1)

(a)If the Shali'ach who is bringing the Get loses it and then finds it again, our Mishnah rules that sometimes the Get is Kosher and sometimes it is not. It is Kosher if he finds it immediately ...

(b)... but not if he finds it only later because of the possibility that it is not the Get that he lost, but one that somebody else lost.

(c)The Get will be Kosher even if he does however should he find it inside a receptacle that can be clearly identified.

(d)In the event that the Shali'ach recognizes the Get, it will be Kosher (though it is unclear why we should rely on the identification of someone who is not a Talmid-Chacham).

2)

(a)The Mishnah in Bava Metzia rules that someone who finds Gitei Nashim or other Shtaros, should not return them to either party, not even to the person who is named as the recipient in case the one who wrote it changed his mind, and did not hand it over to the recipient.

(b)This ruling clashes with our Mishnah since it implies that if the person who wrote the Shtar instructed the finder to hand it over to the recipient, then he is obligated to do so, even if a long time elapsed from the time that it was lost.

(c)Rabah therefore establishes our Mishnah in a location where many caravans stop (similar to a modern bus-station), where the Get could have fallen from one of many travelers, whereas the Mishnah in Bava Metzia is speaking in a location which is not so well frequented.

(d)We add to this the condition that another Yosef ben Shimon (besides the one who lost it) is known to reside in the same town, before the Tana of our Mishnah will invalidate the Get.

3)

(a)

1. Rav Huna ruled that the Get that was found in his Beis-Din, and in which the Sofer had written 'in Sheviri the town that is on the River Nachis', was invalid.

2. Rav Chisda instructed Rabah to go out and investigate what the Halachah would be in that particular case (because he knew that Rav Huna would ask him about it the following day).

3. Rabah extrapolated from the Mishnah in Bava Metzia 'Kol Ma'aseh Beis-Din Yachzir' that the Shtar which Rav Huna had invalidated was actually Kosher, seeing as it had been substantiated by Beis-Din, and there was no longer any suspicion that the husband had written the Get but not yet handed it over.

(b)We can now extrapolate from Rabah's ruling there that he is of the opinion that a Shtar is Kosher, even if it is found in a public place (which Rav Huna's Beis-Din certainly was), provided it has not been established that another Yosef ben Shimon resides in the same town.

(c)When a Get was found in the flax-house of Pumbedisa Rabah ruled that it should be returned because two flaws are required in order to invalidate a Get that is not found immediately, and in this case, there was only one.

(d)Some say that it was the house where they soaked the flax which was not well-frequented, only another Yosef ben Shimon was known to reside in the same town; whereas according to others, it was the house where they sold it which was well-frequented but no other Yosef ben Shimon was known to reside there.

4)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if someone finds a Get in the street, then, assuming that the husband agrees, he must return it to the woman (even after a long time). Rebbi Zeira reconciles this Beraisa with our Mishnah, (which invalidates a Shtar that the Shali'ach lost and found only later, for fear that this may not be the Get that he lost) by establishing the latter when the Get was lost in a location that is well-frequented (like Rabah did above), and the former, in a location that is not.

(b)Whether the Beraisa speaks when there is another Yosef ben Shimon in the same town or not is subject to a Machlokes; some say that it speaks even when there are (like Rabah), and others, when there are not, in which case Rebbi Zeira argues with Rabah.

(c)Should the husband not admit that he wrote the Get, the finder does not return it to either of them. It is obvious why he does not return it to the woman. The reason that he does not return it to the husband is for fear that the woman is really divorced, and when she later brings Eidei Mesirah to prove it, and to claims her Kesuvah, he will produce the Get and claim that he already paid her, and she gave him the Get as a receipt.

5)

(a)The reason that ...

1. ... Rabah prefers to deal with the discrepancy between our Mishnah and the Mishnah in Bava Metzia ('Matza Gitei Nashim ... Harei Zeh Lo Yachzir, she'Ani Omer ... ') is because it is preferable to present a discrepancy between two Mishnayos than between a Mishnah and a Beraisa.

2. ... Rebbi Zeira prefers to deal with the discrepancy between our Mishnah and the Beraisa ('Matza Get Ishah ba'Shuk, bi'Zeman she'ha'Ba'al Modeh, Yachzir la'Ishah ... ') because there is nothing in the Mishnah in Bava Metzia to suggest that the Get was not found immediately after it was lost.

