Clarification: Because they acquire and leave over ...

Reason: ... since the Mekadesh means to say that the Kidushin begins now and only terminates after thirty days.

Rejected Explanation: Rashi explains that we cannot explain Rebbi Yochanan to mean that he has a Safek as to whether the Lashon implies a condition or a retraction ...

Reason: ... because then it would not be appropriate to say 'Tofsin' (plural), since Kidushin only takes effect on one of them, which one we do not know ...

Reason (cont.): ... since it is only due to the Safek that she needs a Get from all of them, whereas the Lashon 'Tofsin' implies that in his opinion, all of them are subject to a partial Kidushin.

Question: Why is she Mekudeshes in this case, bearing in mind what the Gemara said earlier (on Daf 7a) that 'If someone betroths half a woman, she is not Mekudeshes?

Answer: The reason there is - because a woman cannot become Mekudeshes in halves, and there he left out part of the body of the woman

Answer (cont.): ... whereas here, they did not leave over any part of the woman, as between them, they betrothed all of her.

Explanation #1: It is not a Get K'risus, explains Rashi, because he retained part of her.

Refutation: But this is not correct, because in that case, he should have asked from the Kidushin itself - as how can Rebbi Yochanan say 'Even a hundred take effect'? Since he leaves over, it should not be effective ...

Refutation (cont.): ... bearing in mind that we compare Kidushin to Gitin (Gitin 82b)?

Conclusion: We must therefore say that in such a case, it is considered K'risus ...

Explanation #2: And when the Gemara says 'Kol Gita di'Meshayer bah La'av K'lum hu' - it means that since it can only be concluded after his death, it is not a Get ...

Reason: ... due to the principle 'Ein Get le'Achar Misah'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the same applies to Kidushin, which is not valid where he says to her 'Today and after I die' ...

Explanation #2 (concl): ... but if he says to her today and after thirty days', she is Mekudeshes ...

Reason: ... seeing as the Kidushin can take effect after thirty days no less than during the thirty days.

Clarification: The Gemara declined to answer that the difference is where she stretched out her hand and accepted Kidushin from somebody else, as it answered earlier ...

Introduction to Reason: ... because then it would have had to explain that according to Rav Huna, she needs a Get from the second man, but not according to Rav Yehudah ...

Reason: ... and that would not be correct, since, even according to Rav Yehudah she needs a Get from the second man mi'Safek ...

Source: ... as the Ri said (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) in Perek Mi she'Ochzo (Gitin, Daf 74a) - where he explained 'le'che'she'Titein' (When she gives), that she is Megureshes and not Megureshes' (Safek Megureshes) until she gives ... .

Clarification (cont.): ... whereas above, in connection with Kidushin, it declined to answer that the difference lies in where the money that he gave her when he betrothed her got lost, like it answers here in connection with Gitin - 'When the Get got lost'.

Introduction to Reason: ... in which case we would have had to explain that according to Rav Huna, it is Kidushin, but not according to Rav Yehudah ...

Reason: ... when in fact, they both agree that if the money is used up, the Kidushin is valid ...

Reason (cont.): ... since he gave the money for Kidushin ...

Source: ... as the Gemara explained in this Perek (on Daf 59a) 'Someone who says to a woman "You will be betrothed to me after thirty days", the Kidushin takes effect, even if the money has been used up'.

Clarification: And even the Tana Kama concedes that if he stipulated 'On condition that you give me or my heirs', even in the event that he dies, she gives it to his heirs and she is Patur from Chalitzah, since the Get is valid retroactively, from the time that she received it ...

Clarification (cont.): ... posing a Kashya on Rav Yehudah, who said earlier 'only when she gives' - and according to him, it ought not to be a Get ...

Reason: Because the Get only takes effect when she gives it to him, which it cannot do here, since a Get cannot take effect after death.

Question: What is the Kashya on Rav Yehudah? Perhaps they both agree that 'Li' implies even to my heirs - and their dispute is based on the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ...

Question (cont.): In that the Tana Kama holds like Rav Yehudah who says 'le'che'she'Titen', and it is therefore not a Get; whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds like Rav Huna, which is why he says that 'It should be given to his heirs', since the Get is effective retroactively?

Answer: The Gemara understands that the Lashon that the Tana employs 'Lo Nasnah, Zekukah le'Yabeim' means that she may perform Yibum should she so wish ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas according to Rav Yehudah, she is a Safek Megureshes retroactively, as Tosfos just explained - that 'le'che'she'Titen' means that she is Safek Megureshes until she gives ...

Answer (concl.): And that being the case, she is Safek Eishes Achiv where there is no Mitzvah (to perform Yibum)

Reason: ... since in the event that she gives it to one of the relatives, she will be divorced retroactively mi'Safek, and since it is a Safek, she must make Chalitzah and not Yibum.

Proof: And this proves what Tosfos said earlier - that when Rav Yehudah says 'le'che'she'Titen', it is a Safek Get until she gives, because otherwise, it ought to have answered here that he holds like the Tana Kama.