Implied Question: Why did the Rabbanan require the messenger to say that the Get was written and signed before him if there is really no suspicion the Get is unfit, even according to Rebbi Meir?

Explanation (#1): Rashi explains the Gemara's answer as stating that it is possible a person would find a Get that was written for someone in his city who happens to have the same name as him, and had decided not to go through with the Get.

Question: This is difficult. When it is known that there are two people named Yosi ben Shimon in a particular city, it is unfit to use this document even when it was written for him according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir (24b). The Gemara there says that if a person had a Get written in order to divorce his older wife, he cannot use it to divorce his younger wife (of the same name).

The Gemara continues that he cannot divorce the younger wife, implying he could divorce the older wife. This must be according to Rebbi Eliezer and unlike Rebbi Meir, who says that it has to be apparent from the signing witnesses which wife he is divorcing.

The Gemara later tries to establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Meir (who holds that such a Get is Pasul). Even according to Rebbi Elazar, witnesses who saw that the husband made him a messenger are required. (Accordingly, how could Rashi say that this is the suspicion of our Gemara? Such a Get would never be ruled as kosher!)

Explanation (#2): The Ri says that the requirement here is so that the husband should not claim later that the Get that he used was actually written by a new scribe who was merely practicing. The husband could claim that he innocently signed witnesses on the Get (which happened to have the same names as those of he and his wife), as he did not realize that the Get had to be written "for her."

Implied Question: In the beginning of Yevamos (88a) the Gemara asks, just because you placed a stringency at the end (that a woman who remarried and her husband comes back faces many unpleasant consequences), you were lenient in the beginning (to allow her to remarry with only one witness)? Do not be stringent nor lenient! The Gemara answers, being that she would otherwise have to stay unmarried, the Rabbanan were lenient.

(In our Gemara,) it is not possible to ask a similar question that the stringency is canceling out the leniency.

Answer: If you require two witnesses and the husband arrives, she can go back to him as the Gemara states there. With one witness, the Halachah is that she must leave both her "current" husband and her original husband. This is because there are times when there is nothing else to do, as only one person who knew her husband saw him die. Even if many people saw him die, who will force them to come here and testify? However, in a case of sending a Get, he has the ability to send it with two people who are going to Eretz Yisrael.

Implied Question: What are the consequences of the husband's claim that there is something wrong with the Get?

Answer: It is possible to explain that the Get could indeed become totally unfit. Even though he is technically not believed and these are only rumors, it could become unfit.

Question: Why, then, is there an assumption that saying that the Get was written before him should help, being that rumors spread by the husband could render the Get invalid?

Answer: The Gemara assumes that it should be effective, as most times a husband will not claim this at all as he thinks that people will not believe him. However, if he does he can render the Get invalid.

We originally (before this statement of the Gemara) thought that the Mishnah's statement that "if there are people claiming the Get is fake that it should be verified by the signatures of the witnesses," is continuing the discussion regarding people who bring a Get from Chutz la'Aretz. The Gemara answered that the messenger makes sure that the Get is given willingly by the husband before he takes it, and that the husband will (almost certainly) not come to contest the Get. Even if he will contest it, he will not be believed and there will not be any rumors at all. (However, the Gemara is now changing course and saying that he could render the Get unfit.)

Question (#1): However, it does not seem to the Ri that we should explain that the Get should actually be ruled unfit because of mere rumors, as before these rumors the Get was known to be valid.

Question (#2): Additionally, the first part of the Mishnah does not say, "one who brings a Get from overseas, if there are those who claim (that the Get is invalid)," as it wrote at the end of the Mishnah.

Answer: It therefore seems that the explanation of, "and he will render it unfit" means he will establish rumors that people believe that the Get is unfit. However, the Get is ruled to be kosher.

Question: Our Gemara says that the only reason that the messenger has to say that it was "written" before him is because people might mix this testimony with the regular verifying of documents which requires two witnesses (on every signature). If this is the case, why does the Gemara later (15a) say that if he only saw the last half of the being written that his testimony is invalid? Why should this be different than him saying that he saw the first half of the Get being written (if in any event this is not a crucial part of the testimony)?

Answer: The first half of the Get contains the name of the man and woman, and the date (that the Get was written). Being that this is the main part of the Get, (a witness who says that he saw this being written makes it clear that he is testifying about the writing of the Get, and causes us not to mistaken this for a regular verification of documents (which requires two witnesses). (If he only testifies that he saw the second half of the Get being written, his statement is insignificant. We are essentially left with his statement "I saw it signed," which could lead us to confuse this type of testimony with the verification of documents.)

