1) Our Mishna says: if someone divorces his wife that she would be permitted to everyone except to one person; the Chachumim say that it's a Get Pasul since he left someone over in the Get. R' Eliezer says it's a valid Get and she's permitted to everyone except that person since it's a Gezeiras Hakusuv of "she went out from his house and married someone else," that even if she only becomes permitted to one man, it's a Get. (The Chachumim learn it to mean to every single man). Or, it's from the following "a woman divorced from her husband," even if she divorced from her husband, but not permitted to anyone else; it's a get and he's Pasul to Kehuna. [Tosfos says: if it's not a Get in this way, then she would be permitted to a Kohein.] The Rabanan hold that the prohibition for Kehuna is different and their forbidden even if it wasn't a real Get since the Torah gives them extra Mitzvos.

2) However, if it's only on condition not to marry someone else [Tosfos: even if it's on condition that she can't even have promiscuous relations with him], it's a valid Get, since it's only a condition, like all other conditions in a Get. [Tosfos says: and she can marry right away and she doesn't need to wait until he dies, and we don't need to worry that she might one day marry him and cancel the Get retroactively. We only need to wait on a condition that she must give two hundred Zuz, that she must give the money first (even if she's independently wealthy), since she may lose her money and won't be able to fulfill the condition. The same with the condition that you can't have relations with a certain person (besides his father, or her father, since it's uncommon), since she can't prevent herself from being raped, but here the condition is not to marry, or have Z'nus, which are in her hands to do.]

3) R' Yossi b. Yehuda says: everyone agrees that it's an invalid Get if he writes "except for a certain person." They argue when they say "on condition." R' Eliezer says it's a regular condition, and the Chachumim say that it's not similar to other conditions that there is no person that she can't marry because of the condition.

4) [Tosfos says: therefore, R' Eliezer says that you can exempt a wife for Yibum by being a sister-wife to a married lady. As if he divorces his wife to marry everyone except one person, and she marries his brother, who then dies, so this wife is and Ervah to him by being married to her original husband, and her sister-wife is exempt since she's a sister-wife of an Ervah. Alternatively, she's not similar to other Ervos that exempt their sister-wife, as the Yerushalmi says; that other Ervos the Torah forbids, and this one is forbidden by a man, since the original husband has a way to make her a non-Ervah, by divorcing her completely before she fell to Yibum. According to the opinion that R' Eliezer only argues with "on condition," we can explain the Yerushalmi that other Ervos are forbidden because of the Torah, and this one is forbidden because of your condition. Alternatively, she's not similar to a sister (which the Ervah we extrapolate to exempt the sister-wife), since when she fell to Yibum, she's not a married woman yet (since the condition didn't cancel the Get yet). If they do, afterwards, have relations, it will cancel the original husband's Get retroactively, so she was never married to his brother. However, this answer is only according to the opinion that we extrapolate from a sister that an Ervah's sister-wife is exempt from Yibum.]

5) R’ Abba says: according to our Mishna, we can say they have the same argument regarding Kiddushin; that R' Eliezer says that you can make Kiddushin to forbid to everyone besides one person, and the Chachumim say that you can't. After all, we have a Hekish from Get to Kiddushin.

6) According to R' Abba, and according to R' Eliezer; if Reuvein gives Kiddushin to Leah to forbid on everyone except for his brother Shimon, and then Shimon gives her Kiddushin to forbid her on everyone beside Reuvein; and they both die, their brothers can do Yibum and this is not a problem of being "the wife of two dead husbands." After all, Shimon's KIddushin didn't take effect at all, since it didn't forbid anyone that wasn't already forbidden from Reuvein's Kiddushin. However, it's a problem of being "the wife of two dead husbands" if Shimon gives a regular KIddushin, since it adds a prohibition to Reuvein. [Tosfos says: although we say by Get that, if the wife marries someone in the middle, the original marriage is uprooted and she's completely divorced from him, that's only by divorcing, that your getting rid of your wife, and when she gets married to another, she's gotten rid of completely. However, by Kiddushin, it's the opposite, that he's trying to keep the wife, so, by another Kiddushin, it doesn't uproot the original Kiddushin.]

7) There's an inquiry, according to R' Eliezer, if he says "except for Reuvein and Shimon" and then says before giving the Get "it's for Reuvein and Shimon." Is he adding onto to what he already said was permitted [Tosfos: and, now that he includes everyone, it's a Get even to the Rabanan]; or he's reversing and forbidding who he originally permitted to, and is saying that it's only for Reuvein and Shimon, and not anyone else.

8) If you want to say that he's just adding on to permit who he originally forbade; what would be the Halacha if he only says that it's for Reuvein, or only said it's for Shimon? Is he exact (and excludes the other), or does he mean both, and only uses Reuvein as an example since he started his original statement mentioning him first. If you want to say that he only meant Reuvein, how about when he only says Shimon? Then, perhaps, he might mean both, and he only said Shimon since that was the last one he mentioned.

9) R' Ashi inquires: what happens if he says "even Shimon”? [Tosfos says: this is also a question if he says “even Reuvein."] Perhaps, he's saying "besides Reuvein, even Shimon," or "besides all we permitted earlier," but not Reuvein.

10) R' Eliezer admits to the case where he says "except for Reuvein" that if she marries someone else in between, she's permitted to Reuveun afterwards. [Tosfos explains: when she gets remarried, all her marriedness completely comes to the second husband, and breaks any marriage that remained by the first husband. (However, it's difficult who he's admitting to since the Rabanan held that he was never divorced from the first husband.)]

11) R' Tarfon wanted to claim against R' Eliezer; if it was true that that such a divorce is Kosher, then if she marries the exception's brother and dies, you'll cancel a Torah law of Yibum. The disproof to that claim: if so, how can you marry your brother's daughter if the same cancellation of a Mitzvah will be applicable. (We must say that he's claiming on the opinion that R' Eliezer allows "on condition," for if it's when he says an exception, then she's no longer married to the original husband when she marries the brother.)

