(Mishnah): Even if [the Get] is with her on the bed (the Get is Pasul).

(Rava): This applies only to his bed. If the bed is hers, she is divorced.

Support (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If it is his bed, she is not divorced. If it is her bed, she is divorced.

Question: If it is her bed, why is she divorced? This is like Kelim of the buyer in the domain of the seller!

Suggestion: This shows that a buyer can acquire through his Kelim in the domain of the seller!

Answer (and Rejection): No. The case is, the bed is 10 Tefachim tall. It is above (not in) the husband's domain.

Question: The legs of the bed rest in his domain!

Answer: One does not care about such a small place (he pardons it).

(Mishnah): If he throws it into her garment or basket (she is divorced).

Question: Why is she divorced? This is like Kelim of the buyer in the domain of the seller!

Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah and R. Elazar): The case is, her basket is hanging on her (it does not touch the floor).

Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): She is divorced as long as her basket is attached to her, even if it rests on the floor.

Answer #3 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The case is, the basket is between her legs (he pardons the place to her).

Answer #4 (Rav Mesharshiya bar Rav Dimi): The case is, her husband sells baskets. (Therefore, he does not mind that it is on the floor.)

Answer #5 (R. Yochanan): The place of her garment and of her basket is acquired to her.

(Rava): This is because one does not mind if his wife's garment or basket is on the floor.

Support (Beraisa): If he throws it into her garment, basket or anything else like her basket, she is divorced.

Question: What do the words 'anything else like her basket' include?

Answer: They include a basket from which she eats dates.

(Mishnah): If one told his wife 'take this loan document' (and gave a Get to her), or she found her Get in back of him, and read it and realized that it is her Get, she is not divorced unless he says 'this is your Get';

If he put it in her hand while she was sleeping, and she woke up and found her Get in her hand, it is Pasul unless he says 'this is your Get.'

(Gemara) Question: (When she found her Get in back of him,) how does it help to say 'this is your Get'? This is like telling her to take her Get from the ground (he never gave it to her)!

(Rava): If one said 'take your Get from the ground', she is not divorced.

Answer: Rather, the case is, she removed it from his belt.

Question: Still, he did not give it to her!

Answer: He bent his waist towards her to bring the Get closer to her, and she took it.

Support (Beraisa - Rebbi): If he told her 'take this loan document', or she took the Get from his belt, and found that it is her Get, she is not divorced unless he says 'this is your Get';

R. Shimon ben Elazar says, the Get is only valid if he takes it back and gives it again and says 'this is your Get.'

If he put it in her hand while she was sleeping, and she woke up and found her Get in her hand, it is not a Get unless he says 'this is your Get';

R. Shimon ben Elazar says, it is valid only if he takes it back and gives it again and says 'this is your Get.'

The Beraisa needed to teach both cases:

Had it taught only the Reisha, one might have thought that there Rebbi does not require giving the Get again, because she was able to be divorced when she got it, but if he gave it to her when she was sleeping, Rebbi would agree that he must give it again.

Had it taught only the Seifa, one might have thought that R. Shimon ben Elazar would admit in the Reisha that he need not give it again, because she was able to be divorced when she got it.

(Rava): If he wrote a Get for her and put it in her slave's hand:

If the slave is sleeping and she guards the slave, she is divorced;

If the slave is awake, she is not divorced, because her slave is like a Chatzer not being guarded for her.

Question: Why is the Get valid when the slave sleeps and she guards him? A slave is like a moving Chatzer, which does not acquire!

Suggestion: Perhaps when he sleeps he is not considered a moving Chatzer.

Rejection: Rava himself taught that if something does not acquire when it moves, it does not acquire when it is stationary.

Answer: The case is, the slave was tied up.

(Mishnah): If a woman was standing in Reshus ha'Rabim and her husband threw a Get to her:

If it landed closer to her, she is divorced;

If it landed closer to him, she is not divorced;

If it landed in the middle, she has the stringencies of being divorced and not divorced.

