A document, with which one cannot redeem consecrated property - if he wrote a document to the treasurer drawing on the funds for redeeming consecrated property, his consecrated property is not thereby redeemed, since we require "he will give the money and it will be assured to him." [Kiddushin 29a:1]

The words of this document are discrete and the words of this document are discrete - in one is written of entering and the other expresses exiting.

This money is discrete - when he gives it, he expresses the purpose for which he is giving it.

Is one - there is nothing mentioned on [the coin] as to whether it is for the purpose of pushing out or taking in.

Referring to divorce and excluding [a mode of] betrothal - [this is stated] as a [rhetorical] question.

And according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who derives a different exposition from this verse - in the second chapter of Gittin [Gittin 21b:3].

A matter that severs - that the scroll should separate them, and not that there should be any stipulation in it that [continues to] bind them together.

That is not severance - since she is bound to him, for the rest of her days, to fulfill this condition because of him.

That is severance - it even [counts as severance] right away, since she will fulfill his condition and go [her own way], since these stipulations can eventually lead to a [complete] separation.

From "karet" [versus] "keritut" - since it ought to have been written "sefer karet", meaning that the scroll severs her; this additional exposition is warranted by the more-elaborate term [that the verse employed, namely: "keritut"].

One mode [of betrothal] cannot be derived from another [mode of betrothal], etc. - [the Gemara] asks as follows: the Tanna who earlier asked regarding each [method of betrothal] "can't it be derived using a logical derivation", and who then concluded that they cannot be derived logically, but require scriptural support -- why do we require scriptural support for each of them? Granted that one mode cannot be derived logically from another; but let one mode be derived from two others using the "just as we find in the common denominator of these" argument: that they are capable of acquiring in general and are capable of acquiring here [for betrothal]. "Then I shall even bring" the third [mode and derive its effectiveness from the other two]. All [three modes] are capable of acquiring in other circumstances: money and documents acquire a Hebrew maidservant, as will be stated later on [Kiddushin 14b] and sexual intercourse acquires a yevama.

Money and intercourse; their benefit is great - but a document of betrothal does not have any benefit, all that is written in it is "you are betrothed to me".

Their acquisition is great - since they [can be used to] acquire land and slaves.

Against her will - intercourse acquires in the case of a yevama against her will, which we derive in Yevamot [Yevamot 54a:3] from "her brother-in-law" [Deuteronomy 25:5]. Similarly, a document divorces a woman from her husband against her will.

Against her will, in the case of a Hebrew maidservant - as her father can sell her without her knowledge.

Money, which does not enable [the wife] to partake of teruma - if she is betrothed to a priest, as is taught in a Mishna in Ketubot [Ketubot 57b:1]: "A woman may not partake of teruma until she has actually entered the wedding canopy"

Which does not complete [the acquisition of a woman] - to remove her from her father's domain [as pertains to her father's rights] to her handiwork and her inheritance.