12) R' Yossi Haglili wants to claim on R' Eliezer: how could it be that, by a married lady, that she'll be permitted to one person and prohibited to another. However, the disproof is that, this is the nature of all married ladies, that they're permitted to one person (the husband), and prohibited to others. (We must say that he's claiming on the opinion that R' Eliezer allows an exception, but it's not a problem if he made and "on condition," since it's permitted through non-marital relations.)

13) R' Akiva wants to have two claims on R' Eliezer; one on the opinion that R' Eliezer allows "on condition," and another on the opinion when he makes an exception. As to "on condition," if she marries someone else in between, and then marries the one he made a condition on [Tosfos: after the death of the original husband, or else Kiddushin wouldn't take effect]; then the Get will be retroactively canceled and the children from the middle one will be Mamzeirim. The disproof to this, that all conditions have this problem.

14) R' Akiva claims against the opinion that R' Eliezer allows when he says an exception, we see by a divorcee to a Kohein, which is only a Lav, when you divorce a girl to allow one man, she's prohibited to all the Kohanim. So, of course by the prohibition of a married lady that has the death penalty, if you divorce her to everyone except for one person, the same way she's forbidden to that exception, she should be forbidden to everyone else too. The disproof to that: the prohibition for Kehuna is different and their forbidden even if it wasn't a real Get since the Torah gives them extra Mitzvos. (We must say this disproof is only according to the opinion it's learned from "she went out from his house and married someone else," that even if she only becomes permitted to one man, it's a Get. However, according to the Drasha of "a woman divorced from her husband," even if she divorced from her husband, but not permitted to anyone else; it's a Get and she's Pasul to Kehuna; you can't disprove it saying that the prohibition for Kehuna is different and they’re forbidden even if it wasn't a real Get since the Torah gives them extra Mitzvos. After all, if we learn this Drasha leniently to compare the Kohein's Lav to the working of divorcing, we would learn it for a stringency. [Tosfos says: granted that R' Eliezer learns it from a Gezeiras Hakasuv, but because of this claim, it would be better to Darshen like the Rabanan.]

15) R' Yehoshua claims against R' Eliezer: we have a Hekish in the Torah between right before the first Kiddushin to right before the second Kiddushin (when someone takes a wife etc. and divorces, and becomes a wife to another man). So, just like she wasn't attached to any man before her first Kiddushin, so too, she can't be attached to any man before the second Kiddushin. [Tosfos says: although they can't be the same regarding being permitted to a Kohein, since she's permitted before the first one, and forbidden before the second one; but we can at least make the Hekish regarding being married to anyone.]

16) R' Elazar b. Azarya claimed that the Pasuk says about a Get 'Kareis,' to separate, so you need something that separates between husband and wife, and this Get won't separate them.

17) However, the Rabanan learn from that Pasuk that you need a Get to be something that separates him from her. Thus, if he writes in the Get that it's on condition that she doesn't drink wine or return to her father's house; if the condition is for her whole life, it's not cutting her off from him since she always needs to keep the condition. However, if it's only a condition that she needs through someone else's life, it's considered as the Get cuts him off from her, (although it doesn't cut her off immediately), since it's possible that it will eventually come to cut him off if he dies before her. However, R' Elazar b. Azarya learns both Drashos since it says Kreisos when it could have said Kareis, and the Rabanan don't agree to add a Drasha because of that.

18) If he says "today you're not my wife, but tomorrow, you'll revert to being my wife," even R' Eliezer agrees that, once she's completely divorced for a moment, she remains divorced always. [Tosfos says: the reason we need to write in Gitten that she's divorced "from this day onwards," (although once she's divorced now, we said that it's automatically forever); because it just for the document to be more explicit.]

19) If someone gives a Get on condition that she marries a certain person; she shouldn't marry him since it looks as if they're giving away their wives as a gift. However, if she marries him, he doesn't need to divorce her just because of that decree. However, if she marries someone else, he needs to even divorce her, and we don't rely that he'll divorce her eventually so to marry the person that was the condition in the Get. [Tosfos points out: if she would, then it wouldn't even look like he was given this wife as a gift, since he married someone else in between.] Even according to R' Nachman who says: if someone vows that he won't sleep today if I sleep tomorrow, that he can sleep today and we don't need to worry that he'll sleep tomorrow (and R' Yehuda holds he can't sleep today since he might sleep tomorrow). After all, there he has the ability to keep himself awake, and if he's falling asleep he can prick himself with a thorn to prevent him from sleeping. However, this woman doesn't have the ability to divorce herself. [Tosfos says: even though if she doesn't fulfill the condition, she's a married lady retroactively, and the Kiddushin her husband gave her was not a real Kiddushin; however, if she fulfills the condition, it was a Kiddushin and she would need a get from him.]

20) [Tosfos says: although it's possible for a wife to claim that she's disgusted with her husband, and can get a divorce, (however, it is not difficult to the opinions of Rashi and R' Tam who says that Beis Din doesn't force him), and also, she can get a divorce in this case since she’s now standing in a status of a married lady; but the husband may have a way to constantly dodge giving a Get.]

21) If the husband says: this is your Get on condition you ascend to heaven, or that you should descend all the way to the depths etc. the Rabanan say that it's not a Get [Tosfos: if she doesn't fulfill it, but it's a Get if she can ascend through saying Hashem's name. Although to be similar to the conditions of the children of Gad and Reuvein, it needs to be something that you can have an agent do it (and this is impossible to even do himself); we must say that this is only regarding the action (and giving a Get is able through an agent) but not the condition.] R' Yehuda b. Teima says that it's a Get since the condition is invalid since you need the condition to be something that's able to be fulfilled.

22) The Halacha is like R' Yehuda b. Teima.