The same applies to Kidushin, and to a debt;

If a creditor said 'throw to me the money you owe me' and it landed closer to the creditor, the loan was repaid (even if the money was lost just after it landed);

If it landed closer to the borrower, the loan was not repaid;

If it landed in the middle, it was half repaid.

(Gemara) Question: What is the case of being closer to her or to him?

Answer #1 (Rav): Within four Amos of her is called closer to her. Within four Amos of him is called closer to him.

Question: What is the case of being in the middle?

Answer #1 (R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): They were both standing within four Amos of where it landed.

Objection: This is like being closer to whoever was there first! (Chachamim enacted that one acquires the four Amos around himself, to avoid fighting about found objects.)

Suggestion: They came at the same moment.

Rejection: It is impossible that they came precisely at the same moment!

Answer #2 (Rav Kahana): The case is, they are exactly eight Amos apart. Part of the Get is within four Amos of him, and part is within four Amos of her.

Objection: If so, he has a hold on the Get (and she is not even doubtfully divorced)!

Answer #3 (Rabah and Rav Yosef): One pair of witnesses says that it fell closer to him, and another pair of witnesses says that it fell closer to her.

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): It can be considered closer to him or her, even if he or she is 100 Amos away.

Question: What is the case of being in the middle?

Answer (R. Shaman bar Aba): R. Yochanan says that if only one can guard the Get, it is called closer to him (or her). If neither or both can guard it, this is 'in the middle,'

(R. Yonason): Also in Bavel they explain this way.

Support (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If it is closer to her than to him and a dog took it, she is not divorced.

Objection: This cannot be. Must she forever guard the Get?!

Answer: Rather, we must say that if it is closer to her than to him, but if a dog came to take it he could guard it but she could not, so she is not divorced.

Answer #3 (Shmuel): It is called closer to her if she can bend down and pick it up;

I say that one should be stringent and not permit her until she takes the Get in her hand.

(Rav Mordechai): A case occurred (in which he died before she picked up the Get), and Chachamim required her to do Chalitzah.

(Mishnah): The same applies to Kidushin.

(R. Asi): The law of the Mishnah applies only to divorce, not to anything else.

Question (R. Aba - Mishnah): The same applies to Kidushin.

Answer (R. Asi): I did not mean to exclude Kidushin, for the Torah equates divorce and Kidushin - "v'Yotz'ah v'Haysah."

Question (Mishnah): The same applies to a debt. If a creditor said 'throw to me the money that you owe me', and it landed closer to the creditor, the loan was repaid. If it landed closer to the borrower, the loan was not repaid. If it landed in the middle, it was half repaid.

Answer: The case was, the creditor said 'throw to me the money that you owe me and you will be exempt.'

Objection: If so, obviously he is exempt (if the money lands closer to the creditor)!

Answer: The case was, he said 'throw to me the money according to the law of divorce.'

Question: Also in this case, the law is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that the creditor can say 'I was only joking (really, I do not exempt you until you properly return the money to me).' The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

(Rav Chisda): If he put the Get in her hand, but he holds a string attached to the Get: if he can yank it from her, she is not divorced. If not, she is divorced.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: We require (a Sefer of) cutting.

(Rav Yehudah): If her hand was slanted (so it could not land in her hand), even if he threw it and it hit her hand, she is not divorced.

Question: Why is she not divorced? It will fall within four Amos of her!

Answer: The case is, it never landed (e.g. it burned up in mid-air).

Question: She should be divorced because it was in the airspace of the four Amos around her!

Suggestion: (R. Elazar was unsure whether or not the enactment that four Amos around a person acquire for him applies also to the airspace of those four Amos.) From Rav Chisda, we may conclude that the enactment does not apply to the airspace!

Answer (and rejection): The case is, she is standing on the riverbank. The Get was never destined to land within four Amos of her. (It was destined to fall in the river.)