1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if a man throws a Get to his wife, who is standing on the roof, she is divorced as soon as the Get reaches the airspace of the roof. The problem with this ruling is that, as we just explained, air which does not automatically protect the Get, cannot acquire, and the air on an open roof does not protect the Get from the wind. Consequently, if a dog subsequently caught the Get and ran off with it, or a shower of rain erased the writing before it landed, the woman ought not to be divorced.

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel establishes our Mishnah by a roof with a Ma'akeh (a parapet and the Get is guarded by the walls of the parapet even whilst it is in the air). Ula bar Menasheh Mishmeih d'Avimi establishes it even by a roof without walls when the Get has already fallen to within three Tefachim of the roof, in which case it is considered as if it was resting on the roof.

(c)The Tana issues the same ruling in to the reverse case (where the husband threw the Get from the roof to the Chatzer, in which case his wife is divorced as soon as the Get leaves the airspace of the roof. The ramifications of this ruling are if a dog subsequently caught the Get and ran off with it, or it was burned by a fire, the woman is nevertheless divorced.

(d)To explain why the woman is divorced, even though it initially appears that the airspace of the Chatzer is not guarded, Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel and a number of other Amora'im establish the Seifa there where the outer walls of the Chatzer are higher than those of the roof.

2)

(a)Someone who throws an object on Shabbos from one Reshus ha'Rabim to another Reshus ha'Rabim via a Reshus ha'Yachid, is Chayav according to Rebbi because he holds 'K'lutah K'mi she'Hunchah Damya' (once an object enters the airspace of a Reshus, it is as if it was resting in that Reshus).

(b)According to the Chachamim he is Patur (because they hold 'K'lutah Lav K'mi she'Hunchah Damya').

(c)Rebbi Aba asked Ula whether the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi, who holds 'K'lutah k'Mi she'Hunchah Damya' to which he replied that the Rabanan only argue with Rebbi with regard to Shabbos, but they concede that by Gitin, she is divorced, provided the Get is guarded.

(d)Regarding the ruling in the Seifa, Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah establishes the Mishnah where the Get was blotted out or burned as it was descending but not on its ascent because it is only on its descent that the Get can be considered as having landed), but not as long as it is still ascending.

3)

(a)The Tana rules that even if a dog subsequently caught the Get and ran off with it, or it was burned by a fire after it left the airspace of the roof, the woman is divorced. Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah restricts the case of fire to where the Get arrived in the airspace of the Chatzer before the fire did ...

(b)... because if the fire arrived in the Chatzer first, the Get would not be destined to land in the Chatzer, in which case the woman would not be divorced.

4)

(a)When Rav Chisda says 'Reshuyos Chalukos l'Gitin', he means that if a husband lends his wife one area for her Get, we do not assume that he has lent her an adjoining one.

(b)Rava tries to pinpoint the source for Rav Chisda's Din as the Reisha of our Mishnah (where the man threw the Get to his wife on the roof). The Tana cannot be speaking when both the roof and the Chatzer belong to ...

1. ... her because then, the Get would not need to reach the airspace of the roof for her to be divorced.

2. ... him because then, she would not be divorced, even if it had.

(c)The case in the Reisha must therefore be where the Chatzer belongs to him, but the roof, to her.

(d)Since Rava does not want to establish the Seifa by his roof and her Chatzer (so that the Reisha and the Seifa should not speak in different cases), he establishes both the Reisha and the Seifa there where the entire area really belongs to the husband; the Reisha speaks when he lent her the roof and the Seifa, when he lent her the Chatzer (proving Rav Chisda's ruling, that a person who lends someone one location does not automatically lent him an adjoining one).

5)

(a)Rami bar Chama refutes Rava's proof by establishing the Reisha by his Chatzer and her roof, and the Seifa, by her Chatzer and his roof.

6)

(a)Rava lists three Dinim that are peculiar to Gitin. We have already learned that although the Rabanan maintain with regard to Shabbos 'K'lutah Lav k'Mi she'Hunchah Damya', they will agree with Rebbi that 'K'lutah Lav k'Mi she'Hunchah Damya' in our case, where the Get is guarded. Rav Chisda rules that if someone throws something from the Reshus ha'Rabim to on top of a hundred Amah post that is stuck in the ground in a Reshus ha'Yachid he is Chayav (because the Reshus ha'Yachid reaches up to the sky).

(b)If however, he were to throw his wife a Get on to the same post (even if it belonged to her) she would not be divorced because, even though it is considered a Reshus ha'Yachid regarding Shabbos, it is not considered a guarded place with regard to Gitin.

