Question #1: How is it proven that even in a place where they write a Kesuvah, she collects even when she is not holding a Kesuvah?

Perhaps here is a place where they do not write, and she collects through the Get document, and we write on the Get "this document...", like Rav holds in Kesuvos (89b). Also Abaye can establish it like this!

Alternatively, we could establish it in a place where they do not write a Kesuvah. She collects through witnesses of the Get. However, we do not tear the Get, for she needs it to remarry. This is like when there is no solution; [all agree that] we write a receipt;

Distinction: However, in a place where they write a Kesuvah, he does not pay until she removes the Kesuvah document from her possession;

Either this is because he is believed to say "I paid", unlike R. Yochanan, or it is because we do not write a receipt.

Question #2: Also, since we do not want to prove from a widow from Nisu'in, in a place where they do not write, like I explained above (17b DH Almanah; surely he is not believed to say "I paid", for if not they should have enacted to write), how do we prove from a divorcee from Nisu'in, in a place where they do not write, since Get is not the Kesuvah?

Obviously, just because [we let her keep her Get, for] she needs it to remarry, he is not believed to say "I paid", since it was not enacted [to write a] Kesuvah in that place! (If he were believed ,they should have enacted!)

Answer: According to Abaye, our Mishnah is difficult. It says "a Kesuvah without a Get" - this shows that we discuss a place where they write a Kesuvah. It is unreasonable to establish that so it occurred, that he wrote to her due to his love for her.

Therefore, he asks that since she has a Kesuvah, and she shows only a Get, he should [be believed to] say "I paid"!

Rather, surely [one who claims that he paid Ma'aseh Beis Din] is not believed at all, and we write a receipt.

Question: What is the source of this? Perhaps even if he said "give", we do not give;

It teaches "he reconsidered", i.e. he retracted and decided not to give it, and due to this, he was not concerned to guard it, and it was lost, and now he wants to return [to his initial intent] to divorce her;

He thinks that this is the Get he lost, and he says "give." Even so, we do not give, for perhaps this is not his Get, rather, it fell from someone else, whose name is like his name.

However, if he did not reconsider at the beginning from divorcing her, and he divorced her, we return the Get to her for a proof, even if it is not hers!

Answer: He infers from the fact that it did not teach "they were written, and he did not give them." Since it [rather] taught "he reconsidered", this connotes that [the Tana] is concerned lest now he does not want to divorce her;

However, if he said "give it to her", we give it, and we are not concerned lest it fell from someone else.

Question #1: What is the source [that when he says "give", we return it] even after a long time? Perhaps it is only immediately, like R. Zeira asks below!

Question #2: What is R. Zeira's source that [the finder] returns it to her even after a long time? Why is it clear to him that the Beraisa teaches after a long time more than our Mishnah does? (This is why he asked a contradiction between the Beraisa and the Mishnah, and not between the two Mishnayos.)

Answer #1 (to Question #2): The Beraisa connotes that when the husband admits, [the finder] returns it to her even after a long time. If it were only immediately, this is obvious [that he returns it to her]!

However, in our Mishnah we can say that it is only immediately. It is not explicit in our Mishnah that if he said "give", we give it. This is what it comes to teach, that he does not return it, for we are concerned lest he reconsidered;

Answer #1 (to Question #1): However, Rabah inferred from the fact that it taught "he reconsidered", and it did not teach "they were written, and he did not give." If so, it comes to teach that if he said "give", we give, i.e. even after a long time;

If it were [only] immediately, this is obvious!

Question: Even if it is immediately, this is a Chidush, that we are not concerned lest he wrote it in Nisan, and did not give it until Tishrei, like we ask below (19a)!

Similarly, below we challenge R. Yirmeyah, who establishes it when witnesses say [that they signed on only one Get for a man of this name], what is the Chidush?

We should say that the Chidush is that we are not concerned lest he wrote it in Nisan, and did not give it until Tishrei!

Answer: [Rabah] holds like the opinion that a husband does not eat the Peros from when the Get is signed;

Then, there is no Chidush [that we are not concerned] lest he wrote it in Nisan, and did not give it until Tishrei, for even [if he did] so, she properly takes [from people who bought the Peros from her husband after Nisan!

