1) You need to write a Get L'shma. Therefore, if you have two wives with the same name, if you wrote the Get for the older one, you can't divorce the younger wife with it. This implies that you may divorce the older one with it. It's definitely not Pasul, like we say that if you have two people with the same name in town (example: Yosef b. Shimon) each one can take out a document to collect from someone that owes him money, and the borrower can't claim that he's not the true lender, but the other one lent it and the document fell from him and this second one found it. (So too, we assume the wife with the Get is the one that's divorced. Also, even if two couples in town have the same names, a Get written for one couple can't be used for the second couple, but the original couple may use it. Granted that one person with the name Yosef b. Shimon can't collect with a document that claims that the other Yosef b. Shimon owes him money, nor can any one else collect from one of them, but this Get is different since they hold like R' Elazar that the witnesses handing over the Get validates it, and they can produce those witnesses to testify. [Tosfos says: but R' Meir holds that the names in the Get need to be obvious which couple it is, and if they're identical, you need to write some distinguishing quality that they can be identified. However, if it's not known that there's another person with the same name in town, it's considered as we can identify who it is (even though there's a chance that another one lives there). Although, for that concern, we don't return a fallen document with someone's name even if there's no one else with his name, since the falling creates red flags (since if it's valid, he would have guarded it better to make sure it didn't fall, and we need to have more concern).]

2 ) [Tosfos explains: we enacted that when you have two people with the same name in town, they both need to be by the Get giving when one of them divorces his wife. Although, you anyhow need to have witnesses to the handing over, and they should know which Yosef b. Shimon gave the Get; we still need to be concerned that they only know their names, but they might not know if they're married to each other. Therefore, we're afraid that the other one gave her the Get, and assuming that it was the Yosef b. Shimon who's her husband, they'll testify that this woman's husband gave her a Get. Therefore, they enacted that both of them need to be there, and when the witnesses testify, Beis Din will ask if both Yosef b. Shimons were there, and if they weren't we won't allow her to marry. However, this is better than enacting that the witnesses need to know that they're truly married to testify, since it would be very hard to find people to witness the giving of the Get.]

3) The Mishna says that, if the husband tells the Sofar to write it for whichever one of my wives I decide to divorce, it's Pasul since he doesn't hold of Breira. [Tosfos says: at least by Gitten, since even those who regularly hold of Breira, won't hold it for the Get writing since it can't be classified as L'shma.]

4) Rav says that all the Pasul Gitten in the Mishna makes the woman forbidden to ever marry a Kohein since "it has the smell of a Get" except for divorcing with a Get the Sofar wrote for practice. Shmuel says she's Pasul even with the practice Get. Zeiri and R' Assi say that she's only Pasul when the Get was written for whichever wife he wants to eventually divorce. R' Yochanan says she's not even Pasul for this Get since R' Yochanan never held of Breira. As we see that brothers who split up an estate are considered as buyers (as each brother buys out his brothers from his share, and we don't say that he was always destined to inherit that share) and they must return the share they got from land by Yovel to split it up again.

5) Shmuel also says that all the P'sulim from Chalitza in our Mishna Pasuls her from ever marrying a Kohein. In Eretz Yisrael, they say that only if he does Chalitza with the left foot, or at night; but not if the Chalitza was done with a sock. [Tosfos says: and by a Chalitza performed by a minor brother; R' Meir holds it Pasuls, and the Chachumim say it doesn't Pasul.]

6) R' Yehuda says: we can extrapolate from the case of a Get written for whoever the husband decides to divorce that it's not L'shma, that it's also not L'shma if it's written for whoever walks out of a door first. Abaya asks: how can we compare a Breira that depends on your own decision (who I want to divorce) to Breira that depends on other people (who will walk out). Rava answers: anyone who holds of Breira, or doesn't hold of Breira; they hold that way whether it depends on you or on someone else.

