1)

(a)Rav Ashi just substantiated Abaye's opinion from the Seifa of our Mishnah which concludes 'u'Vilvad she'Hi Tzerichah Lomar b'Fanai Nichtav ... ', proving that the Tana there too, is referring to Chutz la'Aretz. Rav Yosef (who himself established that the previous Mishnah of Suma [referred to as 'the Reisha'] with regard to Chutz la'Aretz) counters Abaye's proof by establishing the Reisha and the Seifa by Chutz la'Aretz, and the Metzi'asa ('Af ha'Nashim she'Einan Ne'emanos Lomar Mes Ba'alah ... ') to Eretz Yisrael.

(b)And he extrapolates this from the words ' ... Mah Bein Get l'Misah, sheha'Kesav Mochi'ach' because had the Tana been speaking about Chutz la'Aretz, he ought to have said 'sheha'Kesav v'ha'Peh Mochi'ach'.

(c)According to Abaye however, 'sheha'Kesav Mochi'ach' incorporates 'Peh', because the Tana is really distinguishing between Peh of Get and Peh of Misah.

2)

(a)The Tana permits a woman to bring her own Get from overseas. She is not divorced the moment she receives it because he is speaking when her husband appointed her his Shali'ach l'Holachah.

(b)We refute the suggestion ...

1. ... of Rav Huna, that her husband stipulated that she would only become divorced when she reached such-and-such a Beis-Din because then, having fulfilled her husband's condition, she would be divorced immediately upon arrival. This has nothing to do with Shelichus, and there would therefore be no reason for her to declare 'b'Fanai Nichtav ... '.

2. ... of Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Ika, that the Tana is speaking where her husband stipulated that she was to place the Get on the ground there, and to become divorced when she picked it up because of Rava, who already taught that if a man instructs his wife 'T'li Gitech me'Al-Gabei Karka', she is not divorced (since he has not fulfilled the Pasuk "v'Nasan b'Yadah").

(c)We finally establish our Mishnah in a case where her husband appointed her a Shali'ach l'Holachah, but only until she reached the Beis-Din in question. Once she arrived there, her Shelichus would terminate and she would receive the Get (so to speak) from the Shali'ach.

3)

(a)We try to refute the final answer too, on the grounds that 've'Ha Lo Chazrah Shelichus Etzel ha'Ba'al' meaning that for a Shelichus to be valid, it must be possible for the Shali'ach, the moment the Shelichus terminates, to return to the Meshale'ach and report back to him. This is not possible here, because the Shali'ach has turned into the recipient.

(b)To circumvent this problem, her husband needs to add the condition that when she arrives at the Beis-Din, she should appoint a Shali'ach l'Kabalah (enabling her return to the Meshale'ach and report back to him right up to the last moment.

(c)We query this explanation however according to those who forbid a woman to appoint a Shali'ach to accept her Get from her husband's Shali'ach (which is the case here).

4)

(a)One of the reasons that they forbid it is because it is demeaning to her husband's dignity not to accept the Get directly from his Shali'ach. This reason does not apply here because the husband has clearly indicated that he has no objections to her Shali'ach accepting the Get from his Shali'ach (i.e. herself).

(b)The other reason for the prohibition is on account of its similarity to a Chatzer that she obtains only after the Get has been thrown into it (where the Get will not be valid, because a Chatzer does not acquire in the capacity of a Shali'ach, but of a Yad [as we explained earlier]).

(c)To circumvent the problem, we re-establish the case where her husband instructed her that, upon arrival at her destination, she is to appoint another Shali'ach l'Holachah (or even the Beis-Din), from whom she will personally accept the Get.

(d)There is no problem with a a Shali'ach l'Holachah appointing a second Shali'ach l'Holachah provided he does so in Beis-Din, after having declared 'b'Fanai Nichtav ... '.

5)

(a)The example the Mishnah gives of ...

1. ... a Get that is written she'Lo Lishmah is when a man hears a Sofer who is writing a Get reading out aloud (the hypothetical case of) how so-and-so is divorcing so-and-so who resides ... , and all the details happen to concur with his own, so he steps inside and asks the Sofer for that particular Get.

2. ... a Get that is actually written Lishmah and yet it is Pasul if the Get was written for Reuven, who subsequently changes his mind about divorcing his wife, and who then gives it to someone else whose details tally with his own.

3. ... a Get that is even written specifically on behalf of the man's wife, yet it is still Pasul if he has two wives with the same name, writes a Get for one of them and then decides to give it to the other one.

(b)The case where the Get is even written on behalf of the woman who eventually receives it, yet it is still Pasul is when he wrote it for whichever of his two wives he would decide to divorce, though he only decides later which one.

(c)The Get is not valid because of the principle 'Ein Bereirah'.

6)

(a)The second case in our Mishnah speaks when the man changed his mind about divorcing his wife. Rav Papa establishes the first case (when he heard the Sofer announcing the details that tallied with his own) by student Sofrim who are learning the Dinim of Safrus (but not writing actual Gitin).

