Explanation #1: Rabeinu Tam's text is that this name ends with the letter "Nun," as Jews are not called this name because it is the name of a devil and demon. However, Hurmiz with a "Zayin" at the end is a good name cited in Sanhedrin (39a). The Gemara there states, "from half of you upwards is to Hurmiz, from half of you downwards is to Hurmin." (Note: Rabeinu Tam there in Tosfos (DH "d'Hurmiz") explains that the former means that he finds favor in Hash-m's eyes, while the latter refers to the name of a demon.)

Explanation #2: Rashi's text is that both of these names cited in Sanhedrin end with a "Zayin," just the second word is "Ahurmiz" (referring to Hash-m) not Hurmiz (referring to a demon).

Ifra Hurmiz (cited in Bava Basra 8a), Rabeinu Tam explains, means finding favor in Hash-m's eyes, as Ifra means favor. This comes from the term "Apiryon Namtei," meaning that we should give favor (see Bava Metzia 119a). This is unlike Rashi who explains in Nidah (20b) that Ifra was her name, and Hurmiz means that she had a nice chest (see Rashi there DH "Ifra" and "Hurmiz").

Explanation: The name is Abudyana, not Abu Dayana, as the name Abu is a Jewish name cited in Bava Metzia (93b), that Abu deposited flax by the house of Runya.

Explanation: The correct text is Shabsai, as Shabsi is a Jewish name cited in many places. However, Shabsai is an evil spirit, as stated in Chulin (107b).

Explanation: The correct text is Batai, as Bati is a Jewish name, as is apparent in the Gemara in Kidushin (70b) that states that Bati, due to his haughtiness, did not accept a document freeing him from being a slave. This is because although he indeed was a slave, he held that he was a regular Jew.

Question: On the contrary, the Gemara should ask on the Mishnah itself, why did the Mishnah invalidate a document from a regular (non-expert) Nochri court with Jewish witnesses that it was given over and signed witnesses who are obviously Nochrim?

Answer: We decree that by a regular court a Get is not good because of other documents that are invalid by a regular court even with Jewish witnesses that the document was given over. This is because one might come to validate the document without Jewish witnesses of the giving of the document, as is done in a regular Nochri court.

Implied Question: The Gemara says later that even the Rabbanan who say that other documents are invalid when they are done in a regular (non-expert) Nochri court will agree that if a Get has kosher Jewish witnesses that it was given (and clearly Nochri names are signed) it is valid. They do not make this decree because of the problem (mentioned above) regarding other documents.

Answer: However, the Gemara could not have asked this as a question, as perhaps the Tana of our Mishnah indeed made such a decree (even though the Rabbanan later did not).

Explanation: This means that other documents made by a regular (non-expert) Nochri court are invalid even when it is clear that Nochri names are being used and Jewish witnesses see the giving over of the document. This is in order that people will not come to validate such documents without witnesses of the giving of the document, as is the case in expert Nochri courts (that they do not have witnesses see the giving of the document).

If people would see any possible validation by a document that comes from a non-expert Nochri court, even if it has Jewish witnesses that it was given over, they will come to mistakenly think that there is no difference between expert or non-expert Nochri courts. They will then come to think that documents from these courts are valid even without the Jewish witnesses of the giving of the document.

Explanation: All of the documents that come to expert courts, even though the witnesses who sign on them are Nochrim, are valid. Each category is kosher according to its laws (as follows). Other documents are always kosher. Gitin of women and freeing slaves require Jewish witnesses regarding the giving of the Get and that the witnesses signed have clearly non-Jewish names.

They only argue when the documents are done in a regular (non-expert) Nochri court. This means that they argue when the documents are done with Jewish witnesses regarding the giving of the document and the signed witnesses have clearly Nochri names. Rebbi Akiva says these documents are valid, and he does not decree that people will come to validate such documents even without Jewish witnesses regarding the giving of the Get, because of the expert courts. (Note: This means that people would come to say that documents of Nochri courts don't need Jewish witnesses that they were given over, as explained in the Tosfos above.)

The Chachamim invalidate regular documents besides Gitin of women. This is because they hold that other documents are kosher when done in expert Nochri courts even without Jewish witnesses that they were given over. (Note: They are therefore concerned people will come to say the same law applies to regular Nochri courts, and they will think they do not need Jewish witnesses of the giving of the documents in regular Nochri courts.) However, they validate such a Get, being that even in expert Nochri courts they do not say the Get would be valid without Jewish witnesses that it was given over. Therefore, there is no reason to make a decree, and such a Get even in a non-expert Nochri court is kosher (as long as it has the Jewish witnesses that it was given over and clearly Nochri names are signed as witnesses).

