1) If you bring a Get from across the seas, or to across the seas, and didn't say "it was written and signed before me" the Get is Pasul, even B'dieved.

2) Also it's Pasul if he says that half of it it was written before me, even if he says it was completely signed before him. However, that's only if the bottom half was written before him which is not the main part of the Get, but if the first half, or even the first line, was written before him, you don't need any more.

3) Even if he says that it was completely written before him, but it was only partially signed before him, it's Pasul. [Tosfos explains: this is even though he testifies seeing the signature of one witness with the Sofar writing it (which might be somewhat considered as a witness).]

4) R' Chisda says that it's still Pasul if two witnesses verify the second signature. [Tosfos adds: even if R' Chisda would hold that you need to be concerned for L'shma, we can say that it's even true if the two witnesses testify that it was signed L'shma.] After all, either you have all of it verified with the rabbis enactment (of saying "it was written etc."), or all of it with two witnesses verifying. [Tosfos gives the reason: since the messenger is not testifying on all the signatures, so we can't assume that he was so thorough to make sure it was done correctly.]

5) Rava disagrees. It can't be that it's valid if only one person testifies, but is Pasul when two people testify on it. [Tosfos explains: he must hold that the messenger will be very thorough to make sure it was done correctly when he testifies on one of the signatures.] Rather, it's only Pasul when the messenger himself combines with a second witness to verify the second signature. After all, people might confuse this with regularly verifying signatures, that you'll believe one person to verify three quarters of the document. [Tosfos proves from here that Rashi's incorrect in the first Perek by claiming that the messenger is believed by himself to say that he recognizes the signature. After all, he should be believed here by himself to say he recognizes the second signature and the second witness wouldn't make it worse. Rather, only two witnesses are believed to say that they recognize the signatures. Therefore, they are worried here that, if we believe him here, will believe a single witness by regular signature verifications.]

6) R' Ashi disagrees and said this would be valid. After all, if the messenger would say that it was signed before him, he would be believed, how can he not be believed with a second witness testifying with him [Tosfos explains: he holds that this testimony is no worse than saying it was signed before you.] Rather, it's Pasul if the messenger says that he's the second witness. After all, either you have all of it verified with the rabbis enactment (of saying "it was written etc."), or all of it with witnesses verifying. [Tosfos explains: we don't say it's no worse than him saying that it was signed before him, as it says in the Yerishalmi, since it looks as if he's only testifying on the other signature out of self interest, in order to have his signature to have a second witness to go along with it. However, since it's not really in his self interest, we need the reason that either you have all of it verified with the rabbis enactment (of saying "it was written etc."), or all of it with two witnesses verifying.]

7) If you have a dirt wall five Tefachim high, and a wall five Tefachim built on top of it [Rashi says: it's a ditch that has a wall on top of it. Tosfos disagrees since since everyone agrees that the deepness of a pit and the walls surrounding can combine to ten Tefachim to make the pit a Reshus Hayachid. Rather, we refer to a courtyard that's five Tefachim higher than the adjacent courtyard, and they build a wall of five Tefachim, is the top courtyard considered as having a Mechitza, or if you have a five Tefachim mound in a street, and it's surrounded with a five Tefachim wall, do they combine? We can't say that it's a Reshus Hayachid because you can place a flat tray on top and have it like a stand ten Tefachim tall; since we refer to a case that it's very wide and you can't place a tray on it.] R' Chisda says that we don't consider the upper courtyard as if it has a Mechitza, since there's only a five Tefachim wall facing them. Mareimar says that you combine the ground and the wall even for those who are in the higher courtyard, and that's also the Halacha.

8) It's permitted for two people to wash their hands (i.e., Netilas Yadayim) together with one Revious. One person can also wash each hand by itself. However, you can't wash half a hand. So, if you pour water on half the hand, dry it, and afterwards pour on the second half, it's not a valid washing. It's an unresolved inquiry if the first half is still damp enough to make a second item wet, that will be damp enough to wet a third item.

9) R' Yehuda holds that, if you have a Mikvah of an exact Shiur, and someone Toivels (and takes some of the water with him on his body) the next one Toiveling is Tahor as long as the first one's foot is still in the water since we view the water as it descends into the Mikva (to say that the water on his body is as if it's in the Mikva). Even if you say that, usually, something that's only damp enough to make another thing damp enough to dampen a third thing is not a connection, but it's a connection to R' Yehuda by a Mikvah because we say it descends.

10) Flowing water down a hill and water that's not damp enough to make another thing damp enough to dampen a third thing, don't combine bodies of water. Not for Tumah (i.e., if a Tamai touches one puddle, it won't make Tamai the other puddle), nor regarding Taharah [Rashi: they don't combine to make a Mikvah. Tosfos explains: it must be that neither body has forty Saah so we don't say the water descends, but if one of them has forty Saah, they combine, like we say in Chagiga. That which we say we consider an opening in a wall to combine any water to be part of a Mikvah when they're connected by an opening the size of a pipe, or even without a hole between walls, you only need the water to be the size of a garlic peel above the wall for the width of the size of a pipe (i.e., two finger's width); that's according to the Rabanan, and not R' Yehuda. Alternatively, the Ri says: our Gemara is not referring to combining water to make a Mikvah, but but just to make Tamai water on the other side Tahor. However, they combine in all cases to a Mikvah, even if each body doesn't have forty Saah, since we can say that we view the water as it descends.]

11) They also decreed that [Tosfos: a T'vul Yom (who went to the Mikva this day)] that's head and most of his body went into drawn water (that's Pasul for a Mikvah), or even [someone completely Tahor], if three Lugim of drawn water fell on him, he makes Trumah unfit with his touch. The Gemara has an unresolved inquiry if half the water came by pouring over him, and he fell into the other half, do they combine to three Lugim?

12) We also say that a sick Baal Keri can have nine Kavim of water poured over him to become Tahor (so he can Daven); there's an unresolved inquiry if he can Toivel half of himself, and have water poured on his top half.

13) If one said "it was written before me," and a second one said "it was signed before me," it's not valid. If two said "it was written before us," and a third one said "it was signed before me," the Chachumim say that it's still not valid, and R' Yehuda says that it's valid.

14) Some say that R' Yochanan held that this is only if one of them was the messenger, but if two of them were messengers, it's not necessary to say "it was written before me and it was signed before me." [Rashi explains: he holds like Rava that we're only concerned about verifying witnesses, and here they can verify the signatures. However, it's only in this case where there are two messengers since it's obvious in the actual sending that it can be verified. However, if there's only one messenger, even if witnesses came along with him, we can't validate since people might not be able to differentiate between when others are with him or not. Tosfos says: he could also learn like Rabbah after they became experts of needing L'shma, and since two messengers are not common, they didn't enact to say "it was written and signed before me," in uncommon cases. However, you can't say that he holds like Rabbah and before they learned about L'shma, and there's at least one witness testifying on the writing; since there's only one person testifying on the signatures and he's not testifying on the writing, people will confuse it and allow one witness by other signature verifications.]

15) Therefore, according to this, we can explain the earlier argument. The Chachumim say that you can't rely on the one witness to the signatures since people will confuse it and allow one witness by other signature verifications. R' Yehuda is not worried about that since it's a very distinctive case where two people are testifying to the writing.

16) Others say that R' Yochanan held that, even when both of them were messengers, it's necessary to say "it was written before me and it was signed before me." [Tosfos: we must explain that he held like Rabbah, and there's still a concern about L'shma.] The argument between the Chachumim and R' Yehuda, according to this [Tosfos: can't be like in the first version of R' Yochanan, since it's only a distinction that two people are testifying on the writing is when they're not messengers, since it shows as a distinction to the messenger who says he saw the signing, that the reason he's believed as one person is because he's a messenger. However, in this version, when they're all messengers, there's no distinction. Rather,] R' Yehuda held that it's after they learned about L'shma and he's not worried that it will revert to the original problem. Therefore, he would argue on the Chachumim even if one person testifies on the writing. However, it won't help if nobody testifies on the writing, since people will confuse it and allow one witness by other signature verifications. [Tosfos says: even though Rabbah didn't agree to the concern that people will confuse it and allow one witness by other signature verifications; but that's only when they were making the enactment. However, once they enacted to say "it was written and signed before me," they required him to keep on saying it even if there won't be a problem of L'shma since it would have a purpose to make sure people won't confuse it and allow one witness by other signature verifications.]