Observation: However, just saying that he knows that this is their signature does not help.

The reason is that when a messenger says that he saw the Get written and signed, he is more careful. He is putting himself in a much more difficult position if he has to say that he was present when the Get was written and signed than when he says that he knows these are the signatures of the witnesses.

Question: Why doesn't the messenger's statement that he knows that these are the signatures of the witnesses help according to Rabah like it does according to Rava?

Answer: It must be that according to Rabah the reason (that he has to say it was signed and witnessed in front of him) is to ascertain the Get was written "for her."

Question: Accordingly, it seems that the Gemara should still ask why Rabah does not say like Rava, who explains that the reason is due to verification of the witnesses signatures? Let the messenger state that he knows the signatures of the witnesses and that it was written before him! This would ensure that we would not mix up his testimony with the standard testimony of verifying a document (see previous Tosfos).

Answer: The Ri says that the Mishnah later (15a) states that if one person says that it was written before him and two people say that it was signed before them, the Get is valid. Rabah understands that this implies that simply "knowing" (the signatures) does not help (as the Mishnah could have given an example of witnesses merely "knowing" the signature of the witnesses on the Get).

Explanation (Rashi): Rashi explains that since Rava holds that the point is to verify the signature of the document, who cares if he says that he saw it signed or that he knows that there are their signatures? This implies that the messenger is believed to say that he knows the signatures of the witnesses.

This that the Gemara says, "they know" in a plural form and not in a singular form, is because it is discussing a case of regular messengers as well (but here the messenger is sufficient).

Previously, the Gemara did not want to give this as a difference between them (Rabah and Rava), as the Gemara only wanted to establish a difference where one held something was needed and one held it wasn't (not how many witnesses are required).

Question (#1): However, this (explanation) is difficult, as Rava always states that saying that "it was signed before me" does not literally mean that it was signed before him (saying he knows it is their signatures is good enough).

Question (#2): Additionally, if one witness (the messenger) is believed to say that he knows that these are the signatures of the witnesses, how could Rava say (15a) that even if he and someone else testify regarding the signature of the second witness, the Get is Pasul (not verified). If Rava held that the messenger can verify both signatures, the messenger himself should be enough! Does it make sense that an additional party who corroborates his testimony will not make the Get invalid?! Additionally, if one witness (the messenger) is believed to say that he knows that these are the signatures of the witnesses, how could Rava say (15a) that even if he and someone else testify regarding the signature of the second witness, the Get is Pasul (not verified). If Rava held that the messenger can verify both signatures, the messenger himself should be enough! Does it make sense that an additional party who corroborates his testimony will not make the Get invalid?!

Even though Rashi explains there (15b) that this is essentially Rav Ashi's question on the Gemara there, "is there something where if someone finishes his entire statement it is kosher etc." However, it is impossible that Rava actually made a mistake by thinking that this would be understandable (that if one person says it is kosher it is, but if another person says it is kosher it is not).

Explanation (Rabeinu Meshulam): It seems that merely saying that he "knows" that these are the signatures of the witnesses does not help, even according to Rava. The messenger must actually say that he saw the Get written and signed. This is because this will ensure he will be careful (as he is invested in his statement, see previous Tosfos). Rabeinu Meshulam explains the Gemara in the following manner. If two people come and verify the Get, aren't they believed? Being that verification of the Get is an option in the manner that it is done by other legal documents, people will come to mix up the verification of other documents with the law of a messenger of a Get.

Implied Question: The question (brought up as a logical difference in favor of Rabah) regarding a woman and the person themselves, Rava did not bother to answer.

Answer: This is because it is uncommon that she (or the husband) will bring her Get. If one kosher witness (saying that the Get was merely signed before him would bring the Get), this would lead people to confuse this with the verification of documents.

Question: According to our Gemara's conclusion that Rabah holds of Rava, our Mishnah should be established like Rebbi Elazar (and not Rebbi Yehudah, as Rav Ashi later states). This would mean that saying, "it was written before me" is mandatory to ensure the Get is written for her, and "it was signed before me" is because there are normally no witnesses to verify the Get.

It is difficult to say that this entire Gemara, and the statement of Rav Ashi who later says that our Mishnah is according to Rebbi Yehudah, is only based on what the Gemara originally thought (and is not according to the Gemara's conclusion).

