remarry until she gives the money.

Question #2 (Beraisa): If Reuven divorced his wife 'Al Menas that you will give to me 200 Zuz', and he died:

If she gave the money, she is exempt from Yibum (and Chalitzah);

If she did not give, she is falls to Yibum;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, she may give the money to one of his heirs (and she will be exempt from Yibum).

(Summation of question): They argue only about whether giving to an heir fulfills 'you will give to me'. All agree that she is divorced immediately if the condition is ever fulfilled!

Answer (Rav Yehudah): These Beraisos are like Rebbi. Chachamim argue with him.

(Rav Huna citing Rebbi): Saying 'Al Menas' is like saying 'from now'.

(R. Zeira): In Bavel, we used to say (like Rav Yehudah) that Chachamim argue with Rebbi;

In Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of R. Yochanan that all agree that saying 'Al Menas' is like saying 'from now';

They argue only about 'from today and after (my) death.'

(Beraisa): If one gave a Get 'from today and after death', she is divorced and not divorced;

Rebbi says, such a Get is valid.

Question: According to Rav Yehudah, Rebbi and Chachamim also argue about 'Al Menas.' Why did the Beraisa explain the argument about 'from today and after death', and not about 'Al Menas'?

Answer: This shows the extremity of Rebbi. Even regarding 'from today and after (my) death', the Get is valid.

Question: The Beraisa should explain the argument regarding 'Al Menas that', to show the extremity of Chachamim (even 'Al Menas' is not a Get)!

Answer: It is better to show the extremity of the lenient opinion.

(Mishnah): If he said 'Al Menas that I have 200 Zuz'...

Question: We should be concerned lest he has!

(Beraisa): We are concerned lest he has 200 Zuz.

Answer: The Mishnah means that she is not definitely Mekudeshes. Indeed, she is Safek Mekudeshes.

(Mishnah): If he said 'Al Menas that I will show you 200 Zuz' (and he showed her others' money on the table, she is not Mekudeshes).

(Beraisa): She intended to see his money.

(Mishnah): If he showed her money on the table, she is not Mekudeshes.

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: The case is, he profits with the money. Even so, she is not Mekudeshes.

(Mishnah): If one said 'Al Menas that I have a Beis Kor (a field in which 30 Se'ah of seed is normally sown) of dirt', she is Mekudeshes, on condition that he has;

If he said 'Al Menas that I have in Ploni (a place)', she is Mekudeshes only if he has there.

If he said 'Al Menas that I will show you a Beis Kor of dirt', she is Mekudeshes, on condition that he shows her;

If he shows her (others' fields) in the valley, she is not Mekudeshes.

(Gemara) Question: We should be concerned lest he has!

(Beraisa): We are concerned lest he has a Beis Kor.

Answer: The Mishnah says that she is not Vadai Mekudeshes. Indeed, she is Safek Mekudeshes.

Question: Why did the Mishnah need to teach this regarding money, and also regarding land?

Answer: Had it taught only about money, one might have thought that this is because it is easy to conceal money;

Regarding land, we would not be concerned. Surely if he had land, we would know about it! The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): If he said 'Al Menas that I have in Ploni', she is Mekudeshes only if he has there.

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that he can claim that it makes no difference to her, since he will bring the fruit from the field. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): If he said 'Al Menas that I will show you a Beis Kor of dirt'...

(Beraisa): She intended to see his field.

(Mishnah): If he shows her (others' fields) in the valley, she is not Mekudeshes.

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: The case is, he is a sharecropper on the field.