R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan: If he said, "...from now, after 30 days'', if even 100 men betrothed her with the same wording during those 30 days, she is betrothed to all of them.

R. Elazar: The Mishnah is teaching this even if the second one betrothed her without condition. (The Mishnah does not need to teach R. Abahu's case when the second man also betrothed on condition, as it is certainly a case of doubtfully betrothed.)

Question (R. Yitzchak bar Tavlai to R. Elazar): Either way, the first acquires a certain part of her and the second comes and completes the rest! (What did he leave over?)

Answer (R. Elazar): Is there 'either way' (i.e. logic) in Arayos (prohibited relationships)? If a woman is not acquired specifically to one person, she can be acquired by even 100 men.

Question (A student to R. Zeira): If (during the 30 days, a second man) betrothed her in the morning on condition to divorce her in the afternoon, if the first man then died or divorced her; is she forbiddden to the second one because of the prohibition of taking back one's ex-wife?

Answer (a certain convert): Since the second one did make some type of acquisition (after which the first one's kidushin was still in existence), the prohibition applies for her to return to him after the first one dies/divorces).

Rejection (R. Zeira): Until after 30 days, the first one's kidushin is not a complete acquisition. However, if the second kidushin was complete (without the condition to divorce her in the afternoon), there would be a prohibition to return to him.

If they were both Kohanim or both brothers, both are prohibited to her.

If there were three brothers and two of them betrothed her (as described above) and they both died, the law follows the Beraisa of R. Chiya...

Beraisa: A wife that fell from one deceased person does yibum but if she fell from two deceased people, she cannot do yibum.

Question: If there were two brothers who both betrothed her and one died, is the second permitted to her?

Answer: The second one is permitted to the part of her that he betrothed and the other part of her is permitted through yibum.

R. Yuda ben Pazi: No, she is prohibited to him.

R. Yosi: R. Yudan ben Pazi's reasoning is that any yevamah that is not fully acquired to the yavam, her part that is not acquired is considered like an ervah (forbidden relationship) to him and the permitted part is like a co-wife of an ervah, that becomes exempt from yibum.

R. Chaninah: R. Yudah bar Pazi is correct - she fell to him because of his brother, but she was prohibited to his brother during his life, so how can she become permitted to him?!

The Mishnah ruled: If she is the daughter of a Kohen betrothed to a Yisrael, she may not eat Terumah.

The Mishnah is teaching that even if the second one was a Kohen (and she is the daughter of a Kohen) she may still not eat Terumah (as the marriage of the first man who is a Yisrael disqualifies her).

(Mishnah): If a person said to a woman, "Behold, you are betrothed to me on condition that I will give you 200 zuz'', she is betrothed and he must give.

"...on condition that I will give you (200 zuz) in the next 30 days'', if he gave her within that time, she is betrothed; if not, she is not.

"...on condition that I have 200 zuz'', she is betrothed if he has it.

"...on condition that I will show you 200 zuz'', she is betrothed and he must show her. If he showed her (someone else's) money on the table, she is not betrothed.

(Gemara - Mishnah in Maseches Gitin): If he said, "This is your get on condition that you will give me 200 zuz'', she is divorced and she must give it.

If he died before she paid him, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that she can pay his father or brother and thereby become exempt from chalitzah and yibum (i.e. she is considered a divorcee rather than a widow).

The law of betrothal is the same - If one said to a woman, "Behold, you are betrothed to me on condition that I will give you 200 zuz''; according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, his father or brother can pay her and she will then require chalitzah or yibum if he died (i.e. she is considered a widow).

R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan: The text of a simfon (engagement agreement) is this - I, ploni son of ploni, betroth you, plonis daughter of plonis on condition that I will give you the sum of money as written and I will perform with you nisuin on day ploni. If day ploni comes and I do not perform nisuin with you, I have no claim against you (and the betrothal is annulled).

If an accident occurred and he was unable to come and perform nisuin...

R. Yochanan: He did not keep the condition (and she is not married)

R. Shimon ben Lakish: Since it was accidental, it is as if he kept the condition (and she remains married to him).

According to R. Shimon ben Lakish, how would he write a simfon that would reject any claim of accident? It would say, "If day ploni comes and you do not wish to perform nisuin with me, the betrothal is annulled. (Therefore, as long as she refuses when he cannot come, they are not married.)

When R. Yochanan was dying, he ordered his daughters to follow the ruling of R. Shimon ben Lakish. He explained that perhaps a Beis Din would arise who follow the ruling of R. Shimon ben Lakish and it would cause their children to become Mamzerim (if they followed the ruling of their father in this case, to marry without a get).