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that even these are kosher etc. This means that even Gitin are only kosher in a place that Jews do not sign, meaning they are not allowed to sign on the Gitin. This ensures that people will not come to think that the witnesses are Jews (and rely on them without Jewish witnesses regarding the giving of the document).

The Gemara asks, in a place that Jews do not sign there should also be a decree! The Gemara means that being that in a place that Jews do sign there is a decree that even if the names signed are clearly those of Nochrim the document is invalid, as one might sign a name that is unclear if it belongs to a Nochri, if so we should also decree that a document signed in a place where Jews are not allowed to sign is invalid as it might lead to validating a document where Jews are allowed to sign!

Implied Question: This sounds like a decree due to a decree (which is not usually issued). (Note: Why, then, did the Gemara ask this question when the answer is obvious?)

Answer: Even so, it made sense to ask the question being that we are being so suspicious already, we should suspect this as well. This is how the Ri understands the explanation of our Gemara.

Observation: The Gemara implies that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds like Rebbi Elazar that the witnesses that see the giving of the document effect the transaction.

Question: Rabeinu Efraim asked that in Bava Basra (169b) regarding someone who comes to defend the ownership of his field with both a document and a claim that he has a Chazakah, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel implies that he holds the witnesses signed on the document effect the transaction.

Answer: The Ri says that only in Gitin he holds like Rebbi Elazar, not in other documents, just like the position of other Amoraim later (86b).

Explanation: This question is specifically on Rebbi Elazar, as he is the one who says later (22b) that a document that can possibly be forged (erased and written over) is only able to be used for the writing of a Get, not other documents.

Observation: The Gemara implies that without this gallnut process being done to the paper it can be forged (erased and written over without anyone noticing).

Question: How can we write on our parchment that does not have this gallnut treatment done to it? Sifrei Torah, Tefilin, and Mezuzos are all invalid when written on "Diftara," (parchment that did not have this treatment), as is apparent in many places!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that our treatment of parchment with plaster is the equivalent of their treatment with gallnuts, as our parchment can obviously not be forged.

Proof: Additionally, in Menachos (31b) regarding a Sefer Torah the Gemara says, "this is when the gallnut treatment was done, this was when it wasn't done," implying that a Sefer Torah can clearly be kosher even if the process is not done. This is possible when it is treated like our treatment (with plaster). (Note: It cannot mean no treatment was done, otherwise it would be invalid under the category of Diftara.)

Explanation: Do we say that these might be Jewish witnesses and the document is kosher according to Rebbi Meir, or it could be rendered kosher with Jewish witnesses that it was given over according to Rebbi Eliezer? This would be the law if we do not assume that the signatures of the witnesses are Nochrim unless we know for a fact they are Nochrim, (which is logical) as it is rare that Nochrim will be the witnesses on a Get.

Or perhaps, being that their names are Nochri names, we suspect that they are Nochrim? This would mean the document would not be kosher even with Jewish witnesses that the document was given according to Rebbi Elazar. This would even be true according to Rebbi Shimon. This is because Rebbi Shimon only permitted this when the names on the document were clearly not Jewish. Here, the case is that they are names whose origin is unclear, as we are in doubt whether they are Nochrim or Jews.

If the names would be clear there would be no doubt, as they are clearly Nochrim. This is because in every place (this is discussed) the suspicion we have (regarding Nochri documents) is that people should not come to rely on the Nochrim themselves. Rebbi Yochanan said that we only actually ruled a Nochri document is kosher when the signed witnesses were Lucas and Lus. We validated the document because these are clearly Nochri names, and nobody will rely on the signatures (rather they will rely on the Jewish witnesses that the document was given over). They will therefore be kosher according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon.

However, if the names were not clearly those of Nochrim we do suspect (that they are Nochrim and that people will end up relying on those signed witnesses not knowing they are Nochrim, even according to Rebbi Shimon).

Explanation: The Gemara proceeds to ask from Gitin that come from overseas. The Gemara thinks that when it was taught that most Jews outside of Eretz Yisrael have Nochri names, it did not teach this in order to say that Gitin are kosher overseas with these types of names. Rather, it was giving a reason that Jews in general had Nochri names, as outside of Eretz Yisrael most Jews had Nochri names.

Therefore, in Eretz Yisrael (the Gemara thought) there is also no reason to suspect that the witnesses might be Nochrim, as Nochrim don't usually sign as the witnesses on Gitin. The Gemara answers that only Gitin from overseas are kosher (not Gitin from Eretz Yisrael that have these types of names as witnesses).

