Implied Question: The Gemara in Sanhedrin (42b) says that a person would ride on a horse and hold cloths (normally used for headwear) in his hand, and if a merit was found for the defendant he would wave the cloths. (Note: Accordingly, how could we assume that the defendant would actually be killed?)

Answer: It was uncommon to find merit at this stage.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Kidushin (41a) derives from the words "And he will send/her" that a messenger can make another messenger. (Note: Is this Gemara against the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?)

Answer: This is only where the husband does not mind.

Explanation: Rashi explains that it is incumbent on him (the husband) to write the Get, and he does not want that the public should know that he does not know how to write a Get.

Implied Question: He says that they should write and give the Get. (Note: Why does he ask them to give the Get as well?)

Answer#1: Once he said that they should write, he also said that they should give it. (Note: He does not mind if others give it.)

Answer#2: Alternatively, if they will say to someone else that he should give the Get, he will realize that the husband did not write the Get. This is why the husband mind that they should give the Get.

Question: What kind of embarrassment is there? Doesn't the Mishnah say (22b) that a woman writes her Get? This implies that the husband does not even have to write a Get!

Answer: Actually, the husband has to write it. The Mishnah there merely tells us that even if the woman would write it, the Get would be kosher, as we would trust that she knows how to give it over to the husband. (Note: This means that she understands that she must give it over for the purpose of it becoming her husbands (so that he can divorce her with it), and is not just passing it to him.)

Explanation: Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi argue later (66b) regarding someone who says to three people "Give (this Get to my wife)." Rebbi Meir holds that he made them a Beis Din. Rebbi Yosi argues that even if he said this to the Beis Din ha'Gadol in Yerushalayim, they should learn (how to write a Get if they do not know how), write it, and give it to her. However, if someone says to two people "give," or he says to three people "write and give," even Rebbi Meir agrees that they should write and give the Get, and in such a case we do not say they can give this over to be done by a messenger, as is clear from the Mishnah there.

Implied Question: The Gemara says that they sent a question from Rav's house to Shmuel. Someone said to two people that they should write and give a Get to his wife. They said to a scribe that he should write the Get, which he did, and they signed it. What is the law? Shmuel sent back that the law is that she should separate from the man whom she married (after receiving this Get), but this requires study. The Gemara asks on this conclusion (that this requires study) from Shmuel's ruling that the law follows Rebbi Yosi who says that words cannot be given over to a messenger. The Gemara could have asked that regarding two people who are told, even Rebbi Meir agrees that words are not given over to a messenger.

Answer#1: The Gemara did not do so, as it preferred asking a contradiction in Shmuel.

Answer#2: Additionally, the Gemara could have answered this question by saying that Rebbi Meir's reasoning is because of the embarrassment of the husband. Shmuel might hold that writing itself is not a denigration. However, by the signing there is a lot of denigration, as it becomes more known by the signing.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked a question from Shmuel's opinion here, as he holds that the reason why words cannot be given over by a messenger is not because of denigration, as he holds that the same holds true by someone who is told to write a present document. (Note: Denigration does not apply by a present document.)

Answer: However, because it had to quote Shmuel's opinion here, it asked a question from another opinion of Shmuel there.

Implied Question: There is an opinion in Bava Metzia (36a) that if a Shomer gives an object he is watching to another Shomer, he is exempt if something happens to the item, as he gave it over to a knowledgeable person. The owner cannot say that he did not want his object to be watched by others. (Note: Why, here, is this considered a good claim?)

Answer: While that opinion holds that one is not liable if he does so, he agrees that one should not do so Lechatchilah.

Explanation: The Gemara used this terminology because our Mishnah is discussing a case where the first messenger fell ill, and did not reach the city where the woman was residing.

Explanation: This implies that they argue in a case where he insisted that the messenger receive the object first. However, if he said that the messenger should first give the Get and then take the object, there is no argument.

Question: This is difficult. In Kesuvos (85a), we say that it does not matter whether he said to take the document and then give him money or whether he said give him money and then take the document. In any event the messenger pays, as he can tell the messenger that he sent him to help him, not to make problems for him. He has this claim because he mentioned that the messenger should take the document (and the messenger did not do so), even if he mentioned that the messenger could give the money first. (Note: In our Gemara, however, the implication is that this is only a problem because he mentioned that the messenger should take the object first.)

Answer: The Gemara there is different, as the entire payment depends on his getting the document. When he mentioned the (need to get back) document, he is showing that he is frightened that the creditors will say that the money paid back was from an oral loan (not the loan documented in the loan document). (Note: This indeed happened in the case in Kesuvos (ibid.).)

Explanation: Rashi explains that the husband only minds that the object should not stay in the hands of the woman. However, when he says to him that he should take the object from her and he will send it with someone else, the Get does not become invalid.

Implied Question: The Mishnah says that he should not send it with someone else. (Note: Why would the Mishnah say this if he did not mind if someone else takes it?)

Answer: The reason is that he might not pass on to the second person exactly what he was supposed to do, or the second person might not be careful about the instructions and will thereby cause the Get to become invalid.

Implied Question: Accordingly, the Mishnah made a statement that he does not want his object in the hands of another. (Note: How does this fit with what has just been said? Didn't we just say he doesn't mind?)

Answer: It means that he doesn't want his wife to have it.

Implied Question: This seems to be a forced answer. It is also forced to say that he does not want him to send another person in order that the person will not forget to say exactly what the husband wanted him to say.

Opinion: It appears to the Riva that when he says that the messenger should take this object and then give her the Get, he is making the Shelichus be dependent on the object. In such a case Rebbi Yochanan says that the Get is invalid if he sends it with another person, even if the second person does no deviate from the husband's plan, and he takes the object from her before giving her the Get. Being that he made the Shelichus dependent on the object, if he deviated from the mindset of the husband regarding the object, the Get becomes invalid.

This is what Rebbi Yochanan means. Rebbi Yochanan invalidates the Get if the first messenger deviates from the husband's words, and certainly the Get is invalid if the messenger makes a messenger, even if the second messenger does not deviate. He should not send it with someone else, even if he will not deviate, as the husband minds that his object will end up with someone else. This means, he minds that his object will end up with a second messenger. The explanation of Reish Lakish's opinion is as explained by Rashi.

Explanation: Rav Ashi is coming to explain why this is a mistake.

In both versions of the Gemara, Rav Ashi has the same opinion. The second version only makes a difference in Rava's statement (see Tosfos Ha'Rosh and Ya'avetz).