Answer #2 (to Question #2): R. Zeira inferred that it is even after a long time since it says "when the husband admits, he returns it to the woman";

Inference: He admits that it fell from her, and he already divorced her with it. If [we return it] only immediately, if so, we must say that we saw the Get in her hand. If not, how do we know that it is immediately?!

Since we saw the Get in her hand, she was already divorced. Obviously, we return it! What is the Chidush?

Even if this is not her Get, it may be given to her for a proof! Also, when her husband does not admit, why shouldn't [the finder] return it?

Conclusion: Rather, surely we did not see the Get in her hand. The Chidush is that even though we are concerned lest it fell from her husband, and he did not yet divorce her, she is divorced now through returning the Get;

We are not concerned lest it fell from someone else. If so, this is even after a long time, since we do not know whether it fell from the husband or the woman.

Answer #2 (to Question #1): Rabah infers that also our Mishnah is even after a long time, similar to the case of documents of Chalitzah and Mi'un, which one returns even after a long time;

If it were immediately, i.e. we saw the Get in her hand, this is obvious! Since she did Chalitzah, we return it to her for a proof, even if it is not hers!

Rather, surely we did not see [the Get] in her hand, and we do not even know that she did Chalitzah. I.e. [we return it] after a long time;

It connotes to Rabah that the Reisha is a similar case (after a long time);

R. Zeira holds that the Reisha is not [necessarily] similar to the Seifa.

Distinction: Even Abaye, who is concerned for two "Yitzchak"s (regarding a report that Yitzchak Reish Galusa died), even when it is not established [a namesake in the city - Yevamos 115b], regarding a Get found immediately, he is not concerned;

There, it is like after a long time, for "immediately" does not apply there.

Question: Why doesn't [Rabah] establish both [Mishnayos] when caravans are frequent, and our Mishnah is when there were not Huchzeku (two couples with the same name)?

Then, it would resemble the Seifa (20a) "all acts of Beis Din", which discusses such a case! (Rabah learned from it to the Get found in Rav Huna's Beis Din, in which caravans were frequent.)

Answer: The episode below in Rav Huna's Beis Din occurred first. [Rabah] taught that without Huchzeku, he returns, even though caravans are frequent;

Here [Rabah] taught that also if Huchzeku, he returns, if caravans are not frequent.

Question: Why does he return it to the woman, since there are two Yosef ben Shimon's in the city? (Perhaps the Get is not from her husband!)

Answer: Since we know that this [Yosef ben Shimon] lost a Get here, we are not concerned lest also the other one lost, since caravans are not frequent;

Our Sugya is like R. Elazar (who says that Edei Mesirah Karsei). According to R. Meir, who says that Edei Chasimah Karsei, a Get is Kosher only if it is Muchach mi'Tocho (proven from its contents) that it is from [her husband].

Source - Citation (Gitin 24b - Mishnah): If one wrote a Get to divorce his older wife, he cannot divorce his younger wife [with the identical name] with it;

Citation (cont.) Inference: He can divorce his older wife [with it]. Who taught this? It is R. Elazar, and [it is Kosher] through Edei Mesirah.

Inference: According to R. Meir, he cannot divorce even the older wife [with it].

Implied question: The Mishnah in Gitin (86b) of two identical Gitin that became mixed (one gives both to both women, and both are divorced), we establish it like R. Meir (even though it is not Muchach mi'Tocho)!

Answer: The case is, the document mentions the third generation (their grandfathers have different names). It is Muchach mi'Tocho. See also Tosfos Gitin 24b DH b'Edei (who says that the Edei Mesirah do not know who is the grandfather of whom).

Question: According to Rav Huna, how can one divorce his wife according to R. Meir? It is not Muchach mi'Tocho, since we are concerned for two [cities named] Sheviri!

Answer: Since Lo Huchzeku (we do not know that there is another city with this name), it is Muchach mi'Tocho. In any case, when it fell, we are concerned.

Explanation (Rashi): A Henpek was written in it. [Rabah] resolves properly from our Mishnah that one returns Ma'aseh Beis Din.

Explanation (Rashi): It fell from the Shali'ach.

Question #1: If so, how does the Henpek help, since it did not yet come to the woman?

If without a Henpek there is concern lest he reconsidered, we should be concerned also with a Henpek!

Question #2: A husband is not Mekayem a Get! (Presumably, the woman already received it and was Mekayem it.)