7) If someone purchased wine from Kusim, you must separate Trumah and Maasar as regular Tevel. [Tosfos explains: this is before they decreed to forbid wine from a Kusi, when their wine was Kosher. Even according to the opinion that they weren't real converts (but just converted to be saved from the lions), and they were non-Jews, they didn't forbid their wine like other non-Jews since they were careful not to serve idols. Alternatively, regularly, their wine is forbidden, but here, we refer to a Jew supervising over the production to make sure they didn't touch it.] He can't physically separate it before Shabbos, [Tosfos explains: since it's regular Tevel, he can't appoint the Trumah and Maasar's place Bein Hashmashes, since we only allow it for Damai. Although the Kusim separate Maasar for themselves, but they wouldn't separate when they sell to others since they don't agree to the Drasha of "putting a stumbling block' to mean to cause someone to sin, but they only accept the simple explanation. Although they're not suspected to steal, (and here they're stealing from the Kohanim and Leviyim); they feel that there is no one who has a claim on it (since he can give it to anyone he pleases), it's not stealing. Alternatively, before he separates it, he doesn't consider it as if it belongs to the Kohein or Levi yet. Alternatively, they hold of the Drasha that "you need to separate in order to eat," implying that you don't need to separate if you sell it.] He can say that two Lugim (out of a hundred) that he'll eventually separate will be Trumah. Ten Lugim will be Maasar Rishon, and nine Lugim will be Maasar Sheini [Tosfos points out that this is not exact since you had to separate two Lugim for Trumah, you only need to take a tenth of ninety eight Lugim for Maasar Rishon, which is a little less than ten Lugim. Others say that you can't deduct any for the Trumah, since, technically, you can exempt the whole pile with one grain.] Then you're Meichal [Rashi: you redeem the Maasar Sheini. Tosfos says that you can't redeem the Maasar Sheini yet before you separated it. After all, if you drink it now before separation, it would never come to separation, and you would be retroactively drinking Tevel. Rather, Tosfos explains; you dilute the wine, or you start] drinking the wine. This is R' Meir's opinion, but R' Yehuda, R' Yossi and R' Shimon say that it's forbidden. Therefore, it would seem that those Tanaim don't hold of Briera when it depends on your future decision. Yet, we see that R' Yehuda holds of Briera when it's out of your hands that, if someone gives a Get "from this day if I die," she has a status of a married lady until a moment before the husband dies [Tosfos explains: since "from this day" infers "from the day I'm still on this Earth"]. Also, we see that R' Shimon holds of Breira when it's out of his hands, as he says that if someone gives Kiddushin "on condition that my father wants it," she's Mekudesh if his father consents. We don't need to say that the only way to reconcile is that they hold of Briera when it's out of their hands, but not if it's in their hands. We can say that they both agree to Breira, and the reason why they forbade by the Kusi since they're worried that the barrel may break before you will come to separate, and it will come that, retroactively, you drank Tevel. [Rashi says: although it might seem that these are really not cases of Breira, but a regular condition; but this type of condition is a form of Breira since it's not in your hands to fulfill, and it's a Safeik what will happen when you made the condition, and the fulfillment comes by itself, and you plan on keeping it as if it's in your hands to do.]

8) It seems from here that R' Yossi doesn't hold of Briera, [Tosfos: and the same we see that R' Yossi holds if someone says that his Maasar Sheini should be redeemed on the coin that he'll pull out of his pocket, it's not redeemed since he doesn't hold of Breira. However, he holds of Breira when it will definitely come to a resolution, like when someone gives his wife a Get on condition that he dies, which takes effect right away if he eventually dies, since he will eventually either live pass the date, or die.]

9) If you tell your sons that you're Shechting the Pesach for whoever gets to Yerushalayim first; the first one who came gets a share in the Pesach, and he makes all his brothers able to have a share. This Halacha is true even if you don't hold of Breira, since the father really had them all in mind, and he only said this to make them zealous to come up fast.

10) The Tanna Kama says that you can write the unimportant parts of the Get before getting commissioned to write a Get as long as you leave the place to write the name of the man, woman, date and the place to write "you are permitted to (marry) everyone." [Tosfos says: it seems from here that you must write this expression in the Get, that "you are permitted to (marry) everyone." R' Tam was accustomed to write it. However, we shouldn't spread rumors that the old Gitten that don't have "you are permitted to (marry) everyone" written in it that they were problematic, since they wrote many different ways of expressing it to be a Get, which is equivalent to writing "you are permitted to (marry) everyone."] Also, he needs to leave out the important parts by sales and loan documents (even though they don't need to be written L'shma), since, if you wouldn't leave them out, you might end up also writing it for a Get too.

11) R' Chisda explains the Tanna Kama: he holds like R' Elazar that witnesses who see the handing over validate the Get. Therefore, the Get's important text needs to be L'shma. So, really, they should forbid writing the unimportant parts not L'shma since you might come to even write the important parts. However, they allowed it for the sake of the Sofrim so that they should have many forms ready (and they don't need to start from scratch everytime). Even though R' Elazar argues with the Tanna Kama; we must say that it's a Tannaic argument to what R' Elazar really holds.

12) Chizkiya explains the Tanna Kama: he holds like R' Meir who holds the signing witnesses validate the Get, so only the signatures need to be L'shma. Really, the important parts of the Get's text could be written before being commission, but we're afraid that it shouldn't lead to marital strife if the woman hears that a Sofar wrote a Get with their names on it, and she'll blame her husband thinking that he must have commissioned it.

13) Avimi explains the Tanna Kama: it's because of Aguna. Some explain him like R' Meir, and some like R' Elazar. Some explain him like R' Meir, that the reason they didn't allow writing the names so that, when the husband gets angry, he can't just have this ready made Get ready and he'll quickly be able to divorce her, and she'll be stranded by being divorced. Some explain him like R' Elazar, why they allow writing the unimportant parts and didn't forbid it so that you don't come to write the important parts, just in case the husband is in a rush to go across the sea, and there's no time to write a Get from scratch, it would leave the wife stranded when the husband leaves her on her long journey without giving her a Get.

14) R' Yehuda Pasuls all documents that were written early, since we decree the unimportant parts because of the important parts, and they decreed other documents because of Get. R' Elazar permits all other documents [Rashi explains: only the unimportant parts. Tosfos says: even the important parts, as we'll see from the question from R' Pappi.] He only forbids to write Gittin early, even the unimportant parts since you might end up also writing the important parts early.