Question: In the Yerushalmi, the following question is asked. Think to yourself: If the slave was the servant of an officer, it is a negative thing for the slave (to be freed from his service)! If a woman is the husband of a person plagued with many boils, it is a merit for her (to receive a divorce)!

Answer: You only have (a difference like that our Mishnah is presenting between the Gitin of slaves and women) regarding a person who sells his slave without his knowledge. Is there any possibility that the sale is invalid? (Note: In contrast) If someone divorces his wife without her consent, is there any possibility that she is divorced? The Yerushalmi means that while a slave can be sold through a third party against his will, a woman cannot be divorced through a third party against her will.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that this "Rav Huna" is not the Rav Huna generally as "Rav Huna" throughout Shas.

Proof #1: He was much older than Rebbi Yirmiyah, and would not have been sitting (learning as would a student) before him.

Proof #2: Additionally, he called them "children."

Proof #3: Rebbi Yirmiyah was Rebbi Zeira's friend, and younger than him. This is apparent from the (following) Gemara in Nidah (23a). Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira...until Rebbi Yirmiyah brought Rebbi Zeira towards laughter (with a funny question on the Mishnah), but Rebbi Zeira didn't laugh. Rebbi Zeira was the student of Rav Yehudah, as we said (in Kesuvos 110b) that he was avoiding Rav Yehudah because he wanted to go to Eretz Yisrael. Shmuel, the Rebbe of Rav Yehudah, needed to ask questions of Rav Huna, as is apparent in the beginning of our Mesechta that Shmuel asked Rav Huna about two people who brought a Get etc. This is also apparent from Chulin (13a), where Shmuel asked Rav Huna how do we know that someone who happens to be dealing with Kodshim etc. (Note: Putting these pieces together, if the Rebbi of Rebbi Yirmiyah's older friend's Rebbi, Shmuel, needed to ask questions from Rav Huna, it is clear that Rav Huna was not sitting and learning as a student before Rebbi Yirmiyah.)

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. Even if someone who grabs money for someone else (who is the person's creditor) has acquired for the person what he has grabbed, this is because he is a messenger and acquires against the debtor's will. Being that the person who he is seizing possessions from is obligated to pay his creditor, it is as if the creditor himself seized the possessions. However, here the slave himself cannot stop the master from retracting, even if the master gave the slave himself a Get on the condition that he is not yet freed when he receives the Get. This is because the owner is not obligated to free him.

If so, why should the person who receives the Get be able to stop the master from retracting the get? This is especially so in light of the fact that at this point the Gemara understands that when someone says, "give (this to someone) " he does not mean "acquire (this for someone)."

Additionally, why is the master obligated to the slave in a manner that the Gemara compares to a case of someone who seizes possessions for a creditor?

If this is because the slave must have given the master a good feeling (i.e. worked hard for him and did many good things for him), as Rabeinu Tam explains later on regarding something else, it still remains to be understood why this is compared to seizing possessions for a creditor.

Answer: The Ri says that this is in fact considered a slight obligation because the slave gave the master a good feeling. (Note: He therefore feels somewhat obligated to release him.) Even so, it is called that he is ruining someone else's holdings, as the master is not really obligated to him at all. Accordingly, this is what the Gemara means. It is understandable that if the law is generally that a person who seizes for someone else has committed a valid seizure, here too the messenger acquires the document for the slave and the master cannot retract. This is because the master is happy with the service that the slave provided, and it therefore makes sense that he is indebted to the slave to the degree that he wants the slave to be able to stop a retraction of the Get. Even if the person receiving the Get does not think so it does not matter, as his mindset is to accept the get in the way that the master wants him to accept the Get for the slave.

However, if someone who seizes possessions for a creditor does not acquire, certainly someone who is not a creditor, but rather only is happy with the work that his slave has done for him, can retract a Get freeing his slave (in the case of our Mishnah).

Opinion #1: This is even if he made him a messenger, as implied in Kesuvos (84b) regarding Yeimar bar Chasho who said to his messenger etc.

Opinion #2: This is unlike Rashi's explanation in Bava Metzia (10a) that when he made him a messenger, everyone agrees that he acquires.

Proof to Opinion #1: There in fact is no difference. This is because even if he did not make him a messenger he still is his messenger because acquiring works through the mechanics of being a messenger, as is apparent from the Gemara in Bava Metzia (10b) and in Nedarim (36b).

Question: Here Rebbi Yochanan says that if someone seizes possessions for a creditor where it negatively affects others (i.e. other creditors), what he has seized he has not successfully acquired for the creditor. However, in Bava Kama (10a) Rebbi Yochanan holds that if someone picks up a lost object (that one can keep as it has no identifying marks) for his friend he has acquired it for him. The two concepts are linked together, as the Gemara there says that Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda who say that one cannot pick up this lost object for his friend also hold that the case of seizure (above) was not successful.

