question

See column 617.

Yair, I'm not clear what exactly you mean, in any case there are 2 different things. 1. It is a prohibition on the wife of another man. 2. Kiddushin in the wife of another man does not apply, it is not a matter of prohibition (there is no prohibition on performing the act of kiddushin of money or a bill, but the action does not have a halachic legal significance). The paradox above stems from the second matter and not the first.

I will try to explain myself better.
It is forbidden for a woman to marry a man when she is married to another man, the condition of the divorce that Shimon gave is that if that woman marries Reuven then the divorce is null and void, meaning that only after the woman marries Reuven will the divorce be null and void. A situation has arisen where she is married to two men but married each of them with a permit. The order in which things happen is
Conditional divorce —> Marriage with a permit to Reuven —> Cancellation of the divorce —> The current situation where the woman is married to two men but married each of them with a permit. The emphasis in the answer is that a married woman is forbidden to marry another man but not the situation where she is married to two men.

I hope that this time the answer is understandable 🙏🏻

I understood that the problem is that kiddushin does not apply to a man's wife. My answer is that at the time the woman married Reuven, she was not the wife of anyone, but after she married Reuven, the divorce expired (which is the condition) and the situation arose in which she was married to two people.

But why do you stop here? She married Shimon (the second), and therefore her divorce from Reuven was annulled, and in any case she is not married to Shimon and her divorce was not annulled, and so on.

I stop here because I think the marriage to Shimon (second) was not annulled. If I understood correctly, the divorce was valid as long as the woman did not violate the condition (to marry Shimon), when she violated the condition and married Shimon the divorce was annulled and the marriage to Reuven (the first) was reinstated, but since at the time of her marriage to Shimon she was not married to anyone, there is no reason for her marriage to be annulled.

It is important to note, and perhaps I am wrong here, that when they say that the divorce was annulled, I understand that until now the divorce was valid and only after she violated the condition did it become invalid.

Only if what is meant when they say that the divorce was annulled is that it was as if it had not been given in the first place do I understand why my answer is wrong.

Yair, indeed your initial assumption is incorrect. The divorce is null and void from the outset and not from now on.

This is a condition "from now on". The divorce is annulled retroactively.

I understood the mistake, thanks to the rabbi and the other answerers 🙏🏻🙏🏻