15) The Halacha is like R' Elazar, even by other documents. We don't hold like R' Pappi who says that if the verification was written before the document's verification, it's Pasul since it looks like a lie. After all, we don't invalidate a Get that was found in the garbage that the husband then got signed by witnesses (according to R' Meir who holds only the witnesses' signature needs to be L'shma, and not the writing of the Get). Even the Rabanan who argue only do so because they need the text of the Get to be written L'shma and not because it looks like a lie (since it wasn't written for this divorce, and it says that it's written for this husband to divorce his wife). Another proof, R' Yochanan forbade if you wrote a loan document, and it was paid up that day, and then the borrower would like to borrow again that day and use the same document (and it won't be invalid for being written on an earlier day) since the responsibility that it created to make a lien has already been forgiven (by receiving the payment of the first loan), and not because it looks like a lie (since it was not written for the second loan). This proves that we don't need to have documents written for the exact occasion that you use it for, and you don't need to worry that it looks like a lie.

16) [Tosfos says: some say that the text isn't "we don't hold of R' Pappi," but "we don't have a question." As we don't say that we don't hold like R' Pappi completely, but only by Beis Din's action (like writing a document's verification), but not by other documents.]

17) [Tosfos says: this is only by a wife's Get, but you can write a slave's freedom document early before the master commissions it. This is why it's not counted with one of the aspects that Gitten and freedom documents are the same.]

18) You need to leave place for the date whether you're divorcing from Eirusin or from Nesuin. It's simple why you need it from Kiddushin according to the opinion that the reason they enacted to write the date on the Get to prevent him to protect his niece, (who he married and committed adultery). However, even according to the opinion in order to know when the wife can keep the fruit of her fields, and they have their fruits anyhow if they never had Nesuin, but we need to worry that they'll have Nesuin after the Get was written, and if the date was already written, then people will say that the child was conceived after the Get was given. [Tosfos says: even though, in a case where the Get was written earlier, we should assume the witnesses won't sign it if it was dated earlier; but perhaps, since it's written "I'm divorcing my Arusah," the witnesses will assume that she's still an Arusah, so they'll sign it thinking no harm will come out since he doesn't have her fruit anyhow. However, this is not a problem if it's dated at the time of its giving, and we're not going to say that the fact that it's written "my Arusah" that people will say that they were divorced before the conception of the child, or someone who bought the fruit off the husband will lose (since the Get says that they were divorced before the husband had the rights to the fruit); since the buyer would be careful to buy it only after the Nesuin, and he'll definitely prepare witnesses to that fact, and by having the witnesses to the Nesuin, they'll also know that the child's conception was before the Get. Alternatively, since there are rumors to the fact that they had Nesuin before the Get. (However, the rumors don't inform when exactly was the Nesuin.) Therefore, everyone knows that it wasn't written "my Arusah," but because that was the status when it was written, but not when it was given. Tosfos concludes with a question: why don't we simply say the problem with having the date when it was written if they had Nesuin afterwards is like all Gitten are Pasul with the wrong date after Nesuin.]

19) Therefore, you should ask a Sofar to write a Get for his Arusah that “she will be divorced after I bring her to Chuppa;” since people will say that the child was conceived after the Get was given. [Rashi says that this is an “old Get” (when the husband and wife seclude after the Get was written). Tosfos says: This is even worse than an “old Get” that's permitted B'dieved, since that was only seclusion. However, by the Chuppa, they definitely have relations and we really need to worry that people will say the Get took effect before the conception of the child.) Although the Gemara in Yevamos says If someone asks a Sofar to write a Get for his Arusah that “she will be divorced after I bring her to Chuppa;” it's a valid Get since it's in his hands to divorce her now, that is only if he wrote the date of the Get after the time of the Chuppah at the giving, and not at the time of the writing. ]

20) There's a contradiction between Mishnayos. One said that, if you lost a Get, you can't divorce with it when you find it unless you found it right away. The other Mishna says that, whenever the Shliach finds the Get, implying even after a long time, you can't give it since the husband might have changed his mind. [Tosfos: however, if he wants to give it, he may.] Rabbah reconciles them: you shouldn't give it (unless found right away) if it's found in a place where caravans are common to rest and there's two known Yosef b. Shimons in town. However, if it's in a place where caravans are not common, even if you know there's two Yosef b. Shimons in town [Tosfos: that we don't need to worry that the person with the same name lost it in the same place as he did if it's not in a place where caravans are common], or there's no known other Yosef b. Shimon in town, even if it's in a place where caravans are common, you can divorce with it.

21) R' Zeira says that you need to be concerned only in a place where caravans are common, but not where caravans are uncommon. There are two versions if it's only when we know that there is two Yosef b. Shimons in town, and he agrees with Rabbah, or even if there's no other known Yosef b. Shimon in town, and he argues with Rabbah.

22) If you find a woman's Get in the marketplace, if the husband admits that it was given to her, you can give it to the woman. [Tosfos explains: however, the husband is only believed that he divorced his wife from this point on, but not retroactively. Since it can't be that she's divorced at this moment, since the Get is not in her hands, so this Get needs to be given in order to divorce her now.] This is only if it was found in a place where you would be allowed to divorce her now, like if caravans are uncommon. However, if the husband doesn't admit to it, you don't return it to her. [Tosfos says: granted that a woman is believed to say that her husband divorced her, but that's only when she doesn't have a written Get to back her up, but here, she will rely on the Get to be brazen and lie.]