17) [Rashi explains that the Chachumim and R' Yehuda only argue if we're worried that it will revert to the original problem of L'shma is when it's brought by two people. Only then R' Yehuda wasn't concerned since it's uncommon. However, Tosfos held that R' Yehuda was never concerned that it will revert to the problem of L'shma, since he says the problem of the messenger only saying "it was signed before me without" anyone saying "it was written before him" is because people will confuse it and allow one witness by other signature verifications and not that we're worried that it will revert to the original problem.]

18) If one says that it was written before him, and two said it was signed before them, it's valid. According to the version that if there are two messengers, it's still necessary to say "it was written before me and it was signed before me," we must say that the one messenger in this case was the one who said it was written before me, which is like there's two messengers on the writing, and there are two actual witnesses on the signing. However, according to the version that two messengers don't have to say it, then it would be valid even if the witnesses on the signing were the messengers. [Tosfos says: and according to Rava, there's no reason for them to have one person saying at all "it was written before me."] The main version is that two witnesses don't need to say "it was written and signed before us."

19) If he wrote a Get by day, and signed it by night; the Tanna Kama Pasuls it, and R' Shimon says it's Kosher by divorce Gitten, but not by other documents.

20) R' Yochanan says: the reason they enacted to write a date in the Get so to prevent him to protect his niece, (who he married), if she committed adultery. [Tosfos says: you can't say that we should execute her anyhow since she has a Chezaka of being a married lady; since, on the contrary, we see that she's right now divorced. Alternatively, we should put her on a Chazaka that she's a Kosher person and didn't commit adultery when she was married.]

21) Reish Lakish says they dated Gets to know when the wife can keep the fruit of her fields, [Rashi says: that the husband might sell after he wrote it. Tosfos says: and she won't lose all the fruit from that time until it's given.]

22) [Tosfos says: the reason why a post dated Get is Kosher and we don't say that it makes her lose her fruit from that time he really wrote it until the date; that's because the Get can't take effect until it reaches the date in the Get. This is not compared to one who's date is today, even if it's given later, but you can use it to divorce her today if you would wanted.]

23) Reish Lakish didn't want to say the reason is to prevent him to protect his niece, if she committed adultery because unlawful relations are uncommon. [Tosfos says: even though in the beginning of Kesuvos they enacted to get married on Wednesday so if he finds her not to be a virgin, he can rise early the next morning and present the case before Beis Din that convenes on Thursday, and we don't say that it's an enactment on something uncommon; that's because over there, it’s protecting her from the death penalty, that one must produce witnesses to the act and warn her of the punishment. Alternatively, here we have more concern, since this unlawful relations would forbid her to him for the rest of their lives, so, we're more concerned even if it's not common.]

24) R' Yochanan says: you can't say that they enacted because of the fruit, since the husband keeps the fruit at the time of the writing, and the woman only gets it after she receives the Get. [(Maharam- however, now since they enacted dating, the woman collects the fruit from the date, since we can assume that it was given the day it was written.) Tosfos says: however, if it fell from her, we don't return it since the fact that she didn't watch it well creates a warning flag that the date is earlier. However, we don't need to enact a date in order to know when it was given over so that she can collect the fruits, since, upon receipt, she can go to Beis Din, or before witnesses, that day to verify that it was given on that day. Alternatively, the witnesses who saw the giving of the Get can write a document for her when it was handed over.]

25) [Tosfos says: however, other documents you can't write for the borrower without the lender being with him (unless the borrower makes a Kinyan to obligate money from this day, or you hold that the lender is automatically owed at the signing of the document) and we don't assume that the loan would take place at the day of the writing. After all, all loans are done in private, so, if it's not given over at the day of the loan, rumors won't circulate about it. However, a Get's giving can't be private since we Paskin like R' Elazar that you need witnesses to the giving over. Even according to R' Meir that you only need signing witnesses, R' Tam says he still needs witnesses to the handing over since we can't establish a fact by something applicable to Ervah without two witnesses. Therefore, there would be (Mahrsha- somewhat) of a rumor that it wasn't given the day it was written. Therefore, it will, at least, give the buyer of the fruits the idea to ask the woman to bring proof when she received her Get. However, it won't create such a rumor that we'll know the day of the giving that we could prevent him from protecting his niece without writing the date.]

26) R' Shimon allows when he wrote a Get by day, and signed it by night. After all, he's not concerned to prevent him from protecting his niece. Also, she has the fruit when they started writing the Get (and not only from when it's signed) since she gets it when the husband already had the idea of divorcing her. [Tosfos says: you don't need to worry that, if the witnesses can sign on Get's with earlier dates, the Get was totally predated to a time before it was written; since the witnesses can only sign if they know for sure that the Get was written on the date stated in the document.]

27) [Tosfos says: you can't say they enacted to date the Get so that the woman may collect her food until that time, and to pay back lenders who she borrowed from for that food and the husband shouldn't claim that she was already divorced at that time. After all, she could collect it by hiding her Get until she wants to remarry. Although a husband is believed to say that he divorced his wife, that's only he's believed from that moment on, but not retroactively. Also, only when the wife is not denying it. Also, she can prove when she was divorced by bringing in the witnesses who saw the giving of the Get.]

28) [Tosfos says: the reason they enacted dates by a freedom document (where these reasons by Get don't apply) and everyone agrees that he's not freed until the document gets to his hands. (Even according to the opinion that the beneficiary of the document gets the benefit by the signing; it's only when the document is dated. After all, it's not better than another document that was written for a sale that same day, we don't say it belongs to the document that was signed first, but only the one that was handed over first.) We must say that, just in case the master sold him, and then writes him a freedom document afterwards, we need the date to show that he was freed after the sale. After all, even if we don't know which came first, since the slave is in natural possession of himself, we couldn't hand him over to the buyer because of the Safeik. However, that wouldn't be applicable by fruit (that we need to enact dating so it shouldn't be wrongfully taken out of the hands of the buyer), since the husband has the Chazaka on the fields, we wouldn't take it out of his hands.]

29) The reason that this enactment of dating the Get helps even though the child's not a Mamzer if she marries with a Get without a date; that's because you're not allowed to divorce with it L'chatchila, nor, after it's given, to marry L'chatchila, and you won't find a Sofar to write one for you in order to protect your niece.

30) It's not a problem that she might come to cut out the date since we're not concerned that she'll be a trickster. [Tosfos says this seems not like Rashi in Yevamos that says: since they enacted a Get to be dated, if she doesn't bring a Get that she was divorced before the time of her affair, we'll keep her on her Chazaka that she's a married lady and execute her. As this Gemara implies that, if she would cut the date out, she wouldn't be executed, but we're not concerned that she'll end up cutting it out. Rather, she's afraid to alter the document and cut out the date since she's afraid that it would invalidate the Get, but in truth, it won't invalidate and she won't be executed.]

31) Although it helps to right a broad date, like date it for a week, month, year, or even for a seven year Shmita cycle, still it helps to prove it wasn't from the last Shmita cycle, or the future one. After all, even if you date it a certain day, he can save his niece that had an affair that day, and it only helps for the day before or the day after.

