(R. Ba citing Rav, and R. Ze'ira citing Aba bar Chanah): If two Sheluchim bring a Get from abroad, they need not say 'it was written in front of us and signed in front of us.'

(R. Yosi bar Yosi citing R. Yochanan): They must say it.

If [the husband] himself brought the Get, he must give it to her in front of two [only] in order to establish her to be divorced in front of two (he need not say the declaration. We explained this like R. MEIR SIMCHAH.)

If a man gave to his wife her Get, and he took it and cast it to the sea or a river, and afterwards he said that it was a blank paper or a paid [loan] document, he is not believed to disqualify her [to other men].

Question (R. Bun bar Chiyah, to R. Ze'ira): If he is not believed to disqualify her, who can disqualify her?! (He knows better than anyone else! - PNEI MOSHE)

Answer (R. Ze'ira): Since she was established to be divorced in front of two, he is not believed to disqualify her.

If he gave to [his wife] her Get, and it was found to be Pasul, and they forced him, and he gave to her another - a case came in front of Rabanan, and they were Machshir (even though normally, a coerced Get is Pasul. OHR SOMAYACH (Hilchos Ishus 7:23) - the Get Vadai divorced, but there was a Pesul. If a Yisrael gave a Safek Get, and he wanted to remarry her, we would not force him to give another Get!)

Question: Was it not taught that he is not believed to disqualify it?!

Answer: That is when the Pesul is not clarified. Here, the Pesul is clarified;

This is like the case of Chinena brei d'R. Asi hated [his wife - MASHBI'ACH], and he threw a Get to his wife, and said 'behold, it is your Get!" She screamed, and neighbors entered. They saw in her hand a blank paper. The case came in front of Rabanan, and they were concerned [and disqualified her to Kehunah].

Question: Didn't R. Yisa, citing R. Yochanan, say that if rumors [that a woman became Mekudeshes or was divorced] were found to originate from women or minors, the rumors are Batel (we are not concerned for them?! Why were they concerned here?)

Answer #1: There, [a Get] was not mentioned. Here, the Get was mentioned.

Answer #2: [Here,] he said that it is a Kosher Get. Since she screamed and neighbors entered, [perhaps] he grabbed it from her, and gave to her a blank paper.

Question (R. Yirmeyah): (Is the following correct?) If [a Get] was written in Eretz Yisrael, and signed in Chutz la'Aretz, and [the Shali'ach] went to give it to her in Chutz la'Aretz and did not find her in Chutz la'Aretz and found her in Eretz Yisrael, he must say b'Fanai Nechtav uv'Fanai Nechtam, for it was written in Eretz Yisrael, and signed in Chutz la'Aretz (the signing is primary);

However, if it was written in Eretz Yisrael, and signed in Eretz Yisrael, and [the Shali'ach] went to give it to her in Chutz la'Aretz and did not find her in Chutz la'Aretz and found her in Eretz Yisrael, he need not say b'Fanai Nechtav uv'Fanai Nechtam. (We explained this like HAGAHOS R. DINAR.)

Question: If [she was in Eretz Yisrael, and] he gave her Get (he put it in her Chatzer in Ako), and afterwards she said 'my Chatzer in Ako should acquire for me' (what is the law? Ako is partially in Chutz la'Aretz. She was in the part in Eretz Yisrael, and her Chatzer was in Chutz la'Aretz.)

Answer (R. Chinena): It is as if her hand is long. If [she was in Eretz Yisrael and the Shali'ach was in Chutz la'Aretz, and] her hand was long, and she stretched out her hand and received it, does he not need to say b'Fanai Nechtav uv'Fanai Nechtam?! (Surely, her hand is drawn after her body, which is in Eretz Yisrael.)

Rebuttal (R. Aba): Who says not?! (Perhaps her hand is not drawn after her body, and he need not say b'Fanai Nechtav uv'Fanai Nechtam! We explained this like SEFER NIR.)

Question (R. Ezra, to R. Mana): (Is the following correct? - HAGAHOS R. DINAR) If a man and a woman were holding a Get - she says 'I acquired it', and he says 'you did not acquire it', Rebbi and R. Shimon ben Gamliel argue about this;

They argued about a lender and a borrower who were holding the document. The lender says, 'it is mine, for I lost it.' The borrower says 'it is mine, for I paid you.' [The lender] validates the document through its signatures (and collects it). Rebbi says so;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, they divide.

(R. Elazar): It all depends on who is holding [the part of the document where] the witnesses [signed]. When do they argue? It is when the witnesses signed along the length of the document, and both of them are holding the witnesses.

Answer (R. Ezra, to R. Mana): [No. Here,] all agree [that she is not divorced]. Here, even if the entire [Get] is in her hand, just one thread is in his hand, it is not a Get, for it says "v'Nasan b'Yadah" - it must be totally in her hand.

Question (R. Eliezer, to Chachamim in our Mishnah): Just like you hold that one who brings a Get from one province to another in Chutz La'aretz must say 'b'Fanai Nechtav uv'Fanai Nechtam', I hold that one who brings a Get from one province to another in Eretz Yisrael must say 'b'Fanai Nechtav uv'Fanai Nechtam'! (MEICHAL HA'MAYIM - R. Eliezer holds that the declaration is needed due to Kiyum. The Yerushalmi should have supported R. Yochanan from here!)

(R. Yakov bar Zavdi): A case occurred in which one brought a Get from the port of Kisarin [to Kisarin]. The case came in front of R. Avahu. He said that he must say b'Fanai Nechtav uv'Fanai Nechtam.

Question: Is the port of Kisarin not like Kisarin?!

Answer (R. Avin): [The Get was written on a ship that embarked. (It is considered like another Medinah.)

Support (Beraisa): One who brings a Get from a ship is like one who bring from Chutz la'Aretz. He must say b'Fanai Nechtav uv'Fanai Nechtam.

(R. Shimon ben Gamliel obligates even one who brings from one county to another.) If there was one county and it became two, [a Shali'ach] need not say b'Fanai Nechtav uv'Fanai Nechtam, and similarly for two counties that became one.