23) R' Yirmiya reconciles when you can assume the lost Get is yours: if the witnesses claim that they only signed on one Get of a Yosef b. Shimon, and we don't need to worry about a coincidence that the husbands and wives and witnesses all have the same name. [Tosfos explains: even if the witnesses don't remember which Yosef b. Shimon they signed for, this Yosef is believed to say it was him. After all, we don't believe him regularly, not because we're afraid that he'll outright lie, but we don't trust him to recognize that it's his; and we're worried that he would say it's his without recognizing it completely since he doesn't believe that it could be another Yosef b. Shimon who dropped it. However, he wouldn't lie that those witnesses signed on his Get if it's a lie. Rashi explains: they do claim that they signed for this Yosef, but they didn't check out their signatures, since we don't need to worry that other witnesses with their name signed. A proof to this, that it doesn't say "that the witnesses have the same name and the same type of signature."]

24) R' Ashi reconciles: he's only believed that it's his Get if he says that theres a hole in the paper next to a certain letter, which is a very distinctive Siman. [Tosfos says: the messenger must say the Siman before he sees the Get, and the witnesses could say that this is the Siman after they saw the Get.] However, they wouldn't be believed just to say that there's a hole in the paper since we're not sure whether we rely on a regular Siman from the Torah, or it's only believed by a lost object rabbinically. [Tosfos says: although we have a Drasha that you need the lost object to have a Siman in order to announce that you found it, if Simanim are rabbinical, we must say that the witnesses can now recognize it through the Simnaim. Alternatively, the only way the owner can produce witnesses that he owns it is by describing to them the item with Simanim. However, if there's no Simanim, he has Yiyush immediately since he doesn't believe he'll find witnesses since he can't describe the item to them.]

25) You return a Get to a Talmid Chachum if he recognizes it. [Tosfos says: it's not that ignorant people can't recognize items, but they're suspected that they may lie that they recognize it, when he doesn't, but a Talmid Chachum won't lie.]

26) The time that is still considered as if he found it right away: R' Nosson says: the amount of time needed that a caravan can pass and [Rashi: encamp; Tosfos: eat a meal]. R' Shimon b. Elazar says: if no one passes by, and you need to set up someone to lookout to make sure no one passes. Others say: as long as a person doesn't stay around that area. Rebbi says: enough time to write a Get. R' Yitzchok says: the time to read a Get. Even if the time pass, he's believed that it's his Get if he says that theres a hole in the paper next to a certain letter, which is a very distinctive Siman; and not just that the Get is long, or short.

27) If you lost a Get and found it, it's the same Get if it's tied to a wallet or a ring, and you can give it [Tosfos says either Simanim are from the Torah); or we can still explain it to be only rabbinic, an you recognize the wallet or ring, and you're believed that you did since you have a Migo to say it wasn't lost; or that you have witnesses testify that those utensils belong to you, and it's known that you tied the Get there.] The same is if he found the Get between his utensils, it's Kosher. [Tosfos says: however, just finding it in middle of the floor of a house is not enough since it's common for people to come in and you need to worry that it fell from someone else with the same names.]

28) Shmuel says that the Halacha is that "right away" is as long as a person doesn't stay around that area. R' Yehuda b. Shmuel says the Halacha is if no one passes by.

29) If he found it in a sack, and he recognizes the sack, it's Kosher. [Tosfos explains: even though he doesn't recognize the actual Get, or else you don't need to recognize the sack. You're believed that you recognize the sack since you have a Migo to say it wasn't lost. You don't need to worry that he lent the sack to someone else (and it's the other one's Get) since he knows he didn't lend it out. Alternatively, he knows he left it in the sack, and since he recognizes the sack, he's believed.]

30) If someone brings a Get from across the sea, and the husband was left in a state of being elderly or sick, the Get can be given on the assumption that he's still living. [Tosfos says: although, in Bava Metzia, we say that we're worried that a father died in captivity (so we can't allow a relative of the orphans to tend his fields, since, if it's his orphans, we wouldn't allow it since they might claim that it came to them in the inheritance); that's because we're extra careful if it may lead to a lost to orphans. Alternatively, we have extra concerns that a captive may die.] Rava qualifies: this is only by an elder that hadn't gotten to the "age of strength" (i.e., eighty) and by the regular sick, where most of them live. However, if he's over eighty, or he's so sick that he's a Gosses, where most of them die, you can't assume that they're alive to give the Get.

31) They asked on Rava's statement that you may give the Get even if the husband is a hundred years old. This either disproves Rava, or, alternatively, we can say that it's different once he reached such an advanced age, he's someone destined to live very long.

32) Although we say if he gives a Get on condition that it should take effect a minute before death, she can't eat Trumah since we're worried that he'll die, and we don't leave him on his Chazaka that he's living; Abaya answers: that's like R' Yehuda who is worried about death and our Mishna is like R' Meir who is not worried. As we see by the case of someone who purchased wine from Kusim, R' Meir says: since he can't physically separate it before Shabbos, he can say that fruit that he'll eventually separate will be Trumah and Maasar, and he's not worried that the barrel may break before you take off the Trumah and Maasar, and R' Yehuda disallows since he's worried the barrel may break before you take off the Trumah and Maasar. Rava answers: everyone agrees that we're not afraid he died, the argument between R' Meir and R' Yehuda is if we're afraid that he'll die in the near future.