32) We're not worried that he wrote a get a while ago, but he was holding it in order to see if they can able to reconcile their differences, and if she has an affair, he can protect her by giving her this earlier dated Get. [Rashi says it's a problem even regarding the fruit, since it's different than other cases where the wife gets it from the signature since this Get wasn't a forego conclusion that it will be given since he's hoping for reconciliation. Tosfos disagrees, since the date was enacted in order to protect the wife to get the fruit coming to her, and according to this, it should be used to protect the buyers of the fruit that the woman shouldn't take from the time it was signed. You can't say that it helps, since it helps for the time before the date in the Get like we say by writing the date for a whole Shmita cycle; since there, it was actually given at that Shmita cycle. It's not similar to our case where he's giving the Get after the time written in the Get.] After all, you don't need to worry he'll write a Get before he's willing to give it since people procrastinate doing detrimental things to them until they feel they have no choice but to give the Get.

33) We don't need to worry about delivering a Get across the sea, where it was given long after it was signed [Tosfos: and you'll be able to protect your niece], since there would create a rumor to that effect. [Tosfos says: this is only when a messenger brings it, but not if the husband brings it himself, since he can give it in private and won't create a rumor. We must say that the rumor would be strong enough to know exactly when this Get was given (and not only that we'll know that it wasn't given on the date of the writing) so that he wouldn't be able to protect his niece. Therefore, it needs a date so people who see it given over will realize that it wasn't given when it was written, and thus we need to pay attention and make a rumor for the date it was given.

Tosfos says: even nowadays, where we don't execute, we still need a date so that he doesn't protect his niece's children from being Mamzeirim. Alternatively, since we're expecting that the Mikdash should be rebuilt soon, and she may be executed. Alternatively, to forbid her on her husband, so that the husband shouldn't claim that she was divorced during the affair, so it didn't forbid him to her, and he can now remarry her.]

34) If someone is divorced with a Get, she needs to wait three months before she remarrys. Rav says we count from when it was given, and Shmuel says that we count from when it was written. [Tosfos sets up the explanation: Rav doesn't worry that they had relations after the writing, since we don't see he's concerned that this is a Get Yashan. Rather,] Rav is concerned that multiple Gets will be given out in the same courtyard, and it would be weird if we allow some of them to marry before the others. Shmuel didn't hold this to be problematic since the Get's date will explain why she can get married first. We Paskin that she only needs to wait from the Get's writing.

35) Rav says: you can't collect a Kesuva after Shmita if you already started to collect some of it, and you wrote up the rest to be owed to you (since it now looks like trying to collect a regular loan). Shmuel says: even if it's one of the two, i.e., you collected some, even without making the rest to be a loan, or writing it up to be owed with a loan, even without collecting any of it, you can't collect it after Shmita.

36) Shmuel says: you can have a Kesuva written by day and signed by night since it's an "act of Beis Din." [Tosfos explains: since an "act of Beis Din" produces rumors for everyone to know when it's finished. This is like we say that you can collect from a Beis Din's P'sak from sold lands that were sold after the finishing of the P'sak.] By other documents, they can only sign at night if they were busy tring to finish its writing, and the witnesses are waiting and ready to sign when the document is ready, even if they couldn't finish before nightfall, they can still sign on it. [Tosfos explains: since such a situation also produces rumors when it's written, so all know about it.]

37) [Tosfos says: someone shouldn't write the Kesuva Friday, and have it signed Moitzie Shabbos, since this rule may not apply to the addition in the Kesuva since rumors won't form around it. However, if you make a Kinyan on Friday, it helps, since it produces a rumor. After all, we always date the document for the time of the Kinyan.]

38) If you command ten people to write a Get for my wife; R' Yochanan says that only two of them are real witnesses, and the other just sign along just to fulfil the husband's condition. Reish Lakish says that they're all witnesses. The practical difference between them is if two signed during the day when it's written, can the rest sign at night? [Tosfos points out that they must be around when the other sign, since Get witnesses must sign in front of each other.] As R' Yochanan says it's Kosher, and Reish Lakish holds it's Pasul [Tosfos explains: since all the witnesses didn't sign that day, it doesn't produce rumors to the document.] Alternatively, if you find one of the later witnesses to be a relative or a Pasul witness. [Tosfos says: we don't even need to ask him if he wanted to be a witness (like we do when a Pasul witness sees an act to find out if he ruins all the other witnesses), since we assume he's signing as the husband commanded him to do, (which, according to Reish Lakish, it's to be a witness).]

39) If the first two signers are Pasul or relatives, some say that the document is still Kosher, and some say that it's not Kosher since we may confuse it with verifying other documents and permit verifying Pasul witnesses. [Tosfos explains: although we allow by a "tied Get" to verify the document from any of the signatures no matter where they are in the Get; that's because they required three witnesses to sign, one more than the necessary two for testimony; so nobody will confuse it with a regular document. Also, it's only a problem by a Get if the two first witnesses are Pasul, since they must sign before each other, so why didn't the Kosher ones sign first? However, it doesn't raise red flags by other documents since they all don't need to be together, so perhaps, only the P'sulim were there in the beginning, and had them sign then.]

40) [Tosfos brings the R' Tam who holds that the second opinion only Pasuls when the P'sulim sign first, but it's not a problem if they sign in the middle or end. However, the Ri Pasuls if they sign at the end since the Get might be verified through them. We can't say because we need to verify all the signatures, and he'll definitely come to verify the Kosher ones, since the Gemara implies that you don't have to. It also says in Bava Basra that we verify from the last two witnesses. Even R' Tam reversed his decision and said that the first version only permits if it was signed first since they might have signed there for their honor or to fill in the empty space, but not in the middle or at the end, since they definitely signed to testify. (Mahrsha- however, the second version held that you can't even permit in the beginning, since they were all there at the signing, people will mistake and think the main signatures are the first two).]

41) [Tosfos concludes: we always assume that a Pasul who signed other documents only signed to fulfil a condition and not to testify (which would invalidate all the other witnesses) since we say that witnesses signing a document is as if they were interrogated in Beis Din, (so we don't even need to ask them why they signed).]

42) R' Shimon says: we allow it when he wrote a Get by day and they signed it by night. After all, she has the fruit when they started writing the Get (and not only from when it's signed) since she gets it when the husband already had the idea of divorcing her. If he says to witnesses, don't sign now, but after ten days: Reish Lakish says the Get is Pasul since he might reconcile [Rashi says: so they might have had relations and it would be a Get Yashan. Tosfos disagrees and says that he might have reconciled with her and canceled the Get.] R' Yochanan says it's Kosher, since there would be rumors to that effect if they reconciled. [Tosfos says: even according to Reish Lakish, this is only because the witnesses didn't sign the Get yet, so people don't know of the Get to realize to make rumors if a reconciliation happened. However, if the Get was signed, but he gave it over to someone else to hold, everyone agrees that there would be rumors if there was a reconciliation. If a Get was sent from across the seas, Rashi says: if there's no set time that the messenger can't give the Get before, we definitely don't need to worry that he reconciled with her, since he wouldn't know if he'll arrive in town before the Get, he wouldn't come for a Safeik. However, if there's a set time, we need to worry that he'll come before that time to reconcile. After all, rumors won't come out about the reconciliation since there was no fights to begin with, and the divorce was given for her good not to remain an Aguna. However, if he's in the city and he gave it to a third party to hold, it's definitely written for a fight, and there would be rumors in all cases if they reconcile.]

43) There was a story that the husband told many people that they all must sign, and two signed by day and the rest at night; R' Yehoshua b. Levi says that we can rely on R' Shimon to make it Kosher, and also on R' Yochanan that we don't need to worry at all about reconcilement. However, he didn't hold we can rely on R' Yochanan's opinion that only two are witnesses, and the others only sign to fulfill a condition.

44) You may write a Get with anything that last and on all items that last.

45) If someone traces black ink over the red ink on Shabbos, R’ Yochanan and Reish Lakish say that it seems you’re Chayiv two Chatos. One for writing (the ink) and one for erasing (the red ink). However, R’ Yochanan says: if witnesses don’t know how to sign their names, you can't write the names in red ink and they’ll trace over it with black ink, although he said that the top layer is considered writing regarding Shabbos, that's only an assumption to compare it to be writing there, (but it’s not a definite, so), we shouldn't be lenient to practically rely on it.