Answer: It is possible to answer that Rebbi Yochanan makes a distinction between the law regarding the lost object and a creditor. A lost object is different, as since he can acquire it for himself, he can also acquire it for his friend (even though it affects other negatively, as opposed to seizing from someone else's creditor for that person, that he could not do through his own rights).

Question: Rebbi Yochanan does not hold of the concept that when someone tells someone else to "give" someone a document that he means that he should actually acquire it for him. This is evident from his statement in Bava Metzia (10a) that if someone picks up a lost object for his friend, his friend has acquired it. The Gemara there continues that if you will ask from our Mishnah (9b), the case is where he said "give it to me," but not "acquire for me." (Note: This is the exact opposite of the statement in our Gemara.)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answered that only where another person is effecting the acquisition (i.e. master giving a Get to a messenger for the slave) do we say that "give" is like "acquire," not by picking up a lost object.

Question: According to the opinion (13b) that they only established the process of "Ma'amad Shelashtan" by a case of Pikadon, why did they have to decree that there should be such a law, which the Gemara later in our chapter says is a law "without a reason?" It should be derived from the concept that when someone says "give" it is as if he said "acquire (it for him)?"

Answer: It was necessary to decree that "Ma'amad Shelashtan" establishes an acquisition even if the Pikadon is not currently being held by the Shomer, such as a case where he gave it to someone else to hold. Alternatively, it was required where the owner wanted to do this against the will of the Shomer, as I will explain later (DH "Gufa") that it indeed works against the Shomer's will.

Question: The Mishnah later says that if someone says, "give a Manah to Ploni," and the person (giver) dies, the Manah should be given even after he is dead. Rav Zvid says that the case was one of Ma'amad Shelashtan. Why didn't he simply understand that the Mishnah held that saying "give" is like saying "acquire?" (Note: He therefore acquired it even before the person died.)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that "give" does not mean "acquire" unless he physically passes what he wants the third party to acquire to the messenger when he makes this statement. Our Mishnah does not seem to be talking about such a case.

According to this answer, we can now understand the difference between our Gemara and that of Bava Metzia (according to Rebbi Yochanan, see (a) above). This is because regarding a lost object we do not say "give" is like "acquire" as there is no giving from one person to another in that case.

They also needed to decree that Ma'amad Shelashtan works even though he already has the Pikadon in his hand, even though there "give" is not like "acquire."

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam further states that freeing a slave is like a loan where we indeed say "give" is like "acquire." This is despite the fact that when giving a present "give" is not like "acquire." This is because freeing a slave is only done because the slave made him happy with his work, otherwise he would not be freeing him. This is why it is considered somewhat like a loan, where we do say "give" is like "acquire" (see also Tosfos (4) where this concept is discussed).

Rabeinu Tam deduced that there is another difference between the mechanics of giving a present and a loan. The Mishnah quoted in the Gemara later (14a) states the following. If someone says, "bring/give this Manah to Ploni who I am obligated to" or if a similar case occurs with someone who was watching a Pikadon ("give this Pikadon back to Ploni"), the person giving the object is still responsible for it (in case an accident happens to it when it is still in the hands of the messenger). If the person giving it to the messenger wants to retract, he cannot retract. This implies that when paying back a debt "bring" is like "acquire," whereas regarding a present we rule explicitly at the end of this chapter like the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ha'Nasi that it is not like "acquire."

The Gemara later (32b) says that the messenger of a gift is like the messenger of a Get, and "bring" is not like "acquire." If "bring" is not like "acquire," certainly "give" is not like "acquire." If it were just as it is by a loan and a Pikadon, why would the Mishnah say "give?" Being that it already told us that even "bring" is like acquire, certainly "give" is like "acquire," as we already know that by giving a gift "give" is like "acquire."

Opinion #2: The Ri argues that "give" is like "acquire" even when it comes to gift giving.

Proof: The Ri brings proof from the Tosefta that states this explicitly. It says that if someone says, "give a Manah to Ploni who I am obligated to," or the same by Pikadon, or "bring a Manah etc.," the giver cannot retract what he gave and he is obligated in case forced circumstance causes the object/money to be destroyed. If someone says, "give this money to Ploni," or "give this gift document to Ploni" or "bring etc.," he can retract if he wishes. If he says, "acquire this Manah for Ploni," or "accept this money for Ploni," he cannot retract. This shows a clear Tosefta that when it comes to giving a gift, we do not say "give" is like "acquire."