33) Also, a messenger can bring a Korban relying that the sender is still living. This is only by a woman's Chatos, or a bird that doesn't need Smicha, but a male that needs to bring an animal Korban must bring it himself in order to do Smicha. [Tosfos says: even though Smicha doesn't prevent the Korban's Kashrus, still, he shouldn't skip Smicha unless it's impossible to do it in any other way. As we allow an uncircumcised male to send Korbanos when he's uncircumcised because his brothers died from circumcising, where he'll never become circumcised, or a Tamai like Metzorah who may never heal and become Tahor, since there is no sure way that they can ever do Smicha, they can send the Korbanos without Smicha in order to fulfil their obligations of their oaths to bring these Korbanos. Alternatively, in order to prevent him from transgressing Baal T'achar. Alternatively, if you have a Korban that you're not sure for what Korban it is and you don't know if it needs Smicha. Alternatively, you don't know which one of two people did the sin that the Chatos needs to be brought, so you don't know which one should do Smicha.]

34) If we have a witness say that a husband is in a city that's in the middle of being seized, or in a ship that's being thrown around in a storm or is being judged, he still has his Chazaka of being alive. However, if the city was seized, or the ship was lost at sea, or they're taking him out to be executed, we have a Safeik if he's alive. Therefore, at that time on, his wife can't eat Trumah, whether she's a Yisrael's daughter married to a Kohein, or a Kohein's daughter married to a Yisrael.

35) In one version: R' Yosef held this is only in a Jewish Beis Din, since it's not a proof that he was executed, since they might have brought him back since they found some merit for him. However, in a non-Jewish court, he may testify to his death. Although they take bribes that could save him; but not after the signing [Rashi: of the final decree. Tosfos: of the greatest of the judges].

36) In another version: R' Yosef held that it's only not a proof that he died in a non-Jewish court since they accept bribes, but not in a Jewish Beis DIn, since it's uncommon that they'll find a merit for him afterwards to reverse the case.

37) The Halacha that, if witnesses testified that this person was found guilty in a Beis Din (and he escaped), they execute him; is not a proof that we assume that they wouldn't reverse their decision. After all, the fact that he needed to escape is a proof that they hadn't reversed the decision.

38) A non-Jew is believed when he says that the husband died, as long as he unwittingly offer the information in a conversation. However, if you hear it from a executioner that he was killed, he's not believed since he may just be bragging about himself, and say that he saw them executing him, even if he didn't see. [According to one answer in Tosfos, we only believe a non-Jew when he says that he died, but not if he's going out to execution, even according to the opinion that we consider them as definitely killed, since the non-Jew may make a mistake.]

39) If someone brings a Get from Eretz Yisrael, where he doesn't need to say "it was written and signed before me," if he gets sick, he may give it to another person to deliver it. Otherwise, he needs to deliver it himself.

40) The Tanna Kama says that, if the husband says to bring it, he can send it with someone else. If he says "you bring it," you need to bring it yourself and you can't send it through someone else. R' Shimon b. Gamliel says that you can't send it with someone else in any case.

41) When we said earlier that you can send it with another if you get sick; it could either be like the Tanna Kama when the husband just says 'bring,' and yet we only allow it when he got sick. It could also be like R' Shimon b. Gamliel, and he holds that we make an exception when he gets sick since it's an Onness.

42) If someone tells two people to give a Get to his wife, (implying that they should also write a Get, so they'll have one to give); or to three people to write and give a Get; they must do it themselves, and they can't give it over to others. [Tosfos says: however, if you say 'give' to three; R' Meir says that they form a Beis Din and could appoint someone else to write it. R' Yossi says that even the agent of the great Beis Din in Yerushalayim can't make another agent.] Although we said before that you can make another agent to send a Get; Abaya answers: the husband cares more in this case not to make another agent because of his embarrassment. [Rashi explains: since it's upon him to write the Get, and he can't, he doesn't want others to get involved and they'll also realize that the husband can't write. Tosfos says: according to this, it only applies to the writing, and the giving is just brought in here because of the writing. Alternatively, if someone else sends it, they'll realize that it wasn't written by the husband, so the husband cares about it too.] However, in our case, the Get was already written and it only involves the delivery, and the husband doesn't care about that. Rava explains that, when the husband only gives out a command to write, it only involves words, so you can't hand over the words to another agent. However, in the case where he hands over the Get, it's something of substance, so that can be handed over to another agent.

43) The practical difference between the two reasons, whether it's for the husband's embarrassment, or it's because you can't give over words to another agent; if it's a gift document, where it's not upon the giver to write the document, but on the receiver. Therefore, there's no embarrassment, but it's still words that can't be given over to another agent. This is actually an argument between Rav and Shmuel, that Rav says a gift is not like a Get, and Shmuel says it is.

44) If the husband asks his agent to receive a certain item from the wife and give her a Get, you can't send it with another agent since a person doesn't want his object that he gave a person to guard to be given over to another person.