46) If you trace black ink over black ink, or red ink over red ink, you’re exempt, since you can't have writing on other writing [Tosfos says: although, later we say; if you wrote a Get not L’shma (for the sake of this woman), and then you traced over it with a quill L’shma, R’ Yehuda considers it as writing. Also, R’ Acha’s opinion is that the Rabanan would agree by a Get that it’s valid; and it's only in our case, where the second writing doesn’t improve the first writing at all, even R’ Yehuda won’t consider it as writing.]

47) If you trace red ink over black ink, there is an argument whether he’s Chayiv a Chatos or not. One says he brings a Chatos for erasing the black ink, and the other exempts since it’s only a destructive act, (and you’re only obligated for a constructive act on Shabbos). [Tosfos says: the first opinion holds it’s considered erasing on condition to write upon it because he probably only wrote with the red ink in order to rewrite it with black ink, and it's not a destructive act, since he holds, with writing over with this red ink, the top black ink would appear more striking than if it was left with only the bottom layer of black ink.]

48) Witnesses who don’t know how to sign their names, Rav says to rip a blank paper (Rashi- you scratch the names on a paper) and they trace over the ‘ripped’ paper with ink. Shmuel says that we first write it with lead, which is not lasting. (However, soaking lead fillings in water lasts.) Gallnut juice is also not lasting. Although we say a Get written on gallnut juice is Kosher, that's if the parchment wasn’t treated with gallnuts, but it’s not lasting if the parchment was treated with gallnuts, since gallnut juice is not recognizable over a parchment treated with gallnuts.

49) We only allow this for Gitten (for we fear if we don’t, she’ll always remain attached to him, i.e., an Aguna), but we wouldn’t allow doing this for other documents.

50) Also, if they can’t read, you read it for them. R’ Nachman had his transcriber read it and he signed. However, this was only by R’ Nachman and his transcriber (who we know that they’ll read it correctly before him) since they fear him. However, R’ Nachman and other transcribers, or the transcribers of his court with other people, you can’t rely on their reading.

51 ) When R Pappa received a Persian document made in a non-Jewish court, he had two non-Jews read it, each one not before the other one, with them just innocently reading it (without knowing that we’re relying on them), and he collected the loan from sold propertied that had liens.

52) If you have Jews who signed on a Persian document, you collect the loan from sold propertied that had liens, as long as the witnesses know Persian and could read it, and as long as the document was written on a parchment that can’t be forged, like where it was treated with gallnuts, and as long as they did repeat the main idea of the document in the last line. We don't say that this is a special dispensation by Get (to free the woman), but we also permit it by a regular document.

53) Witnesses need to read the Get before it was given. If they do, even if the husband returned it to under his cloak, and took out a document, it's Kosher and we don’t suspect that he switched papers. Even if a husband gives it to his wife, and immediately took it from her and threw it into the sea, fire or any other place that will destroy it and then claims that (it wasn’t really a Get) but a false invalid loan document, she’s still divorced and he's not believed to forbid her. [Tosfos says: this implies that, if the witness didn't read the Get beforehand, it's Pasul even B'dieved.]

54) [Tosfos says: the Gemara later in the eighth Perek says; if you write a Get for a man (to give his wife) and a receipt to the woman (to present to her husband when he pays the Kesuva), and he mixes it up (and gives the Get to the woman and receipt to the husband. Then the wife gives the Get to the husband and the husband gives the receipt to the woman and she remarrys.) If they find after time that the husband was holding onto the Get and the wife had the receipt, the woman is forbidden to both husbands (as a fine). The Gemara in Yevamos says that it's her fault since they should have read the documents. Although here we said that if it wasn’t read, even if you don’t have the problem of it actually being switched, she can't get married; that's only L'chatchila, but, if she did get married, she doesn’t need to leave her present husband because of it. Alternatively, the case over there refers to where it was read, and was placed back in his coat. So, we fine her since they should have reread it again, or she should have read it after it was given. Although we don’t forbid marrying in such a case without rereading it, but we fine her since it came out something bad that she remarried when she wasn’t really divorced. The Ri was accustomed to read the Get before and after its giving. However, it’s simple that, if he didn’t read it before the giving, but only afterwards, she’s definitely divorced.]

55) Shmuel says: if a husband gives his wife a blank paper and says that this is her Get, we need to worry, perhaps, she’s divorced. [Tosfos says: if witnesses read it, and the husband returned it to under his cloak, and took out a blank paper, since we don’t suspect that he switched papers.] After all, perhaps he wrote it with gallnut juice (which doesn’t show). [Rashi says: and perhaps it didn't get absorbed so well. Tosfos explains: you saw it an hour after it was given, at least for the time for the letters to have a chance to be absorbed, and the paper will be blank.] However, we require you to check with some dye. Only if it makes the words appear, then she might be divorced. If not, then she’s definitely not divorced.

56) If a person who threw something to his wife between barrels and claims it to be a Get. When they checked, they found a Mezuzah. R’ Nachman says: it’s not common to find a Mezuzah between barrels (so we must assume what he threw was a Mezuzah and not a Get). However, that’s only when you find only one Mezuzah, but if you found two or three Mezuzos, once you know that one must have been there before (since he only threw one object), we’ll assume the others were there with them. (So, we can say that, perhaps, he threw the Get. Although you can’t find the Get), we can assume it was taken by the mice.

57) If someone took a Sefer Torah and handed it to his wife and said “this is your Get;” R’ Yosef said that there is nothing to worry about that it should be a Get. After all, you don’t need to worry that it was written with gallnut juice (on the parchment), since we don’t consider gallnut juice to be a writing when it’s upon gallnut treated parchment. You don’t need to worry because of the separation that’s written in the Pasuk about divorcing, since the Torah says you need to write the Get “for her,” L’shma. [Tosfos says although there's an opinion, regarding the Sotah’s document (that’s written the words in the Parsha of Sotah, and you erase it in water and give her to drink), that you may erase it out of a Sefer Torah (from that Parsha) even according to the opinion that it needs to be written L’shma and you can't use one written for another Sotah, since it was written plain (without intent for any given Sotah), you can erase it (for anyone); that's because the Kohain who presides over it doesn’t care, and is probably happy to have one available. However, the husband is probably not happy to have people writing a Get for his wife without his command.] Even if you’ll say that we should worry that he originally gave the scribe money (to write it L’shma), it’s still not a problem since he didn't write his or her name, or the name of his or her city’s name.

58) R’ Chisda says: a Get that’s written not L’shma, and you traced over the words with a quill L’shma, whether it is a valid Get is dependent on the argument between R’ Yehuda and the Rabanan. As we learned: if you needed to write the name of Hashem (in a Sefer Torah), but you mistakenly intended to write ‘Yehuda.’ However, you mistakenly missed writing the ‘Daled,’ (so, you have Hashem’s name written not L’shma). R’ Yehuda says that you may trace it over with a quill and Mekadesh the name. The Rabanan argue and say: this name is not the choicest (and is invalid). (So, we see that R’ Yehuda considers the tracing as a rewriting and the Rabanan hold that it’s not a rewriting.) R’ Acha b. Yaakov says: perhaps, the Rabanan only said there (it’s invalid) since the Pasuk says “this is my G-d and I will beautify Him.” (So, the name wasn’t written nicely when it’s traced over). However, they wouldn’t hold that way here (and will hold the Get is valid.)

59) Although the Pasuk says that “he should write for her,” the women pay for the Get’s writing, since the rabbis enacted that the money given should belong to the husband (since Beis Din has the power to make items Hefker) so that the husband owns the Get. Also, you can write a Get on something without worth, since the Torah only means giving a Get (and not that you need to give anything of worth). Therefore, if the Get is written on an item that’s forbidden to take pleasure from (and is worthless), it’s a valid Get.