(c)The third Din concerns two adjoining roofs. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav forbids someone who is standing on his rooftop on Shabbos, to collect water from his neighbor's adjoining rooftop (without an Eruv) because just as the houses to which the roofs belong are considered different domains, so too, are the roofs.

(d)Rava says that although regarding Shabbos, they are considered two different domains they are not considered different domains regarding Gitin, there where both roofs belong to the husband. This is because, despite the principle that someone who lends one area, does not necessarily lend the other, when it comes to roofs, a man does not tend to be fussy about someone who borrows one of his roofs using the other one.

7)

(a)Abaye rules that if a man throws a Get from his outer Chatzer to his wife's inner one, assuming that the walls of his Chatzer are higher than hers the moment the Get reaches that air-space of her Chatzer, she is divorced, because her Chatzer is duly guarded by his.

(b)However in the equivalent case of two boxes, where he throws the Get into the inner box that belongs to her and whose walls are lower that his she is not divorced ...

(c)... because the walls of a box (unlike those of a Chatzer) are made to contain and not to guard.

8)

(a)The problem with the fact that Abaye confines this ruling to the fact that the Get did not rest in the box is that even if it did it ought not to be valid due to the fact that it is a case of 'the vessels of the purchaser in the domain of the seller' (which is subject to a Machlokes Amora'im, as we learned earlier).

(b)We resolve it by establishing Abaye is speaking where the outer box does not have a base and her box in lying on the ground (of her Chatzer or of a domain which authorizes her to acquire in it).

9)

(a)Beis Shamai validates a Get Yashan where the couple secluded themselves between the writing of the Get and its handing over.

(b)Beis Hillel invalidate it.

(c)The basis of the Machlokes is whether the Chachamim issued a decree that should the woman have children before her husband actually gives her the Get, people might say that the Get preceded the children (thereby stigmatizing them for life).

(d)In the event that she married with a Get Yashan, Rebbi Aba Amar Shmuel permits the woman to remain with her second husband. In the second Lashon he holds that even if she was only divorced, she is permitted to remarry l'Chatchilah.

10)

(a)The Tana rules that a Get that is written ...

1. ... in Bavel l'Shum Malchus she'Einah Hogenes (which will be explained shortly), l'Shum Malchus Madai, l'Shum Malchus Yavan, l'Binyan ha'Bayis, l'Churban ha'Bayis' or that is written ...

2. ... 'le'Binyan ha'Bayis' or 'le'Churban ha'Bayis' is invalid.

(b)The Tana invalidates ...

1. ... the latter because the Chachamim obligated to date it according to the year of the current Malchus, and not according to any other event.

2. ... the former because it is the incorrect Malchus. All of these cases invalidate the Get because the Chachamim required the relevant Malchus to be inserted in the Get.

(c)And the Tana issues the same ruling there where the Sofer wrote a different location than where the Get was written or than where the witnesses signed (see Tosfos 80a. DH 'Ki').

(d)If she actually got married on the basis of that Get the Tana rules 'Teitzei mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh'.

11)

(a)She also requires a Get from both men. She loses both her Kesuvah and the conditions that are inserted in the Kesuvah.

(b)The three Tena'ei Kesuvah that she loses are 'Peiros (i.e. the right to be redeemed by either husband, should she be taken into captivity [against which Chazal instituted the husband's right to eat the Peiros of his wife's fields]) Mezonos and Bela'os ...

(c)... the worn-out clothes that remain from those that she brought into the marriage, and which her husband is permitted to use.

(d)All these rulings are based on a Kenas d'Rabanan.

12)

(a)The children that she subsequently bears from either man are Mamzerim those of the second are Mamzerim d'Oraisa; those of the first, Mamzerim d'Rabanan.

(b)In the event that she dies, if either husband is a Kohen he is not permitted to bury her ...

(c)... nor do they retain the right to receive whatever she finds or produces, or to nullify her vows.

13)

(a)She will ...

1. ...become Pasul to marry a Kohen (even should both men die) if she is a bas Yisrael because she is a Zonah.

2. ... lose her right to eat Ma'aser, if she is a bas Levi and Terumah d'Rabanan, if she is a bas Kohen on the basis of a Kenas (a penalty for being careless).

(b)When the Tana says that neither set of children will inherit her Kesuvah in the event of her death, he is referring (not to her regular Kesuvah, which she is not entitled anyway, as we just learned, but) to the 'Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin' (the extra portion which her sons normally receive over and above the regular Kesuvah).

(c)If both men die without children, and each one has a brother then each brother is obligated to perform Chalitzah.

(d)The brother of the second husband requires Chalitzah in case people suspect that her first husband divorced her and the second one married her legally.