Question: This is difficult. Regarding a Megilas Sotah, the Gemara in Eiruvin (13a) implies that we can erase the Parshah of Sotah from a Sefer Torah, even according to the opinion that requires the writing of the Megilas Sotah to be written for a specific Sotah. This is evident from Rav Papa's statement that according to the opinion that her Megilah is unfit to be used for another Sotah, a Sefer Torah that is written without intent for a specific person can be erased.

Answer#1: Rav Yosef in our Gemara argues on Rav Papa.

Answer#2: He holds like the other Tana who holds that we cannot erase the Parshah of Sotah from a Sefer Torah (for a Sotah).

This is like the Mishnah later (26a) that states that if someone writes Gitin forms, he must leave out the name of the man etc. The Gemara in Zevachim (2b) extrapolates from this Mishnah that if the (names on the) form were written without intent for anyone specific, it is invalid. Certainly a Sefer Torah, which is not written for divorcing, should be invalid to be used as a Get!

Answer#3: Additionally, it seems that even the opinion that holds that one can use the Parshah of Sotah written in the Torah for an actual Sotah, even though there is a law it must be written Lishmah, will hold that it is invalid to use a Torah as a Get.

In Eiruvin (13a), the Gemara implies that all Tanaim agree that the case later (26a) is not considered Lishmah. This is apparent from the Gemara there which asks, "Does Rav Acha bar Yoshiyah not agree that if someone (commissions a scribe to) writes to divorce his wife and he changes his mind (and another couple with identical names wants to use it, they cannot)?" A Megilas Sotah is kosher if not written for anyone in particular, as the kohen writing it does not care who uses it, and he would rather it be for anyone who wants to use it. However, regarding a Get, a husband does not want a Get to be present (unless he wants to use it).

Even though the Gemara asks from our Mishnah regarding Get on Rabbi Acha bar Yoshiyah who discusses a Megilas Sotah, the Gemara does not understand that there should be this difference of it not being written Lishmah. (Note: The Maharam Shif explains the intent of Tosfos. Tosfos means the Gemara in Eiruvin (ibid.) still asks from Gitin despite the logic presented above, because in a case where they were written for specific people, the logic above is not enough to answer why there should be a difference between Megilas Sotah and Get.)

Implied Question: Our Mishnah (80a) states that if his or her name was changed, according to Rebbi Meir the child is a Mamzer. This implies that according to the Rabbanan the Get is only invalid mid'Rabbanan. The fact that the Mishnah only states that the name was changed, not that it was not written at all, implies that if it was not written at all it is even kosher mid'Rabbanan. (Note: Accordingly, how could the Gemara here presume that not having their names in the Get is a reason it should be invalid? It would seem the Rabbanan hold it is valid!)

Answer: This is incorrect. It must be that if a name was not written in the Get at all, Rebbi Meir holds the Get is invalid according to Torah law. This is because he requires that it should be obvious from the document itself that he is divorcing his wife. If his name is not in the Get, this is not obvious from the document itself.

Rather, the Ri explains, that the Mishnah later is not referring to a case where the name was totally changed. Otherwise, it indeed should have given a case where the name was not written at all, which Rebbi Meir holds is invalid, as this is more informative. This is because the Mishnah there is according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir, as stated there (otherwise, it would not have to state Rebbi Meir's opinion).

Rather, the case where their names were changed refers to a case where he wrote the name of the person (or city) in Yehudah as the name is known in the Galil. (Note: In Yehudah, his name is known as something else. Rebbi Meir holds that even in this case the Get is invalid.) Now our Gemara is understandably saying that we require his name and her name, or the Get is invalid. Certainly, if the name is not written at all it is invalid.

Observation: Similarly, when the Pasuk says "A person will take off his shoe and give it to his friend," (Rus 4:7) the amount given does not have to be equal to a Perutah, even though the term "give" is used. Likewise, one grain of wheat exempts a whole silo of wheat from terumah, even though the term "you should give it" is used by terumah. Additionally, when the Torah discusses the placement of blood from a Chatas and placing on the thumbs (and big toes), there is no amount discussed.

Implied Question: Abba Shaul says in Pesachim (32b) that a non-kohen who eats Terumah is not liable if he eats less than the value of a Perutah. This is because the verse states, "And the kohen will give," and giving is never less than a Perutah.

Answer: This is because payment for Terumah is derived from payment for Meilah. Both of them are payments for (mis)using kodesh, and laws of each are derived from the other using the Gezeirah Shaveh "Chet-Chet."(Note: See the Ritva for a different explanation.)

Implied Question: There is an opinion in Kerisus (6b) that the Pasuk "And that will be put on a stranger (non-kohen)" refers to an amount equal to the size of an olive.