Answer: It is possible to answer that Rabah, even according to the Gemara's conclusion, holds that one needs that the signature should be "for her" once he says that simply "knowing" that these are the signatures of the witnesses is insufficient. If "knowing" would help according to the conclusion of the Gemara, the Gemara should ask why Rabah does not hold like Rava.

Implied Question: It is impossible to say that the reason "knowing" does not help is because this will cause people to confuse this type of testimony with the regular verification of documents.

Answer: Being that the witness here must add that he saw the Get written due to it having to have been written "for her," we will not mix up this type of testimony with verification of documents in general.

Observation: This Gemara, and the Gemara later where Rav Ashi establishes that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Yehudah, is according to Reish Lakish (21b). Reish Lakish there establishes that the Mishnah taught, "they signed," meaning that they have to sign a real signature on the Get.

However, Rebbi Yochanan and Shmuel establish that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Elazar. They understand that "Chasmu" - "they signed," means the area of the document where the names and date are listed (not the final signature of the document). In this context, "Chasmu" means that "they finished," as in the Gemara's statement (60a) that the Torah was given "Chasumah" - "finished."

According to Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan it is also possible to prove that Rebbi Meir does not require that the writing of the Get be for her. This is evident from the statement of Rav Nachman who said that Rebbi Meir said that even if a Get is found in the garbage, it can be kosher.

Question: How is it obvious from here that the Get does not have to be written for her? Perhaps Lechatchilah it is necessary, just as one needs a Get to have been already detached from the ground when it was written?

Answer: Even if one would say that Lechatchilah the writing must be for her, it is not possible to establish the Mishnah in accordance with this opinion. Being that the Get is kosher b'Dieved if it is not for her, they would not have instituted that the messenger must say that it was written before him to ascertain that it was true (as the Get would in any event be kosher, at least b'Dieved).

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. Our Gemara implies that our Mishnah cannot be according to Rebbi Meir because Rebbi Meir does not require that the Get be written for her. Later (5b), the Beraisa explicitly states that if someone brings a Get from overseas, and gives it to the woman without saying that it was written and signed before him, any children that the woman subsequently has due to her remarriage because of this Get are ruled to be Mamzerim. This is the opinion of Rebbi Meir. According to Rava this is understandable, as he requires that the messenger say it was written before him in order that this should not be mixed up with the typical verification of documents.

Rav Nachman's case that if the Get was found in the garbage it is kosher is if the husband himself gives the Get to her or he lives in Eretz Yisrael (and sends it to her in Eretz Yisrael with a messenger). However, if someone sends a Get with a messenger overseas, the messenger has to see the writing of the Get in order to say that he saw it written, so that this should not be confused with the typical verification of documents.

However, according to Rabah this is difficult. Rabah does not hold that there is any reason to think that this will be confused with typical verification of documents. This is even according to the Gemara's conclusion that Rabah agrees with Rava. (Rabah holds that the messenger's testimony that he saw it written is to ascertain the Get was written for her, not because confusion might arise between this and regular document verification. This is not enough reason to proclaim that the child should be a Mamzer in the absence of the messenger's statement.)

Observation: Some later (86a) say that this Mishnah is according to Rebbi Meir.

Implied Question: Rebbi Meir holds that whoever changes from the format chosen by the Chachamim regarding the giving of Gitin, causes the subsequent children from a remarriage after this Get to be labeled Mamzerim. (Accordingly, how is it possible that this Mishnah was authored by Rebbi Meir, if it says that the child is not a Mamzer despite the fact that the Get is unfit?)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that here the reason that the child is kosher (not a Mamzer) is because the law of the Chachamim that was instituted regarding these three things that although they should be adhered to, they will not cause any child to be a Mamzer if transgressed.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that Rebbi Meir holds that the word "and he will write ("to her" - "for her")" is referring to the signatures of witnesses, he still can hold that in the case where the Get was written in his handwriting without witnesses that he child is not a Mamzer.

Answer: Being that the husband himself wrote the document, there is no greater signature (meaning: verification) than this.

Question: One of the cases stated is when there is only one witness on the Get.

According to the opinion (ibid.) that his handwriting and one witness is valid, there is no problem (why a child who resulted from such a get should be kosher). However, according to the opinion that only the handwriting of the scribe plus the witness makes a Get valid (as this is like two witnesses), it seems difficult (to establish the case of one witness according to Rebbi Meir). Why don't we suspect that the scribe wrote the Get just for practice and proceeded to throw it away. The woman might have found it and signed one witness on it. This would mean that there certainly are not two witnesses on the Get (as the scribe was just practicing).

