1)

(a)Rav Papa mentions Hurmiz, Avudina, bar Shivsa'i, Bar Kidri, Bati and Nakim - as being common Nochri names, in connection with validating Gitei Nashim that were written in Nochri law-courts, according to Rebbi Shimon.

(b)Rebbi Shimon's Sevara for validating even Gitin that were written in a Nochri law-court is confined to where the names on the Get are typical Nochri names (as we just explained). And when he concludes 'Lo Huzkeru Ela bi'Zeman she'Na'asu b'Hedyot' - what he really means is that if the names on the Get are atypical, it is as if the Get was written by a Hedyot, and it is Pasul.

(c)Alternatively, the concluding statement refers, not to Gitei Nashim, but to other Shtaros - which the Rabanan of Rebbi Shimon invalidate if they are written by a Hedyot.

2)

(a)A Beraisa in which Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi cites Rebbi Shimon corroborates the latter explanation of the concluding statement in our Mishnah. However - Rebbi Shimon quotes Rebbi Akiva, who even validates Shtaros that are written by Nochri Hedyotos.

(b)The basis of the distinction that Rebbi Shimon draws between Gitei Nashim and other Shtaros that are written by a Nochri Hedyot is - that whereas with regard to other Shtaros, one relies on the Shtar as evidence of the sale (or whatever), this is not the case by Gitei Nashim, where one relies on the Eidei Mesirah (witnesses who saw the handing over of the Get).

(c)The two conditions that Rebbi Shimon requires for Gitei Nashim to be valid is - that there are Eidei Mesirah and that the names on the Shtar are typical Nochri names.

3)

(a)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel qualifies the concession of the previous Tana'im in the Beraisa regarding Gitei Nashim - by restricting it to towns where only Nochrim are permitted to sign (and there is no chance that people will think the witnesses who signed are Jews with typically Nochri names).

(b)He does not decree a place where they deny Jews the right to sign on documents on account of a place where they are permitted to sign (just like he decrees typical Nochri names because of names that are atypical) - because people tend to confuse one name with another but not two towns.

(c)When Ravina wanted to validate other Shtaros that were written by a group of Nochrim - Rafram objected on the grounds that the Mishnah specifically restricts the concession to Shtaros written in a law-court.

4)

(a)A Shtar Parsa'ah is - a Shtar that is written in Persian and signed by Persian Hedyotos

(b)Rava ruled that a Shtar Parsa'ah - (that is written in Persian and signed by Persian Hedyotos) is valid to claim from Bnei Chari (the defendant's available property.

(c)Rava must speak when the witnesses are conversant with the language in which the Shtar is written. We also establish Rava by a Shtar that was treated with Afeitzan - gall-apple (which leaves the parchment with a black tint, removing the possibility of forging the Shtar.

(d)This is essential - because a Shtar that has not been treated with Afeitzan is invalid (seeing as it can easily be forged).

5)

(a)The other vital condition that must have been maintained by the Nochri law-courts, without which the Shtaros could not have been Kosher is - the Sofer's repetition of the main points of the Shtar in the last line of the Shtar.

(b)In spite of the fact that all of the above conditions have been met, the claimant is forbidden to claim from Meshu'abadim (that purchasers had bought), because the witnesses who signed are Nochrim, and Nochrim do not tend to spread a Kol (word of the original transaction), without which potential purchasers have no way of safeguarding themselves of unwittingly purchasing property that is mortgaged.

6)

(a)Reish Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether a Get that came before Beis-Din whose signatories had Nochri names - was valid provided there were Eidei Mesirah.

(b)The Get was written - in Eretz Yisrael.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan replied that this had only happened once - on which occasion he had validated it, because the names of the signatories were Lukus and Lus, typically Nochri names (like Rebbi Shimon in the previous Sugya).

7)

(a)The Beraisa says that Gitin that come from overseas whose signatories have Nochri names (and whose nationality we therefore have reason to doubt) - are valid, because the majority of Jews in Chutz la'Aretz have adopted Nochri names.