45) Reish Lakish holds that there's no practical difference in the Get since it's Kosher, but it's only a problem regarding the item received, as we say that, if you borrowed an item, you can't lend it out to someone else. [Tosfos says: even according to the opinion that a guard that gives it over for someone else to guard is exempt to pay for whatever happens to it since he handed it to a responsible human; that's only B'dieved if he gives it to him. However, L'chatchila, he can't hand it to another person.]

46) R' Yochanan says: this is not a Chiddush to say that your not allowed to give it to another person, so we must say that it's telling us that there's a problem with the Get too. After all, he wants the agent to receive the item before he gives over the Get so that the woman remains an Aguna until she parts with the item. [Tosfos says: this is because he said the command to receive the item before giving the Get, we say that it's conditional. Although we say in Kesuvos that if someone told his agent to pay back his loan and take back the loan-document, he wants that he should take back the document first even if that's not the order that he said it in; that's because the taking back the document is connected to paying back the loan so that the lender shouldn't claim it was a pay back for a different, undocumented loan. However, here, the taking the object is not naturally connected to the Get, so we don't say he cares of the order unless he said it in that order.] So, it's like saying to your agent to give the Get in the (ground floor of a) house, and he gives it on a second floor, or give it with your left hand, and he gives it with his right hand, that it's Pasul. [Rashi explains: here too, he cares that you shouldn't allow a different agent to give it since he might mistake and give the Get before receiving the item.] However, Reish Lakish held that the husband doesn't care about it, so she's divorced in all cases.

47) [Tosfos argues with Rashi's explanation that, he cares that you shouldn't allow a different agent to give it since he might mistake and give the Get before receiving the item since it's pushed to say that we'll have such a concern. Also, according to him, the explanation of "a person doesn't want his object he gave a person to guard to be in another person's hand" refers to the woman's hand, not the second agent's hand, which is also pushed. Rather, since we say that he doesn't want his object in another agent's hand, so the husband cares about it and, by appointing someone else, it's just like going against his wish when he tells you give it with your left hand, and you give it with your right hand.]

48) If someone brings a Get from across the seas and gets sick, he must appoint another agent in Beis Din and say "it was written and signed before me" in front of the Beis Din. Therefore, the second agent doesn't need to say it when he gives the Get, but just that he's an agent of Beis Din.

49) If the second agent needs to appoint someone else, he could, but only in Beis DIn.

50) An agent in Eretz Yisrael can make many other agents, and they all come as representing the husband. Therefore, as long as the husband is alive, he can give the Get even if one of the earlier agents die. However, he can't give it if the husband dies, even if the other agents live.

51) If the husband sends the Get with an agent, and when he arrives, he says that he doesn't know who the wife is, and they tell him to appoint a certain person who knows her, he's allowed to do so. We don't consider him as an agent who was not appointed to divorce (but to hand the Get over to someone else to divorce), who can't make another agent [Tosfos at the end of the second Perek: but he should only do as the husband told him.] After all, the husband doesn't care to have someone else give the Get, and would be happy if the first one gives the Get. It's only because of a technicality that he doesn't recognize the wife is why he's not giving the Get.

52) if the husband tells the messenger to give it after thirty days, he's considered as a messenger that's given to divorce the wife (and can appoint another messenger) despite not being able to divorce her for thirty days, since he'll eventually become able to divorce her. However, since he can't divorce her now, we might worry that the husband may reconcile with her, since he knows that he had time to reconcile with her before the Get is given. (However, 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.) Then he'll come and claim that the Get is no good [Rashi: since its a Get Yashon, that they secluded before the Get was given.] However, the husband, when he sends the Get, says before Beis Din that he agrees that his wife will be believed to say he didn't come. Then, even if he comes later to claim anything, he won't be believed. Anyhow, this is only a concern if he divorces her after Nesuin, but if they only had Eirusin where he's not so close to her, we're not worried that he'll come to reconcile.

53) The Beis Din doesn't need to appoint the second agent before the First agent.

54) If someone makes a condition on a get that his wife will be divorced if he doesn't return within thirty days, and when he's returning on the thirtieth day, the ferry stopped and he couldn't get into town, and he's says "I returned;" he's not considered as if he returned, and the Get takes effect.

55) If he makes a condition that she would be divorced if he can't appease her within thirty days; and he tried to appease her, but she wasn't appeased; according to the opinion that there's a claim of Onness by a Get, she's not divorced. [Tosfos explains: it's an Onness that he doesn't have a bowl of golden coins to appease her. The condition is that he should appease her with a great amount, but it's an Onness that he couldn't appease her but with a small amount.] However, according to the opinion that there's no claim of Onness by Get, the Get takes effect. [Tosfos says: however, if he tries to appease with the bowl of golden coins, even if she refuses to be appeased, still the Get doesn't take effect since the condition was to appease her with a great amount, and he did that.]

56) If someone loans a Kohein, Levi or a poor person in order to be repaid by keeping their portion of Kohanic, Leviyic and poor people's gifts; he can keep them on the Chazaka that the borrower is still alive and is still entitled to the gifts. We don't worry that the Kohein or Levi died, or the poor became rich.