Answer: This is because the Pasuk is talking about rubbing (an oil), and yet it uses a terminology of "giving." This implies that the amount is not one used for "rubbing," which even be a miniscule amount. Rather, it refers to a giving such as the one stated in the Pasuk, "And he will give the Kohen the Kodesh," which refers to a size of an olive according to the Rabbanan who argue on Abba Shaul.

Similarly, the Pasuk, "He should not give on it Levonah," quoted in Menachos (60a) as requiring an olive size amount of Levonah only connotes the size of an olive because the Pasuk did not say "put" which the Pasuk started with when it said, "You should not put on it oil." Alternatively, it could be because this prohibition is similar to the prohibition against offering Levonah outside the Beis Hamikdash that is also forbidden, and requires the minimum amount of Levonah the size of an olive.

Explanation: Rashi explains that this (the Halachah is like this) is because they bothered to praise this law.

Question: Later (77a), it is not possible to explain the Gemara in this fashion. The Gemara says that Rebbi Chiya went out and taught it in the name of Rebbi and it was praised. However, when he taught it in the name of many others they did not praise it. This implies, the Gemara there states, that the Halachah does not follow this teaching. (Note: Why should this be? In both Gemaros it was praised once!)

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara here deduces from the fact that they praised the teaching when it was said in the name of many others. This is also the reason they did not praise the teaching when it was said in the name of a single person. The Gemara later is just the opposite. (Note: The Maharam explains that Rabeinu Tam means that something that is clearly the Halachah should be said in the name of many important people (as it is what everyone should follow). Therefore, when something is the Halachah, people praise when it is said in the name of many. However, if it is not the accepted Halachah, people praise that it is said in the name of a single person and not many people.)

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked a question from the Luchos, as they are described as having been written in many places, and their writing was in fact carved. This is clear from the Pasuk "carved on the Luchos."

Answer: Rather, the Gemara would rather ask a question on Get from the subject of Get.

Implied Question: This question is asked despite the fact that if someone writes a Get on material that are forbidden from benefit, the Get is kosher. (Note: Why should that case be valid and this case be ruled invalid?)

Answer: This is because he gives her the entire Get. However, here he is only giving her the (body of the) Get as payment (not that it should be hers because of the giving of the Get).

Explanation: The Gemara later (75a) asks, what is the difference between the first and second cases of this Beraisa? The Gemara answers, in one version, that the second case is a condition and action (that are contradictory) in one item. Therefore, the condition is invalid while the action is valid. This version holds that when someone says, "on condition," it is not as if he said "(it should be valid) from now." The Get cannot be valid until she returns it (if we follow his condition), and then he cannot divorce her with it, as she no longer has it. Accordingly, even though she does not return it, she is still divorce (as we say the condition is simply invalid).

Observation: Rava says in Kidushin (6b) that if someone says, "Take this esrog as a present on condition that you give it back to me," he has fulfilled the Mitzvah of Lulav (on the first day of Sukos). He clearly does not agree with the version of the Gemara above.

Rather, Rava's reasoning is based on his position stated later that the action is before the condition.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that in the case of the esrog the action is before the condition. (Note: How, then, does Rava say his law regarding the esrog?)

Answer: Rava was not didactic in his words to state the condition as it should be made. (Note: The Pnei Yehoshua explains at length why Tosfos holds that Rava should have stated the condition before the action.)

Observation: According to the version that explains later (74a) that this is because anyone who states, "on condition" means "from now," the Get is only valid if she returns it, and the condition is later upheld. It is then a Get from the time it came to her hand. (Note: See the Tiferes Shmuel at length regarding how this is connected to the rest of Tosfos.)

Implied Question: This teaching is valid, even though later (21b) the Rabbanan use the same word "Sefer" to teach that the basic story of the Get must be stated in the Get. (Note: How can we use the same word to teach two different lessons?)

Answer: Even so, we can also derive this teaching. (Note: It could be Tosfos means that the fact that the word "Sefer" is in the singular excludes multiple Sefarim. This does not address the teaching from the definition of the word itself, which teaches that the story of the Get must be told.)

Question: How can we validate later (87b) a case where a person left over a part of the Get, and he wrote it on a second page? We should invalidate this two-page Get because of our Gemara's teaching that only Sefer may be used, not two or three Sefarim. We similarly say in Sotah (48a) that if a Megilas Sotah was written on more than one page it is invalid, as the Torah says that one Sefer should be written etc.

Answer: The Ri states that the two pages discussed in the Gemara in Sotah (ibid.) refer to two separate pieces. The Gemara later (87b) refers to one parchment, but two different pages of that parchment (that are attached but clearly recognized as two distinct pages).

Opinion#1: Rebbi Yitzchak bar Mordechai deduces from here that not every letter in a Get must be surrounded by empty space from all four sides, as the Gemara here says that the letters are intertwined.

Opinion#2: The Ri says that there is no proof from here. When the Gemara says that it is mixed, it means that the foot of the Chaf Sofis that is on the top line is in between the top lines of the Tes on the line underneath, or the head of a Lamed is inside the cavity of a Heh or Ches that is above it. (Note: However, no letter is touching another letter in anyway.)

