Opinion #1 (R. Zeira): Rebbi and Chachamim argue about a Tanai before the Toref. Rebbi decrees to disqualify 'on condition that' due to 'except'. Chachamim do not decree;

All agree that Tanayim after the Toref do not disqualify the Get.

(The Seifa of) our Mishnah says that only written Tanayim disqualify. We established the Mishnah to be when he said 'except';

The Mishnah can discuss before the Toref, and it is like Chachamim;

Or, it can discuss after the Toref, and all agree to it.

Opinion #2 (Rava): Rebbi and Chachamim argue when the Tanai is after the Toref. Rebbi decrees to disqualify it due to a Tanai before the Toref. Chachamim do not decree.

All agree that Tanayim before the Toref disqualify a Get.

Our Mishnah says that only written Tanayim disqualify, and only when he said 'except', but not if he said 'on condition that';

The Mishnah discusses after the Toref. It is like Chachamim.

(R. Avin's father - Beraisa): All agree that if a Get was written on Tanai, it is Pasul.

Objection: They argue in this case!

Correction (R. Zeira): The proper text of the Beraisa must say that all agree that it is valid, when the Tanai was after the Toref.

Question: Rather than changing the text of the Beraisa, R. Zeira should have said that it is like Rebbi!

Answer: It is reasonable that R. Avin's father mixed up 'valid' and 'Pasul', but he would not confuse 'all agree' with 'this is (Rebbi's opinion).'

(Mishnah): If one said 'you are permitted to every man except for my father', or he excluded his brother, her father or brother, a slave or Nochri, or anyone to whom she cannot be Mekudeshes, the Get is valid;

If he excluded a Kohen Gadol (even if she is a widow), or a regular Kohen (and she was divorced or a Chalutzah), or a Yisrael (and she is a Mamzeres or Nesinah), or a Mamzer or Nasin (and she is a Bas Yisrael), or anyone to whom she can be Mekudeshes (even if it is forbidden), the Get is Pasul.

(Gemara) Question: What does the rule of the Reisha (or anyone to whom she cannot be Mekudeshes) come to include?

Answer: It includes other relatives punishable by Kares.

Question: What does the rule of the Seifa (or anyone to whom she can be Mekudeshes) include?

Answer: It includes other men forbidden by a Lav.

Question (Rava): If he said 'except for Reuven (and he is a minor)', what is the law?

Do we consider him like one who cannot be Mekadesh her (i.e. now)?

Or, is he like one who can be Mekadesh her (i.e. later)?

Answer (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): A minor can be divorced even from a mid'Oraisa marriage.

Question: "Yotzah v'Haysah" equates divorce and Kidushin. A girl who cannot be Mekudeshes (e.g. a minor not in her father's Reshus, e.g. after Nisu'in) cannot be divorced!

Answer: A minor is like one who can be Mekudeshes, because she can be Mekudeshes when she matures. (Note: the Gemara did not even challenge Rav Nachman from a Mishnah (55a) that says that a Chereshes (deaf woman) can be divorced (even if she was married mid'Oraisa through her father), even though she can never be Mekudeshes again! Perhaps it is understood that any minor can be divorced, even if she is Goses or Tereifah, and barring an unlikely or miraculous cure, she will never live to adulthood and the possibility of Kidushin. Similarly, a Chereshes can be divorced, even though she will have Da'as and potential for Kidushin only if she gets an unexpected cure.)

Here also, a minor is considered one to whom she can be Mekudeshes.

Question (Rava): If one said 'except for men who will be born', what is the law?

Since they are not around yet, the Get is valid;

Or, since they will be born, the Get is Pasul.

Answer (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): If he said '(except for) a slave or Nochri', even though they may convert (or be freed), the Get is valid.

Rejection: That is different, for we do not expect them to convert. Men are destined to be born!

Question (Rava): If he said 'except for your sister's husband', what is the law?

Now, she cannot be Mekudeshes to him, so the Get is valid;

Or, since she will be permitted to him if her sister dies, the Get is Pasul?

Answer (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): If he said '(except for) a slave or Nochri', even though they may convert (or be freed), the Get is valid.

Rejection: That is different, for conversion is uncommon, but death is common.

Question (Rava): If he said 'you are divorced except regarding Bi'as Zenus', what is the law?

Regarding marriage, he permitted her to everyone (so the Get is valid);

Or, since he did not permit (all) Bi'ah, it is Pasul.

Answer (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): If he said 'except for my father or your father'...

Question: Regarding what did he not permit them?

We cannot say that it is regarding marriage. She cannot be married to them!

Answer: Rather, it is regarding Bi'as Zenus.

Inference: Only regarding her father or father-in-law, such a Get is valid. If he did not permit Bi'as Zenus with other men, the Get would be Pasul.