57) Although the Trumah and Maasar never reached the hand of the borrower (to say that he owns it, and therefore, he can give it to the lender as payment); Rav says: we refer to a case where the Kohein is recognized as receiving all his gifts [Rashi: so that the other Kohanim give up hope of getting it, so it's considered as in the borrower's hand, the only person who it's still applicable to receive it.] Shmuel says: you have other people acquire it for them. Ullah says: this is like R' Yossi who holds in many places that the rabbis enacted someone to acquire something, even if they technically didn't acquire it. Therefore, they enacted it here so that people would lend them money.

58) Although you can make a condition by other loans that he'll collect the fruit from the borrower like the amount it's worth at its cheapest (and it's not a problem of receiving interest), but by this loan, even if he didn't make such a condition, it's as if he made the condition. Also, if he made a condition, he can make the condition to collect it even for cheeper than the cheapest price. After all, it's not interest since he could lose all his money if the field gets ruined (and can't produce anymore). [Tosfos says: even according to Rav who says that it's forbidden to receive it for less by lending on an orchard's fruit even though it might become ruined and he'll lose his whole loan; but they're more lenient to help out the Kohein to get his loan.]

59) [Tosfos says: even though, by a regular loan, even if the lender didn't make a condition at the loan, he can say at the cheap time to give it to me cheap, or repay me my money; however, by this loan to the Kohein, he can say it after the time it's cheap and the price jumped, to give it to him as the price when it was cheap.]

60) It's not a problem collecting if Shvious past, since there's only a prohibition to approach the borrower to pay, but here, he's not approaching him.

61) The lender can't renege on the condition (and demand to be paid in money), but the Kohein can renege. After all, by any sale, if the buyer gives the money, but he didn't drag the fruit, the seller could renege on the deal. [Tosfos says: however, the lender can't renege even according to the Rabanan who argue with R' Shimon and says that the buyer can also renege on the deal (and not only the seller). After all, here we must say that they enacted for him not to renege, or else he would renege if the fields get ruined, and he wouldn't have any potential loss, so receiving fruit for cheap would be interest. However, Rashi answers: since the fruit didn't exist when he gave the money, he doesn't need to drag it for the deal to be binding.]

62) If it seems that the crops will be ruined, and the lender had Yiyush for it to grow, and then it turned around and grew normally; the lender can't take the Trumah and Maasar anymore (since he gave up). This is even true if the crop grew their stalks where you might think that he didn't completely give up since it's not common for it to be completely ruined at that point.

63) If the borrower dies, the lender must ask permission from his sons to keep on collecting the Trumah [Tosfos says: even if they inherited land, which sons are usually obligated to pay back their father's loans with them.] However, if he loaned him in Beis Din, he doesn't need to ask the sons if he can continue to collect if they inherited land, but if they only inherited movable objects [Tosfos: they still need to ask permission.]

64) R' Yonason says: he could only collect without the son's permission the amount of the worth of the land they inherited. R' Yochanan says he can collect all of it on the smallest amount of land; since you can collect the whole loan from it. As we see, if someone borrowed a thousand Zuz and died, and the lender comes to collect from the land of the heirs, and there is only a five hundred Zuz field to collect, and then the heirs come to buy it back, we can assume that they're giving the money as a payment for the loan, which would release the field that was a collateral, so this field is still their father's and he may collect it again as the finishing of payment for the loan. [Tosfos says: although if the heirs explicitly say that they're buying the land, and it's not paying the loan, then he can't collect it again since it's land that's bought by the heirs after the father's death; but here the rabbis enacted him to collect the whole loan regardless.] However, they only allowed him to collect after the death since it's a common occurence, but not if the poor became rich, which is uncommon.

65) R' Elazar b. Yaakov says: when they loan to the Kohein or Levi in Beis Din, they can collect from the gifts because of the whole Shevet (even if it's no longer applicable to collect from him, since the whole Shevet is happy for such deals since they can also take advantage of it). If the poor borrows in Beis Din, then you can collect on behalf of all the Jewish poor. R' Achi says that he can take it on behalf of the poor Kutim in the town since they're true converts. [Rashi says: but the Tana Kama held them not to be true converts ( but just "converts for the lions"), so, if there are no Jewish poor in town, you need to take it because of the out of town Jewish poor. Tosfos disagrees, since there is no practical difference, since they take it from somebody. Rather, the Tanna Kama held that, if there's no Jewish poor in town, you can't take it at all, and R' Achi says you may keep it since you can separate it for the poor Kutim in town.]

66) A Yisrael who says to a Levi that he has his Maasar in his house, and he buys it off him, he doesn't need to worry about it. [Rashi: you don't need to worry that the Levi will now use it to separate Trumas Maasar from produce in his house. Tosfos disagrees since it wouldn't work since it now belongs to the Yisrael. Rather, we don't need to worry that the Levi already used it to separate it as Trumas Maasar.] After all, we don't assume that he's a wicked person [Tosfos: to accept money for Maasar produce that he already made it into Trumas Maasar.]