(b)Rav Ashi proves this from the Lashon 'Sofrin Makrin' implying that the teachers were reading out the text to the students (as opposed to 'Sofrin Korin', which would mean that they are reading the Get that they are actually writing).

7)

(a)The Tana writes 'Yeser mi'Kein' by each subsequent case, because it is indeed a bigger Chidush than the previous one. Had the Torah just written ...

1. ... "v'Nasan Sefer Kerisus b'Yadah" (and omitted "v'Kasav") we would have invalidated the first case, where the Get was not written for the purpose of divorce at all, but not the second case, where it was.

2. ... "v'Kasav Sefer Kerisus v'Nasan b'Yadah" (and not "v'Kasav Lah") we would have invalidated the second case, where the Get was not written for this man's wife, but not the third, where it was.

(b)We learn from "Lah" that even if the Get was written for this man's wife, it is invalid if it was not written on behalf of the specific woman that he intends to divorce.

8)

(a)We learned in out Mishnah, that if a man with two wives with the same name, writes a Get for one of them, he may not divorce the other one. This implies that he may divorce the wife for whom the Get was written. We might have thought otherwise due to the suspicion that he divorced the other wife, who subsequently dropped it and this one found it.

(b)Rava extrapolates from here that if two Yosef ben Shimon reside in the same town, the one is believed to produce a Shtar against a third party (and we are not afraid that maybe the Shtar was written on behalf of his namesake, who lost it).

(c)Abaye counters Rava's proof however, from the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Shemi k'Shimcha, Pasul Legaresh Bo', which similarly implies that the person for whom the Get was originally written is permitted to divorce his wife with that Get, even though there is someone else with the same name in his town. But this clashes with the Mishnah in Bava Basra, which states that a third person may not produce a Shtar against one of the two Yosef ben Shimons (or one Yosef ben Shimon against the other), in which case, the woman would not be permitted to claim her Kesuvah from her husband with this Get.

(d)Abaye therefore establishes both Mishnayos when there are Eidei Mesirah who recognize the recipient of the Get, in which case there is nothing to fear (and the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Elazar). By doing so, he negates his own Kashya and Rava's proof with one stroke.

9)

(a)According to Rav, despite the fact that all the Gitin in our Mishnah (except for one) are Pasul, they nevertheless disqualify the woman from marrying a Kohen or from remaining with her husband, in the event that he is a Kohen due to the principle 'Rei'ach ha'Get Posel' (meaning that even a Get that is not Kosher will invalidate a woman, as long as it has the trimmings of one.

(b)The exception to this is the first case, where the Get was not written for the purpose of divorce at all, and does not therefore fall under the category of 'Rei'ach ha'Get'.

(c)We learn from the Pasuk "v'Ishah Gerushah me'Ishah Lo Yikachu" (implying that a Kohen is even forbidden to marry a woman who is only divorced from her husband, even though [due a stipulation made by the husband] she is not permitted to anyone else) that Rei'ach ha'Get is Pasul.

(d)Shmuel, who is even more stringent than Rav, follows his own ruling in Yevamos. He says ...

1. ... here that all the Gitin in our Mishnah are Pasul, even the last one.

2. ... there that ... a. ... wherever Chazal use the term 'Get Pasul' they mean that the Get is Pasul, but that it nevertheless invalidates the woman from Kehunah. And b. ... wherever Chazal use the term 'Chalitzah Pesulah' they mean that the Chalitzah is Pasul, but that it nevertheless invalidates the woman from Yibum with any of the brothers, and he learns it from " ... Asher Lo Yivneh Es Beis Achiv", which the Torah writes in the future tense, to teach us that, since he did not build his brother's house (by performing Chalitzah), he will not get a second chance.

10)

(a)Rebbi Elazar is quoted in Eretz Yisrael differently than Shmuel, with regard to Chalitzah Pesulah. The basic distinction that he makes between 'Chaltzah bi'S'mol u'va'Laylah' on the one hand, and 'Katan (she'Chalatz) v'Anpilya' on the other is that although neither pair is valid, the former invalidates the woman from Yibum, seeing as she did perform Chalitzah (even though it was not performed strictly in accordance with the Halachah); whereas the latter (which contravenes the specific Pesukim 'Ish' and 'Na'al'), is not considered a Chalitzah at all, and does not invalidate the woman.

(b)Ze'iri and Rav Asi maintain that all the cases in our Mishnah do not invalidate the woman from marrying a Kohen except for the last one which intrinsically conforms with all the Dinim of Get, and is only Pasul because of the external Psul of Bereirah (and in his opinion, we say 'Yesh Bereirah' l'Chumra.

(c)The last opinion is that of Rebbi Yochanan who agrees with Ze'iri and Rav Asi regarding all the Gitin in our Mishnah that are intrinsically Pasul. But as far as the last case is concerned, Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Ein Bereirah', as we shall now see, in which case, there too, the woman will not be invalidated from the Kehunah.