Question: What was the question? [A Sefer Torah can be sold, so] you are forced to say that it is included in "property without Achrayus", which is acquired through Meshichah, or "property with Achrayus", which is acquired through money, a document or Chazakah! It cannot be in neither category!

Answer (Ri): Even though regarding Kinyan, it is like property without Achrayus, even so [perhaps] it is not included in "property", because one may sell it only to learn Torah or marry a woman, like it says in Megilah (27a).

Explanation: You must say that this discusses some of the property. If it was all of the property, obviously he did not acquire, like is proven in Kesuvos (79a);

They argue only about some of the property, but regarding all of the property, they do not argue.

Remark: This is also R. Chananel's text.

Objection (Ri): It connotes that the reason is because she was divorced, but if she were still married, [her son] acquired;

In Kesuvos (79a) it connotes that even when she is still married, the buyer does not acquire [the property]!

It asks there "since the buyer did not acquire it, her husband should acquire it", and answers that it is an enactment mid'Rabanan. They made [the property] like property not known to the husband.

Answer: We can say that in any case, granted the husband and buyer did not acquire, but in any case they are in the Reshus of the gift recipient until she is divorced.

Explanation: This shows that a partial Matanas Shechiv Mera does not need a Kinyan.

Question #1: According to the Makshan's (Rav Mesharshiya's) reasoning, why does it say that she died? Even if she did not die, since one cannot retract from a partial Matanas Shechiv Mera, it is like a healthy person's Kinyan!

Question #2: We can ask similarly about the case below "give a Maneh to Ploni", and [the giver] died. According to the Makshan's reasoning, why does it say that he died?

Implied suggestion: Rava distinguishes within what he said "it is like Matanas Bari." He holds that if he recovers, he can retract (like Matanas Shechiv Mera. He said "it is like Matanas Bari" only [to teach that] it needs a Kinyan. (Maharsha - Tosfos understands that Rav Mesharshiya and Ravina disagree with Rava only about one matter. They hold that no Kinyan is needed, but they agree about retraction. If not for Rava, we could have said that they discuss without a Kinyan, and if he recovers, he can retract. This is why the Mishnah says that he died, and Rav Nachman discusses with a Kinyan. Tosfos brings that Rav Nachman holds that at least with a Kinyan, he cannot retract. Rava holds that it is totally like Matanas Bari, so he cannot retract, i.e. with a Kinyan, and Rav Mesharshiya and Ravina say so even without a Kinyan. If so, it is difficult - why does it say that he died?

Rejection: We know that Rav Nachman holds above (148b) that one cannot retract a partial Matanas Shechiv Mera, regarding a Shechiv Mera who wrote all his property to others. We see - if he was like one who intended from the beginning to give away all his property, and he died...

Answer #1: [Rava] could have said ul'Taimech (also according to you, the Makshan, it is difficult why it says that he died). In many places in the Gemara, it could have said ul'Taimech, and it does not say.

Answer #2: Since the Makshan holds that a Kinyan is not needed, he likewise holds that he can retract. If it would be like Matanas Bari (and he cannot retract), it would be totally like Matanas Bari (and a Kinyan would be needed). What is our source to distinguish like this (and say that that a Kinyan is not needed, but he cannot retract?!)

Version #1: The text says "Tenu (give a) Get", and not "Ten Get Zeh (give this Get)", for this connotes that he already gave [the Get to the Shali'ach]. Tenu connotes that he did not yet give it, but he commands them to give to him (e.g. a slave), through Shelichus.

Note: Maharsha says that "Zeh" was added by Maharshal throughout this Tosfos. There is no need for this. Tosfos infers that "Tenu" connotes that he commands witnesses to write and give. "Ten" connotes that he already wrote a Get, and commands a Shali'ach to give it.

If the text says "Ten", our Stam Tana is R. Meir, who says in Gitin (12b) that it is a Chov (detrimental) for a slave to be freed from his master. Therefore, the Shali'ach does not acquire [his freedom] for him.

Alternatively, we can establish it like Rabanan (there) who say that it is a Zechus (advantageous) for a slave to be freed from his master. (A Shali'ach should acquire his freedom for him!) The case is, he shows [the Get] to [the Shali'ach] to give it to [the slave], and the Shali'ach did not take it until after the master died. Alternatively, he took it but did not acquire for the slave.

