(Abaye): We learn that the relative may sign at the beginning, middle or end, since the Mishnah did not specify where he must sign.

(Abaye): A Mekushar Get may be Mekuyam from any three signatures, even if they are not consecutive.

If not, we would have fixed a place for relatives to sign, and even more would be allowed to sign.

R. Ami would tell people (with a bald Get lacking one witness) to ask a slave from the market to complete it.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If a man divorced his wife, and said 'you are permitted to any man, Ela (but not) to Ploni', she is permitted to all other men;

Chachamim say, she is (not divorced, and is) forbidden to all men.

He must take the Get and give it again, and say 'you are permitted to all men.'

If he wrote (the Tanai) in the Get, even if it was later erased, the Get is Pasul.

(Gemara) Question: How did he forbid her to Ploni? Did he say 'you are permitted to any man except Ploni', or 'you are permitted to any man, on condition that you do not marry Ploni'?

If he said 'except', in that case, Chachamim argue with R. Eliezer, because the Get does not fully divorce her;

Had he said 'on condition', all would agree that this is valid, like any conditional Get.

If he said 'on condition...', in this case, R. Eliezer argues, but had he said 'except...', all would agree that the Get is Pasul, because it does not fully divorce her.

Answer #1 (Ravina - Mishnah): All houses can get (Tum'as) Tzara'as, Ela (but not) those of Nochrim.

We understand if this means 'except';

Rhetorical question: If it means 'on condition that', can we say that houses of Yisrael can get Tzara'as on condition that that Nochri houses cannot?!

Rejection #1: This would imply that if Nochri houses could become Tamei, houses of Yisrael could not!

Objection #2: Nochri houses cannot become Tamei. Tzara'as affects only "a house of your inheritance!"

Our Mishnah is unlike the following Tana.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): R. Eliezer and Chachamim agree that if he said 'you are permitted to all men except Ploni', she is not divorced;

They argue only when he said 'you are permitted to all men on condition that you do not marry Ploni.' R. Eliezer permits her to any man except for Ploni. Chachamim forbid her to marry.

R. Eliezer holds that this is like any other Tanai;

Chachamim hold that this Tanai is different, for it leaves a remnant of marriage that the Get does not sever.

Question: In the Mishnah, R. Eliezer says that the Get is valid when he says 'except'. What is the reason?

Answer #1 (R. Yanai): "She will leave his house and marry another man" - even if she becomes permitted only to one man, this is considered divorce.

Chachamim say, the verse teaches that she must become permitted to every man.

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): "Kohanim will not marry a woman divorced from her husband" - even if she was divorced only from her husband (and was not permitted to anyone), she is (divorced and) forbidden to a Kohen.

Chachamim say, that is a stringency of Kehunah. She is not really divorced.

Question (R. Aba): If Reuven was Mekadesh Leah except for Ploni (i.e. regarding Ploni, she is single), what is the law?

We can ask according to R. Eliezer and Chachamim.

R. Eliezer learned from a verse that partial divorce is valid. No verse validates partial Kidushin, so he must fully Mekadesh her;

Or, perhaps "v'Yotzah v'Haysah" equates divorce and Kidushin.

Chachamim disqualified partial divorce because the Torah specified "Sefer Krisus (cutting)", but even a partial Kidushin works;

Or, perhaps "v'Yotzah v'Haysah" equates divorce and Kidushin.

Answer (R. Aba): All learn from "v'Yotzah v'Haysah." The Tana'im argue about Kidushin like they do about divorce.

(Abaye): If R. Aba is correct (and R. Eliezer validates partial Kidushin), if Reuven was Mekadesh Leah except for his brother Shimon, and Shimon was Mekadesh her except for Reuven, and both died, Leah may do Yibum;

Leah is not considered 'the wife of two dead brothers (who may not do Yibum)'.

This is because Shimon's Kidushin had no effect (she was already forbidden to all other men, and he did not forbid her to Reuven).

Had Shimon been Mekadesh her normally, also his Kidushin would have taken effect (to forbid her to Reuven). If both men died, she would be the wife of two dead brothers.

Question #1 (Abaye): If one told his wife 'you are permitted to all men except Reuven and Shimon', and then said 'to Reuven and Shimon', what is the law?

Do we say, he permitted (her to marry even) the one s he initially forbade her to?

Or, did he retract to say that she should be permitted only to Reuven and Shimon?