23) Everyone agrees that, if someone makes a condition that she'll have relations with a certain person; it's considered as a condition that's able to be fulfilled since she can bribe him to marry her and have that condition met in a permitted way. However, if he says "on condition you eat pork;" Abaya says that it's a condition that can't be done, and Rava says that it could be done, but she'll get lashes for it. However, if the condition was that she has relations to her or his father, since she can't sin without their consent; everyone considers it that it's impossible to fulfill the condition.

24) This is not considered as a condition that goes against the Torah since there's nothing forcing her to transgress, since she could just not fulfill the condition, and she won't be divorced. it's only a problem in a case where someone gets married on condition that he won't owe his wife clothing, food, or timely relations, since he would be automatically married while canceling the Torah's obligations.

25) If he gives a Get "except for a certain person," he needs to take back the Get and give it a second time to be permitted to everyone. This is even according to Rebbi who argues on R' Shimon b. Gamliel that, if you tell your wife, when giving the Get, to take a loan document; you can tell her right away that it's really a Get and she's divorced without taking the Get back and giving it again. After all, it's only over there that the giving of the Get didn't accomplish anything (so you can have that giving accomplish divorcing now). However, by saying 'except,' the giving accomplishes something by making her Pasul to a Kohein; therefore, you need to give it a second time. [Tosfos says: the same applies if an agent brings the Get overseas and didn't say "it was given and signed before me," he needs to take it back and give it again saying it even according to Rebbi. After all, the first giving accomplished making her a divorced lady from the Torah.]

26) You can only take it back if the condition of "except him" was said verbally, but it's Pasul if it's written in the Get, even if you erase it afterwards. [Tosfos explains: since the Get was not written to permit her for everyone, it's not a proper Get. However, other conditions may be erased as long as you inserted that you erased them before you finish the Get writing "Shrir Vkayam." However, the world is accustomed to be stringent.]

27) R' Safra held that this is true even if the husband verbally said "except for him" while writing the important parts of the Get if he reverses his condition when he gives the Get. [Tosfos says: since the Sofar writing the Get intends to write it for whatever the husband wants it to be written for when he gives it.]

28) Rava says that it's only Kosher if he verbally said it after the writing of the important parts of the Get, but during those important parts; the Get's Pasul. Therefore, Rava told Sofrim to keep the husband quiet during the writing of the get [Tosfos: even from other conditions] when writing the important parts of the Get.

29) Rebbi Pasuls all conditions written in a Get, and the Chachumim say that only writing "except for him," as it's Pasul even when saying it verbally. However, conditions saying "on condition etc." since it's Kosher when said verbally, it's Kosher when written in the document. [Rashi says: Rebbi decreed to Pasul all conditions, even when kept, since you might come to write "except him." However, Tosfos asks: how can you make a decree to forbid writing a condition, like you should give me two hundred Zuz, because you might write 'except;' since they're not comparable, since the former doesn't leave out anyone from the divorce like the latter does. Also, if so, you can't make any conditions according to Rebbi, even verbally (since it should be Pasul whenever "except him" is Pasul). Also, we see R' Zeira allows making a condition after the main part of the Get was written, even though saying "except him" is Pasul then too. Also, since the Rabanan bring a proof what's Kosher what's written inside from what's Kosher when said verbally, should tell us that a condition should be Kosher verbally according to all.

Rather, the Ri says: if the condition was fulfilled, it's Kosher according to all. However, they argue about an unfulfilled condition that he wants to erase before giving, that they Pasuled since if you write "except him" and erased it, it's still Pasul since it wasn't written to divorce her completely. (However, when a condition is written in, it's Kosher from the Torah if you erase it and we don't say that it was only written for this condition, as long as it was written to divorce her completely. Erasing a condition is not similar to forgiving a condition, that doesn't work, since the Get was only given on that condition, but here, he removed the condition before it was given.]

30) R' Zeira says that the argument between Rebbi and the Chachumim was when writing the condition in the important part of the Get, but if it was written afterwards, all permit. [Tosfos explains: since, even if you would write "except for him" after the main part of the Get, it's not Pasul from the Torah if it's erased even if the husband commanded it to him while writing the main part of the Get (like R' Safra held). Thus, they only Pasuled writing "except him" after the main part in order that they shouldn't permit it when writing it in the main part. Therefore, we shouldn't forbid writing a condition after the main part of the Get and erasing it since it would be a double Gezeira.] Rava says: they argue when it's written after the main part of the Get [Tosfos explains: Rebbi decreed it Pasul because you might permit it by "except him." Although that's also only rabbinically Pasul, it's not a double Gezeira since he holds that it's all one Gezeira.] However, everyone Pasuls writing a condition during the main part since we decree it perhaps you'll write "except him." [Tosfos explains: as Rava is consistent to his opinion that "except him" is Pasul in the main part from the Torah even if it was only said verbally.]

31) If someone gives a Get on condition that it should be except from someone that Kiddushin doesn't take effect, like an Ervah with Kareis, or a non-Jew and slave; it's Kosher. However, it's not a Get if it's someone who can have Kiddushin, even if it's sinful, like a Chayiv Lav.

32) If he writes "except for a certain minor," even though he can't make Kiddushin now, since he will eventually become able to have Kiddushin; he's considered to be someone that can make Kiddushin. A proof to this: a minor girl can accept her Get [Tosfos: even in a case where she had Nesuin, or her father died, where she can't anymore be Mekudesh while she's a minor]. Although you need to be someone who can have Kiddushin to get divorced, as we have a Hekish between Kiddushin and divorce; but since she'll eventually become able to have Kiddushin; she's considered to be someone that can make Kiddushin.

33) There's an unresolved inquiry if he says "except for those that weren't born yet." We can't prove it from the case of “except for the non-Jew” that works, although that he may convert and be fit for Kiddushin; but he's not as destined to convert as these people are destined to be born.

34) There's another unresolved inquiry if he says "except for your sister's husband," since her sister may die and she would be able to have Kiddushin from her husband. We can't prove it from the case of “except for the non-Jew” that works, although that he may convert and be fit for Kiddushin; but it's not as common for the non-Jew to convert than the sister to die.

