Explanation: [If the Torah says to rely on Simanim,] also a Get we return [through Simanim];

If Simanim are mid'Rabanan, i.e. we return an Aveidah through a Siman that is not Muvhak (a great indication) mid'Rabanan, [and they could enact this] because Hefker Beis Din Hefker, but mid'Oraisa we require witnesses or a Siman Muvhak...

Also a Get, which is an Isur (so Hefker Beis Din Hefker does not apply), we return only through a Siman Muvhak.

Explanation (R. Tam): Also an Am ha'Aretz has Tevi'as Ayin (recognition).

Source - Citation (Bava Basra 168a): [A Chacham] who wants to be Mekadesh a woman should take an Am ha'Aretz with him. (A Chacham does not look so carefully at women, and does not recognize them so well. If another woman was substituted for her afterwards, he might not realize, but the Am ha'Aretz would.)

We do not return [an Aveidah to an Am ha'Aretz through his Tevi'as Ayin] because he is not believed [that he truly recognizes that it is his].

Observation: This is a concern even according to Abaye, who says that Edav b'Chasumav Zachin Lo (when a document is written, the witnesses acquire on behalf of the recipient), for here, regarding [divorce of] a woman, it is detrimental for her (so they are not "Zocheh" for her).

Implied question: Regarding our Mishnah, about which we infer "if he said to give it, we give it", and the Mishnah of one who brings a Get from overseas, why don't we ask "perhaps he wrote to give it in Nisan [and did not give it until later, and she can take fraudulently from buyers]"?

Answer: Since he comes to divorce her now, [people] see that the Get is predated, and there is publicity that it was not given on the date written in it. Buyers will remember to say [to her] "bring a proof when the Get came to your hand";

However, here that the husband admits that it fell from him, and he divorced her on the date written, we ask that we should be concerned lest buyers think that she says the truth, and they will not say [to her] when she takes from them "bring a proof when the Get came to your hand."

Question: Why don't we ask against the Mishnah "we write a Get for a man, even though his wife is not with him" (Bava Basra 167a)? We should be concerned lest he not give it until a year [from now]!

Suggestion: Since there is no Re'usa (reason to discredit it) of falling, we should say that it was given on the day it was written;

And even if it was given afterwards, there is publicity that it was not given on the date written in it, for they see at the time she receives the Get that it is predated, and buyers will remember to say [to her] "bring a proof [when the Get came to your hand]"!

Rejection: Above (12b), we ask regarding "we write a document for a borrower, even though the lender is not with him" (even though there is no Re'usa of falling)!

Answer #1: Regarding "we write a document for a borrower...] we ask properly, for one who borrows, he borrows covertly. We should be concerned lest afterwards, [the borrower] give it to [the lender], and buyers will think that it was given from the time it was written;

However, a Get is given in public, for it needs Edei Mesirah, even according to R. Meir, for Ein Davar sheb'Ervah Pachos mi'Shenayim (a change in marital status requires two witnesses to take effect), like R. Tam and the Rashbam explained in Gitin (4a).

Also, it is common to divorce in public, to make known that she is single.

[For these reasons,] there is publicity that she was divorced after the date written, and buyers will not err.

Question: Still, it is difficult why we write a Get for a man [in the absence of his wife]. We should be concerned lest she be Mezanah after it was written [before he gives it], and he will give to her covertly, in order to cover up for her! (Beis Din cannot kill her, for her Get is dated before the Zenus.)

Answer: [Normally,] immediately after the Get is written, he gives it to her, for one does not rush to bring punishments on himself (one does not write a Get until he is ready to give it).

Implied question: Why don't we say so regarding other Gitin (that she must prove when the Get came to her hand)?

Answer: Presumably, on the day it was written, it was handed over. However, this one that fell, it is flawed.

Observation: This is unlike Abaye. According to him, why shouldn't we return it, since he wants to? Edav b'Chasumav Zachin Lo, in a case that the document [at some time] gets to his hand!

Abaye will answer like Rav Zevid below. (We do not give it when the giver died, and his son says to give it. Perhaps it was not given in his lifetime.)

Question: We should ask also that both the Mishnah and Beraisa say "Matanos" (which connotes a gift of a healthy person)!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Our Mishnah discusses when he specified that he gives to him the Guf (permanent rights to the property) and Peros from today, if he will not retract, until after death. He can retract.

Answer #2 (Rashi): Regarding [regular] gifts, even if he said "give", we do not give;

Our Mishnah means "I say that they were written, and he reconsidered not to give them, and gave to someone else, and now he wants to retract from the latter and give them to the former";

Therefore, even if he said "give", we do not give.

However, Daitiki, if he said "give", we give. Even if he reconsidered and gave to someone else, he can retract.

Question#1: If so, "reconsidered" in our Mishnah has two meanings! (For regular gifts, perhaps he gave to someone else, so even if now he says "give", we do not give. For Daitiki, if he said "give", we give.)

Question #2: Above, regarding a Get, we infer that had he said "give", we would give, even after a long time;

According to Rashi, what is the source to explain like this? Perhaps it means that because he reconsidered, we should be concerned lest he did not give the Get yet. Therefore, even if he said "give", we do not give!

Conclusion: Rather, "reconsidered" means that now he does not want, like I explained above (18a DH Ha, since it did not teach "they were written, and he did not give them").

Question: Why don't we say that first the father gave Matanas Shechiv me'Ra, and afterwards the father himself wrote it to this one, and did not give it to him, and the father died, and the gift to the first was fulfilled, and the son wants that the latter should have it!

Question: If so, we should ask about the Mishnah in Bava Basra (167a) that we write a receipt to a woman (in the absence of her husband. Perhaps her husband will not pay the Kesuvah until later!)

Suggestion: We are concerned only when it fell, and was flawed.

Rejection: Above (12b), we ask regarding "we write a document for a borrower [in the absence of the lender]", even though there is no Re'usa [of falling]!

Answer: We could have rejected that it discusses a Shtar Hakna'ah;

However, here, if we discuss a Shtar Hakna'ah, also when she does not admit we should return it to the husband;

"The woman does not admit" connotes even if she does not say that it is Mezuyaf, rather, she says that she wrote it to give it, and did not give it;

She says now "do not give it", because she reconsidered.

Support: This is like one who found receipts in our Mishnah. He does not return them, for I say that they were written, and he reconsidered.