Explanation: A person is not stringent (regarding this area), at least when it comes to his wife. The same goes for the airspace above the bed.

Question: Why don't we just derive that the opposite is true (that the vessels of the buyer do not acquire in the domain of the seller), as all of the Amoraim answer here why this is not the case? In Bava Basra, the Gemara indeed wants to extrapolate whether or not the vessels acquire or not from the words of the Amoraim here, but it cannot. (Note: Why don't we say that being that all of the Amoraim establish the case is not where the vessels of the buyer are in the possession of the seller, if that were the case the woman would not acquire her Get?)

Answer#1: Here the Amoraim are indeed unsure what the law is. They are merely pushing aside the Mishnah as not a proof that the vessels do acquire (but they are not certain if they do or do not).

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that even if we would say that the vessels of the buyer generally do acquire in the domain of the seller, regarding a Get this might not be the case, as he intends to distance her from him. (Note: She therefore might not a acquire in his domain.)

Question: This is obvious, as her bosom is exactly like her hand (it is her body)!

Answer: Rebbi Yochanan requires that it be tied and hanging. However, this case is where her clothes are dragging on the ground. Without the reasoning that her bosom acquires for her, this would not help at all, as it is not tied and hanging.

Opinion: The Ri required someone giving a Get to his wife to say, "This is your Get" and "You are permitted to any man." This is as implied later (85b) that they used to also say "And this etc." (Note: See top line of 85b.)

Question: However, this is difficult, as earlier (55a) the Gemara implies that even if he did not say this the Get is valid. This is implied there by Rava's statement that from the testimony of Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudguda we see that if a person told witnesses, "See this Get that I am going to give my wife?" (Note: If he then went and said to his wife, "Take this obligation document," the Get is valid. This shows that he does not need to say the phrases the Ri requires.)

Answer: Afterwards the witnesses will tell her she is divorced. Although a woman is divorced against her will, a man must tell her that this is your Get and that you are now permitted to any man, in order that she should know she is divorced, and that she should not come back. A requirement of a valid Get is that she should be sent away and know not to come back.

Question: This is difficult. In Bava Metzia (10b), Rebbi Yochanan says that a girl who is a minor has a (mode of acquisition) courtyard, and she has four cubits. The Gemara there states that we derive the law regarding a lost object from Get. This implies that regarding a Get, Rebbi Yochanan would say that she is only divorced within her four cubits. Here, however, he says that even within one hundred cubits (she is divorced).

Answer: In her four cubits, even if he can watch the Get as much as she can, she is divorced. If the Get is outside of her four cubis, she is only divorced if only she can guard it and he cannot.

Question: Another difficulty is that Rav Ashi holds in Bava Metzia (ibid.) that there was no decree that one has four cubits in a public domain (they can acquire an object within their four cubits). However, here the Mishnah states that if she was standing in the public domain and the Get was close to her, she is divorced (clearly implying that one can acquire within their four cubits in the public domain).

Answer#1: The case there is when she cannot guard it (but it is within her four cubits). Here she can guard it, and therefore acquires it despite the fact that is in the public domain.

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that here the Gemara does not literally mean the public domain (when it says "public domain"), but rather a side street or the sides of the public domain.

Question: Why don't we answer that we simply do not know who was first, and that therefore it is a doubt?

Answer: The term, "half and half" does not imply this. (Note: Rather, it implies each seems to have gotten half (and not that we simply do not know who was first).) This is why the case is established to be with two sets of witnesses etc.

Question: Why don't we say that the two contradictory sets of witnesses cancel each other out, and the woman retains her status of being a married woman and is not divorced at all?

Answer: Being that it is a Rabbinical doubt, as stated in Yevamos 31a, they gave her a law of being "divorced and not divorced."

Explanation: This means that each cannot watch it by himself, and it can only be watched by both together. However, if they cannot watch it at all, it is obvious that she is not divorced at all.

Opinion#1: This is only in the public domain. However, if it is in her yard, it does not have to actually come to her hand. This is as stated earlier that she should go and close and open the door (to establish Chazakah, see 77b).

Opinion#2: However, in the Aruch under the category of "Get," the Aruch writes that we have a tradition from our Rabbis that even if the Get was thrown to her in her yard, she is not permitted until the Get physically reaches her hand.

Proof: He quotes the Yerushalmi that is stringent in all of these types of cases until the Get reaches her hand.

Question: This is not proof, as it is possible that the Yerushalmi is discussing cases of the public domain, as it explicitly concludes this (that she needs to actually take the Get) regarding a case where it is close to him and close to her. It does not seem like it is excluding a case of her own yard. (Note: Otherwise, it would have concluded this way regarding her yard, and we would have certainly know that the Get is not finalized in this manner in the public domain.)

Explanation: This is because regarding a Get, giving against her will is still considered giving.

Question: The Ri asks that Rebbi Yehuda said earlier that for another thing we also say that giving against one's will is giving.

Answer: He answered that for other things we find many places where such giving is invalid, for example regarding someone who lent money to his friend in a city. The borrower is not supposed to pay back the lender in the desert (and the lender can refuse such a payment). However, regarding Get, in any place the giving of the Get is valid against her will.

Question: On the contrary, why doesn't the Gemara ask why if the borrower threw it close to himself he is still obligated to pay? Being that the lender said, "Throw the money you owe me and be exempt," if he threw it close to the borrower he should also be exempt!

Answer: The case is presumed to be where the lender specifies that the borrower should throw it to a place where he can guard it.

Explanation: In this case we cannot say that whoever is making a claim from his friend must bring proof, as there is no doubt here.

Explanation#1: The case is not when her hand is open, and afterwards he put the Get in her hand and she closed it.

If it would be the case, even if he couldn't bring it towards him (after she closed her hand) she is not divorced, being that at the time of the giving of the Get he could bring it towards him.

Rather, the Ri understands that the case is where her hand was already closed, and he jammed the Get into her hand. If he jammed it in so hard that he can no longer bring it towards himself, she is divorced.

Explanation#2: Rabeinu Tam explains that the case is understandable if her hand was open. If he cannot bring it towards him refers to a case where the Get is heavy, and if he will pull it towards him the string (it is attached to) will snap.

Opinion#1: One must be careful that the hand of the woman should be open until he puts the entire Get in her hand. If she closes her hand when the husband is still holding the top of the Get in his hand, the Get is invalid, as it is like the case where the Get is in her hand and the string is in his hand.

Opinion#2: It appears that the Get is still valid. This is because it is not worse than a case where he moved his hips closer to her, and she pulled out the Get (the Get was stuck between his belt and his pants). The Get is valid, even though the husband has the ability to tighten his belt in order that she not take it.

Opinion#3: One who is stringent should receive a blessing.

Observation: The Gemara could have answered that the case is where the woman is standing on the side of his yard, and that she therefore does not have a four by four cubit area where she can acquire. Alternatively, she is standing next to the public domain according to Rav Ashi's opinion in Bava Metzia (10b).

Question: The area is not guarded, as stated nearby that the air of a roof is not guarded (and therefore it cannot acquire the Get for her). (Note: Accordingly, why would we think this should make her acquire the Get and become divorced?)

Answer#1: The air of the four cubits is considered guarded. The case where she is standing at the head of the roof is even outside of her four cubits. This is why the Gemara asks that the air is not guarded.

Answer#2: The Ri says that Rebbi Elazar himself is in doubt whether the Chachamim's institution of acquiring within one's four cubits is also within the air of those four cubits if they are unguarded. It is possible that even though it is not guarded Chazal considered them as if they are guarded, just as they made the four cubits have a status of his domain (for the purposes of acquisition), even though it is not his domain.