Rejection: Really, it refers to marriage, if she should transgress and 'marry' either of them.

Question: If he said 'except for Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah (in the anus)', what is the law?

Normal Bi'ah is fully permitted;

Or, since the Torah equates normal Bi'ah and Lo k'Darkah, a Get must permit both!

Question: If he said 'except for vows (I can annul your vows even after I divorce you)', what is the law?

He permits her to marry anyone;

Or, "her husband will affirm her vows, and her husband will annul her vows" shows that he is still called her husband.

Question: If (Tosfos - he is a Kohen, and) he said 'except for Terumah (you may still eat Terumah after I divorce you)', what is the law?

He permits her to marry anyone;

Or, "the acquisition of his money (may eat Terumah)" shows that she is still called his wife.

Question: If he said 'except for my privilege to inherit you if you die', what is the law?

He permits her to marry anyone;

Or, "he will inherit her, his close kin" shows that he is still considered her husband.

Question: If he said 'except for Kidushin through a document', what is the law?

She can be Mekudeshes through money or Bi'ah;

Or, since all methods of Kidushin are equated, a Get must permit all of them.

These questions are unresolved.

(Mishnah): The essential part of a Get is 'you are permitted to every man';

R. Yehudah says, it is 'and this will be for you, from me, a Sefer of cutting, a letter of abandonment, a Get of exemption that permits you to marry any man you want.'

The essential part of a Get of freedom is 'you are a free woman', or 'you are to yourself.'

(Gemara): Obviously, if a Get of divorce says 'you are a free woman', or a Get of freedom says 'you are permitted to every man', it is Pasul.

Question: If a Get of divorce says 'you are to yourself', what is the law?

Does he mean 'you are entirely to yourself'?

Or, does he refer only to work?

Answer (Ravina - Mishnah): The essential part of a Get of freedom is 'you are a free woman', or 'you are to yourself,'

A master owns his slave's body, still 'you are to yourself' suffices for the slave to acquire himself;

A husband does not own his wife's body. All the more so, this expression suffices!

Question (Ravina): If a Get of freedom says 'I have no involvement in you', what is the law?

Answer (Rav Chanin - Beraisa): If one sold his slave to a Nochri, the slave goes free, and needs a Get of freedom from his original owner;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if he wrote his Ono, this serves like his Get of freedom.

Question: What is an Ono?

Answer (Rav Sheshes): It says 'when you flee from him (your new master) I have no involvement in you.'

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): It is 'and this will be for you, from me, a Sefer of cutting, a letter of abandonment, a Get of exemption that permits you to marry any man you want.'

Question: What do R. Yehudah and Chachamim argue about?

Answer: Chachamim hold that a Yad (an abbreviated expression) that is not clear (how to complete it) is a valid Yad (it is as if he said the full expression);

Even though he did not write 'and this...', it is clear that he divorces her through the Get.

R. Yehudah holds that an ambiguous Yad is not a Yad;

If he does not write 'and this...', perhaps he divorces her verbally, and the Get is just for a proof.

(Abaye): One should not write in a Get 'v'Dein' (and this is) with a 'Yud', lest this be read 'v'Din' (the law obligates me to divorce you). Rather, it should be written without a 'Yud'.

One should not write 'Igeres (a letter)' with a 'Yud', lest this be understood like Igra (a roof). Rather, it should be written without a 'Yud'.

One should not write 'Limehach (it will be) with a 'Yud', lest this be read 'Li Mihach' (the Get will be to me). One should beware lest (the Hei look like a Ches, and) the word look like 'Limchach' (for a joke).

'D'Yisyehaviyein' and 'D'Yisyatzviyein' should each be written with three 'Yud'im' (to connote 'that you will marry' and 'that you will want').

One should elongate the Vov in 'Tiruchin (cutting)' and 'Shevukin (abandonment). If the Vov would be mistaken for a 'Yud', this would refer to Gitin in general (not specifically for his wife).

One should elongate the Vov in 'd'Chado (that when).' If it would look like a 'Yud', this would imply that he divorces her 'Kedi' (without anything, i.e. without a Get).

One should not write 'Le'isnasva' lest it be read 'Lo Yisnasva' (not to marry), rather, 'Lehisnasva'.

Question: Must one write 'and this...'?

Answer: Rava enacted that a Get should say 'Ploni... cuts off Plonis... from this day and forever.' He did not mention 'and this...'!

Rejection: He did not mention other things that must be in the Get. Likewise, he did not mention 'and this...'

Rava enacted that the Get should say 'from this day.' This is unlike R. Yosi, who says that the date on a document itself proves that it takes effect that day.

He enacted 'forever', lest people think that the divorce was only temporary.