(b)The Beraisa implies that it speaks after a long time because otherwise, there would be no Chidush, since it is obvious that, if the Kesuvah was lost and found immediately, and the husband also admits that he wrote it, it is Kosher ...

(c)... whereas the Chidush in the Mishnah in Bava Metzia lies in the actual Halachah 'Harei Zeh Lo Yachzir' (irrespective of the inference, which is the topic of discussion).

6)

(a)Rebbi Yirmeyahu explains that the witnesses testify that they only signed on one Shtar with these two names on it in order to resolve both the Kashya of Rabah and that of Rebbi Zeira. Both the Mishnah in Bava Metzia and the Beraisa speak in such a case.

(b)The Chidush will then be that we do not go so far as to suspect that not only are there two couples with identical names, but that there are even two sets of witnesses with identical names, who signed on two different Shtaros.

(c)Rav Ashi establishes the Mishnah in Bava Metzia and the Beraisa when the person who lost the Shtar testifies that there is a hole beside such and such a letter. The reason that he requires such a strong Siman (and not make do with a hole anywhere on the Shtar) is because he is not sure that Simanim (which are not Muvhakim [clearly defined]) are d'Oraisa, in which case one would require Simanim Muvhakim (which are definitely d'Oraisa).

7)

(a)When Rabah bar bar Chanah lost a Get in the Beis ha'Midrash, they returned it to him for one of two possible reasons either because of Simanim or because of Tevi'as Ayin (recognition).

(b)The difference between the two reasons is whether the Get would have been returned under the same circumstances to someone who was not a Talmid-Chacham (who is believed regarding Tevi'as Ayin but not regarding Simanim (assuming they are not d'Oraisa).

(c)It is necessary to say that Rabah bar bar Chanah gave Simanim that were not Muvhakim because if they were, there would have been no Safek why they returned the Get to him, and there would have been no difference between Rabah bar bar Chanah and anybody else.

(d)Assuming that Beis-Din returned him the Get on the basis of Simanim, they must have held that 'Simanim d'Oraisa' because if Simanim were mid'Rabanan, then they would be effective in the realm of money-matters (where Beis-Din have the power of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker'), but not in cases of Isur, such as permitting a married woman to re-marry.

8)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that a Shali'ach who loses a Get and then finds it is believed that the Get that he found is the one he lost provided he finds it immediately. The Tana'im in a Beraisa argue over the meaning of 'immediately'. According to Rebbi Nasan, it means within the time it takes for a caravan to stop there and camp.

(b)Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar gives the Shi'ur as the time it takes for a person to keep check that nobody passed by meaning that nobody passed by the location of the lost Get from the time it was lost until it was found.

(c)'Yesh Omrim' is slightly more lenient. According to him, it does not matter if someone passed by that location as long as he did not stop there.

(d)Rebbi gives the Shi'ur as within the time it takes to write a Get. Rebbi ...

1. ... Yitzchak says the time it takes to read it, whereas ...

2. ... according to 'Acherim', it is the time it takes to write a Get and read it.

9)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules within the time it takes for someone to keep check that nobody stopped at that location (like 'Yesh Omrim'); Rabah bar bar Chanah quoting Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel ... that nobody passed by that location (like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar).

(b)They did not just sate whose opinion they follow (rather than state the Halachah as if it was their own opinion) because they switch the Tana'im's opinions, and to have merely quoted the author of the opinion that they followed would have been confusing.

10)

(a)With regard to the Get itself, the Beraisa describes ...

1. ... a hole besides a certain letter as an acceptable Siman.

2. ... long or short Get as an unacceptable one.

(b)If one finds it after the required time has elapsed ...

1. ... tied to a purse or to a ring, which he recognizes the Get is Kosher.

2. ... in a drawer in his house the Get is Kosher, too.

(c)Our Mishnah validates the Get even after the required time has elapsed, if the Shali'ach finds it in a Chafisah or a Delusk'ma. Rabah bar bar Chanah defines ...

1. ... a 'Chafisah' as a leather shepherd's bag.

2. ... a 'Delusk'ma' as an old man's satchel.