35) There's another unresolved inquiry if he says "except for your promiscuous relations." After all, he didn't leave over anyone who she can't marry. You can't prove it that it works for an Ervah, who Kiddushin doesn't take effect, thus it's only regarding promiscuous relations; implying that it doesn't work if you exclude other one's promiscuous relations. After all, we can say that it refers to a case where she transgressed and marries the Ervah (and live like man and wife).

36) There are many other inquiries: what if he says that he divorces except for having anal relations? It may work since he didn't leave anything over in the normal relations, or since the Torah compares anal relations to regular relations by calling it "layings of a woman" in the plural. Also, what happens if he says "except for annulling your vows" or, "except for inheriting you" or "except for your Trumah.?" [Rashi says: if you remarry a Kohein, you can't eat Trumah. Tosfos disagrees since she's anyhow a divorcee who's forbidden to a Kohein. So, even if she marries a Kohein, she's forbidden to eat Trumah since she's designated for a sinful relations. Rather, we refer to a Kohein husband who divorces her that she should be considered still married to her to eat Trumah. Even Rashi explains like this in the cases of "except for annulling your vows" or, "except for inheriting you."] Do we say that this doesn't leave anything over in marriage; or do we say that, since these things are dependent on marriage, it's considered as if he left it over.

37) We have another unresolved inquiry: if he says your divorce except for others being Mekadesh you with a document. Do we say that, since they can still give Kiddushin with money and relations, he didn't leave anything over, or do we say that you need to be Mekadesh in all ways, since we have a Hekish between all the methods of Kiddushin, it's considered as if he left over.

38) The Tanna Kama says that the main line of a Get is writing "you are now permitted to marry everyone" and he doesn't need to say "from this Get." As he holds that hints that are not compelling (to mean a certain way), still conveys what you want (and we assume he means to divorce with the Get). R' Yehuda says that it must contain that you're divorcing from the Get, since we don't say uncompelling hints convey that way, and I might think without this that you're divorcing through your words, and the document is only proof to your divorce. [Tosfos says: in Nedarim, it seems that they argue whether you need to say "from me" if we should assume it's from you since people don't divorce other people's wives. In truth, they argue in both aspects.]

39) You need to write "V'dun'" (i.e., with this) and not 'V'din,' since it might be taken as if he's only divorcing since it's the Din, law, that he needs to divorce her.

40) You shouldn't write "Eegeres" with a Yud between the Aleph and Gimal, since it connotes a roof. So write it without the Yud to connote a letter. [Tosfos says: you should write "V'egeres, with a Vuv, that it connotes going on the divorce that's mentioned before it, and not some random letter.]

41) You should write the word Limhach (without a Yud between the lamed and Mem). Otherwise, with a Yud, it connotes that you're counting something from this point and on. Also you got to keep the Hey's leg from touching the roof, which would make it into a Ches, and it will connote Limchack, like a joke.

42) You need to write Diyishavyayin and Diyitzviyayin with three Yuds, since with two Yuds will connote random women, and not those in your possession. [Tosfos says that the Di of the prefix also needs a Yud, and also another Yud after the Taf, or Tzdi. Thus each word has five Yuds in them Di Tehavin is two words, but 'Diyasiv' (on a certain river) is one word.]

43) You must lengthen the Vuv of the words 'Taruchun, Shvukun [Tosfos: and P'shutun] so not to look like a Yud and it will mean random divorcings.

44) You need to lengthen the Vuv of the word 'Kadu' so it shouldn't look like Kidee, which implies that you're divorcing for no reason. [Tosfos says: you don't need to make it extra long, or to extra distance the Hey's leg from its roof so it shouldn't look like a Ches, but rather just take care to make sure it looks like a Vuv or Hey. However, we are accustomed to make the Vuv extra long, or to extra distance the Hey's leg from its roof, but if you don't do it, it's not a problem. However, if the Vuv is a little short, you bring a child that's not too smart, and not too dumb, to read it, and see if he reads it as a Vuv or Yud.]

45) You shouldn't write "Lee'isnasba" that may connote not to marry; but 'L'hisnasba.'

46) If someone gave a Get to his wife and said “you’re now a free woman,” she’s not divorced. If you said to a maid-slave “you’re permitted to (marry) everyone,” she’s not freed. If he says to his wife “you are now to yourself,” he’s divorcing her. After all, if it works by freeing a slave writing “you’ll be a free person” or “you shall be to yourself” whom you completely own his essence, of course it should release a wife, which you don’t own her essence.

47) Rava enacted to write in the Get "from this day" (as in contrast to R' Yossi's opinion that the date of the document tells us it's given now without writing it explicitly) and forever (to exclude R' Nachman who says that she's divorced forever even if he writes that today's she's divorced but tomorrow she's my wife.)

48) “I will have no business with you,” and “you shall be to yourself,” are valid terms for freeing one’s slave.

49) In a sale document for a slave: they enacted to write " there's no problem from the government, or from anyone else. [Tosfos says: although, anyhow, if you bought a slave that the government wants to execute, it's a mistaken sale; but they enacted to write it so the document should say so explicitly.] He doesn't have any blemish or boils for two years (since if he had it within two years, even if it cleared up, it has a good chance for it to come back). [Tosfos says: although we say we're not worried for a blemish by a slave, since there is no practical blemish that would cancel the sale; that only means that it's uncommon for it, and these boils are uncommon to come]

50) There are three rabbinically invalidated Gitten. Although one cannot marry with them, if one does, his children are Kosher (I.e., not Mamzeirim). The first one is that the husband wrote the text without witnesses signing. Case two: witnesses signed, but the Get wasn’t dated. Case three: there was a date written, but just one witness signed. Rav and R' Yochanan hold it’s the husband’s handwriting, but not that a scribe wrote it. Shmuel explains it to mean that a scribe wrote it. It's only Pasul L'chacthila by a Sofar that's not such an expert on the Hilchos Gitten, but those who are experts, it's Kosher L'chatchila. [Tosfos explains: according to Rav, he holds that if the scribe writes it, it's Kosher L'chatchila in all cases. Alternatively, he holds that if an expert scribe writes it, it's Kosher L'chatchila. If he wasn't an expert, It's Pasul even B'dieved.]

