Question about fines

And because the prohibition is to remain in the gathering and not the act of gathering (unlike on a bench that is about to break into a sitting position), each person in the audience had to separate themselves from that evil congregation. And according to the law, all those who did not enter would be fined.
In the idea of the ‘Din Spak’ of R’Sh Kapp, I did not know from his words where the Gemara got this puzzling innovation that Kiddushin applies. We learned that it is possible to sanctify a particular woman, and simply that anyone who did not sanctify according to the full protocol did not do anything. It is like someone curling their hair and expecting that Kiddushin will apply.
The Sha’Y writes about this (3:22) ”The reason for the din of sanctification is the act of sanctifying the giving of the money and the saying’ And it seems that he came to the era of uniqueness and the end of the mind for a certain person, and it is still difficult to understand where this gemara and the whole mysterious idea of a chalot who finds no rest for her feet (and Sha”yi there extended the matter of choice).
As in two firstborns whose heads came out as one. Neither one is a child who came out first and therefore both are supposed to be unclean. Although in this case, one must inquire whether the circumcision only sanctifies the firstborn and is not a matter at all for other births, or also exempts the mother's womb from the matter of births that will come into the world. If the circumcision only sanctifies the firstborn, then their heads came out as one, neither one is a firstborn and therefore both are unclean. But if the circumcision (and the birth of a female) also exempts the womb as a contribution to baptism (divine growths are forbidden), then their heads came out as one, neither one is a firstborn and therefore both are not unclean.

Sh”a Chom Sh”a:

“Five sat on the chair and it did not break, and the last one came and sat on it and leaned on them and did not allow himself to stand and it broke, even though it was proper to break them first (who sat down), since his breaking was imminent, the last one is liable, for they say to him: If you had not leaned on us, we would have stood before he broke”

That is, if you did not lean on them, everyone is liable because they had to stand up. Although the Mahram there somewhat implies that it is when the last one sitting did not know that he was endangering the bench, since if he is a particularly important person (who should have known this), then he is liable. And in the case of the fine, the last ones who entered should have known that they were breaking the law and endangering everyone, both with a fine and with a contagion.

You should pepper it well and put some of it on a bench, and that's it.