1)

(a)'Kiyum Shtaros - is the substantiation of a document, should the defendant claim it to be a forgery. It is performed either by the witnesses who signed it substantiating their own signatures, or by two other witnesses testifying on each of the witnesses' signatures.

(b)In that case, the question arises that, according to Rava (who ascribes 'be'Fanai Nichtav' to 'Lefi she'Ein Edim Meyzuyin Lekaymo') - why will one Shali'ach suffice? Why not at least two?

(c)To answer the Kashya, we cite a statement of Reish Lakish, who said - that if witnesses signed on a document, it is as if their testimony had been confirmed by Beis-Din ...

(d)... and Kiyum Shtaros is only mid'Rabanan ...

2)

(a)We answer the Kashya on Rava - using the principle 'Heim Amry v'Heim Amru' (normally, the Chachamim required two witnesses for Kiyum Shtaros, but by Gitin they required only one ...

(b)... to avoid the likelihood of the woman becoming an Agunah (like we explained above according to Rabah).

3)

(a)Rava disagrees with Rabah's reason (of 'Lefi she'Ein Beki'in Lishmah') - because then the Shali'ach should have had to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... Lishmah'.

(b)According to Rabah however, Chazal had good reason for not obligating the Shali'ach to add the word 'Lishmah' - because they were afraid that with three words to repeat ('u'be'Fanai Nechtam' is a different phrase which Chazal clearly knew he would not forget) he might become confused and forget to add the third word (thereby invalidating the Get, as we shall see later).

(c)We are more afraid to make the Shali'ach say 'be'Fanai Nichtav Lishmah' than 'be'Fanai Nichtav' - because he is unlikely to forget one of two words (since one word on its own will not make sense [Ritva]).

(d)Beis-Din will discover that the Shtar was indeed written Lishmah - by asking him to that effect.

4)

(a)Rabah disagrees with Rava's reason (of 'Lefi she'Ein Edim Metzuyin Lekaymo') - because then there would be no reason for the Shali'ach to add 'be'Fanai Nichtav'. It should have sufficed to say 'be'Fanai Nechtam'.

(b)To which Rava counters - that if they confined the Shali'ach's statement to 'be'Fanai Nechtam,' people would confuse this with 'Kiyum Shtaros', and would go on to validate 'Kiyum Shtaros with only one witness.

(c)Rabah however, replies that for three reasons, nobody will confuse this case will Kiyum Shtaros:

1. because here, Chazal insisted on using the Lashon 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', whereas by 'Kiyum Shtaros', the witnesses only need to say 'We know ... '.

2. because even a woman is believed, whereas by Kiyum Shtaros she is not - and

3. because here, the husband himself is believed, whereas by 'Kiyum Shtaros, the defendant himself is not.

(d)Rabah's second and third reason do not perturb Rava (see Tosfos DH 'Keyvan'). His first reason - he refutes on the grounds that if the Shali'ach of the Get does indeed say 'I know ... ', his Shelichus will nevertheless be valid.

5)

(a)In a Mishnah in the second Perek, the Tana forbids (l'Chatchilah) writing a Get on something that is attached to the ground - because the Torah writes "v'Kasav ... v'Nasan", which teaches us that nothing (crucial, such as detaching) may interrupt between the writing of the Get and its handing over.

(b)We assume the author of this Mishnah to be Rebbi Meir - because of the principle 'Stam Mishnah, Rebbi Meir'.

(c)He validates a Get that was - provided one detached it before having it signed.

6)

(a)Rebbi Meir interprets the Pasuk "v'Kasav ... v'Nasan" (and by the same token, "v'Kasav Lah" regarding writing the Get Lishmah, not with regard to the Kesivah [the writing of the Get] but) - with regard to the Chasimah (the signing of the witnesses).

(b)According to Rebbi Elazar, "v'Kasav Lah" pertains to the Kesivah, and not to the Chasimah. We learn this from his ruling - which validates a Get on which no witnesses signed.

7)

(a)According to Rabah, who attributes 'be'Fanai Nichtav u'be'Fanai Nechtam' to 'Lefi she'Ein Beki'in Lishmah' - who is now the author of our Mishnah, which requires both the Kesivah and the Chasimah of the Get to be Lishmah (seeing as Rebbi Meir requires only the Chasimah to be Lishmah and Rebbi Elazar, the Kesivah).

(b)We try to reconcile Rabah with Rebbi Elazar, and to establish our Mishnah like him - by confining Rebbi Elazar to Torah law, but that he concedes that mid'Rabanan, a Get must be signed Lishmah too.

(c)The Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Bava Basra says that a Get which is written in the husband's handwriting but on which witnesses did not sign, or they did sign, if it was not dated - is Pasul, but that in the event that she married with it, her children are not Mamzerim.

(d)The third case mentioned by the Tana together with these two is - if the Get is dated, but only one witness signed on it.

8)

(a)We know that the Gitin in the Mishnah in Bava Basra are Pasul mid'Oraisa but Kasher mid'Rabanan - because if they were Pasul mid'Oraisa, the children from any subsequent marriage would be Mamzerim.

(b)Rebbi Elazar says there - that even if no witnesses signed on the Get, it is Kasher (even mid'Rabanan) provided he handed her the Get in front of witnesses.

(c)This disproves our suggestion establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Elazar - because it assumes that Rebbi Elazar concedes that it is Pasul mid'Rabanan (whereas it is now evident that he validates a Get without signed witnesses even mid'Rabanan).

(d)The reason witnesses sign on a Get according to Rebbi Elazar - is a Takanas Chachamim, for fear that the witnesses who saw the handing over of the Get may die, leaving the woman without witnesses that she is divorced.

9)

(a)Rebbi Elazar concludes his statement 've'Govah mi'Nechasim Meshubadim'. If he is not referring to a woman claiming her Kesuvah from Nechasim Meshubadim' (bearing in mind that the word 'Get' can also apply to other Shtaros [see opening Tosfos in the Masechta] - then he is referring to a Shtar Chov (a document of debt), permitting the creditor to claim from creditors even though witnesses did not sign on the document.

10)

(a)We have finally concluded (for the time being) that, according to Rabah, the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Elazar. We attempt to establish it like Rebbi Meir, despite the fact that he does not require Kesivah Lishmah - by qualifying that as Torah-law, but that mid'Rabanan, Rebbi Meir agrees that it does.

(b)We refute this theory however, with a statement of Rav Nachman, who, quoting Rebbi Meir, said - that a signed Get that someone finds in a trash-heap, and hands to his wife, is Kasher (despite the fact that it was not written Lishmah.

(c)Had Rebbi Meir been referring merely to Torah-law, but mid'Rabanan, the Get would be Pasul - then Rav Nachman should not just have said 'Omer Hayah Rebbi Meir Afilu Matz'o ... '. He should have added the words 'Devar Torah ... '.