51) Rav held: if B'dieved, he divorces with these Gitten, and she remarries and has children, she doesn't need to get a divorce so not to cause rumors of illegitimacy on her children. However, R' Yochanan and Levi say that she doesn't need to be divorced if she B'dieved gets remarried even without children.

52) We say if the husband divorces the Ervah with one of the three Gitten that you shouldn't give L'chatchila, but if it's given, she's B'dieved divorced that, if she remarries, the children are not Mamzeirim; if the original husband dies, then the sister-wife should get Chalitza and not Yibum. Although, if we allow the wife to stay by the new husband, they'll think that it's a true divorcing and the original husband's brother will come to do Yibum; we don't need to worry about that since, even if he does Yibum to the sister-wife, it's valid from the Torah since the Ervah is truly divorced.

53) The Mishna doesn't list "an old Get" (where they secluded after the Get's writing); according to those who say that, by our three Gitten, if they marry, they need to be divorced; we must say since you don't need to divorce after "an old Get." According to the opinion that even with these three, she doesn't need to get divorced; we must say that, if B'dieved she got divorced with an old Get, she can marry L'chatchila.

54) The reason that we don't list a tied get missing one fold without a signature (lit. a bald Get), where the Rabanan also say that, if she remarries, the child is Kosher; to the opinion that, with these three, she doesn't need to get divorced; we must say that she needs to be divorced by a "bald Get." According to the opinion that, with these three, she needs to get divorced; we must say that, our Mishna doesn't count a bald Get because we're not referring to tied Gets. [Tosfos says: you can't answer that the difference is that, by a bald Get, she needs a divorce even with children since, when the children are Kosher, we never make her get divorced so not to have rumors on the legitimacy of her children.]

55) The reason that they didn't list not dating from the king's reign (which is Pasul to keep the peace with the king); since she needs to divorce in that case if she remarries. According to those who hold they must divorce in these three cases too, we must say the author of our Mishna is R' Meir who holds that, if they didn't date it by the king's reign, the child is a Mamzer.

56) We anyhow need to say that the Mishna is R' Meir since we don't count as one of them a get brought from across the seas and the agent didn't say "it was written and signed before me." So, it must be like R' Meir who says the children are Mamzeirim, and not like the Rabanan who say that they're Kosher.

57) All birds who drink from the Parah Aduma waters Pasul it since they drip some back into the utensil [Tosfos says the Pasul is because that dripped-in water didn't come into the utensil through a spring. However, it's not Pasul since the animal did work with it (through drinking) since that's only Pasul before you put in the ash, not afterwards. However, it seems that it would Pasul if you lose focus on the waters even after placing the ash.] The exception is a dove and the large fly that flies among wool since they suck it up without dripping. However, that's only by the large one, but the smaller one (less than a Kazayis), Pasuls the water.

58) R’ Elazar holds those who witnessed the handing over of the Get validates it and we don’t need witnesses signing on the Get and you can collect the Kesuva from sold land with liens. Rav says that the Halacha follows R' Elazar regarding divorce documents; and Shmuel says the Halacha is according to R’ Elazar by all other documents too.

59) The Rabanan hold: if you don't have witnesses to the Get, it's not considered as even having the 'smell' of a Get on it (to Pasul to a Kohein).

60) If you write two identical Gitten (for two couples) and they get mixed up, each husband can give both Gets to their wives and they'll be divorced no matter what. This is not only according to R' Meir who holds the signing witnesses validate the document, and the witnesses knew at that time which Get they signed on. However, this is also according to R' Elazar who says that the witnesses to the Get's handing over validates the Get. Despite not knowing which is the right Get that's being handed over, since we don't need the Get to be handed over L'shma, only the writing or signing. However, if one of the Gitten get lost, the second one can't be given either.

61) If you have two Gitten written on one Get with one pair of signatures at the end; if they're written in one 'grouping' (explained later); they're Kosher. However, if each one has an unimportant part of the Get written separately; and the witnesses may be only read with the bottom Get, only the Get that's read along with the witnesses is Kosher.

62) R' Yochanan says: "one grouping" is defined as one date for both of them, and "an unimportant part of the Get written separately" refers to writing a date for each Get. We must say that it's the same date, since, otherwise, the top one is anyhow Pasul since it was written by day, and signed at night at a later Get. Also, we need to say that the two Gitten are connected with a Vuv, or else the witnesses are definitely only read with the bottom Get. This is similar to a case where witnesses sign on a document that has a sending regards at the end; if the sending regards is not attach to the document with a Vuv, we assume that the witnesses only signed on the regards.

63) Reish Lakish explains: even if you have one date for both of them, it's considered as if they have different unimportant parts of the Get. We only consider it as written in "one group" if you write that "Reuvein and Shimon divorce their wives Rochel and Leah." However, afterwards, you need to write each couple separately or it would be Pasul for having two women divorced with one Get, as the Torah says "you write for her," implying, not for her and her friend." We have a Braisa like him, and when you rewrite each Get, if you add the date for each one, the Tanna Kama says it's Kosher as long as there's no other space between them. R' Meir holds that a date makes a separation even without any extra space.

64) If you have two Gitten written on the side of the other; if there are two Hebrew signing witnesses signed under the two Gitten, and underneath that, two Greek signing witnesses (who sign their father's name first, and then wrote 'Ben' as to say that the following is his son, and then write their own name at the end, all the way on the left); the right Get, where the first witnesses are signed under is a Kosher Get according to all. However, the left Get; Zeiri taught that it's also Kosher since the Greek witnesses sign under it. Although there's a distance of two spaces from the Get until their signatures; however, since it's filled with the Hebrew signers' signatures, they're no worse than if they're filled with Pasul witnesses, which connects the Kosher witnesses to the Get. However, the Tanna of our Mishna Pasuls since we need to worry that the later Greek witnesses, or, at least one of them, decided to change the way they signed in order to mirror the way the first Hebrew witnesses signed; so the left Get doesn't have any witnesses on it.

