Summary:
It is obvious that if the פיתוי was שלא לשם אישות that she is not married to him (even without any מיאון). The inclusion of her מיאון teaches us that he must pay the קנס even if he marries her as long as she is ממאן. Alternately, he cannot marry her (and must pay the קנס) if her father died and she is ממאן.
Summary:
ר"נ can maintain that the פיתוי was שלא לשם אישות and ר"י is supporting him, or ר"נ can maintain that the פיתוי was לשם אישות and ר"י is challenging him
Summary:
Monies which were given for קידושין and are in the woman’s possession after the entire מעשה הקידושין was completed do not have to be ‘there’ when the קידושין become effective (the case of התקדשי לי לאחר ל' יום); however monies which were received before the מעשה קידושין was completed need to be ‘there’ when the מעשה קידושין is completed; otherwise it is a loan (the case of the dates).