If the agreed time for nisuin arrived and he claims that he (fulfilled the condition and) gave the money and she denies it...R. Avun ruled that since he wishes to extract (and cancel) the simfon that is in her hands, he must bring proof to his claim.

Question: If there was a verbal agreement rather than a written document, who would be believed?

R. Yosi: Since he wishes to prohibit her on others (as he claims that he fulfilled the condition and that she is married to him), he must prove it; otherwise, she is believed and they are not married.

Such a case (that he performed nisuin with her within the time and claimed that he had paid her) came before R. Abahu and he told the husband that (he is not believed and that) he must pay her. The husband replied, "Rebbi, (if you do not believe that I paid her then) I did not acquire her in marriage; so why are you telling me to pay her?'' Said R. Abahu, "In all of my life, nobody other than this man ever got the better of me.''

R. Abahu: If he tried to retract, he must still pay her. If she tried to retract, she must pay him according to the condition.

Question: Did R. Abahu not agree with the man's claim and retract his original ruling? (But here, he seem to be restating it!) If so, we cannot learn anything from this case!

Answer: He realized that he had mistakenly agreed with the man and he ultimately reinstated his original ruling and made it an official ruling of the Beis Din.

The order of a simfon is - one witness is brought by the groom and one by the bride and they both choose a third witness, so that there will be two witnesses representing each side.

The law above (in 2) (k)) that he must bring proof applies only when they disagree with each other as to whether it was given or not, but if they both agree that the condition was not fulfilled (as the money was not given), they are both able to uproot the marriage.

Proof: (If a yavam and yevamah lived together for 30 days,) if the yavam said that they had relations (i.e. they performed yibum) and she denied it, even if he later retracted and admitted that they did not have relations, his new claim is not accepted and they are assumed to be married.

But if he said originally that that they had not had relations, both are able to dispel the assumption that they had relations (and they still perform chalitzah).

If one witness was brought by the groom and one by the bride and the groom signed the document...

R. Abahu: It is a simfon.

R. Ba: It is a kidushin (without a valid simfon) as I say that he only wrote a simfon because he thought that he might wish to marry the bride's sister in the future (and he wanted to have a way of avoiding fulfilling the conditions of this marriage thereby annulling it).

A simfon must be made with the agreement of both parties.

Question: What happens if he agreed to a simfon but she agreed only to the betrothal?

Answer: R. Chanina said that it is a valid simfon and R. Chagai citing R. Zeira said that it is only betrothal. R. Chanina was defending his opinion against R. Chagai (by saying that if the husband did not intend it as kidushin, why would it not be a valid simfon?)

R. Hila to R. Chanina: Prove to R. Chagai your opinion and he will certainly accept it, as he is a logical, honest person... (Note: This entry follows the explanation of the Pnei Moshe.)

R. Zeira: R. Hila died in Adar Rishon and in Adar Sheni such a case came before R. Chanina and he wished to rule like R. Chagai

R. Shmuel bar Imi to R. Zeira: I do not agree with R. Hila who said that R. Chagai should accept the view of R. Chanina, as R. Chagai has a Mishnah to support him (in Perek 3 Mishnah 10), "If she said, 'You betrothed me' and he denied it, he is permitted to her relatives and she is prohibited to his relatives'' i.e. each must follow their claim.

Question (R. Burki to R. Mana): Is it the same in the case of a simfon (that he is permitted to her relatives or is a simfon a doubtful kidushin since he might forgive the condition)?

R. Mana to R. Burki: A simfon is not a doubt - if he fulfills the condition it is valid; otherwise they are not betrothed at all.

If he betrothed her (without conditions) during the time of her simfon, it is a full kidushin.

If he divorced her during the time written in the simfon, the students of R. Yona said that we must be concerned that she might be divorced and she cannot marry a Kohen nor her husband's relatives.

R. Yona (himself) said that there is no concern that she is divorced.

After R. Yona died, his students followed his ruling. They said that after 30 days (if he did not fulfil the condition of the simfon), she will anyway leave without a get, so how could one say in this case that she might be considered divorced?!

If he died during the time of the simfon, R. Abahu said that she may marry immediately. R. Ba said that she may not marry until after the time of the simfon.

Question (R. Mana to the House of R. Yosi's father): How did R. Yosi rule in this case?

Answer: If there was a long time to wait, he told her that she could marry immediately; if it was only a short time, he told that she should wait (as it will not be hard to do so).

If he sent a verbal annulment of the simfon, R. Mana says that it is still a valid simfon; R. Ba said that it becomes kidushin.

The Rabbanan were stringent even according to R. Mana, to require a new kidushin.