60) The Pasuk says that “you should write (the Get),” which implies that you can’t engrave the Get. However, it’s only not writing when you engrave around an area to form the letters, but it's writing when you engrave the letters themselves. However, minting is not considered like gathering the metal into the hollow space (and thus considered writing), but like pressing the surrounding metal down (and is not writing).

61) However, if the words are formed by scratching out the actual letters from the back of the metal, it's writing.

62) If someone writes a Get on a sheet of gold and says to his wife, (by accepting this sheet), you accept your Get and your Kesuva, we consider it that she received her Get and Kesuva even if if there is no extra space on the gold for the Kesuva besides where it's written. However, it’s only considered it as a payment for the Kesuva if he says it explicitly, but not otherwise even if there's extra space on the gold, since we just consider it as just the blank part of the (Get) document.

63) If he says “here’s your Get, but I retain the paper for myself,” she’s not divorced. However, if he says “(I’m giving you your Get) on condition that you return the paper to me” she’s divorced. [Tosfos explains: the Gemara in the seventh Perek says in the first version: the difference between the first case and the second case is that the second case (is not a valid condition) since the condition is in the same item that performs the action (i.e., the Get, as we’ll explain). Therefore, (since it’s invalid) the condition is canceled, and the action is unconditionally valid, (since there is no valid condition limiting it). This version holds that, when you make a condition, it’s not like you’re saying that it should take effect right away (as long as he eventually fulfills the condition). Therefore, he holds that the Get can’t take effect until she returns the paper. However, at that point, she can’t be divorced, since she no longer has the Get in her hands. Therefore, (since the condition is canceled), she’s divorced even if she never returns the paper to him. However, the second version there holds that, when you make a condition, you mean for it to take effect immediately (as long as the condition is eventually fulfilled). Therefore, it’s not a Get unless she eventually returns the paper. At that point, it will be a Get (retroactively) from the time the Get entered her hand.]

64) There's an unresolved inquiry: if he didn’t retain the whole Get for himself, but said he retains the paper between the lines and between the letters, is it a valid Get?

65) We must say the case is where the words are attached to each other, (so, the Get is on one connected paper). [R’ Yitzchok b. Mordechai deduces from here that you don’t need each letter surrounded by blank parchment on all sides in a Get, as it says here, that the letters were attached to each other. However, the Ri rejects this proof: perhaps it means that the foot of the “end Chaf” of the top line extended into the airspace of the Tes in the bottom line. Alternatively, that the head of the Lamed in a lower line extends into the airspace of the Heh or Ches that’s above it. However, the Ri concludes that you don’t need a proof to permit it. We only need all the letters surrounded by blank parchment by a Sefer Torah, T’filin and Mezuzos, since the Pasuk says ‘U’chisavtam’ (you shall write), which we Darshen it as a condensed word for “Kesiva Tama (a complete writing).” However, the Torah never cared to have the same standard for Gitten.] Otherwise, it would be Pasul since the Torah says that you write it on “a Sefar” (in the singular), which implies, but you can’t write it on two or three Sefarim. [Tosfos says: although the Gemara validates a Get that, after running out of room on the bottom of this page, he wrote the rest on another page, it's not a problem of of writing it on two or three Seforim; that refers to one parchment, but written in two columns. We only Pasul by two pieces of paper.]

66) If we assumed that a certain slave belonged to the husband, and now he has a Get written on his hand and he’s now in her possession. It must be a case that the Get was tattooed onto the slave, otherwise, it could be forged and would be Pasul even according to R’ Elazar (who says that the witnesses who saw the handing over validates a document) since he only holds that it could be written on something that can be forged, since those witnesses can testify what was written on it when the husband gave it over, but here, no one saw the husband giving over the slave. [Tosfos says: although it’s an Issur Torah to tattoo; but, from the Torah, there is no Issur unless you write and engrave it with ink or blue dye, as it says in Makos. However, there is still a rabbinical prohibition, since you can’t even place oven ash on a wound since it looks like tattooing (since there remains a mark). Tosfos concludes: even if you say that he transgressed an Issur Torah, it’s still a Get. As we seen earlier that a Get written on an item that it’s forbidden to partake pleasure from, it’s a valid Get, although you’re having pleasure from something that’s forbidden to have pleasure from.] Even so, the woman is not considered divorce as we say; you can’t have a Chazaka on livestock. (I.e., just because you’re now holding onto it, it doesn’t show that you owned it since it might have wandered into your possession. Therefore, the original owner may claim it back. Here too, we don’t consider it a proof that the husband gave over the slave just because it’s now in the wife’s possession.) [Tosfos explains; you can’t have a Chazaka on them immediately (to consider it as a proof you bought it), but he can have a Chazaka if he held on to it for three years, as the Gemara says in Bava Basra.]

67) If we assume a tablet to be owned by the wife, and now a Get is written on it and is held by the husband, and the Get must be owned by the husband); we say that even women know to give it to him that he acquires it, and it can't be just lent to him. [Tosfos says: although we anyhow said before that the rabbis enacted that the money she gives for the writing of the Get belongs to the husband (as if he paid for the Get), they didn’t make the same enactment for this tablet.]

68) [Tosfos says: if someone loaned to people, they can also do favors for him that they gave him gifts of their land. (Beis Yosef says: we must say they gave it long after the loan, because if they gave it within the recent history of the loan, it would be forbidden as Ribbis M’ucheres, a gift given after the loan as thanks for the loan).]

69) Rava says: if one wrote his wife a Get and he gave it in the hands of his slave and then wrote a gift-giving document to his wife (to acquire the slave), she acquires (the slave) and she’s divorced. This is only when the slave is tied up (and is immobile). Otherwise, he's a “walking courtyard,” which doesn’t acquire even if he's standing still since the ability to walk invalidates it from acquiring for you). [Tosfos points out: you need him to be tied up and sleeping, as it implies later in the eighth Perek that, if the slave’s awake, she’s not divorced since it’s a courtyard that’s guarded not under her auspices.] Also if the husband writes a Get and puts it into his courtyard, and then writes his wife a gift-giving document (to acquire the courtyard), she acquires (the courtyard) and she’s divorced and we don't decree that it shouldn’t work for perhaps you’ll allow if it “became her courtyard afterwards.” (I.e., that the husband gives it to a third party and the third party gives it to the woman. Thus, the Get wasn’t directly given from the husband to the wife.) [Tosfos explains: we definitely wouldn’t make such a decree by a slave. After all, we established the case where he’s tied up (which is uncommon), and the rabbis don’t make decrees for uncommon cases.]

70) Abaya argues. After all, we learn that courtyards can acquire from her hand, (so, we should assume that it needs to be similar to a hand.) When divorcing by putting it in her hand, it's whether she consents to it or if it’s against her will. So too, a courtyard needs to be able to divorce her whether she consents to it or if it’s against her will. However, this divorce comes through a gift, which can only come with her consent and not against her will. [Tosfos says: even though in Bava Metzia, we say that we learn that a courtyard acquires by being like a hand, but also, it’s no worse than being an agent, and in our case where he writes a gift-giving document for it, even if it’s not similar to a hand we should assume she should acquire the Get by the courtyard being her agent; we only say that it’s no worse than an agent to acquire something when he’s not there when it’s for his benefit, but you still need it to be similar to a hand regarding other aspects.]