Answer: Scribes are generally careful not to leave stumbling blocks for people, and they are therefore careful (not to leave their practice Gitin accessible to the public). However, they are not totally careful to the extent that the writing of the scribe should always be considered like a witness (unless the scribe says that he wrote the Get). (Note: It is still within the realm of possibility that the woman indeed might possibly have found it in the garbage.)

Implied Question: Why is a Get in his handwriting invalid?

Answer: The reason the Get is invalid is because he can write the date of the Get whenever he wants, making it is like a Get that has no date which is invalid.

Question: This is understandable according to the opinion later (17a) that they established that the date must be recorded in Gitin in order that a person should not have pity on his niece (who is also his wife). (Note: If he finds out she was unfaithful, he would otherwise be able to write a Get that is dated before she was unfaithful, sparing her the death penalty.) Here, too, the Get being written in his handwriting does not alleviate the suspicion that he would be covering up for his wife.

However, according to the opinion who explains there that the date on a Get was mandated in order to ensure that any Nichsei mi'Lug that is sold is only sold before the date on the Get (see Rashi 17a, DH "mi'Shum"), what suspicion is there when the Get is written in his handwriting?

One might think that we suspect that he will date the Get early, even though he is divorcing her, in order to conspire that she will collect from the unsuspecting buyers who bought the Nichsei mi'Lug from him between the date on the Get and the date it was actually given (and they will split the money).There indeed is a similar suspicion regarding a woman receiving a receipt for her Kesuvah (see Bava Metzia 19a).

If so, we should merely not trust such a Get to take away possessions from buyers of Nichsei mi'Lug based on the date in the Get (but the Get itself should be ruled to be kosher).

Answer #1: He is certainly not believed. Chazal therefore said the Get is unfit because sometimes the woman will also lose (and therefore it is not in her interests for the Get to be kosher, see Maharam). For example, if the husband writes the correct date (on a regular kosher Get), his ex-wife should be able to collect from buyers who bought Nichsei mi'Lug after the divorce. However, in this case we will not believe the date on the Get because we suspect that he dated it early. (Note: Accordingly, the woman will never be able to get back Nichsei mi'Lug wrongly sold by the husband.) They therefore said the Get is unfit.

Now the woman will not take away possessions from others because the Get is unfit, as only a kosher Get allows one to collect (Nichsei mi'Lug wrongly sold by the husband) from the day it was written.

Answer #2: We can additionally answer that we suspect that after the Get is written (but not yet given) she will seize her Nichsei mi'Lug, and claim that she was already divorced from the time stated in the Get (even though she was never given the Get by her husband). (Note: The Maharam, who understands Tosfos in this fashion, explains that a Get that is properly signed with witnesses, even before it is given, effectively means that the husband no longer has rights to his wife's Nichsei mi'Lug. Accordingly, if his wife would take the Get away before it is given and use it to seize Nichsei mi'Lug, she would be correct in doing so. However, if it is written in his handwriting but not given, her seizure would be incorrect.)

Implied Question: According to the opinion that this case is when the Get was written in his handwriting and there was a witness to the document, (why bother to say both this case and the case where it was only written in his handwriting)? (Note: If in the case where there are no witnesses the Get is unkosher but the children are not Mamzerim, certainly where there is an added witness the same is true!)

Answer: The reason that the Mishnah stated the case where there were no witnesses was to say that even so the children are not Mamzerim. The reason for the second case where there was one witness is to say that she cannot marry Lechatchilah based on this Get.

Implied Question: It seems that the same would be true if there was no date on the Get. (Note: If this is so, why didn't the Mishnah say a greater novelty, that a Get that has a witness but not a date prevents the children of the subsequent marriage from being proclaimed Mamzerim?)

Answer: The reason why this case was said including a date on the Get is in order to tell us that even though it has a date she should not use it to get married again Lechatchilah.

Question: It is possible that Rebbi Elazar only says that such a Get is kosher if it was written in his handwriting or with one witness, as the Tana Kama is only discussing these types of Gitin. (Note: What is the Gemara's proof from here that Rebbi Elazar holds that signing "Lishmah" is not necessary?)

Answer #1: The terminology "even if there are no witnesses" implies even if there are no witnesses at all.

Answer #2: Additionally, Rebbi Elazar says, "witnesses only sign on a Get because of Tikun Olam." (Note: Rashi DH "Ela" explains that if the witnesses die the document will still be valid, as their signature can be verified by others.) This implies that witnesses for the giving over of the Get is truly enough to have a kosher Get.

