1)

(a)As Geniva was being led out in chains to be executed, he announced that from his wine-storehouse in Nehar Panya, four hundred Zuz should be given to Rebbi Avina.

(b)When Rebbi Zeira commented that Rebbi Avina should take his basket and go to Rav Huna his Rebbi, he meant that he would find support there to enable him to acquire what Geniva had bequeathed him (despite the fact that no Kinyan had been made).

(c)Rav Huna made two statements regarding the two-way comparison of a Shechiv-Mera's Get to his Matanah. He said ...

1. ... that a Shechiv-Mera who recovers, may retract from his Get, just as he may retract from his Matanah.

2. ... that the Matanah of a Shechiv-Mera is effective even without a Kinyan, like his Get (which we just learned in our Mishnah, is effective).

(d)We cannot however, extend this ruling to his Get however because there is no such thing as a Get after death.

2)

(a)What Rebbi Aba (who was mistakenly quoted as having asked why we could not make the previous comparison) really meant to ask on Rebbi Zeira was that, since Geniva's gift was only a Matanah b'Miktzas (seeing as he only gave him part of his property, retaining the bulk of it for himself), it should have required a Kinyan (just like any other case of Matanah b'Miktzas"

(b)We answer (on behalf of Rebbi Zeira and) Rav Huna that even though a regular Matanah b'Miktzas by a Shechiv-Mera requires a Kinyan, we are speaking here about a Metzaveh Machmas Misah (someone who knew that there was no chance of recovery, and who was Makneh his property because of that). Such a Matanah, even b'Miktzas, does not require a Kinyan.

(c)Rebbi Aba too knew full well that 'Metzaveh Machmas Misah' does not require a Kinyan, and what prompted him to ask such a Kashya was the fact that Geniva did not say 'four hundred Zuz worth of wine', nor even 'the value of four hundred Zuz worth of wine', but 'four hundred Zuz from the wine', which Rebbi Aba maintains is a weak Lashon and requires a Kinyan.

(d)In fact, Geniva said 'me'Chamra' in order to reinforce Rebbi Avina's rights (that all the wine should be available for him to claim, should some of it turn sour on the one hand, and if the heirs sold some of the wine and the money got lost, they should not be able to say to Rebbi Avina that it was his money that was lost, on the other).

3)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that in the event that someone who fell into a deep pit calls out that whoever hears his voice should write his wife a Get, whoever hears may write the Get and hand it to his wife. We know who it is because the Tana is speaking when he gave his details.

(b)We are not afraid that it is a demon who spoke because we saw that he had a shadow (and we initially think that demons do not have shadows).

(c)In fact, we conclude, demons also have shadows like humans, and we know that it was a human and not a demon because he had a double shadow, something that demons do not have (as Yonasan the demon taught Rebbi Chanina).

(d)We do not suspect that it is the woman's rival wife, out to get her into trouble because we establish our Mishnah in the time of danger, and Chazal waved suspicions of this nature in the time of danger (presumably, because the chances of it having been her are slim).

4)

(a)The Mishnah rules that if a healthy man says 'Kisvu Get l'Ishti' (but omits to add 'Tenu') he can laugh at his wife (meaning that she is not divorced).

(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that if a man says 'Kisvu Get l'Ishti' and then ascends to the roof and falls off it will depend upon whether he jumped off deliberately (in which case she is divorced) or the wind blew him off (in which case he is not).

(c)A story in a Mishnah always comes to illustrate the Halachah that it is teaching us. The reason that the story in our Mishnah clashes with the Halachah that precedes is only because there are words missing, and we need to add that 'in the event that the end indicates that he intended to divorce her 'Im Hochi'ach Sofo Al Techilaso), she is indeed divorced (u'Ma'aseh Nami ... )'.

5)

(a)The three men whom that man found sitting in Shul were a children's Rebbi and his son, plus a third person.

(b)After he appointed two of them to write a Get for his wife, the children's Rebbi died, giving rise to the Safek whether a person would normally intend a son to be his Shali'ach as an alternative to the father.

(c)Rav Nachman rules that one would not normally appoint a son as a Shali'ach when his father is there. Rav Papi say that one would.

(d)Rava rules like Rav Papi. Consequently, the third man together with the Rebbi's son were automatically Sheluchim to write and hand over the Get to the man's wife.

6)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if two people whom a man appointed to give a Get to his wife, and three people whom he asked to write a Get and give it to her, have in common is have the authority of witnesses to write and sign the Get on his behalf, but not to appoint others to do so, because he appointed them as Sheluchim, and not as a Beis-Din.

(b)We know that he did not appoint the three men to be a Beis-Din because he added the word 'Kisvu'.