Answer: "If there is a Henpek in it" discusses when it fell from the woman, and she asks [the finder], and she says that it is hers;

[Rabah] resolves that he returns it, and we are not concerned lest she lies, and it fell from another woman, even though caravans are frequent, since Lo Huchzeku (two men with her husband's name);

This is like Ma'aseh Beis Din. He returns it, even though it was found in Beis Din, where caravans are frequent;

We are not concerned lest she lies, and it fell from another woman, even though caravans are frequent, since Lo Huchzeku.

Answer (cont.): If the case is that the Shali'ach asks [the finder to return it to him] in order to divorce the woman, we can say that there is no Henpek in it;

Even so, [Rabah] properly proves [that he returns it], since one returns Ma'aseh Beis Din, and we are not concerned lest he reconsidered...

Since there is a Henpek in it, surely the loan was given, for the borrower is not Mekayem the document, like we say below (20b);

Also, we are not concerned lest it fell from someone else, even though caravans are frequent, since Lo Huchzeku [others with the same names];

Also regarding the found Get, that the Shali'ach asks for the Get, reconsidering does not apply, since the Get was in the Shali'ach's hand. The husband cannot nullify the Get not in front of the Shali'ach.

Likewise, we are not concerned lest it fell from someone else, even though caravans are frequent, since Lo Huchzeku.

Question: Abaye said in Yevamos (115b) that we are concerned for two "Yitzchak"s, even if Lo Huchzeku. Our Mishnah "all Ma'aseh Beis Din, one returns them" is difficult for him!

Answer #1: He establishes the Mishnah when [the Get] was found outside of Beis Din, where caravans are not frequent, like R. Zeira [establishes it];

However, regarding two "Yitzchak"s, we cannot distinguish between [caravans being] frequent or infrequent. We should always be concerned for a Yitzchak from another city, just like from this city.

Answer #2: [Abaye] establishes the Mishnah when it was found in Beis Din, and even so, we are not concerned for [falling from] someone else;

Since this man asks [to get back] a Get, and we know that he lost a Get, and we do not know another, we are not concerned that it fell from another, and [a Get] fell also from this man here;

However, there we do not know which Yitzchak died, if he is from this city, or another city.

Implied question: [Even if her husband says that he did not divorce her, we should return it to her, for in any case] a woman is believed to say "you divorced me" (Gitin 64b)!

Answer: (That is because a woman cannot be brazen to lie about this to her husband.) Here she is not believed. She can be brazen, since the Get supports her [claim].

Question: Since [her husband] admits that it fell from her, and he already divorced her, why should we say not to return it?

Since he is believed to say "I divorced her", like it says in Bava Basra (134b). Even if it fell from someone else, we should return it to her for a mere proof!

Answer: He is believed to say "I divorced her", and she is [established to be] divorced from now and onwards, since it is b'Yado to divorce her;

However, here he says that he already divorced her from the time written in the Get. Just like he is not believed about the past, he is not believed about the future;

"He returns it to the woman" means with witnesses. She is divorced through the return. We are not concerned lest it fell from someone else, even [if it was found] after a long time.

Explanation: The husband says that he is that Yosef [for whom they signed].

Question: When the witnesses do not say so, he is not believed to say that it is his. Rather, we are concerned lest it fell from someone else;

Now that the witnesses say that they signed on only one Get of Yosef ben Shimon, why is he believed? We should be concerned lest they signed for the other [Yosef ben Shimon], and not for this one!

Answer: Even though when there are no witnesses, he is not believed, even though he says "I recognize that it is mine", this is because he says amidst doubt that it is his;

Because he thinks that only he lost a Get, therefore he says that it is his, even if he does not recognize it.

However, when witnesses say that they signed on only one Get of Yosef ben Shimon, he would not intentionally lie to say that they signed his;

He is not suspected to cause her to [mistakenly think that she is divorced, and] transgress, just like [for this reason] he is believed to say "I divorced her."

Alternate text: Some texts say "[the witnesses say that they signed] only on one Get, of this Yosef ben Shimon." [According to this text,] it is better. (We need not give the above answer.)

Assertion: We must say that the witnesses did not see the signature;

If they saw the signature, that it is theirs, [R. Yirmeyah] should have said "what might one have thought? Perhaps it happened that other witnesses [with the same names] signed, and their signatures are like the signatures [of the witnesses in front of us].