[R. Elazar ben Azaryah teaches in] our Mishnah that he wrote the Tosefes due to dearness of the first night, that he had Bi'ah [with her. If he did not have Bi'ah, she did not acquire.]

If he had Bi'ah, divorced her and remarried her, dearness of the first night persists (she has Tosefes).

If he had Bi'ah, died, and she fell to a Yavam, dearness of the first night persists (she has Tosefes).

(R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Alachsa citing Chizkiyah): The Halachah follows R. Elazar ben Azaryah, who says that if she was widowed or divorced from Eirusin, [a Besulah] collects 200. From Nisu'in she collects it all.

(R. Chananyah): The Halachah follows R. Elazar ben Azaryah.

(R. Yanai): They said to R. Chananyah, go read Mikra (do not engage in Halachos; the Halachah does not follow R. Elazar ben Azaryah).

(R. Yonah citing R. Ze'ira citing R. Yonason): The Halachah follows R. Elazar ben Azaryah.

(R. Yosa bar Ze'ira citing R. Yonason): The Halachah does not follow R. Elazar ben Azaryah.

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): We had a Siman - Chizkiyah and R. Yonason said the same matter. (Above, Chizkiyah ruled like R. Elazar ben Azaryah. Even though the Yerushalmi uses interchangeably the names Yosi and Yosa, surely, R. Yosi is not the same as R. Yosa bar Ze'ira, for he rules unlike him.)

(Beraisa): If one's son went overseas, and he heard that [his son] died, and he wrote (gave) all his property to someone else, and afterwards his son came, his gift stands;

R. Shimon ben Menasiya says, his gift does not stand. Had he known that his son is alive, he would not have written [the property to someone else].

And R. Yakov bar Acha said that the Halachah follows R. Elazar ben Azaryah;

And R. Elazar ben Azaryah and R. Shimon ben Menasiya are the same opinion (we follow assessment of intent. It follows that the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Menasiya.)

And so an episode was conducted in practice like R. Elazar ben Azaryah. (We explained this like ALEI TAMAR.)

Note: Even according to ALEI TAMAR's text, why did the Gemara say that they (R. Elazar ben Azaryah and R. Shimon ben Menasiya) are the same opinion, in between two sources that we rule like R. Elazar ben Azaryah? Even if R. Yakov bar Acha taught also '... are the same opinion', he should have said so before ruling like R. Elazar ben Azaryah! Perhaps '...are the same opinion' belongs before the first source (and R. Yakov bar Acha said...) This would also explain why it says 'and R. Yakov bar Acha said.' (PF)

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): He may write 200 to a Besulah, and she writes (a receipt) that she received 100 (even if she did not). He may write 100 to a widow, and she writes that she received 50 Zuz;

R. Meir says, if one reduced the Kesuvah from 200 for a Besulah or from 100 for a widow, the Bi'ah is [like] Znus.

(Gemara) Assumption: R. Yehudah holds that one may not decrease [the Kesuvah] from 100 to a virgin, or 50 Zuz to a widow.

Question: He should write [this amount] from the beginning! (Why does he write the full Kesuvah, and she writes that she received half?)

Answer: [He agrees that one must fulfill the enactment to write 100 or 200], just he may decrease afterwards [as much as she consents].

Question: [The Mishnah should say that] she writes 'I received from you such an amount' (to teach that there is no fixed amount that must remain)!

Answer: [Indeed,] a Beraisa was found in which Bar Kapara taught 'I received from you such an amount.' (We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

(R. Yochanan): R. Yehudah said [that she can pardon] only at the end, but at the beginning, even R. Yehudah agrees [that she cannot, for this is like uprooting Chachamim's enactment].

Question: What is 'at the beginning', and what is 'at the end'?'

Answer #1 (Talmidim citing R. Yochanan): They are before he had Bi'ah, and after he had Bi'ah, [respectively].

Answer #2 (R. Ze'ira citing R. Yochanan): They are before Nisu'in, and after Nisu'in, [respectively].

Question: If he made Nisu'in (according to R. Ze'ira) or had Bi'ah (according to Talmidim), and divorced her and returned her (was Mekadesh her again, but did not yet have Nisu'in/Bi'ah), is this considered at the beginning, or at the end? (We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

Question: What is a wife, and what is a Pilegesh (concubine)?

Answer #1 (R. Meir): A wife has a Kesuvah. A Pilegesh does not have a Kesuvah.

Answer #2 (R. Yehudah): Both of them have a Kesuvah. A wife has a Kesuvah and Tenai Kesuvah. A Pilegesh has a Kesuvah, but not Tenai Kesuvah.

(Rav Yehudah citing Rav): This is the opinion of R. Meir and R. Yehudah, but Chachamim say that one may marry a woman and stipulate on condition not to feed and finance her (supply other needs, e.g. clothing), and not only this, rather, that she will feed and finance him, and teach him (i.e. enable him to be free to learn) Torah;

A case occurred with R. Yehoshua, the son of R. Akiva. He married a woman and stipulated, on condition not to feed and finance her, and not only this, rather, that she will feed and finance him, and teach him Torah;

When famine years came [and she could not support him], they divided the property between them. She began to complain about him to Chachmei Yisrael. He said, I believe her more than anyone (ask her what we stipulated).

She told them, surely so I stipulated with him. They told her, after Kinyan there is nothing (you cannot retract. You must fulfill what you accepted. CHASDEI DAVID (Tosefta 4:7) - they explicitly stipulated so even for famine years. If not, this would be considered Ones.)