Explanation: He found it in his house. Even though there are many people that are present in his house, it is kosher. If it was found on the ground, we should suspect that it came from a different Yosef ben Shimon. However, when it is amongst his things there is no such suspicion that someone else besides him brought it there.

Explanation: It is referring to a case where he found it himself. This is apparent from the fact that we rely on his recognizing the Get. Even though he is not a Rabbinical student himself, he is believed due to a Migu that he could have said he never lost it. As we explained earlier, everyone has the ability to recognize things.

Recognizing, in this case, is referring to the various bags/folders used to hold documents. This is despite the fact that he does not recognize the Get. If he recognized the Get, why would the Mishnah have to state that he found it in a bag or folder?

Question: Why don't we suspect that it was borrowed (and the person who borrowed it put the Get inside), as we indeed suspect in Yevamos (120b)?

Answer#1: He knows himself that he never lent it to anyone.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the case is where he knows that the Get was lost in this folder. Even so, he must recognize the bag/folder. The fact that he merely knows they were lost in a bag/folder is not a Siman.

Implied Question: The Mishnah in Bava Metzia (20a) states that if someone found in a bag/folder a bundle/bunch of documents etc. (it is returned to him). (Note: This implies that the mere fact that he found it in a bag/folder is a Siman.)

Answer: The Gemara there is referring to someone who gave a Siman for the bag/folder, and through that Siman we return to him what was inside the bag/folder. We do not suspect that someone else borrowed this folder when it comes to monetary matters.

However, saying that it went lost in a bag/folder is not a Siman, as it is normal to put documents in one of these bag/folders. This is apparent from the Tosefta that states that someone claimed, "I gave you ten bag/folders of documents." Even if we will say it is some type of Siman, it is certainly not a strong Siman (Muvhak) to be used to enable the return of a Get.

Implied Question: The Gemara says in Bava Metzia (28a) that if they both say that the Get was in a bag/folder, it should be given to him, as she knows that whatever he has he puts in a bag/folder. (Note: It seems that the Siman there is the fact that the Get is in the folder.)

Answer#1: Even if you will say that the Gemara means that we give it back to him in order that he can divorce his wife with it, it is not because it is a Siman Muvhak. The Gemara there is discussing a case where the existence of anotherYosef ben Shimon in the city is unknown. Accordingly, the Get was certainly written for him, and it is just uncertain whether it fell from the husband or wife.

Answer#2: Alternatively, "u'Makiro" means "or he recognizes it." Some Sefarim indeed have the text "O Makiro" (which is the literal way one would say "or he recognizes it"). The explanation of this is as follows. If he found it in his bag/folder and it was known that it was his, or if someone else found it and it was known that he lost things inside of the bag/folder (see Maharsha), even though he does not recognize the Get it is returned to him. Alternatively, he recognizes the Get without the bag/folder.

Answer#3: Some Sefarim have the text "If he recognizes." This explanation means the following. If he find it in a bag/folder and knows that he did not lose the Get in this folder and it is not his folder, even so, if he recognizes the Get it is kosher. The Mishnah is telling us this added novelty regarding finding it in a folder.

Answer#4: Alternatively, it is only kosher if he recognizes it. However, the fact that he knows that he lost it in a folder/bag does not help.

According to the Sefarim that have the text "and he recognizes it," we can explain this as "if he recognizes it."

Question: The Gemara in Bava Metzia (39b) discusses a grandmother who was captured along with one of her daughters. We suspect that perhaps the grandmother died, or perhaps the daughter died. (Note: Why don't we suspect this in the case of our Mishnah?)

Answer#1: The Ri says that we are more stringent to suspect this when it comes to orphans. This as the Gemara says there (earlier in the Gemara), it does not matter whether or not a document dividing up the properties had previously been written up, we still suspect this (in order not to have cause any damage to orphans, see the Gemara there at length).

However, in Bava Metzia (29b) we do differentiate between a case where such a document had been drawn up and where it had not been drawn up, as such a document becomes known to people.

Answer#2: Alternatively, we suspect that captives have died (more than a regular person).

Question: Did the one giving the answer in the Gemara not know the Mishnah regarding Terumah, and that therefore we can ask the question about the apparent contradiction regarding Terumah, as we indeed do later? (Note: The answer indicates that she can generally eat Terumah without worrying that he will die, unlike the answer given. Why, then, would he give an answer unlike the simple conclusion of our Gemara?)

Answer: It is the normal way of the Gemara to only answer the question that it was asked (and not necessarily suspect or protect from possible questions).