Implied question: We say in Gitin (12b) that anyone who says "give" is like one who says "Zechi" (acquire for)!

Answer: That is when he gives it from hand to hand.

Implied question: Why did it teach "Ten Get Zeh"?

Answer: This teaches a Chidush. Even though he made [the Get] in his lifetime, and the Get is intact, and he already appointed Sheluchim to give the Get, since it was given after death, it is not a Get, for a Get given after death cannot be valid.

Rebuttal (Ri): This text is wrong. According to it, how does the Gemara on this Mishnah in Gitin (12b) infer that we cannot establish our Mishnah to discuss a Shechiv Mera, for if he is a Shechiv Mera, it should not have taught "Tenu", rather, "Kisvu" (write)? (For a Shechiv Mera, even if he said only "write", we assume that he means that we should also give it.)

If it taught "Zeh" for a Chidush, that they may not give it after death, even if we would establish our Mishnah to discuss a Shechiv Mera, it should not have taught "write", since we discuss when the Get is intact!

Implied suggestion: Perhaps it infers, for it should have taught "write this Get for my wife, and give this document of freedom to my slave." This would teach that we discuss a Shechiv Mera, since it taught "write", and since it taught "give this Get Shichrur to my slave", this teaches the Chidush (that there is no Get after death)!

Rejection: The Tana should not teach a Chidush through teaching two [different] matters, for he should be concise and teach everything together [in one case] and not elaborate.

Question: What is the Chidush that there is no Get after death? A Mishnah in Gitin (72a) already teaches that there is no Get after death!

Strengthening of question: Also, we say in Kesuvos (2b) "if [the Tana] teaches that there is no Get after death - he already taught this [in Gitin]!"

Answer: We need our Mishnah here [to disqualify] even though he already appointed a Shali'ach in his lifetime, and [one might have thought that] also after death he stands in place of him, and he can divorce, for a person's Shali'ach is like himself. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. We do not learn this from the Mishnah in Gitin (72a);

And from the Mishnah in Gitin (72a) we learn that even though he gave the Get in his lifetime, there is no Get after death.

Question: In Gitin (13b) we infer that this Mishnah discusses a Bari, since it says "give", and it does not say "write". (For a Shechiv Mera, even if he said only "write", we would give it if he did not die);

What is the source to infer that it discusses a Bari, since it does not say "write"? Perhaps it taught "give" to teach that even so, we do not force the heirs to free [the slave]!

[I.e.] it is unlike Rabanan who argue with Rebbi in a Beraisa in the Yerushalmi in Gitin. It says there [if one said] "give this Get Shichrur to my slave" and he died, Rebbi says, he did not acquire. Chachamim say, he acquired, and we force the heirs to fulfill the Mes' words.

Citation (Yerushalmi - R. Zeira): They argue Stam. What is the case? If he said (commanded) "free [him]", even Rebbi would agree (that we force the heirs). If he said "write", even Rabanan would agree (that we do not force)!

Rather, he said "give". Rebbi says that one who says "give" is like one who says "write", Rabanan say that one who says "give" is like one who says "free".

Answer: Our Mishnah does not come to teach that it is Mitzvah to fulfill the Mes' words, that we learn whether or not we force the heirs. It comes to teach only that Sheluchim in the Meshale'ach's stead do not give a Get after death.

Explanation (Ri): According to the opinion in the Gemara (Gitin 13a) that establishes this Mishnah to discuss a Shechiv Mera, this is fine. The Seifa is like the Reisha. Now, the Mishnah discusses one case;

It distinguishes between the command of a Shechiv Mera with a document from monetary commands. With a document, the command does not help after death like it helps regarding money.

Implied question: They are not totally the same! [At the time he commands,] the document that he wants to give after death is not in the world, but the money is in the world!

Answer: Even so, since at the time of death both are in the world, they resemble each other a little.

Question: However, according to the opinion there that establishes it to discuss a Bari, through Ma'amad Sheloshtan, it is difficult. Now, the Reisha is unlike the Seifa! (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)