(c)Had he not added the word 'Kisvu', they would indeed have had the authority of a Beis-Din to appoint others to write the Get and give it to the man's wife. The author of this Mishnah is Rebbi Meir.

(d)Rebbi Chanina from Ono actually cited this Halachah when he returned from prison. He quoted it in the name Rebbi Akiva.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yosi disagrees with Rebbi Chanina. He told 'the Shali'ach' that if a husband says to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol 'Tenu Get l'Ishti' they must learn how to write a Get (because they cannot appoint others to do it in their place), and give it to the woman personally.

(b)Rebbi Yosi's reason is because 'Mili Lo Mimseri li'Shali'ach' (words without actions cannot be handed over to a Shali'ach).

(c)The Mishnah rules that if someone says to ten people ...

1. ... 'Kisvu u'Tenu Get l'Ishti' one of the ten must write the Get, and two of them must sign it.

2. ... 'Kulchem Kesuvu' then all of them must sign it.

(d)Consequently if one of them dies before he has signed, the Get is Batel.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba cites Rav's Beis-ha'Midrash, who sent Shmuel the She'eilah whether, if someone instructed two people 'Kisvu u'Tenu Get l'Ishti', and they subsequently asked a Sofer to write it, but signed it themselves, the Get is Kosher or not. The She'eilah was whether, when the Tana requires the Sheluchim to write the Get themselves, he is referring to the actual Kesivah, or to the Chasimah (but as far as the Kesivah is concerned, he may appoint someone else to do it).

(b)Shmuel replied that the Get was Kosher, but that the matter needed looking into.

(c)Shmuel's Safek cannot have been whether 'Mili Mimseri li'Shali'ach' or not because he has already quoted Rebbi who rules like Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah that 'Mili Lo Mimseri li'Shali'ach'.

(d)Shmuel's Safek was whether 'Kesuvu' refers to the writing of the Get, or to the witnesses' signatures.

9)

(a)We ...

1. ... try and resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah, who requires the Beis-Din Ha'Gadol to learn how to write a Get which obviously refers to writing it with the proper Ksav (as who has ever heard of a Beis-Din who cannot sign their signatures?)

2. ... refute that proof by establishing our Mishnah by a newly appointed Beis-Din, who have not yet learned how to sign their signatures (see Pirush ha'Mishnayos l'ha'Rambam).

(b)Despite having already ruled like Rebbi Yosi who holds 'Mili Lo Mimseran li'Shali'ach', Shmuel suggests that a Get that is written by someone else other than the appointee, should be Kosher because, seeing as 'Kesuvu' means their signatures (and the husband is not fussy about who writes it), it is as if he had asked them specifically to appoint someone to write it.

10)

(a)The Tana (in 'Mi she'Achzo') states 'Kasav Sofer v'Ed, Kosher' meaning that if the Sofer wrote the Get, but someone else signed it, the Get is Kosher.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah amends the Mishnah to read 'Chasam Sofer v'Ed'.

(c)Rav Chisda extrapolated from this that the author must be Rebbi Yosi, who holds 'Mili Lo Mimseri li'Shali'ach' (and that consequently, only the person who was actually told to do so may sign the Get) because otherwise, we would suspect that the Shali'ach may have appointed the Sofer to write the Get and others to sign it. The Shali'ach however, noticing the Sofer's embarrassment at not having been asked to sign, invited him to do so contrary to the Meshale'ach's wishes, and the Sofer (who did not know what the Meshale'ach had told the Shali'ach, complied). Whereas now that only someone who is asked specifically by the husband can sign the Get. there is no way that the Sofer would have accepted such an offer from the Shali'ach.

(d)Now if Rebbi Yosi would concede that the Get is Kosher if the husband said 'Imru' then the above suspicion would still be applicable, because the Sofer might still believe the Shali'ach that the husband asked him to sign, when really, he asked the Shali'ach to ask two other people.

11)

(a)We initially attempt to answer that even though this latter case is Kosher, one should not appoint a Shali'ach in this way. Consequently, it is unusual for it to occur, and whenever something is unusual, Chazal did not decree an Isur because of it (which explains why 'Chasam Sofer v'Ed' is Kosher according to Rebbi Yosi).

(b)All of this is in accordance with Rebbi Yirmiyah, who established the Mishnah 'Kasav Sofer v'Ed' according to Rebbi Yosi. Notwithstanding the fact that, in principle, Shmuel agrees with the outcome of the Sugya (see Tosfos DH 'Lo Shechicha'), he will answer the original Kashya on himself (from the Mishnah of 'Kasav Sofer v'Ed') much more simply by establishing the Mishnah as it stands 'Kasav Sofer v'Ed', which will conform even with the opinion of the Chachamim of Rebbi Yosi.