71) R’ Simi b. Ashi asked on Abaya’s assertion: but isn’t appointing an agent to receive the Get can only be with her consent and not against her will, and he is an (authoritive) agent to receive the Get. (So, we see a precedent to a divorce that can only be done through the wife’s consent.) Abaya said back: we don't extrapolate appointing an agent from your hand like we do by the courtyard), but from the Pasuk “you send” and “you send to her.” [Tosfos explains R’ Simi’s position; once we see that an agent can have her divorced without the Get coming into her hands even if it can’t be against her will, we should say it should work by a courtyard, despite learning it from her hands, since it’s not logical that the Torah cared to make it similar to her hands in this aspect too.] Alternatively, we find a case of an agent who receives the Get that’s given against her will, as a father receives her minor daughter’s Get against her will. [Tosfos explains: although we should say the same idea by the gift courtyard that you can give it to some courtyard against her will, like in the case where you put it in a courtyard she owned already; we don’t consider the courtyard she owned already as to be that much against her will since she could make her courtyard Hefker, and she wouldn’t be divorced in it. This is a pushed explanation.]

72) You may write a get on an olive leaf. [Tosfos says: it’s only applicable to an olive leaf, or others that are similar to it, that are lasting. However, (if it’s written) on a leaf of a leek, onions, roses, vegetables or anything else that doesn’t last, it’s invalid.]

73) The Mishna says you can write a Get on a cow’s horn, but you need to give her the whole cow. You can write it on the hand of a slave, but you need to give the whole slave. The Gemara says: it's simple that you need to give the whole slave since you can’t cut off the slave’s hand. However, the reason why he can’t cut off the cow’s horn and give it to her since the Pasuk says “you write for her….you give it to her.” It’s only valid when you wrote on something that all you need to do is to write and to give. This excludes this cow horn which is missing writing the Get, cutting it off and then giving it. [Tosfos brings R’ Shmuel’s explanation: it's only a problem by live animals and items that grow from the ground, since you’re uprooting it from where it grows, it’s considered as “missing (the action of) cutting off.” A proof to this: later, when Abaya and Rava argue about a Get written on a leaf growing in a flowerpot with a hole, where Rava (invalidates) because of a decree he’ll pluck it off. This implies that, if it doesn’t have a hole (and is not considered growing from the ground), then, even you pluck it off, it’s Kosher. Therefore, if a Get is written on a large piece of parchment and you cut it afterwards, it’s Kosher. However, the Bahag invalidates it, and R’ Tam was stringent. After all, the Gemara later says; if you write it on the pottery of the flowerpot with a hole, it’s Kosher, since he’ll take it and give it to her whole, implying, but if he would break it off, it would be invalid. However, it didn’t warrant a decree to Pasul perhaps he’ll break off a piece, since it’s not normal to break off a piece. As we see that we allow him to write it on a cow’s horn and we don’t decree that he’ll cut it off. The Ri brings a proof for R’ Tam from the Gemara in Chulin that talks about an Ir Hanidachas (city that most of its inhabitance worshiped idols). (In order for their possessions to qualify to be burned, it should only need to be gathered and burnt, and not uprooted and then gathered and burnt.) Earth is considered missing uprooting, gathering and burning (and doesn’t qualified to get burnt). Therefore, it would seem that a big piece of parchment is considered more attached to itself than the earth of an Ir Hanidachas is considered attached to the land. However Tosfos concludes: it’s only when you cut off a good amount from a big parchment, but just cutting off a little bit, like they do to make it look nice, we don’t consider as it written on something “missing cutting off.” Like we see the Gemara earlier asks why can’t he cut off the date and give it to her.]

74) R’ Yossi Haglili invalidates a Get written on living beings.

75) (If someone gave his wife a Get on condition that she never drinks wine during his lifetime, or someone else's lifetime, she's divorced. However, if he says "all the days of your life and my life," she's not divorced since she'll never be cut off from him (since she'll always be connected to him with this condition). [Tosfos says: even if her father dies; we call all descendants of her father “her father’s house.”]

76) You can’t write the Get on something attached to the ground. According to R’ Eliezer who holds that the witnesses who sees the handing over of the document makes the document Kosher, the witnesses who sign are not part of the document. So, when the Torah says how the Get needs to be written, it refers to the important parts of the writing in the document. Therefore, you shouldn’t even write the unimportant part of the Get attached, for, perhaps you’ll come to write the important part attached. However, if you wrote the unimportant part of the Get, then detach it and finish writing the important parts and then give it to her, it will be Kosher. However, according to R’ Meir who holds that the signing witnesses make the document, when the Torah says how the Get needs to be written, it refers to the signing of the Get. Therefore, you shouldn’t write the important part of the Get attached, for, perhaps you’ll come to sign it attached. However, if you wrote the important part of the Get, then detach it and have it signed and then give it to her, it will be Kosher.

77) If you wrote the Get on the pottery of a flowerpot with a hole, it’s Kosher, since you’ll just take it and give it to her. [Tosfos: according to Rashbam, since it's not a problem if it's cut off, and according to R' Tam, we're not worried that you'll break it off.] However, if you write the Get on a leaf that’s growing in that flowerpot with a hole, Abaya says that it’s a valid Get, since he’ll take it and give it to her completely. [Tosfos says: that’s only when he puts it in a place where there is a break in the absorption of nutrients. Otherwise, the woman can’t acquire a Get written on the leaf in the flowerpot with a hole by pulling it or lifting it (like regular moveable items) as long as you don’t break the plant’s absorption of nutrients from the ground (by covering the hole) since it still has the status of land when he pulled it. He doesn’t decree to forbid it in a case where there is a break in the absorption of nutrients, for perhaps he’ll give it in a place where there is no break. Although he must give it in a place where there is a break in the absorption of nutrients, we don’t consider it as written on something that’s missing being cut off from its source.] Rava said they decreed to invalidate because he might pluck off the leaf (and give it to her). [Tosfos: according to R' Tam, it would be a problem even if the flowerpot doesn't have a hole.]

78) If one owned the flowerpot and the other owned the plant; if the flowerpot owner sells his flowerpot to the one who owns the plant, when the buyer drags it, he acquires it (like by all moveable items). However, if the plant owner sold his plant to the flowerpot owner, he doesn’t acquire it without a Chazaka on the plant like land. [Tosfos explains: even though the flowerpot owner is acquiring the plant, he doesn’t acquire it despite that the plant is situated in his flowerpot.]

79) If the flowerpot and plant belong to the same person, and he sells it to a second person. If you make a Chazaka (action to improve it) to the plant, you acquire the flowerpot along with it. This is what we learned that you can acquire movable objects (lit. possessions that you can’t make a lien on) along with an acquisition on land (lit. possessions that you can make a lien on) through money, a document or with a Chazaka. [Tosfos inquires: do you have to speak out that the acquisition of the flowerpot is through the plant’s acquisition the same way you usually need to speak it out (when acquiring moveable objects through land) like it says in Kiddushin; or you don’t need to say it here, since the flowerpot comes to facilitate the plant, its considered as Batul (secondary) to the plant, so it’s automatically acquired with the plant). As we have the same doubt by a sale document, that we say that you acquire that document through the land’s acquisition wherever it might be at the time. Perhaps, you don’t need to speak out that the document is acquired with the land because it’s “the leash” (so to speak) for the land.] However, if you make a Chazaka on a flowerpot, you don’t acquire even the flowerpot (since Chazaka doesn’t acquire movable objects). (You don’t acquire anything) until you make a Chazaka on the plants.

80) If the flowerpot’s hole is in Chutz L’aretz, but a branch (bends over the border) and is in Eretz Yisrael, Abaya says that the plant’s status depends on the place of the hole and Rava says it has the status of its branch. However, this is only if it didn't take root, but if it took root, everyone agrees that we follow the roots.

81) A tree that’s (on the border and is) half in Eretz Yisrael and half in Chutz L’aretz, Rebbi held that the fruit is a mixture between Tevel and Chulin. R’ Shimon b. Gamliel says that those fruits that grow (over Eretz Yisrael) in a place of obligation, are obligated in Tevel. However, those that grow (over Chutz L’aretz) in a place of exemption, is exempt. This is not a contradiction to the above case since we don't refer to a case where it’s completely rooted in Eretz Yisrael or completely rooted in Chutz L’aretz, but where some of the roots are in Eretz Yisrael and some are in Chutz L’aretz and it's growing over a rock on the border (which separates the two sets of roots). Rebbi holds that the nourishment from the roots later mix to the whole tree (when they join in the middle) and R’ Shimon b. Gamliel holds that each side gives nourishment only to its side.

