Explanation: It is understandable if this law would not be when an adult was standing over them. Rav Nachman holds that it would be recognizable that they are writing Lishmah based the husband's instruction. However, by a Nochri there would be no such recognition that he is writing Lishmah. However, if the Gemara establishes that an adult watching over him is sufficient, it should also be sufficient for a Nochri!

Rather, the case is certainly when there is no adult overseeing the writing. If so, the question remains that it should not be valid as they have no knowledge.

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. In Avodah Zarah (27a), Rebbi Yehudah requires that Milah be done Lishmah, and even so he holds that a Nochri can perform a Milah. He does not maintain that a Nochri only does things based on his own knowledge!

Answer: The Ri says that when Rav Nachman says he does things based on his own knowledge, he means that he does things without intent. A Get is not presumed to be Lishmah, as the Gemara says in the beginning of Zevachim (2b) that a regular married woman is not "supposed" to be divorced. However, Milah is presumed Lishmah, similar to the Gemara's statement there (ibid.) regarding Korbanos that they are presumed to be brought Lishmah.

Implied Question: The second part of the Mishnah states that "Moreover etc." and the Gemara says it is according to the opinion of Rebbi Elazar. (Note: The first part of the Mishnah clearly indicates it is talking about the writing, not signing, of the Get (unlike our answer).)

Answer: Even so, whatever can be established (even in a slightly difficult fashion) according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir is established as such, because we hold that a Mishnah without an author is according to Rebbi Meir.

Question: How can we say that it was signed? Doesn't the Mishnah later say, "What is the case? If one heard the voice of scribes calling out etc." The Gemara explains that it is referring to scribes who are writing Gitin for their training. (Note: If so, it is not talking about signing at all!)

Answer: It is normal for scribes to write and (have witnesses) sign a Get in order to learn exactly how it is done.

Explanation: Rav Yehudah is answering the Gemara's question earlier, "(Note: How can they write a Get?) They are not people with knowledge!"

Implied Question: It could have said "because we require that your messengers must be of the covenant." (Note: Why didn't it?)

Answer: Rather, it was better for the Gemara to say this reason, as it applies even by a (kenani) slave.

Explanation: Our Gemara implies that the messenger must recognize the husband, and that the woman being divorced is his wife.

Perhaps we can differentiate that this applies specifically to a blind person who can be tricked. There is (also) more reason to suspect that people will trick him.

Implied Question: The Gemara says in Bava Basra (128a) that if a person knew testimony for someone and then became blind, he is unfit for testimony. (Note: How, then, can our Gemara say he is fit for testimony?)

Answer: Our Gemara is different, as even a woman can testify regarding a Get.

Proof: You should know (that this is true, as) our Gemara even states regarding a person who was originally blind, "But why not a blind person?"

Question: Why didn't the Mishnah say an Eved Kenani cannot be a messenger, and we would know that certainly a Nochri cannot be a messenger!

According to the version of Rebbi Yochanan's statement earlier (23a) that "This is not Torah," (meaning that a Get does not have to be written Lishmah) this is understandable. The Mishnah said specifically a Nochri to teach that even he can write a Get.

However, according to the version that states that Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Rebbi Eliezer (that the writing of a Get must be done Lishmah), this is difficult from Rebbi Yochanan's statement in our Gemara.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that the Mishnah says "Nochri" (and not "Eved Kenani") to teach us that a Nochri who converted cannot be a messenger for a Get, even though when he was made a messenger he had already intended to convert.

This is more novel than teaching that an Eved Kenani cannot be a messenger, as his own freedom is not in his hands (as opposed to a Nochri who is free to convert).

Implied Question: She can get divorced through her own slave. (Note: How can she do so if a slave cannot become a messenger?)

Answer: This is due to the mechanics of (acquiring through) a courtyard.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that he holds that there is no acquisition for a Nochri (in Eretz Yisrael to make the produce of the land that he owns exempt from Terumos and Ma'aseros).

Opinion#2: It seems to the Ri that even according to the opinion that a Nochri can acquire (and the produce of his land is therefore exempt), the case is where it grew one third of its growth in the possession of a Jew, and a Nochri then bought it from him. It is not exempt (from Terumos and Ma'aseros) because of the buyer, as it is still called "the produce of your seeds." This is because it grew a lot (more than half of its growth, see Dvar Yaakov) in the possession of the Nochri. (Note: In other words, both possible exemptions do not apply. The exemption of a Nochri buyer does not apply when the Nochri replants the slightly grown produce, and the exemption of a Nochri grower does not apply when it grew one third of its growth in the possession of a Jew.)

Alternatively, the case is that the Nochri planted and sold it immediately to a Jew, who sold it to a Jew where it grew on third of its growth, and the Jew then acquired it back from him.

Additionally (an alternative exception), Rabeinu Tam explained in Bechoros (11b, DH "Tevalim") that the buyer is not exempt in a case where he bought it before the produce was gathered (when it becomes obligated in Ma'aser).

Alternatively, the case is where a Nochri rented a field from a Jew, whatever grows in the field is obligated in Terumah, even if one holds that a Nochri has a Kinyan (as explained above).

Implied Question: The Gemara in Zevachim (45a) and Temurah (2b) states that one does not transgress Meilah by misusing the Kodshim of Nochrim. It explains that this is because we derive "Chet-Chet" from Terumah, and regarding Terumah the Pasuk says "(Terumas) Bnei Yisrael." (Note: This implies that Terumah can only be from a Jew (unlike our Gemara which says that a Nochri can take his own Terumah).)

Answer: This is according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon who argues here in the second part of the Mishnah, and is quoted in Kidushin (41b).

Implied Question: The Gemara could have answered that this Mishnah is according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon who argues that a Nochri cannot take his own Terumah, as stated in Kidushin (41b). (Note: Why didn't it give this answer?)

Answer: It gave a better answer instead.

Question: In Kidushin (41b), the Gemara implies that Rebbi Shimon does not require this Pasuk to derive "Just as you are "sons of the covenant" etc." Instead, the Gemara there understands that he uses this Pasuk for something else. If so, according to him, how do we know this rule that we find in many places (throughout the Gemara) that a Nochri cannot be a halachic messenger, as stated regarding acquiring and interest in Bava Metzia (71b)?

Answer: Even so (that he does not derive explicitly that the messenger cannot be a Nochri), being that the status of a halachic messenger is derived from "Also you," and that is the standard source for other laws regarding a halachic messenger, it must be that the only people included as a halachic messenger are people like "you" (i.e. Jewish, see Maharam).

Observation: We do not have the text "Rebbi Yochanan" (instead of "Rebbi").

Proof: In Yevamos (78a), Rebbi Yochanan holds that a fetus is not like the "thigh of the mother," and this is the implication of the Gemara there. (Note: Accordingly, our Gemara cannot be saying that Rebbi Yochanan holds that a fetus is like the "thigh of the mother.")

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this statement. If she was pregnant, how can she acquire his freedom for him (the fetus)? Even though he is considered "the thigh of his mother," being that her hand (for the purposes of acquiring) is like the hand of her master as he only freed her fetus, how can she acquire anything for the fetus? Even if he freed all of her as well besides her hand she should not be able to acquire his (the fetus) freedom for him. Only if he frees all of her should she have such ability due to the principle that "her Get and her hand (to acquire) arrive at the same time," as stated in Kidushin (23a).

Implied Question: (Note: It would seem that Abaye has a strong reason to say what he says.) What is Rav Yosef's reasoning?

Answer: He holds that even so (despite Abaye's logic) she can ruin her in Chutz la'Aretz through witnesses and proof that her husband never sent the Get with her.