65) You can say that the first witnesses are considered signed on the left Get also if the name 'Reuvein' is only below the right Get, and the name "Ben Yaakov Eid" is under the left Get.[Tosfos says: granted, usually, just having the name 'Reuvein' by itself without a qualification of 'Eid' is not a Kosher signature, still, it's considered here a proper signature since the name 'Reuvein’ is read with the end of the name "Ben Yaakov Eid," and it's as if it's written "Reuvein Eid."] The Mishna only Pasuls the left Get if he writes "Revein Ben' under the right Get and "Yaakov Eid" under the left Get. We can't say that you can Kasher the right Get with 'Reuven Ben' [Tosfos: and it's is read with the end of the name "Yaakov Eid," and it's as if it's written "Reuvein Eid," not like Rashi explains,] and Kasher the left Get with "Yaakov Eid;" we can explain the case where he didn't write 'Eid,' so 'Yaakov' alone is not a Kosher signature. Alternatively, we refer to a case where we know that Yaakov didn't sign it. [Tosfos says: this implies that, if you're not sure who signed it, you can assume it was Yaakov. After all, if it's sent from across the seas, we can assume the agent saying "it was written and signed before me," is testifying to it. Or, even in Eretz Yisrael, we assume all signatures are correct until someone claims otherwise.] We also can't say that Revein signed using his father's name [Tosfos: and we can assume that since he consciously signed that name under the second Get,] since he wouldn't abandon writing his own name and sign with his father's name. We don't say that his father's name is a symbol for him, like we see that famous rabbis signed with their symbols [Tosfos says: although they need to have their symbols publicized through their letters and responseas; but here it's unnecessary since we see he signed his own name under the first Get]; since people don't make their father's name as a symbol for themselves.

66) If the Hebrew and Greek signers alternate their signatures (see picture in Rashi for the case); we need to worry that the Greek ones might have changed their signatures to mirror the Hebrew ones, or that the second Hebrew signer changed the way he signs to mirror the Greek one before him, so we don't have a proof that any of these Gitten have two witnesses on them. [Tosfos disagrees with the picture of Rashi and he doesn't hold that the first two witnesses were on the right Get and the second two were on the left Get, but the Hebrew ones were signed regularly and, therefore, simply read, they were signed on the right Get, and the Greeks signed regularly, an simply read, they're signing from left to right and signed on the left Get.]

67) If part of the Get was on the first column of the page, and the end of the Get was in the second column, and the witnesses sign underneath the second column; it's Kosher. We don't need to worry that they were two Gitten written side by side, and you cut off the top of the second Get, and the bottom of the first Get [Tosfos: as we always assume that it's Pasul, like we assume that the Greek witnesses might have changed the way they signed to mirror the Hebrew signers. We only wanted to assume it's Kosher earlier when the right Get has 'Reuven Ben' under it and the left Get with "Yaakov Eid" under it since he consciously signed that name under the second Get.] The reason we don't worry about it since we refer to a case where there's empty space above the second column, and empty space below the first column. [Tosfos says: from here we can infer that you usually don't need to leave an empty space above or below a Get or any other document.] We don't need to worry that he changed his mind when he wrote the first column, and that's why there's a stop; and only afterwards he changed his mind to continue. [Rashi first explanation: and, perhaps, he canceled the Get after the first column and it's now Pasul. Tosfos says: even though we Paskin like R' Nachman who says that, even if you cancel a Get after it's written, it's still Kosher and you can divorce the wife with it; that may only be if the Get's finished, but he can cancel it when it's not finished. Rashi's second explanation: we're worried that it was written by day and signed later at night. Tosfos disagrees. After all, witnesses won't sign on a predated Get. The Ri explains: we're afraid that the first column was written for a different couple, but they change their mind in the middle, and it was finished for a second couple with the same names. Even according to R' Meir who says that you need to add a distinction feature to know who the couple is from the Get; we can say that they changed their mind before the names were written.] The reason we don't need to worry about that since we refer to a case where you switched columns in middle of a sentence. Like if he writes "you are" on the end of the right column, and 'permitted' on the top of the left column, and we don't need to worry he changed his mind mid sentence.

68) R' Ashi answers that we refer to a case that the whole border wasn't treated to make it into Klaf (since it's the place where they used rocks to hold it down when they stretch it out to treat it). Therefore, there's nothing suspicious that it was written in two columns.

69) If witnesses sign on the top of the Get, or on its side, it's not Kosher even if the top of the signatures face the Get.

70) "The writing of a Sofar is Kosher with a witness." R' Yirmiya explains: the Sofar signing on the Get with another witness. It's like R' Yossi who holds that words (i.e., commands) are not given to agency is even if they tell them to tell others to do an action, and he's not worried that a bad thing will come from it that, if we allow the Sofar to sign, maybe a husband will command others to sign, and because of the Sofar's embarrassment (that he feels that he's not considered as a trustworthy witness) they'll honor him to sign, and it will invalidate the Get; since you can't command someone to tell someone else to sign, it wouldn't be a problem since no one can sign if he didn't hear it directly from the husband. [Tosfos says: it seems from this Gemara that the Halacha is not like Rav who says that even with his writing the Get without his signature is Kosher if the Sofar is an expert in Halacha. However, it seems that the Halacha is not like R' Yossi, but like the Amoraim who Pasuls a Sofar who signs since they hold you can command someone to tell someone else to sign.]

71) If you sign "Ploni Eid," or "Ben Ploin Eid," or Ploni Ben Plonei: even without signing Eid," the signature is Kosher.

72) Also, if you sign with your family's nickname, it's Kosher. The Tanna Kama says that it lasts even for ten generations, and R' Shimon b. Elazar says you can only use it after three generations.

