1)

(a)Initially, we reconcile Rav, who signed on the side of a document, with our Mishnah, which invalidates a Get which is signed at the top or at the side of a Get by establishing Rav when the top of the signature faced the writing on the Shtar (since it is then evident that the witnesses signed on that document), whilst our Mishnah speaks when it is the foot of the signatures that is facing the document (where we suspect that they may have signed on another document, which was subsequently cut out of the parchment.

(b)We reconcile this answer with our Mishnah, which invalidates two Shtaros written on one column if the beginning of the two Shtaros face each other, if the witnesses signed in the middle (declining to validate whichever Shtar faces the top of the signatures) by establishing the Mishnah when the witnesses signed 'like a bolt' (sideways), facing neither of the documents.

(c)The next case in the Mishnah (when it is the ends of the two Shtaros that face each other), which validates whichever of the two Shtaros with which the signatures coincide, forces us to retract from our current explanation of Rav because according to that explanation, the signatures face neither of the Gitin, as we just explained.

(d)To reconcile Rav with our Mishnah, we therefore conclude that a Get or any other legal document which is signed on top or at the side is always Pasul, and the Shtar on which Rav signed was merely an invitation to attend a Din Torah, which does not support any transaction, and where the Dayan may therefore sign anywhere.

2)

(a)Rebbi Yirmeyahu establishes our Mishnah 'Kesav Sofer v'Ed' to mean 'Chasam Sofer v'Ed' because otherwise, with only one witness having signed, the woman would not be permitted to marry Lechatchilah (as we learned earlier).

(b)The Tana is coming to teach us that we are not afraid that it was perhaps others whom the husband asked to sign on the Get, and that those others (illegally) passed on the Shelichus to the Sofer.

(c)Rav Chisda establishes the Mishnah like Rebbi Yosi, who says 'Mili Lo Mims'ron l'Shali'ach' (one Shali'ach cannot pass on instructions to another Shali'ach).

(d)In the case when they recognized the signature of one of the witnesses and the handwriting of the Sofer ...

1. ... Rebbi Avahu ruled that the Get was Kosher (like our Mishnah).

2. ... Rebbi Yirmiyah commented 'Chasam Sofer v'Ed Shaninu' (and not 'Kesav Sofer v'Ed').

3)

(a)When the Tana Kama of the Beraisa says that a nickname only lasts up to ten generations, he means that for a nickname to replace the full name in a Get, it must not have been out of use for more than ten generations.

(b)Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar permits a maximum of three.

(c)In support of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, Rav Huna quotes the Pasuk in va'Eschanan "Ki Solid Banim u'V'nei Vanim, v'Noshantem ... " (from which we see that it is after three generations that one adopts the title 'old'.

4)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns from the Pasuk "Umlalah Yoledes ha'Shiv'ah, Nafchah Ba'ah Shimshah, b'Od Yomam Boshah v'Chafrah" that it was only after seven 'Batei-Din' had served idols that Hash-m exiled the Kingdom of Yisrael from the land.

(b)Of the seven Batei-Din of the Kingdom of Yisroel guilty of idolatry ...

1. ... the first was Yeravam ben Nevat.

2. ... the last Hoshei'a ben Eilah (in whose days they were finally exiled).

(c)Seven Batei-Din mean in this context means seven families (incorporating a father and his descendents).

(d)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi did not include ...

1. ... the families of Shalum ben Yavesh, Zecharyah and Zimri because each of them reigned for less than a year.

2. ... Achav rather than his father Omri because Achav outdid his father in his evil ways (so that he incorporated him).

5)

(a)Rav Ami extrapolates this from the Pasuk "Ki Solid Banim u'Venei Banim" in the following way: "Ki Solid" one; "Banim" two; "u'Venei two; "Vanim" two, making a total of seven (Tosfos DH 'Mai K'ra').

(b)Hoshei'a ben Eilah was not as bad as his predecessors inasmuch as he was the first king to remove the border-guards that Yarav'am had set-up.

(c)In spite of this, Shalmaneser exiled Yisrael in his time precisely because, for the first time Yisrael were able to go up to Yerushalayim on Yom Tov, but declined to do so. So Hash-m exiled them to make up the number of years that they did not avail themselves of the opportunity whilst they had it.

(d)Rav Chisda ... quoting Mereimar, explains the Pasuk "va'Yishkod Hash-m Elokeinu Al ha'Ra'ah va'Yevi'ehah Aleinu Ki Tzadik Hash-m Elokeinu" to mean that Hash-m performed an extreme act of righteousness by bringing on the Churban Beis-Hamikdash and sending Tzidkiyahu to Bavel early, whilst the Torah-scholars who went into exile with Yechonyah were still alive (so that the new exiles should still be able to learn Torah from their mouths).

6)

(a)Galus Yechonyah preceded Galus Tzidkiyahu by eleven years.

(b)The thousand men described in Melachim as "ha'Cheresh v'ha'Masger" were outstanding Torah-scholars.

(c)

1. "ha'Cheresh" means that when they opened their mouths to expound Torah, everyone else became silent (as if they were dumb).

2. "ha'Masger" means that if they (the scholars) closed their mouths (because they were unable to answer their questioner), then nobody else could answer him either. (It is not clear why Rashi does not rather explain that once these Chachamim had explained something, everyone became dumb, because there was nothing more to say).

(d)Ula explains the Pasuk "v'Noshantem" (differently than Mereimar) to mean that Hash-m brought the Churban Beis-Hamikdash forward by two years, in order to avoid bringing to fruition the continuation of the Pasuk "Ki Avod Te'abeidun"; and that explains Hash-m's righteousness in bringing the disaster forward.