Answer #3: The Ri understands that Rebbi Elazar holds that Lechatchilah a Get can be given even if there are only witnesses for the giving of the Get (and no witnesses sign on the Get).

This is evident from the Mishnah later (21b) where the Tana Kama says that one should not write a Get on paper that was erased. The Chachamim say that such a Get is kosher. The Gemara there asks, who is the Chachamim? It is Rebbi Elazar, who holds that the witnesses of the giving of the Get effect the Get. The implication is that such a Get is kosher, and can be written Lechatchilah.

Implied Question: The Mishnah later (34b) says that Rabban Gamliel decreed that witnesses must sign on a Get. (Note: Accordingly, how could Rebbi Elazar ignore that decree?)

Answer: It must be that Rabban Gamliel did not mean that this is necessary, but rather he decreed that this should be taught as the way to organize a Get. This is in order that the people should not need the witnesses who saw the giving of the Get when they want to use the Get as proof (in any case that may arise). However, if people knowingly say that they will only rely on witnesses of the giving of the Get (and they do not care to have witnesses signed on the Get, Rebbi Elazar would say that) they are entitled to do so.

Explanation: The second explanation of Rashi is that if this is a loan document, one could collect from possessions with a lien (even though no witnesses are signed on the document).

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Tam agrees. This is implied in the Gemara later (86b), where Rav says that the Halachah follows Rebbi Elazar regarding Gitin. The Gemara asks, the Halachah does not follow him regarding other documents? Doesn't he say that one can collect from possessions with a lien? This clearly implies that Rebbi Elazar even holds this way regarding other documents.

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Bava Basra (176b) asks, what if his handwriting is known to the Beis Din? This means, could one collect from possessions with a lien based on such a document? The Gemara there continues to quote the above Gemara in Gitin (86b), where it says that one could collect from possessions with a lien. The Gemara there answers that the case in Gitin, "is different as there is a Kesuvah." This answer implies that this law only applies to Get, not other types of documents (where there is no Kesuvah).

Answer: The Rashbam there has the text, "is different, as from the time when it was written and on he indebted himself." This means, when the document was written it was done so in order to give it over in front of witnesses instead of having witnesses sign on the document. This creates the same amount of publicity (regarding the transaction) as if witnesses were signed on the document.

However, when the Gemara earlier asked regarding someone whose handwriting is known to Beis Din, it was asking regarding someone who gave the document without witnesses. He only intended to admit in the document to whatever he wrote, and did not intend to write a document that would have automatic publicity. Accordingly, such a document will not help (to enable one to collect possessions with a lien), even if his handwriting was known to Beis Din. (Note: According to this explanation of the answer, there is no contradiction between the two Gemaros.)

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Chananel explained the Gemara in Bava Basra (176a) as arguing on the Gemara in Gitin (86b).

Rabeinu Chananel rules that one should rely on the Gemara in Bava Basra (ibid.), and therefore should not collect when there are only witnesses regarding the giving of the document from possessions that do not have a lien.

Implied Question: The Gemara later (11a) asks regarding a Persian document that was given over in front of Jewish witnesses, why can't it be used to collect from possessions that have a lien? (Note: According to Rabeinu Chananel, we do not rule that even a Jewish document that only has witnesses of the giving over of the document can be used to collect from possessions with a lien. Why would the Gemara think that this document would be any different?)

Answer: This is not difficult according to Rabeinu Chananel's ruling. The Gemara there is discussing a document that has Nochri witnesses signed on it, as Rashi explained. Therefore, the Gemara entertains that possessions with a lien could be collected with this document. Being that the document was given over in front of Jewish witnesses, it is possible that these Nochrim should be considered like a Nochri court.

Additionally, Rashi's terminology later in the Gemara implies that possessions with a lien can only be collected when witnesses are signed on a document.

Explanation: The Get would even be unkosher b'Dieved, as otherwise it would not be possible to say the Mishnah is like Rebbi Meir as explained earlier (see the first Tosfos on this Amud).

Question: What is the difference between a Get that is connected to the ground when it is written (and later disconnected, signed, and given), where the Gemara stated that b'Dieved it is kosher even mid'Rabbanan? According to Torah law, there is clearly no difference between Lechatchilah and b'Dieved in this matter.

Answer: The Gemara is currently establishing that Mishnah according to Rebbi Elazar. When the Mishnah says "they signed," it means on the main part of the Get (see explanation on Tosfos 1) above at length).