Explanation: If her husband goes overseas she can eat Terumah, as we assume her husband is alive. However, in our case, even if we will say that her husband is alive, she is forbidden while she is alive. The Gemara asks, perhaps she will die first and will never become forbidden while alive.

Observation: When our Gemara compares the suspicion that perhaps someone died with the suspicion that perhaps he will die in the future, it is not making a complete comparison.

We establish our Mishnah as being according to Rebbi Meir, and although he does not suspect that someone died, even for a long time, he does suspect someone will die in the future after awhile.

This is apparent from the Mishnah in Yevamos (26a) that if there are four brothers, two of which are married to two sisters, and the two brothers married to sisters die (without having had children), their wives receive Chalitzah and not Yibum.

The Gemara explains that this is because it is forbidden to negate the Mitzvah of Yibum, and perhaps when one of them is doing Yibum the other surviving brother will die. This will end up negating the Mitzvah of Yibum (meaning that the remaining sister will now not even have Chalitzah, as she is now the sister of his wife from yibum). This Mishnah (which suspects one of the potential Yavams will die) is established as being according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir in Yevamos (18a).

Later (85a), the Gemara states that everyone holds that conversion is uncommon, but death is common. According to Rebbi Yehudah who suspects that a person will possibly die immediately, he does not suspect that a person has died immediately (i.e. in the previous moments). Otherwise, a wife of a Kohen whose husband has just stepped outside of his house should not be able to eat Terumah, and would only be able to eat Terumah when she actually sees her husband (alive and well).

Rather, it must be that we are only comparing the suspicion that a person died a long time previously and the suspicion that a person might die in the immediate future.

Explanation: Even though (the lack of) Semichah does not hold back the validity of a Korban, one should not offer a Korban without Semichah Lechatchilah.

The Gemara in Zevachim (74b) asks on the Mishnah that states that if the two people had the same type of Korban, and their Korbanos were mixed up, each can be brought with intent that it should be valid for the correct owner. The Gemara asks, don't we need Semichah? The Gemara answers that the case is regarding Korbanos of women that do not need Semichah (as women are never obligated to do Semichah).

Similarly, the Gemara in Pesachim (89a) regarding the skins of five different Korbanos Pesach that were mixed up, and on one of the skins was found a sickly wart (that is a blemish for Kodshim, see Torah Temimah in Vayikra (ch. 22, note 134). All five of these people are exempt from bringing another Korban Pesach on Pesach Sheini, despite the fact that technically they could all bring their Korbanos on condition that they are leftover Korbanos Pesach (if they do not have to bring them).

Even so, they are exempt because while a Korban Pesach does not need Semichah, a leftover Korban Pesach does need Semichah. We do not say that it should be done without Semichah, as Lechatchilah we do not say that one should bring a Korban without Semichah.

Question: This is difficult. Later (62a), we say that all of the Korbanos can be sent with a messenger by someone who either does not have a Bris Milah or is impure, and we do not require Semichah.

We cannot say that they do Semichah outside the Beis Hamikdash, as the Gemara in Zevachim (33a) says that the law that the Shechitah of the Korban has to be immediately after the Semichah is a Torah law.

Even according to the opinion that entering the Beis Hamikdash slightly is not called entering, we cannot say that he should just put his hands in the Beis Hamikdash and do Semichah. This is because the Gemara in Zevachim (ibid.) states that whoever does Semichah must have his entire head and most of his body inside the Beis Hamikdash, as he must do Semichah with all of his strength.

Additionally, we cannot say it is referring to a bird Korban, as a bird Korban is not called a "Zevach" (and the Gemara in Zevachim is refers to "all Zevachim"). We also cannot say that it is referring to a Bechor or Ma'aser (Beheimah), as it says "all Zevachim." It cannot be referring to a woman's Korban as it says that someone without a Milah can send the Korban with a messenger.

Answer#1: In our case, being that he can uphold the Mitzvah of Semichah because he has the ability to bring it himself, he should not bring a Korban without Semichah.

Similarly, in Zevachim (74b) the Gemara says that it can be fixed by being put out to pasture. It also says there regarding an Asham that it can be fixed by being put out to pasture. This is why the Gemara differentiates by an Asham that can be put out to pasture and a Korban of women (and they therefore do not need Semichah).

Additionally, in the Gemara in Pesachim (89a) which is a case of doubt, as perhaps he is exempt (as he is one of the four whose Korban Pesach did not have a blemish), the Chachamim did not mandate that they all bring more Korbanos Pesach as a Pesach Sheini on condition. This is because they could not institute such a law unless the Mitzvah of Semichah would not be done properly.