82) R’ Yehuda b. Beseira says that you can’t write a Get on an erased paper or a partially treated parchment (since they can be forged). [Tosfos explains: this means that he wrote the document on a blank part of the paper that was never erased, and the witnesses signed below on the erased area. However, if both the document and the witnesses are on erased paper, it’s valid since (you can’t just erase the document and write another document in its place and you’ll have the witnesses’ signature on it), but the paper that’s erased once is not similar to paper that’s erased twice (and you can tell it’s forged).] However, the Rabanan say that it’s Kosher since they hold like R’ Eliezer who holds that the witnesses who see the handing over of the document makes the document Kosher. [Tosfos quotes Rashi: Therefore, if she wants to remarry, she needs to bring those witnesses who saw the handing over. Tosfos explains: However, a get that's written on objects that can’t be forged, she may remarry with only producing the signing witnesses. However, on that which Rashi explains according to R’ Meir: if a woman brings a Get that was written on something that can be forged, since she doesn’t need witnesses who saw the handing over (so she won’t be able to produce them). Thus, there is no way to know if there was a certain condition written in the Get and she forged it that it’s no longer there. This implies, if she had the original signing witnesses (who know there was no erased condition), it’s Kosher. However, Tosfos concludes: it’s impossible to say this. After all, R’ Meir holds that it must be apparent in the document itself to verify it, and if you can forge it, there is no way to verify it from the Get itself. (So, it’s a completely invalid document according to R’ Meir.)]

83) There are three types of skins (regarding the amount you need to carry out on Shabbos to be Chayiv). Matzah is without any additives to tan it, that it’s not salted, nor is flour put on it, nor was it treated with gallnuts. The practical difference is regarding carrying out on Shabbos, as R’ Shmuel b. Yehuda says that the amount is to wrap a small weight, like the quarter of a quarter of a Pumpadisa weight. Chiefa is salted, but no flour was put on it, nor was it treated with gallnuts. The practical difference is regarding carrying out on Shabbos; its amount is, in order to make an amulet. Diftira is salted and flour was put on it, but it wasn’t treated with gallnuts. The amount is; enough to write a Get on it. [Tosfos explains: this is like the Rabanan’s opinion who permit Diftira, We don’t consider the amount dependent on how Chashuv the skin is (and the more Chashuv, the smaller the amount). After all, you have some more Chashuv skins that have their amounts greater than those that are less Chashuv. Rather, we pick their amount for whatever they’re usually used for.]

84) R’ Elazar (the Amorah) says that R’ Elazar (the Tanna) didn’t validate a forgeable Get unless it took effect right away. However, it’s not valid if it’s given to take effect from “today until ten days” since we’re worried that she had a condition in the Get and she forged it to remove the condition. R’ Yochanan says: it’s valid even if it’s given to take effect from “today until ten days.”

85) R’ Elazar (the Amorah) says that R’ Elazar (the Tanna) didn’t validate but a forgeable Get, but not other documents (that are forgeable). After all, if there was a condition, they might not remember it. After all, the Pasuk says “and you shall put it in an earthenware vessel, so it should last for many days." R’ Yochanan says: it’s valid even by other documents and the Pasuk that says “it should last for many days” is only good advice, (but it’s not necessary for its validity). [Tosfos brings Rashi who explains R’ Elazar: since these documents are meant as proof to collect money, and perhaps, they won’t produce it for a long time and they would rely on the signature of the signing witnesses. However, Tosfos concludes: this explanation is pushed, since, why should we make a mistake and rely on the signing witnesses on a forgeable document. Rather, the Ri explains: the reason it’s invalid is because of a Gezeiras Hakasuv (it’s a decree from the Torah, whether it has an obvious reason or not). The Torah says that these documents are not valid, even for immediate use, since you need to use only documents that can last for a long time. R’ Yochanan allows this even by other documents, because he’s consistent to his opinion that they’ll remember the condition after ten days. He holds the Pasuk is not coming to Pasul anything, but just giving good advice. Alternatively, R’ Yochanan only said that you can rely on remembering after ten days by a Get, however, by documents that usually have many more conditions (than by a Get), he’s worried that they wouldn’t remember. Therefore, it fits in well that the Gemara asks that a document needs to last for many years and you can’t even validate it for immediate use. On that we say it's only good advice, but doesn't Pasul for immediate use.]

86) [Tosfos says: although R’ Elazar holds that, with a document that has no signing witnesses, you can collect from sold property with liens with the document, that is because it’s written on something that you can’t forge what was written in it, the witness will always recognize the document that was handed over in front of them. Therefore, they would tell if there was anything forged (both in the original writing or if there is an add-on). He's only concerned that, if it could be forged, he won't be able to recognize the forgery.]

87) Everyone is fit to write a Get, even a deaf-mute, an insane person and a minor. Even a non-Jew is permitted according to R' Meir who holds that you only need the signing L'shma, not the writing. According to R' Elazar, we must say that he wrote the unimportant part that doesn't need L'shma. However, it's Pasul if the deaf-mute, insane and minor write the important part unless when an adult stands over them. [Tosfos says: we only permit by a Get to have an adult standing over the insane, since it’s quite obvious from his action that he’s intending to write L’shma, since he writes the husband’s name, the wife’s name and the names of their cities. However, the Tosefta says that the insane can’t perform Chalitza even if Beis Din instructs him, since his actions are not as obvious that it’s L’shma as it is by Get.] However, it's Pasul when a non-Jew writes with a Jewish adult standing over him, since he does everything on his own terms. [Tosfos says although the Gemara in Avoda Zara says that R’ Yehuda needs a Mila to be done L’shma, and yet he says that a non-Jew can perform the Mila, and we don’t say that the non-Jew does it on his own terms; since we only Pasul it by a Get where, without specific intent, it is not L’shma, but a child is predestined to receive Mila therefore, it’s L’shma even without specific intent.]

88) Everyone is permitted to bring a Get besides a deaf-mute, insane, minor, since they’re not of sound mind, so they can't be a Shliach. Also a non-Jew is invalid, since he’s not someone who has the ability to divorce (with a Get). [Tosfos points out: also, he’s invalid since we have a rule that your agent must be circumcised, however, the Gemara would rather give the reason that he needs to be someone who can divorce since it’s applicable by a slave too.]

A blind person is also invalid to bring a Get. It can't be because he doesn’t know who he’s receiving the Get from and who he’s giving it to. [Tosfos deduces: from here, it seems that the agent needs to recognize the husband and wife. However, we can differentiate that we only obligate this by a blind man who you can fool easier.] After all, if so, how is a blind man permitted to his wife, or even how are regular people permitted with their wives at night (when they can’t see them)? It must be that they can recognize their voices, so we’ll say by bringing a Get, he recognizes the husband’s and wife’s voice. Rather, we refer to a case of bringing the Get from Chutz L’aretz where he needs to say "it was written and signed before me," but the blind can’t say this.

89) If he could see (when he received it) and became blind afterwards, where he could say that it was written etc., he should be a valid agent. [Tosfos says: although we say that, if you know testimony before you became blind, and then you became blind (before the testimony), he’s an invalid witness; but our case by Get is different, since it’s not a true testimony, as we see that a woman is believed to say it was written and signed before her.] However, by the parallel case with the normal person that went insane needs to become normal again, and is not valid unless he becomes sane again.

90) a slave can't be an agent (for a woman) to accept the Get from her husband since he’s not applicable to the laws of Get and Kiddushin. [Tosfos says: although we see that you can receive a Get when it’s received by your slave, that's because the slave is like her courtyard, (not because he’s her agent).] The only reason he’s not an agent since the topic is not applicable to him, however, he can be an agent for something that’s applicable to him. This is not similar to a non-Jew that can't even be an agent to what he's applicable to because the Torah, (when hinting to an agent) says “also you” (so the agent that’s hinted in the word ‘also’ must be similar to ‘you;’ since he needs to be like you from the circumcised, also slaves are circumcised.)

