1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that even if the man throws a Get to his wife on to the bed that they are sharing, she is not divorced. Rava restricts this to a bed that belongs to him, but should it belong to her, she is divorced, and this is substantiated by Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa. The problem with this ruling is why we do not then cite this Mishnah to resolve the She'eilah as to whether vessels belonging to a purchaser acquire on behalf of their owner even when they are lying in the domain of the seller or not (since we see from here that they are).

(b)We answer that Rava is speaking about a bed that is higher than ten Tefachim in which case it is considered an independent domain.

(c)Even though the feet of the bed are below ten Tefachim the owner is not fussy about them, and does not mind his wife using that space.

2)

(a)We also learned in our Mishnah that if the man threw a Get into his wife's basket, she is divorced. The problem with that is exactly the same as the previous one.

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel and Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya therefore establish the Mishnah when her basket is hanging from her. When ...

1. ... Reish Lakish says 'Keshurah Af-Al-Pi she'Einah Teluyah', he means that she will acquire the Get even if the basket is dragging along the ground, whereas the previous Amora'im are speaking specifically when it is both tied to her and suspended from her body.

2. ... Rav Ada bar Ahavah establishes our Mishnah when the basket is hanging from between her thighs he means that she is sitting down, and her husband is not fussy if she uses the space where she is seated for her own personal use.

3. ... Rav Mesharshaya b'Rav Dimi establishes our Mishnah by a husband who is a basket salesman he means that he will therefore not be fussy if she leaves her basket in the room where he keeps his baskets (which is the case in our Mishnah).

(c)Rava explains Rebbi Yochanan, who answers 'Makom Cheikah Kanuy Lah, Makom Kelasah Kanuy Lah' to mean that a man is generally not fussy about the space that his wife uses for her own personal use.

(d)We cite in support of Rava's explanation reads 'Zarku lah l'Toch Cheikah O l'Toch Kalasah O l'Toch Kol Davar she'Hu k'Kalasah' implying that anything that she uses regularly is included.

(e)In fact, it specifically comes to include bags from which one eats dates.

3)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that, if a man hands his wife a Get instructing her to accept a Shtar Chov or if she found it behind him, and upon reading it, she discovered that it was a Get she is not divorced.

(b)For the Get to be valid, he must say 'Hey Gitech' (Here is your Get!' [even if he says it after she has read it]).

(c)If he placed it in her hand whilst she was asleep, and then, when she awoke, she read it and discovered that it was a Get she is not divorced either, for the same reason.

4)

(a)The problem with the second case in our Mishnah (when the woman picked up the Get from behind her husband after he said 'Hey Gitech') assuming that she picked it up from the ground is that as Rava already taught us 'T'li Gitech me'Al-Gabei Karka, Lo Amar Klum'.

(b)We amend this to mean that the Get was actually stuck in his belt behind him and she took it from there. This is better than picking it up from the ground because it speaks when he bent his thigh to help her take it (which is considered as having complied with the Pasuk "v'Nasan b'Yadah".

(c)The above is the opinion of Rebbi in a Beraisa. According to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, in all the cases in our Mishnah the husband must first take the Get back before saying 'Hey Gitech!', for the Get to be valid.

(d)Rebbi and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar repeat the same Machlokes regarding the case when he placed the Get in her hand when she was asleep. Even though they argue in the case of ...

1. ... 'Kinsi Shtar Chov Zeh' (and 'Shalfaso me'Achorav'), they nevertheless need to argue in the case of 'Nasnah b'Yadah v'Hi Yesheinah' to teach us that Rebbi is lenient, not only there where the woman is in a state to be divorced when the Get reaches her, but even there where she is not.

2. ... 'Nasnah b'Yadah v'Hi Yesheinah', they nevertheless need to argue in the case of 'Kinsi Shtar Chov Zeh ... ' to teach us that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar is stringent, not only in a case where the woman is not in a state to be divorced, but even in a case where she is.

5)

(a)Rava says that if a man writes a Get and gives it to his wife's slave whilst he is awake, she is not divorced because the Get is now guarded with the knowledge of the Eved, rather than with the woman's knowledge.

(b)We object to the other half of his statement 'that if he places it in the slave's hand whilst he is asleep, she is divorced', on the grounds that a slave is a walking Chatzer. Rava said that whatever cannot acquire when it is walking, cannot acquire even when it is standing or sitting. In that case, he will not acquire when he is sleeping either.

(c)Rava ruled that the Get is valid in a case where the Eved is bound (see Tosfos 21a DH 've'Hilchesa').

6)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if a man throws his wife a Get and it lands ...

1. ... close to him she is not divorced.

2. ... close to her she is.

3. ... exactly halfway Megureshes v'Einah Megureshes.

(b)The same will apply to a Shtar Kidushin that a man throws to a woman and to the money that the debtor throws to the creditor (at his request) into the Reshus ha'Rabim. The ramifications of the latter case should it fall close to ...

1. ... the creditor are that he the debtor is considered as having repaid his loan. Consequently, if the money should then get lost, he will be Patur from paying again.