7)

(a)Rav Acha bar Yakov extrapolates from Ula's interpretation of the word "v'Noshantem" (i.e. that the word must be understood according to its numerical value) that Hash-m's "Meheirah" is eight hundred and fifty two years.

8)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses a 'Get Me'useh' a Get that Beis-Din coerce the husband to write (provided the culprit eventually declares his willingness to write it).

(b)A Get Me'useh under the auspices of Beis-Din is Kosher, says Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel. It will also be ...

1. ... Kosher if it is enforced by Nochri law-courts if, in the process of beating him, they instruct him to comply (not with their instructions, but) with those of Beis-Din.

2. ... Pasul (even under the auspices of Beis-Din) is Pasul if the enforcement is illegal.

9)

(a)When Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel says 'she'Lo k'Din ...

1. ... Pasul', he means that the woman is not permitted to marry with this Get.

2. ... u'Posel' he means that she is nevertheless disqualified from marrying a Kohen (in the event of her husband's death), because of 'Rei'ach ha'Get'..

(b)This ruling applies both to a 'Get ha'Me'useh b'Yisrael she'Lo k'Din', and to a 'Get ha'Me'useh b'Nochrim k'Din'.

(c)A Get ha'Me'useh b'Nochrim she'Lo k'Din is Pasul without even a Rei'ach ha'Get (and she will be permitted to marry a Kohen after her husband's death).

(d)The problem we have with the ruling in the case of a Get ha'Me'useh b'Nochrim k'Din is that mi'Mah Nafshach, if a Nochri has the power to enforce a Get, it should be Kosher, and if he hasn't, it should not have the Din of a 'Rei'ach ha'Get' either.

10)

(a)Rav Mesharshiya explains that min ha'Torah , a Get ha'Me'useh k'Din b'Nochrim is Kosher, and the reason Chazal decreed that it is Pasul is to discourage every disillusioned woman from running to a Nochri Beis-Din to coerce her husband to divorce her.

(b)The problem we have with Rav Mesharshiya's explanation is that if that is so, then why did Chazal not also decree 'Posel' on a Get ha'Me'useh she'Lo k'Din (like they did by a Yisrael).

(c)So we conclude that Rav Mesharshiya's ruling is a Bedusa' (a joke).

(d)In spite of the fact that a Get ha'Me'useh b'Nochrim k'Din is Pasul even min ha'Torah, the Tana rules 'Pasul u'Posel' in the form of a decree on account of k'Din b'Yisrael (so that people should not say that there too, the Get is Pasul).

(e)He stops short however, of decreeing she'Lo k'Din of a Nochri (Posel), on account of she'Lo k'Din of a Yisrael because 'Posel' in that case is only mid'Rabanan, and Chazal do not as a rule, decree a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah'.

11)

(a)When Abaye saw Rav Yosef forcing men to give a Get to their wives, he objected on the grounds that we are considered Hedyotos because we do not have Semichah (since the chain of Semichah, which can only be given by a Samuch in Eretz Yisrael, was broken already at that time with regard to sages who lived in Bavel).

(b)He quoted Rebbi Tarfon in a Beraisa, who extrapolated this from the Pasuk "v'Eleh ha'Mishpatim Asher Tasim Lifneihem" "Lifneihem" (before the seventy elders who accompanied Moshe on to Har Sinai before the Torah was given, and who were all Semuchim), 've'Lo Lifnei Hedyotos'.

(c)The Tana also Darshens from this Pasuk "Lifneihem", 've'Lo Lifnei Ovdei-Kochavim' (even if one knows that they issue the same rulings as we do with regard to the matter on hand.

(d)Rav Yosef countered that we (the Beis-Din in Bavel) perform the Shelichus of the Beis-Din in Eretz Yisrael (meaning that they have given all Batei-Din throughout the world the authority to rule in their stead, regarding the coercion of Gitin).

12)

(a)By 'Midi d'Havi a'Hoda'os v'Halva'os' Rav Yosef meant that the Din of enforcing a Get is equivalent to that of enforcing admissions and loans, which the Sugya in Sanhedrin specifically permits Hedyotos to enforce.

(b)The Sugya there nevertheless confines Gezeilos va'Chavalos to Mumchin (Semuchin) because they occur less frequently, and the principle of 'Shelichusaihu Avdinan' is restricted to issues that are common.

(c)Rav Yosef compares Gitin to Hoda'os v'Halvo'os because they too, are common.

13)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a woman about whom the rumor has spread that she is betrothed is forbidden to marry anyone else without a Get from the first man.

(b)Initially, we interpret his statement 'Megureshes, Harei Hu Megureshes' to mean that if a similar rumor were to spread that a married woman is divorced, then assuming that she is married to a Kohen, she is forbidden to remain with him. It cannot mean that she is literally permitted to re-marry because how can we allow a married woman to re-marry on the basis of a mere rumor.

14)

(a)If there is an Amasla (good reason to doubt the rumor), then we discount it. The example of an Amasla that the Tana give ...

1. ... by Get is if the man divorced his wife with a condition, which, for all we know, was not fulfilled.

2. ... by Kidushin is if he threw the Kidushin to her and we do not know whether it landed closer to her or to him, for all we know, closer to him.

(b)And the same will apply the other way round (if the Get fell a Safek closer to her ... , and the Kidushin was conditional).

(c)We reconcile Rav Ashi, who discounts any rumor that emanates concerning a married couple, with our Mishnah, which forbids the wife of a Kohen on her husband, as a result of a rumor by establishing the latter ('Megureshes, Harei Zu Megureshes') when the rumor that spread was that an unmarried woman became betrothed and divorced (which we accept in its entirety (not just to forbid her to her husband who is a Kohen, as we initially thought, but to actually go and get married), in similar fashion to the principle 'ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir'.