However, a man without a Milah or someone who is impure (who may send their Korbanos as stated in Pesachim 62a) is referring to people who have no ability to wait and do Semichah. For example, the person without a Milah refers to someone whose brothers died because of Bris Milah, and it is therefore impossible for him to have a Bris Milah. Similarly, someone who is impure is referring to someone like a Zav or Metzora whose healing is not dependent on himself.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the case is where he will transgress the prohibition against not bringing a Korban within the required time if he waits any longer.

Similarly, the Mishnah in Shekalim (7:4), quoted in Kidushin (55a), states that if an animal is found between Yerushalayim and Migdal Eider, the males are presumed to be Olos and the females are presumed to be Shelamim. The only solution for these Korbanos is that they should be brought without Semichah. Similarly, an inheritor brings his father's Korban, even though he does not do Semichah.

Question: The Mishnah in Kerisus (23a) states that both of them bring one Korban Chatas. Similarly, the Mishnah in Nazir (57a) states that two people can bring one Korban with a condition. This implies that we do say that people can bring a Korban without Semichah in order to take away their obligation. How are these cases different than the case in Pesachim (quoted above about the five Korbanos Pesach that get mixed up)?

Answer: The Chachamim certainly instituted that two people should sometimes bring one Korban out of doubt without Semichah in order to take away any obligation they might have. However, to bring an entirely new Korban, such as a leftover Korban Pesach, the Chachamim did not permit to be brought without Semichah in order to exempt one's obligation.

Question: In Menachos (62b), the Gemara says that if someone sends his Korbanos from overseas, the Kohen does Tenufah (the waving of the Korban if it is required) for him. How could he do this? Doesn't it require Semichah? Once the Beraisa says it should be waived, this implies it is referring to a Shelamim. It cannot be referring to a Korban of women, as the first part of the Beraisa already states that the Kohen does Tenufah for a Korban of a woman. It is difficult to say that this is referring to someone without a Milah or someone who is impure (as it would not have to say he sent it from overseas, see Maharsha).

Answer: This is referring to an inheritor, and is according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who says that an inheritor does not do Semichah. Our Gemara does not answer that our Mishnah is referring to an inheritor because it specifically says a "Chatas" in our Mishnah. The Gemara in Zevachim (70b) says "all Zevachim," implying even a Chatas.

Question: Even though a person without a Milah, someone who is impure, and all of those who cannot do Semichah seemingly can still bring a Korban because the lack of Semichah does not make their Korban invalid, why isn't the fact that they cannot do Semichah a problem? Shouldn't this mean that we should invoke the rule of "Kol she'Aino Ra'uy l'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves Bo?" (Note: Originally stated regarding Menachos, this translates into a rule that whenever something cannot possibly be done, it renders the Korban (or other Mitzvah) invalid, even though when it is merely skipped over it does not invalidate a Korban.)

Answer#1: The Toras Kohanim teaches from the Pasuk, "And when the Zav will become pure from his being a Zav," and not from his Tzara'as (leprosy). This implies that someone impure can send his Korbanos, as it is referring to bringing Korbanos.

Answer#2: We exclude someone who is impure from bringing an Olas Ri'eeyah in Chagigah (4b) from the Pasuk, "And you will come there... and you will bring there." The Gemara there derives that only someone who can come to the Beis Hamikdash is obligated to bring an Olas Ri'eeyah. This implies that he can send other Korbanos, and we do not ensure that he is someone who can do Semichah.

Question: Isn't a Chatas ha'Of brought due to a doubt, as is stated in Nidah (70a)?

Answer: A person who is in this doubt can indeed bring a Korban when he is in a doubtful situation in order to exempt himself from any obligation. However, here that we are dealing with a messenger, it is not right that he should possibly bring Chulin to the Azarah to due to a doubtful situation.

Explanation: The Rach explains that this refers to their great judge.

Implied Question: The fact that the Beraisa says that hearing this from the executioners of Nochrim is not cause to allow his wife to remarry, and Rav Yosef says that we kill him (after hearing this), is not a question (on Rav Yosef).

Answer#1: We can establish that the Beraisa is referring to a case before their great judge signed the verdict.

Answer#2: Additionally, the Ri says that perhaps the fact that a Nochri who relates something in passing can be used to allow a woman to remarry is only when he says that he actually died. This is because he will presumably not make a mistake between someone who is dead and someone who is alive. However, if he is just being led to die or be killed, he is not believed.