Question: Even if he says, "the value of the wine," this is a "Davar Shelo Ba l'Olam" -- "thing that has not come to the world," as stated in Erchin (20b) regarding someone who says, "the value of this ox is upon me (to give) as an Olah." The case is established there as being when he also says that whenever the money arrives, they should become Hekdesh. The Gemara asks, a person cannot be Makdish a Davar Shelo Ba l'Olam! (Note: This clearly implies that even "the value of" is not considered Ba l'Olam.)

Answer: The Gemara there says that he states that whenever the money arrives, they should become Hekdesh. However, if he would have just said, "the value of this ox is upon me (to give) as an Olah," the Gemara there implies that it would not be considered Lo Ba l'Olam. Rather, it would be considered like selling a tree for its fruit that have not yet come. In a similar vein, he could say that the ox should be Hekdesh for its value.

Here, as well, when he says, "the value of the wine," he means to say that the wine should be acquired to him for its value.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the case here is where there was money from wine that was already sold, and there was wine that was not sold. The Gemara means to say that (Geneiva's words) did not indicate the money from the wine that was already sold, and he also did not indicate the wine that was going to be sold.

Explanation: Rashi explains that all of his wine should be with Achrayus (responsibility, in this case towards the value of the four hundred Zuz). If he would just say to give wine, then if one of the barrels of wine were found to have went bad, the inheritors (of Geneiva) would say that your wine went bad.

It appears that Rashi did not want to say that the entire loss would be his (Rebbi Avina), as he should only lose according to the proportion of the amount of wine owned by Geneiva. Now that all of the wine is with Achrayus, Rebbi Avina will not lose at all. (Note: This is why Geneiva used this wording.)

Question: What was Rav Huna coming to teach us with this law, being that he said "give?" Even though no Kinyan was made, it is obvious that the present of a Shechiv Meira or a command due to someone being sick and on his deathbed does not need a Kinyan.

Answer: The Rivam says that Rav Huna needed to teach that even if someone is being brought out to be killed by the government, like the story about Geneiva brought in our Gemara, he has the status of a Shechiv Meira. Whenever "write" (when a husband says "write a Get for my wife") is as effective as saying "give," this law applies.

Implied Question: We say in Nedarim (36b) regarding someone who vows not to give benefit to his friend, that he can take off his friend's Terumah knowingly.

The Gemara there asks, who "knows?" If we will say it is his own knowledge, who made him a messenger? (Note: His friend never appointed him as a messenger to take Terumah for him.) It must be that the owner of the produce knows. If so, the Gemara asks, he is benefiting his friend (whom he vowed not to benefit), as he is doing his bidding! The Gemara establishes that the case is where his friend proclaimed that whoever wants to take Terumah from his produce may do so. (Note: This implies that someone who hears another make such a proclamation is not considered his messenger, as otherwise it would be forbidden for him to do his bidding! Why, here, are the people who hear him considered his messenger to write a Get to his wife?)

Answer#1: The Gemara there does not mean that because he made this proclamation, the person who heard him is not a messenger. This is clear, as in order to take Terumah from someone's produce one must be considered his messenger.

Rather, this is not considered being a messenger regarding transgressing his vow of benefiting this friend. This is because the friend did not command (or appoint) him to do so.

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible we can differentiate that here the person in the pit does not say, "Whoever wants to write" but rather, "Whoever hears (my voice)." This means that he specifically appointed whoever hears him as his messenger (as opposed to a more vague and less urgent, "Whoever wants etc.").

Explanation: This is specifically in a pit or someone standing on the top of a mountain whom he can see, as stated in Yevamos (122a).

It is forbidden for a person to give "Shalom" to his friend in a field. This is apparent from the Gemara in Megilah (3a) that recounts that Yehoshua saw an angel (in the field) whose sword was drawn. The Gemara discusses how Yehoshua knew he was not a demon, as he gave him "Shalom." This implies that in a field we normally suspect that such a being is a demon (and cannot give him "Shalom").

However, in the city it is permitted to give "Shalom" to his friend and acquaintance at night, or to ask witnesses to write a Get for his wife at night, and we do not suspect the person or people are demons.

This is also implied by the Yerushalmi here in our chapter (in Gitin). The Yerushalmi states that we allow a woman to get married if we hear a voice stating that their husband died. The Yerushlami explains this is only if we see that a person made this proclamation, and he had a shadow (indicating he was not a demon). The Yerushalmi continues that this is in the field. However, if the person was in the city, even if we did not see if he had a shadow we allow his wife to remarry. The Yerushalmi asks from our Mishnah regarding the person who was in the pit. Rabbi Yochanan says that here, too, the case is where one sees the shadow of the person in the pit. Why does he have to see the shadow if the pit is in the city? The Yerushalmi answers that this is because demons are present in pits as well.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked regarding a case where he says, to two people, "give" without saying "(and) write." This is as we know that saying "give" without "write" to two people is equivalent to saying "write and give" (to two people). (Note: Why, then, did it add "write?")

Answer: Perhaps it says, "write and give" to teach an added lesson. (Note: The Dvar Yaakov explains that Tosfos means that even though he added the word "write," and one might think this means the messenger himself must write the Get, this teaches us that he may have someone else write the Get.)

Observation: The Gemara also could have asked from Shmuel's statement earlier (29a) that a present is like a Get, as words are not given over to a messenger.

However, from our Mishnah which states that even Rebbi Meir admits that when one person says to two people "give" or to three people "write and give," it could not have asked (that this clearly indicates that words are given over to a messenger). (Note: Why?)

