Explanation: A messenger is only someone who is sent from one person to another, and who can possibly go back to the one who sent him to say, "I accomplished your Shelichus," before he will become a messenger for others. (Note: The Tosfos Ha'Rosh adds that being that the woman must make another shelichus before the mission can be accomplished, she does not fit this criteria.)

Rashi does not give this explanation.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the case is where he put the Get in the courtyard of his friend.

Question: This does not seem correct, as his friend's courtyard is not similar to a Sheliach l'Holachah (messenger to deliver).

Opinion#2: Rather, the Ri says the husband put it in his own courtyard and sold the courtyard to others. The woman proceeded to acquire it from the buyer.

Question: Why does the Gemara say that this is because of her "courtyard that comes afterwards?" It should have said that this is because of a problem in the Shelichus itself! The husband made a Shaliach l'Holachah, and the woman is going to make that same messenger a "Shaliach l'Kabalah" (a messenger to receive the Get for her). This should not be valid as the messenger cannot return to the husband (immediately, as explained in the Tosfos above).

Answer: The Ri explains that this reason that the messenger cannot return to the husband is not a clear reason, as some doubt that this poses a problem as is apparent in the Gemara later (63b).

Question: This (the following question) requires analysis. Why doesn't the Gemara answer here that the case is when she first appointed the messenger, and only afterwards did he appoint this same messenger. There is no reason in such a scenario to decree that it is invalid due to a similarity of "her courtyard coming afterwards" (as she is appointing the messenger first), as is apparent in the Gemara later (63b).

Question: This seems to be a case of a messenger who is not empowered to effect the divorce, and he therefore should not be able to make a messenger who will effect the divorce. This is as stated later (29b) regarding a person who had sent a messenger to deliver a Get for his wife. He stated to the messenger that he should give the Get to Abba bar Minyumi (who would take care of the actual giving of the Get). The messenger went (where he was supposed to go), but did not find Abba bar Minyumi. Rebbi Yitzchak, Rebbi Chanina, and Rebbi Avahu were sitting together. They said to the messenger, "Give us your words (meaning that they pass the Shelichus over to them)." Rav Safra said to them, "Isn't this a case of a messenger who was not empowered to divorce?" (Note: He therefore should not be able to make another messenger who can give the Get.)

Answer: The Gemara there asks a good question. Being that the messenger could not effect the divorce, he can only do what the husband asked him to do, which is to give the Get to Abba bar Minyumi. However, in our case the husband commanded her to make a Shaliach l'Holachah.

Question: This is somewhat difficult. What does it make a difference whether she or the Beis Din (make the messenger)? (Note: If there indeed is not difference) why does the Gemara imply that these are two separate answers when it says, "And if you want I will say (and alternate answer)?"

Answer: Perhaps this version (i.e. answer) is different than the first answer, in that in the first answer she does not say "in front of me it was written" until she accepts the Get.

Implied Question: The Gemara later (29a) and in all other places implies that "in front of me it was written etc." must be said when the Get leaves the hands of the messenger.

Answer: Perhaps here where she can say this when she receives the Get, it is preferable.

Explanation: The Mishnah is referring to scribes who write Gitin in order to learn how to write them, as is explained in the Gemara.

Implied Question: There is an opinion in Eiruvin (13a) that a Megilas Sotah can be erased from the Parshah of Sotah written in a Torah, even though we require that a Megilas Sotah be written Lishmah and a Sefer Torah is written to learn from, as is stated in the Gemara there.

Answer: Regarding a Get he agrees (that a Get written without intent is invalid), as we explained earlier (20a). Even the words written in the Torah regarding a Get are also invalid (to be used as a Get) as stated in the second chapter.

Explanation: The Gemara explains that this is not only referring to a Get that was not written for divorce, but even to a Get that was written for divorce. This is why it says "moreover."

Question: How can the Mishnah here say "moreover?" From this case alone, we would not know that the first case of the Mishnah is invalid! One might think that a Get written for Rachel cannot be later written for Leah. However, scribes that write Gitin for practice might be valid (as they are written without any intent for a different woman).

We indeed use similar logic in Eiruvin (13a), where we say that even though the Megilas Sotah of one woman cannot be used to make another Sotah drink, a Sefer Torah that is written to learn from can be erased. (Note: This means that the Parshah of Sotah in it can be used as a Megilas Sotah (there is no reason to erase the rest of the Sefer Torah).)

Answer#1: The Gitin written for practice here is unlike the Lishmah regarding a Sefer Torah used for learning. Scribes who practice writing a Get do not write the Get in order that it should be a valid Get. However, a Sefer Torah is written with the intent that whatever needs to be done with it can be done.

However, even so the Pesukim where the Torah discusses a Get is invalid to be used as a Get, as we explained earlier (see 24a, DH "Kol ha'Get").

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that the term "moreover" can still be said in the Mishnah, being that there is a logical angle to say that scribes writing for practice should be worse than a Get written to be used as a valid Get.