73) A Get forced by a Jew; if the Halacha held that he's obligated to divorce, it's a Kosher Get. If the Halacha didn't obligate the Get, it's not Kosher, but it Pasuls her to a Kohein. However, a non-Jew forcing the Get is Pasul, even though the Halacha obligates him to do so, since the Torah doesn't support non-Jews to enforce Torah laws. However, if he forces an unobligated Get, it doesn't even Pasul her to a Kohein.

74) We can't say that, really, the non-Jew has the ability to enforce Torah law, but the rabbis said not to do it since we don't want women to hire a non-Jew to force their husbands to divorce them. After all, if they have the right to enforce from the Torah, they should have Pasul her to a Kohein when the non-Jew forced an unobligated Get just like they did by a Jew.

75) If the non-Jew hits the Jew and tells him to follow what the Jews command him [Tosfos: it's Kosher].

76) We can force a Get in Chutz L'aretz, even though we don't have any Smicha here, and to force you need expert judges, and not laymen; we have to say that we were made the agents of the rabbis in Eretz Yisrael for common cases. [Tosfos says: even nowadays, when there's no expert judges in Eretz Yisrael; since we're agents of the earlier expert judges. For this reason, we except converts these days, since they're common, we're the agents of the earlier expert judges.] However, they didn't make us their agents to judge robbery and assaults since they're not common. [Tosfos says: although we see that they did judge robberies in Bavel; that was only with a consent of the robber through a threat to taking him to Eretz Yisrael to judge if he didn't. Alternatively, we only don't judge robberies that came from assaults (i.e., aggravated robberies); but other robberies are common.]

77) [Tosfos says: there's a question if women are valid to judge. We can't bring a proof from Devorah since she might have not personally judged, but taught male judges how to judge. Alternatively, it was usual for the litigants to accept her to be the judge since she had the Shechina with her, (but she couldn't force a judgment like male judges can). However, the Yerushalmi implies that they're Pasul from judging.]

78) If there are rumors in the city that an unmarried woman received Kiddushin; we need to be concern that it was true. If there's rumors that she got divorced, we believe it. However, this is only by this unmarried woman, we believe about the Kiddushin and divorce that happened one after the other; but we don't believe that a Kohein's wife got divorced and is now forbidden to her husband since we don't heed rumors after people are married, and he doesn't need to get rid of her unless there's witnesses to the divorce.

79) If a rumor comes out [Tosfos: even before they're married] that she had promiscuous relations [Rashi with a non-Jew or slave. Tosfos: or any Ervah that has Kreises, that makes her Pasul to a Kohein. The Ri says that she would be Pasul to a Kohein even if we don't know who she had relations with, we consider her as she had relations with a Mamzer or Nissin until she proves otherwise. This is even to R' Gamliel who says that she's believed to say that the man was a Kosher Jew; that's only when she claims that she had relations with a Kosher Jew, but if she claims she didn't have relations, or she doesn't know who she had relations with, R' Gamliel admits she's Pasul.] Rava says: you don't need to worry about rumors since the rumors may be that she acted loosely, but not that she actually had relations. This is like R' Yochanan b. Nuri's opinion that, if not, a lady can't ever remain under her husband [Tosfos explains: since her Kohein husband can't know what rumors people have about his wife before the marriage, and what could he have done about it?] R' Meir held that she needs to be divorce if she eats or walks with her head up, or if she nurses her son in the market. R' Akiva says: when she spins threads in the moonlight, or when the town gossipers gossip about her.

80) We only have concerned about a rumor that a girl had Kiddushin when there's reasons to think it happened; that the place was set up for a wedding ceremony, that the lights were lit, and the beds were made, and people are coming in and out and saying that she had Kiddushin today. Or, the women who spin threads at night are making merriment with her and saying that she had Kiddushin today.

81) However, just a regular rumor that she's married, or even if she just had Kiddushin [Tosfos: that's not as publicize as marriage, thus it's a Chiddush not to heed it despite that it's not such a proof against it that we don't know about it.] Or, that they didn't say who she had Kiddushin from, or that they say she had Kiddushin in a different town; or rumors that she's a Mamzeiris or a slave. Or rumors that a man made Kiddushin or made his property Hefker, we don't listen to any of them.

82) [Tosfos sets up the Gemara: in a case where we don't have a reason to say the rumors are true] you only believe a rumor with a strong basis to the source. Like you ask people where they heard it, and you traced it to two people who left overseas.

83) R' Chisda says: we're not concerned for rumors unless we heard it from a Kosher witness. [Tosfos says: although we said earlier that we listen to women; that's only when we have a reason to say the rumors are true. Alternatively, he only has the text about people coming in and out, and not about women.] Therefore, [Tosfos: since we don't listen to rumors easily], he holds that you can cancel rumors [Tosfos: if the two witnesses come back from across the seas and deny starting the rumors] and you can stop believing the rumors. R' Sheishes says that we listen to rumors even from women. Therefore, since we easily believe rumors, we don't cancel rumors (even when they prove false).

84) If there's rumors that she was Mekadesh with a date pit, we can cancel the rumor even to R' Sheishes since people will say that the rabbis investigated and found that it wasn't worth a Prutah. You can also cancel rumors that she was Mekadesh to one of Ploni's sons, since they could have investigated and found out that it was of his minor sons. You also don't need to worry about a minor who Mekadesh, even if he's large for his age, people won't confuse him for an adult since his immaturity will show that he's really a minor.

85) If there's a counter rumor to say that the rumor of Kiddushin may have not be valid anymore, like if he divorced her, or it was given on condition, or if it was questionable whether it landed closer to him than to her; we don't have concern that she's Mekudeshes.

86) R' Yochanan says: this is only that the counter rumor came out at the same time as the rumor, so we never had needed to forbid her for the Kiddushin. However, if we needed to forbid her already for the Kiddushin rumor, we don't heed the counter rumor. Rabbah b. R' Huna says that we heed the counter rumor even if it comes out ten days after the original rumor of the Kiddushin.