91) We see that the non-Jew (and Kuti) who take off Trumah from their crop, it’s a valid Trumah. [Rashi says: he holds that non-Jews don’t have an acquisition in the land (strong enough to uproot the obligation of Trumah). Ri says: we can explain it also like the opinion that non-Jew’s do have such an acquisition in the land, but you do find (that their produce is obligated in Trumah that it grew a third in a Jew’s possession, and only afterwards, the non-Jew buys it off him. (It’s not going to be exempt because it’s bought grain (since the Torah only obligates “the grain that you grew,” and not what you bought). After all, it’s still called “the grain that you grew” since it grew a great amount in the non-Jew’s possession. (It’s only exempt if it was bought after it’s mostly grown.) Alternatively, (it’s even obligated when it didn’t start off in the hands of the Jew. The case could be) that the non-Jew planted the grain, he sold it to the Jew, it grew to a third-grown, and the non-Jew buys it back. R’ Tam explains it another way: that the Gemara doesn’t exempt bought grain only if it was bought before they smoothed out the grain pile (which makes the grain obligated in Trumah and Maasar). (So, we can say the case is that the non-Jew buys Tevel grain from a Jew after the smoothing of the grain pile.) Another case: it refers to a case where the non-Jew is a sharecropper to the Jew’s field. Therefore, what grows in it is obligated in Trumah, since, the land is owned by a Jew, but the non-Jew gets a portion of the crop for his work.] However, if a non-Jew takes off Trumah from the Jew’s crop, even with permission, it’s not a valid Trumah since he can't be a Shliach.

92) A slave can be an agent to accept a freedom document for a friend from a different master, but not from his own master, (since he’s the extended hand of his master, and therefore, the master didn’t remove the document from his possession). However, if she’s pregnant, she acquires the document for the fetus, according to Rebbi who says that someone can free half a slave, and he holds that the fetus is considered as the mother’s thigh (a piece of the mother). Therefore, it’s like the master is freeing one of her limbs. [Tosfos asks: how can the fetus acquire the Get? After all, although we consider it as one of her limbs, however, since her hand is an extension of her master’s hand, (since she’s not getting freed). After all, even if you free the whole slave except for her hand, she can’t acquire her own Get. It’s only when she’s totally freed that she has the ability to acquire the Get, since we say that her Get and her independent hands come together simultaneously.]

93) Even women who are generally not believed to say that a woman’s husband died are believed to bring her Get. This includes her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law’s daughter, her sister-wife, her husband’s brother’s wife (who might end up as a sister-wife if she falls to Yibum) and her husband’s daughter. The difference between testifying on death and bringing a Get is that the writing (of the Get) is more of a proof that it’s correct. However, we see in another place that they're not believed by Get.

94) R’ Yosef reconciles: there is a difference between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz L’aretz. They’re believed when they brought it from Eretz Yisrael, since we don’t need to rely on their words, and they’re not believed when they bring it from Chutz L’aretz since they’re relying on their words to testify that it was written and signed before them. Abaya held the opposite is true. They’re not believed in Eretz Yisrael because, if the husband comes and protest (that it’s forged) we will need to pay heed to his claim, so we need to worry that these women are coming to ruin her. However, we believe them in Chutz L’aretz, since we wouldn’t heed the husband if he comes and protests. [Tosfos says: however, R’ Yosef holds, still, the woman can ruin her in Chutz L’aretz too, by bringing witnesses, or other proofs, that the husband didn’t send a Get.] We have a Braisa to support Abaya.

95) When a woman brings her own Get, she needs to say “it was written and signed before me." We refer to a case where he tells her to be his agent to bring a Get until you get there, and when you get there, you make an agent to continue this task of bringing the Get, and then you may accept the Get from him. [Tosfos says: this is not an agent that won't actually divorce the wife, which we’ll explain in the next Perek that he can’t make an agent to take him over; since, here, the husband commanded her to appoint another agent to bring the Get to her, (so, she’s following the husband’s words exactly).] Alternatively, he tells her to be his agent to bring a Get until you get there, and when you get there, go to Beis Din and say “it was written and signed before me.” Then, Beis Din assigns someone to be the husband’s agent and gives it to her. [Tosfos explains: this answer is different from the first answer, that according to the first answer, she only says “it was written and signed before me” when she receives her Get, when she’s actually divorced, and according to the second answer, you say it when you give the Get to Beis Din. Although we say that the agent always says it when the Get leaves his hand; however, perhaps, that’s only when they won’t be there for the divorce), but, here where she could say it by the divorce, it’s better to say it then.]

96) However, she doesn't need to say it if she wasn't an agent and she was divorced already when she received the Get (from the husband in his town). This is even true where the husband said that you shouldn’t be divorced until you reach a certain Beis Din (in the other town) since, at the end of the day, when she gets there, she becomes divorced right away.

97) It can't be a case where he said; when you get to there, you should place the Get on the ground, and you’ll be divorced when you take it, since it's not valid since the husband needs to give the Get.

98) We also can't refer to a case where he said: be my agent to bring the Get until you get there, and when you get there, then you can turn into your own agent and receive your Get; since one of the requirements of an agent, that he could return to the one who send him to say he did his task before taking on another task as an agent, and she doesn’t return to her husband since she immediately takes on to be the agent of the opposite party. [Tosfos explains: someone is only called an agent when he’s sent from one person to do a task with another if he’s fit to return to the one who appointed him to say “I did your task” before he becomes an agent for someone else. Rashi doesn’t explain it that way. {Mayim Chaim (in the back) explains that Rashi only holds it’s not good if he becomes an agent for the other party of this transaction, while Tosfos invalidates if he becomes an agent for anyone else, even if he has nothing to do with this transaction.}]

99) We also can't say that it refers to a case you’re an agent until you get there, and when you get there, you appoint an agent to represent you to accept the Get. After all, even though this fits well according to the opinion that a woman can appoint an agent to accept a Get from the husband’s agent, and even according to the opinion that she can’t, it fits well according to the opinion it’s an insult to the husband and he didn’t send it with intention that the woman’s agent will accept it. However, here, since the husband said to appoint an agent, the husband doesn’t care. However, it doesn't fit in well according to the opinion who holds you can’t do it since they decreed not to allow it because of a courtyard that comes to her hand afterwards? (I.e., she acquires it from a third party after the Get was put in it. If a courtyard would work as being your agent, then the husband placing the Get in it makes it an agent, and when the woman acquires it, it becomes her agent. However, that’s not true, since it works as being her hand, and when you put it in the field, it wasn’t her hand yet. Thus, they enacted never to have an agent accept a Get from an agent so that you shouldn’t extrapolate it to the case of the courtyard. [Rashi says: the case is that you put a Get in a friend’s courtyard. However, Tosfos disagrees since, your friend’s courtyard is not similar to your agent bringing a Get. Rather, the Ri explains: the husband puts it in his own courtyard and he sells it to a friend and the woman buys it off that friend. Tosfos explains: we don't say that it's a decree if the husband appoints an agent to bring a Get and the wife makes him her agent to accept the Get, which we said is not a valid agent for the husband since the agent can’t return to the husband to tell him he did his task before he becomes an agent for someone else; since the reason that “it’s not an agent that can return to the husband” is not so simple (that it invalidates the agent). After all, The Gemara later in the Mesechta brings an opinion who’s in doubt whether it invalidates or not.]

100) [Tosfos asks: why don’t we say the case is that she originally appointed an agent before the husband appointed one? In that case, you don’t have this decree that you’ll mistake it for a courtyard that comes afterwards (since that case needs to be that the courtyard must represent the woman after it represents the man), as the Gemara says later in the Mesechta.]