2. ... the debtor are that he has not yet paid and, should the money then get lost, he will remain obligated to pay.

3. ... halfway then it is a Safek, and he pays half.

7)

(a)Rav explains 'close to her' to mean within her four Amos and 'close to him', within his four Amos. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak explains 'Mechtzah Al Mechtzah' to mean that they were both standing in the same four Amos, and the Get landed in between them. When we ask 'Let's see who got there first', we mean to ask that whoever arrived first at that spot acquires those four Amos and with it, the Get (and not the second one).

(b)The problem with the suggestion that they both arrived simultaneously is that this clashes with the principle 'Iy Efshar Letzamtzem' (two people cannot possibly do something at precisely the same moment [though it is unclear why we cannot say that in spite of the principle, they did not know who arrived first).

(c)So Rav Kahana tries to establish the case where there were exactly eight Amos between them, and the Get landed half in his Reshus and half in hers.

(d)The problem with this answer is that when all's said and done, the Get has not left his domain, in which case, she ought not to be divorced.

8)

(a)Rabah and Rav Yosef finally establish 'Mechtzah Al Mechtzah', according to Rav's explanation of our Mishnah when there are two pairs of witnesses, one testifying that the Get fell closer to him, and the other, that it fell closer to her.

9)

(a)

1. Rebbi Yochanan interprets 'Karov Lo' and 'Karov Lah' to mean closer to him or closer to her, even if it is a hundred Amos away.

2. Rav Shemen bar Aba elaborates. Quoting Rebbi Yochanan, he explains 'Karov Lo' and 'Karov Lah' to mean whichever is better able to guard the Get. Consequently, 'Mechtzah Al Mechtzah' means that either both of them or neither of them (on their own see Tosfos) are able to guard it.

(b)When they informed Rebbi Yochanan that Rebbi Yonasan (who lived in Eretz Yisrael) explained the Mishnah in the same way he commented on their Babylonian colleague's depth of understanding.

(c)He refered to him as 'Bavla'i' because Rebbi Yonasan moved from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan's explanation has the support of a Beraisa. Initially, we explain the statement there 'Kol she'Karov Lah mi'Lo, u'Ba Kelev v'Natlo, Einah Megureshes' to mean that even though the Get fell close to her, the moment a dog takes it, it becomes nullified.

(b)The problem with this interpretation is that if the Get was valid when it fell close to her, why should it become invalid when a dog took it? Since when is a woman obligated to guard her Get against dogs and thieves?

(c)So what the Beraisa really means to say is that as long as the Get fell close enough for her to guard it against dogs, it is valid.

(d)Shmuel's explanation of our Mishnah is the most radical of all. After telling Rav Yehudah that, by 'Karov Lah', the Tana means that she can bend down and pick it up without having to move from where she is standing, he added that one should not even rely on that, but make certain that the Get actually reached her hands (or her domain), before validating it.

(e)Rav Mordechai told Rav Ashi that such a case actually occurred (where the Get fell close to her), where there was a Yavam, and the Beis-Din ruled that she should perform Chalitzah (even though she was legally divorced).

11)

(a)With reference to our Mishnah, Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan restricts the Din of 'Karov Lah' to Gitin because it does not require her Da'as.

(b)Our Mishnah writes ...

1. ... 've'Chen l'Inyan Kidushin' because the Torah compares Kidushin to Gitin with the Hekesh "v'Yatz'ah v'Hayesah".

2. ... 've'Chen l'Inyan ha'Chov ... ' (bearing in mind that to establish our Mishnah when the creditor said 'Z'rok Li Chovi v'Hipater' would be too obvious for the Tana to insert) because it is speaking when he said 'Z'rok Li Chovi b'Toras Gitin'.

(c)The Chidush of the Tana is that he cannot later claim that he was merely pulling the debtor's leg.

12)

(a)Rav Chisda rules that if the woman is holding the Get, but the man is still holding the string to which it is attached she is divorced, provided he is unable to pull it out of her hands.

(b)If he is able to pull the Get out of her hands, she is not divorced because the Torah refers to a get as 'Sefer Kerisus' (which really means 'a scroll of severance' [and as long as he has jurisdiction over the Get, it cannot be considered 'Kerisus']).

13)

(a)Rav Yehudah states that if a husband places a Get into his wife's sloping hand, she is not divorced, in spite of the fact that the Get will fall within her four Amos anyway because he is speaking when the Get never reached the ground (e.g. it got burned up [by a stray flame]).

(b)Rebbi Elazar asked whether when Chazal instituted the Din of the four Amos that surround a person acquire on his behalf, they incorporated the air that serves those four Amos or not.

(c)We ...

1. ... try to resolve his She'eilah from Rav Chisda's ruling in that they do not, because if they did, then why, in the previous case, does Rav Chisda rule that she is not divorced?

2. ... establish Rav Chisda in order to refute the proof when she is standing in a location where, the moment the Get fell out of her hand, it was due to get lost (e.g. beside a river [or a fire that had been burning there before]), in which case, even Rebbi Elazar will concede that the air does not acquire.