67) Also, if you tell a Levi that you have his father's Maasar in your house, he doesn't need to worry that his father made it Trumas Maasar on different fruit, since a Talmid Chachum is not suspected to separate Trumah and Maasar if all the produce is not together. [Tosfos says: even though, from the Torah, you don't need to separate Trumas Maasar when they're together, since the Torah only obligates it by Trumah Gedolah; still, the Rabanan enacted it by Trumas Maasar. We're only concerned when left fruit to guard and it's starts to rot, you can sell it since he might have separated it as Trumah for some other fruits; since we're very concerned when it comes to selling someone else's fruit, and we don't do it for the slightest suspicion, since we allow for the honor of Shabbos, to separate Trumah and Massar for fruit that's not close to the Trumah and Maasar being separated. However, regularly, we don't need to worry about it since it's uncommon. Others explain: we're only concerned by the fruits left to guard if the owner is an Am Ha'aretz and may not know that he needs to separate when they're together, but our case refers to a Talmid Chachum, as he probably only gave his Maasar to a Levi Chaver.]

68) [Rashi says the reason they must be separated while they're together since we're afraid that the produce that's in the other place got destroyed. Tosfos disagrees since it applies even if the other produce is in the same house. Rather, it's a Gezeiras Hakasuv to do so.]

69) Abba Elazar b. Gamla says that we learn through a Hekish that the same way that you separate Trumah through estimation, so too by Trumas Maasar.

[Tosfos says: we can't compare it to say that Trumas Maasar can be exempt with one wheat kernal like Trumah, since it says explicitly that it's a tenth. All we're saying is that you can add onto the tenth and it doesn't need to be an exact tenth, and it doesn't ruin the Maasar. On the contrary, it's better to estimate, since you're afraid to give less, you'll end up giving a little more. However, the Rabanan held that you have to separate through measuring. However, B'dieved, the Yerushalmi says that the Maasar is valid if you separate through estimation. It's only considered as if you added onto the Maasar, which ruins it, if you purposely added on to be more than a tenth.]

70) Also, you can separate with your thoughts like Trumah [Tosfos explains: this is according to everyone that you can look at an area in the produce and have in mind that it should be Trumah, without any action or speaking. However, they didn't allow you to separate this way on Shabbos the same way they allowed to separate if Trumah fell into Chulin (and there's a hundred to Mevatel it), since that was already fixed Chulin, but you can't do it to fix actual Tevel.]

71) Also, just like the crop's owner separates Trumah, he needs to be the one to separate the Trumas Maasar also.

72) Therefore, according to Abba Elazar, if someone tells a Levi that his father told him that his estate contained an unmeasured amount of Maasar, we can assume that the father didn't separate the Trumas Maasar yet. [Tosfos says: this is true even to Abba Elazar who says that you can estimate, but people don't want to estimate since they might end up giving less and cause a loss to the Levi or Kohein.] However, if he was told that there was ten Kur of Maasar, he doesn't need to separate Trumas Maasar from it, since we can assume that the father separated it. [Tosfos says: and we don't say that the father won't separate from the Maasar that he'll anyway just give it completely to the Levi; since the produce is left in his possession for a while, and the Mitzvah is upon him to separate.]

73) If you left fruit in a place to have it separated on other produce for Trumah and Maasar [Tosfos: on Friday afternoon, or Erev Yom Tov, to have fruit to eat on the next day; but regularly, they don't allow to separate if they're not together]; or if you have money put away to redeem Maasar Sheini on them; you can separate the Trumah, and redeem the Maasar with the assumption that the fruit and money are still there. However, if you check later and it wasn't there; R' Elazar says that you need to be concerned for twenty four hours. R' Yochanan explains: that only if you separated and redeemed with twenty four hours of finding them missing must you worry that they weren't around at the transaction, but not if it was done earlier. R' Elazar b. Yanai says that you always need to worry it wasn't around unless the transaction was done within twenty four hours of depositing the items, or from the last time you checked it. The Mishna infers like R' Yochanan.

74) However, his colleagues argue with R' Elazar and holds that we're always concerned that they were lost at the time of the transaction just like a Mikvah that was measured and found to be less than forty Saah, that all the Taharos that was done on it (i.e., that you relied on the Teveila), is Tamai, whether it was Toiveled in a Reshus Hayachid or a Reshus Harabim.

75) R' Yehuda says: three times a year, you need to inspect the wine you left to separate Maasar from to make sure they didn't become vinegary. One, when the east wind blows on Moitzie Sukkos, but only if the fall season started. [Tosfos says: even though everyone holds to make a leap year if the fall season doesn't start during Sukkos; but we don't make a leap year just because the season is not in place, but only if there's another factor.] Also, when the grape starts to form, and when water enters the small immature grapes. [Tosfos says: from here, it became accustomed allow non-Jews to touch the liquid from these immature grapes since the Gemara calls it water and not wine. However, R' Tam held not to since we're not experts at what point they become regular grapes and the liquid has the status of wine. Also, it will come out in a year when the crop is bad and only produce these immature grapes, would there be no problem of non-Jews touching Jewish wine?]

76) You should sell grain thrice a year; before the planting season, at the time of the planting [Tosfos: for those who didn't buy beforehand as much as they actually needed], and fifteen days before Pesach. Thrice a year you sell wine, fifteen days before the three Regalim. You sell oil from Shvuos and on. The practical difference is if you have a partner, you can force them to sell at that time. [Tosfos quotes R' Chananel and R' Tam: when it says in Bava Metzia that you can force your partner to keep the inventory around for longer in order to gain a bigger profit; it's only until these times of the year.] From these times and on, it's always considered time to sell.