However, the Ri understands that a proof is not necessary. Only in a Sefer Torah, Tefilin, or Mezuzos do we say that the letters must be surrounded by empty space. This is as the Gemara derives in Menachos (34a) from the Pasuk "And you will write," that the writing must be complete (with empty space on all sides of the letters). However, there is no such law, as even parchment and Dyo are not necessary, as the word "Sefer" mentioned in the Torah is merely to teach that the story of the Get must be written in the Get.

Explanation: According to Torah law, there is no prohibition until a person will write and tattoo with ink and blue dye, as stated in the Mishnah in Makos (21a). According to Rebbi Shimon, he is still not liable until he writes the name, meaning the name of an idol, as the Gemara explains there.

However, there is a Rabbinic prohibition here, as even ashes are forbidden to put on one's wound because it appears like a tattoo. Even if it would be a Torah prohibition, it would still be a Get, as we said earlier that if someone writes a Get on something that is forbidden from benefit, the Get is kosher. This is despite the fact that it is forbidden to write the Get on this material in the first place, as it is forbidden from benefit.

Explanation: They do not have a Chazakah immediately until three years, as stated in Bava Basra (37a).

Question#1: Why didn't the Gemara quote a Mishnah (to answer its question)? The Mishnah there states (28a) that slaves have a Chazakah after three years of every day usage. However, they do not receive an immediate status of Chazakah.

Question#2: Additionally, what is the point of Reish Lakish's teaching? We already know this from the Mishnah!

It is difficult to answer, as does Rebbi Yehudah mi'Korvil, that Reish Lakish is teaching us that even in a situation where the Get was written on a slave or on the horn of a bull, where there is a small proof that he gave it to the woman, that even so there is no Chazakah. This is why (according to Rebbi Yehudah mi'Korvil) the Gemara quoted Reish Lakish.

If so, the Gemara should have explained clearly that it only needed to tell us about this case.

Answer: Rather, from the Mishnah we would not know that this is also the law regarding "Godros" (who would have a Get written on them). We would think that our Mishnah specifically applies to slaves who have knowledge and can go on their own initiative. However, animals don't usually go on their own to a stranger's house. This is why we would think that the Get which is written on the slave's hand and there is slight proof that he now belongs to her, should be considered as a valid Chazakah that she received her Get. This is why the Gemara quotes the rule that Godros do not have a Chazakah, even though there is proof that they did not go on their own, similar to the case of a slave. Note: Tosfos means that our Gemara quoted Godros to equate Godros and a slave in this case. If a Get is written on either of them, there is slight proof that they were given to the woman. Animals don't go on their own to a stranger's house, and a Get written on a slave is slight proof that the slave was intended to be given to the woman. Even so, just as we say that there is still no Chazakah by Godros, so too there is no Chazakah regarding a slave.)

Explanation: When the Gemara says that a woman "does not know how to give over," it means that when she does not give it to him originally in order that it should be his, but rather she thinks she is lending it to him.

Implied Question: The Gemara said earlier that the cost of the scribe's writing of the Get was given over by the Rabbanan from her possessions. (Note: Why, then, is every Get different than this case? A woman always has to give the money for the Get to the man beforehand!)

Answer: Even so, she is not giving her own tablet to her (soon-to-be ex) husband.

Question: Did Rami bar Chama not know about the Mishnah that the Gemara later quotes, which explicitly states that a woman can write her Get (and give it to her husband to give to her)?

Answer: This (proof) could be pushed aside, as we could say it refers to her writing on the parchment belonging to the husband, and she merely is giving payment to the scribe. Rav Ashi, who later quotes this Mishnah to answer the question, understands that the Mishnah is discussing parchment that she owns (and it is therefore a valid proof).

Question: What do loan documents have to do with Gitin? Loan documents are only proof that the transaction happened (they don't effect the transaction themselves). Even an oral loan would enable someone to collect from properties with a lien, if it weren't for the fact that they do not become known. (It is unfair to allow him to seize a field that the borrower sold after the loan, as the purchaser had no way of knowing that the seller had unpaid loans.) This is as the Gemara in Bava Basra (42a) states that when people borrow, they borrow secretly.

Regarding sales that become known, the Gemara there (41b) states that someone who sells his field with witnesses causes the buyer to be able to collect from his possessions that have a lien if the property is seized from him. (Tosfos' point is that having a sale document does not have anything to do with this law, just as having a loan document does not have to do with collecting from properties with a lien).

Answer: It seems that we can explain that the Gemara holds that because he was the one who lent money to the entire city, they would also do a favor for him and give him presents or sell him fields that would only be acquired through this type of document. For example, the document might read, "My field is given/sold to you." These documents would also be written by him, and others (the ones giving/selling the property) would sign on them.