(b)We reconcile this with Rebbi Yochanan, who requires such typical names as Lukus and Lus before the Get can be valid - by drawing a distinction between Chutz la'Aretz (which the Tana of the Beraisa specifically said he was referring to, and where they tended to have typically Nochri names) and Eretz Yisrael (which Rebbi Yochanan is talking about, and where they not have Nochri names).

(c)The alternative version of Reish Lakish's She'eilah and Rebbi Yochanan's reply is - that Reish Lakish asked him about a Shtar in Chutz la'Aretz, to which replied by citing the Beraisa.

8)

(a)Rebbi Meir states in our Mishnah that if someone asks a Shali'ach to hand a Get to his wife or a Shtar Shichrur to his slave, he can retract from both - because both sustain a loss when they receive their respective Shtaros, in which case, the transaction will anyway only take place when the respective recipients receive the Shtar (as we learned above).

(b)He can retract until the Shtar reaches their hands.

(c)The Rabanan agree with Rebbi Meir regarding the Get - since the husband had no recourse to depriving his wife of her sustenance whilst they were married (on which case, the Get is a liability), but not regarding the Shtar Shichrur - where he could have deprived he Eved of his sustenance at any time.

(d)When Rebbi Meir asked the Rabanan about an Eved who belongs to a Kohen, who, by giving him a Shtar Shichrur, disqualifies him from eating Terumah - they replied that this is because he is his acquisition (though this will be explained later).

9)

(a)Rav Huna extrapolates from the Rabanan, who said in our Mishnah that the Shali'ach seizes the Shtar Shichrur on behalf of the Eved - that someone who seizes a debt on behalf of a creditor, the creditor acquires it.

(b)Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef asked him whether this will also extend to a case where it would cause a loss to others - for example, if he seized the debt on behalf of one creditor, when their were other creditors who were equally entitled to claim the debt.

(c)Rav Huna replied - in the affirmative.

(d)He seems to have learned this from our Mishnah - which is considered a loss to the owner, who now wishes to retract.

10)

(a)When Rebbi Yirmiyah (who was their senior, and who had been dozing in their vicinity) awoke, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying - that a Shali'ach cannot seize a creditor's debt if it causes others a loss.

(b)According to the Rabanan in our Mishnah, the Shali'ach's seizing is effective - because since the master asked the Shali'ach to hand him the Shtar, it is as if he specifically told him to acquire it on his behalf (which is akin to foregoing one's rights).

11)

(a)In the Mishnah in Pe'ah, Rebbi Eliezer says that if the owner collects Pe'ah on behalf of a particular poor man, the poor man acquires it. According to the Chachamim however - we confiscate the Pe'ah and give it to the first poor man who appears on the scene.

(b)Rav Chisda proposed - that these Tana'im argue over whether one is permitted to seize a debt on behalf of one creditor at the expense of another (Rebbi Eliezer) or not (the Rabanan).

(c)We refute Rav Chisda's proposition however. Even if ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer would normally prohibit seizing a debt on behalf of one creditor at the expense of another, he may well permit the owner to seize Pe'ah on behalf of a poor man - because the owner himself could declare his property Hefker (rendering himself a poor man) in which case we would apply the principle 'Migo d'Zachi la'Nafshei, Zachi Nami l'Chavrei' ('since he could acquire the Pe'ah himself, he may also acquire it on behalf of his friend').

2. ... the Rabanan would normally permit seizing a debt on behalf of one creditor at the expense of another, they might still forbid the owner to seize Pe'ah on behalf of a poor man - because of the Pasuk in Kedoshim " ... Lo Selaket, l'Ani ... ", from which they extrapolate that the owner is not permitted to collect Pe'ah on behalf of any specific poor man.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer extrapolates from the juxtaposition of "Lo Selaket, l'Ani ... " - a warning for the poor man to leave Pe'ah in his own field, should he own one.