Question: Regarding someone who writes forms of Gitin (26a), the Mishnah also should have said "moreover." This is because from all of the cases (presented in Zevachim 2b) we were unable to deduce that doing something with neutral intent is not considered Lishmah, besides from this Mishnah later (26a) regarding people who write forms for Gitin. (Note: According, the Mishnah should start "moreover," as there is an added novel teaching in this Mishnah.)

Answer: The Mishnah regarding forms of Gitin was not written to teach that neutral intent is invalid. Rather, it teaches us that the Rabbis permitted a scribe to write such a form in order to help him (see 26a).

Explanation: The Gemara explains that this is because we hold that one cannot retroactively determine the woman for whom the Get was written.

The Ri says that the opinion that usually holds that one can retroactively determine intent would agree that in this case one cannot do so. This is because the Pasuk "And he will write for her," which teaches that a Get must be written Lishmah, implies by its very nature that it should be known at the time that the Get is being written that it is for a specific woman.

This is also implied by the Gemara. The Gemara (25a) says that Rebbi Yochanan might only have taught regarding a Get that is not written Lishmah that it is totally invalid, as we require that it be written for her. This implies that even though we generally hold that one can retroactively determine intent, such a Get is clearly invalid because of the Pasuk "And he will write for her."

Explanation: However, according to Rebbi Meir, we require that it should be obvious from the signing that it was written for this man and woman. Witnesses that saw the giving of the Get do not help.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Gitin (86b) says that if two people sent two Gitin to their wives and their names (and those of their wives) are the same (and the Gitin proceeded to get mixed up), each woman should receive both Gitin. In the Gemara, Rebbi Yirmiyah says that this is unlike the opinion of Rebbi Elazar. This implies that this does not present a problem according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir.

Answer: The Gemara there is discussing, as we explained earlier, when they wrote the generations (of the person), or another identifying characteristic, or that he is a kohen. In all of these cases it is clear from the signing which Get is which. However, the witnesses who saw the giving of the Get do not know which one person had a Get with certain ancestors or a particular identifying characteristic. (Note: They merely know the person, and that he gave over a Get to his wife.)

Question: According to the one who suspects later (27a) that there could be two places called Sheviri and two separate people who live in these places who answer to the name "Yosef Ben Shimon," even though we do not know this to be true, he should hold that Rebbi Meir will say that all Gitin are invalid! There will be no Get in the world that is clearly referring to a particular couple (as we could always suspect there are two people with these names)!

Answer: The Ri answers that this opinion later (27a) is specifically referring to a Get that was found, as we suspect it might have fallen from someone else (i.e. another Yosef ben Shimon or his messenger etc.). However, in general such a Get is considered to be clear, being that there is only place called Sheviri that we know of, and one Yosef ben Shimon that lives there.

Question: The Mishnah in Bava Basra (167b) says that we write a Get for a man even though his wife is not with him. The Gemara asks, why don't we suspect that there are two people called Yosef ben Shimon who live in one city? Perhaps this man will give the Get to the other one's wife? The Gemara answers, Rav says that when there are two Yosef ben Shimon's who live in one city, they cannot only get divorced in front of each other.

What is the case? If it is not known that there are two Yosef ben Shimon's, we concluded that we generally do not suspect for this (as explained above in (e). If there are two Yosef ben Shimon's there, according to Rebbi Meir they cannot even get divorced in front of each other unless they write that one of them is a kohen, or they write more generations (Shimon's father etc.), or another identifying factor. This takes away any suspicion. If this Gemara in Bava Basra (167b) is according to Rebbi Elazar, the witnesses who see the giving of the Get know full well if this woman is his wife or not, as stated here.

Answer: The Ri says that the witnesses of the giving of the Get generally do not ascertain if the woman he gives the Get to is actually his wife, and rely on the fact that they know his name and her name, and that these names are written in the Get. We do not suspect that he might give this Get to his friend's wife whose name is the same as his name and her name is the same as that of his wife.

The witnesses also do not determine if there is another Yosef ben Shimon in the city. When she comes to Beis Din in order that they should permit her to remarry, the witnesses who saw the giving of the Get testify before Beis Din that they saw that her husband gave her the Get, even though they did not check if she was his wife.

This is why the Gemara asks that we should suspect that he is giving the Get to the other person's wife. Even if the people who are writing this do not know if there are two people with similar names in the city, perhaps they should not write this Get as sometimes there are people with similar names?

The Gemara answers that when there are two Yosef ben Shimon's etc., they can only get divorce in front of each other. When she comes to Beis Din so that they should permit her to remarry, Beis Din asks the witnesses who saw the giving of the Get if there were two Yosef ben Shimon's in the city.

The Gemara did not want to answer that they cannot perform the divorce unless the witnesses actually know that this is his wife. This would not be a good institution, as people will hardly be able to find kosher witnesses for the giving of the Get.