This is because I would think that the reason for the law of our Mishnah is due to the denigration of the husband, as stated by Abaye earlier (ibid.). (Note: Abaye, in the Gemara earlier, says this is the explanation of our Mishnah.) I would also think that there is no denigration in the writing, but rather in the signing, where there is more publicity about the Get.

Implied Question: There is no real difference, as both are words that are not given over to a messenger. (Note: Either way Rebbi Yosi should say the resulting Get is invalid!)

Answer: We conclude that according to Shmuel, if the husband says they should say to a scribe to write the Get, it is valid. (Note: Shmuel partially argues on Rebbi Yosi, and sides with a different Tana.) If so, if the scribe signed with one of them the Get is invalid, as these two cases are dependent on each other.

When he says to two people write and give, it is as if he said to them explicitly that they should have someone else join them to write or sign the Get. This is why Shmuel is unsure regarding the husband's intent. (Note: Shmuel is unsure in the case when two people are asked to write and give a Get if the husband wants them to both sign, and ask a scribe to write it, or he wants one of them to write it, and the other plus another person to sign (Maharsha).)

Later, the Gemara asks that if Shmuel holds "write" means that they should sign, the writing of the Get etc. (by any scribe should be valid)! It could also have asked the opposite, that if he holds that they need to write the Get, if they sign the Get is valid. (Note: Rebbi Yosi holds both are invalid.)

Question: What is the question from the fact that one cannot give words to a messenger? According to Rebbi Meir, even if he would find a Get in the garbage it would be valid!

Answer#1: Shmuel rules like Rebbi Elazar (that the witnesses who see the giving of the Get cause the Get to take effect), and does not hold like Rebbi Meir (who says that the signing makes it take effect). Accordingly, Rebbi Yosi of our Mishnah also holds like Rebbi Elazar.

Answer#2: Alternatively, while Rebbi Meir says that a Get is valid even if the husband finds it in the garbage, in a case where the husband commands that the Get should be written, Rebbi Meir agrees that his command must be done. Even their signing the Get is as if he commanded explicitly that they should tell the scribe that he should write the Get. It is therefore not enough in this case, even according to Rebbi Meir, for the husband to find the Get in the garbage.

Question: Shmuel himself (86b) says that if the scribe wrote the Get and a witness signed it, the Get is valid. This means that the Mishnah is even according to Rebbi Meir, as nothing bad can come out of this. (Note: This is because he also holds that if the scribe signs with a witness the Get is invalid. Accordingly, the suspicion stated in the Gemara will never come to fruition.) If so, what is the question on Shmuel?

Answer: While it is true that they argue regarding the explanation of the Mishnah in the case of "if a scribe and a witness wrote it," we do not find they argue regarding Rebbi Yosi's position (the source of this question) as discussed by Rav Chisda and Rebbi Yirmiyah regarding whether or not Rebbi Yosi agrees if he says they should say (to someone to write the Get). (Note: He clearly does not agree.)

In Gitin (72a) the Gemara indeed deduces from a Beraisa to exclude the opinion that Rebbi Yosi admits by a case where he says "say etc." (Note: This is clearly, then, Rebbi Yosi's true opinion.)

Explanation: Even if he says to three people "give," the same is true when he says, "say etc." This is why nothing bad will come out of this. However, according to Rebbi Meir who says that words are given over to a messenger when he says to three people "give," certainly when he says "say" it is valid. This is why, according to him, if the scribe signs along with a witness the Get is invalid, in order that it should not become a destructive problem (as explained in the Gemara).

Observation: According to the Gemara's conclusion that when he says, "say etc." it is valid but people should not do so and it is indeed uncommon to do so, we cannot say the Mishnah that says "a scribe who signs along with a witness" is valid is according to Rebbi Meir. According to him, we suspect that something else will go wrong, as sometimes he says to three people that they should give a Get, and all three change their minds and have a scribe write it, and two other people sign it.

Two of the three then go, based on the will of all three, and say to the scribe to write the Get, which he does. Due to their embarrassment from the scribe, they have him sign without the knowledge of the third person.

It is common that when someone says to three people that they should give a Get for him, they tell others to write and give the Get Lechatchilah. This is as stated in the Mishnah.

Implied Question: We do not suspect that she will hire witnesses who will say (to a scribe) that the husband said to three people to give a Get (when he did not do so). (Note: Why don't we suspect this?)

Answer: Being that the law is that when a husband says to three people to have others write the Get it is valid but should not be done Lechatchilah, the scribe will not allow the witnesses to sign unless he knows for certain that the husband made them a Beis Din.

Question: Being that according to Rebbi Meir the law is that if the scribe signed with a witness the Get is invalid, how can the Mishnah state that if he says to two people to give the Get they should write it and give it according to Rebbi Meir?

Answer: According to Rebbi Meir, being that the case where the scribe and a witness sign it is invalid, it is clear that it is as if the husband told them to tell the scribe to write the Get, and that they should sign it. When he said they should write it, he meant they should sign it.

Question: Even so, how can the Mishnah say that they should write and give the Get Lechatchilah according to our Gemara that says that this is valid, but should not be done?

Answer#1: Rabeinu Tam answers that being that he said this to three people, which is Lechatchilah, the Mishnah used the terminology, "they should write and give." (Note: Three people can write and give the Get, as two can be a witness and one can be a scribe.)

Answer#2: Alternatively, the Mishnah means that if they are coming to fulfill their being a messenger, they should write and give it themselves. If they say it to others and they do it, it is not even good b'Dieved.

Answer#3: Alternatively, sometimes people will do this even Lechatchilah, if they are pressed to give the Get.