87) R' Zvid holds: even if there's no clear counter rumor, but there's some reason to say that the counter claim might have happened; we heed it.

88) There's no proof to him that, if someone was told that her husband died, and had Kiddushin from another man, and the husband returns before Nesuin; she may return to him and she doesn't even need a Get from the second husband. So, it would seem that we don't say that people will say the first one divorced his wife, the second one took her, and now, the first one is taking her back his divorced wife after she was married to someone else; so people will assume it's because the second one only gave Kiddushin to the wife on condition that her first husband doesn't come back. After all, we can say that the reason it's really permitted is because the husband came back and claimed that he never divorced her, and not because that there's a place for a counterclaim that the second one made a condition to his Kiddushin. The reason that it doesn't help after they had Nesuin since we fine her since she did a prohibition of having relations while she was still legally married to her first husband.

89) Any rumor that Beis Din didn't recognized, it's not a rumor that we need to be concerned for.

90) R' Ashi says: any rumor that comes after Nesuin (that she had Kiddushin from someone else first), we don't need to heed, but if it's only after Kiddushin, you would need the rumored one to divorce her so the second one can remain married. However, R' Chaviva says: you don't need to be concerned for rumors after Kiddushin, and that's the Halacha too.

91) If there's rumors first that Reuveun gave her Kiddushin, and then Shimon gave her Kiddushin; and it came out that, after investigating, the rumor was false; according to the opinion that we cancel false rumors, she can just be married to Shimon. According to the opinion that you can't just cancel rumors after they're proven false; she still needs a Get from Reuvein.

92) However, if it comes out that the rumors of Reuvein's Kiddushin were correct; Shmuel holds that she doesn't need a Get from Shimon. R' Huna holds that, whenever a married lady accepts Kiddushin from another person, you need to worry about the Kiddushin. This is like R' Hamnuna, who says that a woman is believed to say to her husband that she's divorced, since we assume that a woman is not brazen to lie before her husband like that. However, Shmuel holds that it's only before her husband, but not in this case where it wasn't before her husband. [Tosfos explains: even R' Huna must hold this, since the Mishna in Kesuvos says once two other witnesses come to claim a woman was married, the woman is no longer believed to say she was divorced since she's not the mouth that's making her a married lady to say that the same mouth is believed that she's no longer married. Rather, he holds that, once she's believed before him, we should at least be concerned stringently to the possibility of divorce and need a Get from the second husband.]

93) [Tosfos says: R' Tam permitted a woman that rumors came out after she's married that she had Kiddushin earlier from someone else to her husband, especially since the one who supposedly gave the first Kiddushin was at the Chuppa. After all, rumors are not heeded after they're married, and also, she got married to someone else in front of the first husband, so we assume, even if they were married, she was divorced since the Halacha is like R' Hanuna.]

94) If it's impossible to verify if the first one did Kiddushin, or not; R' Huna says that the first one needs to divorce her and the second one remains married to her. After all, if the second one divorces her, and the first one takes her, then people will think that he's taking back his divorced wife after she was married to someone else. However, R' Shisha b. R' Idi held that the first one can take her since people will assume it was because the rabbis investigated his original Kiddushin and found that it was a mistaken Kiddushin that doesn't take effect.

95) If both Kiddushins come from rumors; R' Pappa held (according to R' Huna's opinion) that we also only allow, after the first one divorces her, that the second one remains married to her. Ameimar says that, even R' Huna will allow in this case that the first one can also be the one to take her; and that's the Halacha. [Tosfos says: from here, R' Tam permits by a second Get that was issued because of rumors that the first Get wasn't valid not to need to wait three months to remarry from the second Get, only from the first Get, since we're not so stringent regarding rumors. The Ri says that there's no proof from here since the reason we're lenient here is because both Kiddushins were only because of rumors, so it doesn't look like he's taking back his divorced wife after she was married to someone else. (After all, perhaps either Kiddushin's rumor is not correct. However, by other rumors we need to be stringent like we are when the Kiddushin was made after rumors were out.]

96) Beis Shammai says: someone shouldn't divorce a wife unless you found promiscuity with her. Beis Hillel says: you can divorce even if she burned your stew. R' Akiva says even if he finds someone prettier than her. If he transgresses and divorces, according to Beis Hillel, for a reason less than burning his stew, the divorce is B'dieved valid, and he doesn't need to remarry her. After all, the Torah only obligated one who raped to retake his wife if she divorces her, and not one who just divorced for not a proper reason.

97) It's forbidden to have relations with a wife if you plan on divorcing her.

98) If a wife goes out with her head uncovered; spinning thread in the marketplace, exposes her forearms, and bathes where people bathe (and she's seen by them entering when they're leaving and they're dressing); it's a Mitzvah to divorce her. [Tosfos brings a Gemara in Sotah that has an inquiry if she transgress the laws of Jews (even those that are not from the Torah), if he needs to divorce her. Therefore, on the side that he needs, our Gemara means it's a rabbinical Mitzvah to divorce her. According to the side he doesn't need to divorce her, our Gemara only means that it's a Mitzvah to divorce her, but not an obligation.] However, if she actually bathes with other people [Rashi: she's forbidden to remain married to him, since it's probable that she had promiscuous relations with them. Tosfos says: then you would have a Torah obligation to divorce her.]

99) If he divorces her because of promiscuity; someone else shouldn't marry her.

100) The argument between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel is regarding a second marriage, but by a first marriage, even Beis Hillel says that you shouldn't divorce her but for promiscuity.

101) [Tosfos explains Beis Shammai: that you shouldn't divorce unless you have two witnesses to the promiscuity, since there's no proof to something involving an Ervah without two witnesses. Therefore, according to him, all divorce women are forbidden to their original husbands because they cheated on them when they were married to them. That, which the Torah has a special Lav to forbid taking back a divorce wife who married someone else in between (even though all divorced wives are forbidden anyhow because of being a Sotah), is to have him transgress two Lavim.]