1)

(a)Rav Huna just established our Mishnah which validates a Get written by a 'Chashu', where a Gadol is supervising them and instructing them to write it Lishmah. Rav Nachman asked him why, in that case, a Get written by a Nochri should also be Kosher under the same condition. Rav Nachman knew that it was not because of the Beraisa, which specifically states '(Kosvo) Oved-Kochavim, Pasul'.

(b)Rav Nachman answered his own Kashya by drawing a distinction between a 'Chashu', who will follow instructions and write the Get Lishmah when he is told to do so, and a Nochri, who will ignore the instructions and follow his own whims.

(c)Rav Nachman finally refutes his own explanation, extrapolating from the Mishnah later, which disqualifies a Nochri from bringing a Get that he is not disqualified from writing one.

(d)He reconciles this with the initial Beraisa that he quoted, which invalidates a Get that a Nochri wrote by establishing its author as Rebbi Elazar, who requires Kesivah Lishmah.

2)

(a)According to Rav Nachman, our Mishnah validates a Get written by a 'Chashu' even when there is no Gadol supervising him, because the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir, who requires Chasimah Lishmah, but not Kesivah.

(b)And he establishes the Beraisa, which specifically invalidates a Get written by a Nochri like Rebbi Elazar.

(c)Rebbi Meir validates a completed Get that one finds in a trash heap, as long as it is signed Lishmah.

3)

(a)According to Rav Nachman ...

1. ... the Pasuk "v'Kasav Lah", from which we extrapolate "Lah" 'Lishmah' refers to the Chasimah, not the Kesivah.

2. ... the Stam Mishnah in 'Kol Get' 'Kol Get she'Nichtav she'Lo Leshum Ishah, Pasul' really means to say 'Kol Get she'Nichtam ... ' and.

(b)Rava also asks on Rav Nachman from the Beraisa 'keshe'Hu Kosvo, Ke'ilu Kosvo Lishmah' which he explains to mean that if he writes the Toreif Lishmah (and not the Tofeis), it is as if he had written the Tofeis Lishmah, too.

(c)To conform with Rav Nachman we explain it to mean 'keshe'Hu Chosmo (Lishmah), Ke'ilu Kosvo Lishmah'.

(d)Alternatively, we could establish both the Mishnah in 'Kol Get' and the Beraisa 'keshe'Hu Kosvo ... ' like Rebbi Elazar.

4)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav disagrees with Rav Huna and Rav Nachman's interpretation of our Mishnah and so does Rebbi Chaga Amar Ula. According to them, our Mishnah, which validates a Get written by a 'Chashu' (according to Rebbi Elazar and even without a Gadol supervising him) is referring to the Tofeis only.

(b)Rebbi Aba explains that, when Rebbi Zerika Amar Rebbi Yochanan said (about this opinion) 'Einah Torah', he meant that it was incorrect, because, he maintains that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir, and even the Toreif does not need to be written Lishmah.

(c)When Rabah bar bar Chana, Amar Rebbi Yochanan established our Mishnah like Rebbi Elazar he was arguing with Rebbi Zerika as to what Rebbi Yochanan really holds in this matter.

5)

(a)Besides a 'Chashu', the Tana of our Mishnah also disqualifies a blind person and a Nochri from bringing a Get from overseas.

(b)Even if, during the course of the Shelichus, the Katan grew up, the Cheresh was cured or the Shoteh became normal they will remain disqualified from performing the Shelichus.

(c)This change in their status would validate their Shelichus had the Cheresh and the Shoteh become stricken only after the Shelichus had begun and then became cured before its completion (and the same will apply to a blind person).

(d)The Tana disqualifies a 'Chashu' from Shelichus of a Get because he does not have Da'as, and a Nochri because he is not subject to the Dinim of Kidushin and Gitin (and one cannot be a Shali'ach for something to which one has no connection).

6)

(a)Rav Yosef refutes the suggestion of Rav Sheshes (who was himself blind) that a blind man is disqualified from Shelichus ha'Get because he cannot see who gave him the Get or to whom he is giving it because, in that case, a blind man should be forbidden to be intimate with his wife, and so should any man at night-time. This is not the case however, because they can recognize their spouses by their voices, in which case a blind man should be acceptable for Shelichus for the same reason.

(b)Rav Yosef (who was also blind) establishes our Mishnah in Chutz la'Aretz, and a blind man is Pasul because he is unable to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav ... '.

7)

(a)According to Rav Yosef, if a Shali'ach became blind during the course of the Shelichus his Shelichus will be valid.

(b)According to Rav Yosef, the Tana of our Mishnah said 'Pasu'ach v'Nistama v'Chazar v'Nistama, Kosher' (not to imply that 'Pasu'ach v'Nistama' is Pasul, but rather) because it is mentioned together with the case 'Shafuy v'Nishtateh v'Chazar v'Nishtafeh', where he would not be Kosher if he had not recovered before the termination of his Shelichus.

8)

(a)They asked Rebbi Ami whether an Eved could be a Shali'ach l'Kabalah (on behalf of the wife) to bring her Get ...

(b)... though the same She'eilah will apply with regard to a Shali'ach l'Holachah (on behalf of the husband).

(c)Rav Sheshes inferred from our Mishnah, which disqualifies Nochrim that Avadim are Kosher.

(d)Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagreed with Rebbi Ami. According to him an Eved cannot be a Shali'ach for a Get, since he is not subject to Gitin and Kidushin (as we learned earlier with regard to a Nochri)..

9)

(a)The Tana ...

1. ... in a Mishnah in Terumos declares the Terumah of a Nochri valid (inasmuch as it is forbidden to a Zar) on the grounds that in his opinion, a Nochri cannot acquire a portion of land in Eretz Yisrael (with the result that it retains its Kedushah as regards Terumah).

2. ... of another Mishnah in Terumos invalidate the Terumah that a Nochri separates from the produce belonging to a Yisrael because the Pasuk "Gam Atem" (Korach, written in connection with Terumah) precludes whoever is not a ben Bris like oneself from Shelichus.

(b)The Terumah separated by a Kusi or by an Eved is valid because "Gam Atem" includes him since he is a ben Bris like a Yisrael.

(c)We initially Darshen from "Gam Atem" Mah Atem Yisrael, Af Sheluchachem Yisrael (which would have precluded an Eved from Shelichus).

(d)When we say that an Eved is a 'ben Bris', we mean that he is Chayav to be circumcised and that he entered into the Bris of Mitzvos (as the Torah writes in Nitzavim "me'Chotev Eitzecha ... ").

10)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar quoting Rebbi Yochanan conforms with Rav Asi (who invalidates an Eved from the Shelichus of a Get). The problem with Rebbi Yochanan's conclusion 've'Af-Al-Pi she'Shaninu (in a Beraisa) "Harei At Shifchah u'Veladcha ben Chorin, Im Hayesah Ubrah, Zachsah Lo" ' is that this has nothing to do with the previous statement.

(b)Therefore, to explain Rebbi Yochanan's conclusion Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah adds a second statement 'that an Eved can receive a Get Shichrur on behalf of his friend from his friend's master, but not from his own master.

(c)Nevertheless, he is able to receive a Get Shichrur on his own behalf because he obtains his Get simultaneously with his freedom ('Gito v'Yado Ba'in k'Echad').

11)

(a)To answer the apparent discrepancy between Rebbi Yochanan's second statement and the Beraisa, either Rebbi Zeira or Rebbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak establishes the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi, who rules that if someone sets free half of his Eved half of him goes free.

(b)This answer however will not explain the Beraisa, 'Harei At Shifchah u'Vladcha ben Chorin, Im Hayesah Ubrah, Zachsah Lo' because the two halves of an Eved are both part of the same person, whereas the fetus of the Shifchah is a second person.

(c)Rebbi Zeira or Rebbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak supplied the basic answer. The other one now explains that Rebbi Yochanan (or Rebbi see Tosfos DH 'Mai Ta'ama') holds 'Ubar Yerech Imo' (rendering it similar to the case of half an Eved), and it is as if the master was Makneh to her one of her own limbs, which she acquires.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah teaches us that even women who are not believed to testify that the following women's husbands died (to permit them to remarry) are believed to bring a Get for their Tzarah (rival wife) from overseas because in this case, unlike their testimony regarding the woman's husband's death, where we rely completely on their testimony, there is a Shtar to back it up.

(b)These include her mother-in-law and her daughter, her Tzarah and her 'Yevimtah' which refers to her husband's brother's wife ...

(c)... whom we cannot believe (when she testifies that the husband died), because, for fear that he will die without children, and his wife will fall to Yibum and become her rival, she will testify falsely, in the hope that the husband will return, forbidding the woman to remain with her husband.

(d)A woman is believed to bring her own Get from overseas.

13)

(a)Our Mishnah seems to clash with a Beraisa, which specifically declines to differentiate between a woman who brings a Get and one who testifies that the husband died (with regard to the four women mentioned in our Mishnah). Rav Yosef establishes our Mishnah by one of the women concerned who brings a Get in Eretz Yisrael where we believe her because we do not need to rely on her words ('b'Fanai Nichtav'), whereas the Beraisa speaks in Chutz la'Aretz where we do.

(b)Abaye reverses the cases on the grounds that it is more logical to believe her in Chutz la'Aretz, because, once she has delivered the Get and declared 'b'Fanai Nichtav ... ', her husband will no longer be believed to invalidate the Get (in which case, there is nothing to fear); whereas in Eretz Yisrael, where, after she has delivered the Get, the husband will still be able to declare the Get a forgery, she should not be believed.

14)

(a)In a Beraisa which comes to substantiate Abaye, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar quoting Rebbi Akiva, states that a woman is believed to bring her own Get from the 'Kal va'Chomer' in that if the women who are not believed to testify in the case of 'Mes Ba'alah' (as we explained in our Mishnah), are nevertheless believed to bring her Get, then the woman herself, who is believed there, should certainly be believed here.

(b)The Tana goes on to prove that just as those women need to say b'Fanai Nichtav ... ', so too, does the woman herself, a clear indication that our Tana is speaking about bringing a Get in Chutz la'Aretz, and not in Eretz Yisrael.

(c)Rav Ashi further substantiates Abaye's opinion from our Mishnah which concludes 'u'Vilvad she'Hi Tzerichah Lomar b'Fanai Nichtav ... ', proving that the Tana there too, is speaking about Chutz la'Aretz.