Explanation: One cannot explain that they ask him if he wants fruit from the rainy season in the summer, or the opposite, and he says, "Yes." It is possible to find fruit that is out of season if it is stored in honey or some other such thing.

Rather, they ask him if he wants that they should pick him an out of season fruit from the tree.

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. On the contrary, the Mishnah should pose a difficulty to his opinion! Being that the Mishnah does not differentiate between a mute and a deaf-mute, why should Rav Kahana require that he be able to spell out what he wants in writing? It should be sufficient that he nod (in answer to the written question, "Should we give a Get to your wife?").

Answer: The Ri answers that certainly it is not enough for a deaf-mute to nod, even if we write, "Should we give your wife a Get?" This is even if he nods, and if we test him three times regarding his ability to rationally answer "yes" and "no" (see previous Tosfos at length for how this is done).

Rather, Rav Yosef compares the nodding of a mute to the writing of a deaf-mute in the following manner. Just like a mute can communicate what he understands and wants by nodding, and thereby they can write a Get for his wife, similarly a deaf-mute who was asked in writing and he answered in writing has shown proof that he understands well. This is despite the fact that if they asked him a question in writing and he nodded it is not effective.

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. The Gemara implies that the question on Rav Kahana is based on the fact that a mute can "talk" through writing. Why doesn't the Gemara ask a similar question on our Mishnah that it is possible to talk through nodding?

Answer#1: The Ri says that there is no difficulty with the Mishnah, as it is obvious that to order that a Get be given one does not need to say so with his mouth. He just has to clearly want this to be done, unlike the literal speech that is required for valid testimony. However, according to Rav Kahana who holds that one can speak from his written word, even if this is done by a deaf-mute, this is considered a valid form of speech, and should even be considered valid speech for testimony.

Answer#2: Some say that there is no question on the Mishnah, as it is possible to say that when the Beraisa says, "Besides for a mute who cannot talk," it is referring to a mute who also does not hear, meaning a deaf-mute.

Implied Question: However, the word, "Ileim" does not imply this (as it is almost always used to mean a mute who can hear).

Explanation: It is considered "talking" when written, as explained earlier (in the previous Tosfos).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that a deaf-mute man and woman are excluded from Chalitzah. (Note: Why should they be excluded if they can write?)

Answer#1: Being that they are not included in the Pesukim, "He said" or "And she will say" it must mean that "saying" is only if actually done with one's mouth (regarding Chalitzah).

Answer#2: Alternatively, we understand that the Pasuk, "And she will answer" regarding Chalitzah is similar to "And the Levites will answer" which must be said in Hebrew. We derive from this teaching that it must actually be said, just like the Levites had to actually say what they said.

Observation: In the second chapter of Kesuvos (20b) I discussed this at length.

Explanation: The Gemara is asking its question on the Beraisa that stated that a mute cannot testify because he cannot "tell."

However, the Ri understands that this question is also on Rav, as the strong question later is on his opinion.

This is the explanation of how this is a question on Rav. Without Rav this would be understandable. Even though regarding testimony nodding his head would be considered "telling," as stated here that we check him regarding testimony (implying he may testify), even so the Pasuk would exempt a mute who could not "tell (i.e. talk)" from bringing a Korban Shevuah. It would not be considered enough of a "telling" to obligate him to bring such a Korban.

However, Rav understands that speaking through writing is perfectly valid testimony, as is apparent from his position that even a deaf-mute can communicate through writing. This is despite the fact that he holds nodding is invalid.

It therefore must be that when the Pasuk excluded a mute from being able to "tell" even though he can "say through writing," it is because the Torah said, "From their mouths," and not from their writing." If so, how can this Beraisa say that we check a mute for testimony. We require "From their mouths," and not from their writing!

Based on what we have explained earlier, that the teaching of excluding an "Ileim" who cannot tell is actually referring to a deaf-mute (not just a mute), this is understandable. Without Rav's statement, we would say that a mute can simply nod for anything. However, we would say that a deaf-mute should not be able to communicate in this fashion, nor even communicate in writing, both in matters of divorce and matters of testimony.

However, according to Rav, even though he holds that communication that is invalid regarding testimony is valid regarding divorce, there is a difficulty in the fact that the Beraisa here equates divorce and testimony.

Implied Question: It is apparent now that the Gemara understands that the Beraisa's reference to an inheritance or business deal is about testimony about those events. (Note: How can one read the Beraisa this way (when testimony seems to be only one category, and especially after we just said it is referring to the testimony about a woman)?)

Answer: It must be that the Gemara at first thinks that the Beraisa explains "business deals" and "inheritance" as being testimony about those events when it says, "testimony" (and not about testifying about a woman's husband).

Answer#2: Alternatively, the Gemara could have said, "According to you, this is the same thing as testimony." (Note: In other words, it must be "inheritance" in the Beraisa refers to something specific, as we would understand otherwise that the Beraisa is referring to testimony from the word "testimony" itself.)

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the case is where he makes his firstborn have the same portion as a regular son (and not the normal double portion of a firstborn).

Question: This does not appear to be correct to the Ri. If so, it should have said that he increased one's portion and diminished another's portion.

Opinion#2: Rather, the Ri says, the case is where he says that one of his children is his firstborn. The novelty of this teaching is that he is believed to do so through nodding.

Implied Question: It did not want to answer that Rav is referring to someone who was always sane and the Beraisa is referring to someone who was always a deaf-mute, a distinction in fact made by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Answer: This is because we understand that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel argues on this Beraisa, as Rebbi Yochanan states later.

Implied Question: Abaye also says that the word, "Olamis" indicates Rebbi Yitzchak's law. This is as Abaye states in Yevamos (113b) that we also learned a Beraisa that is like Rebbi Yitzchak's law. He deduces Rebbi Yitzchak's law there from the word, "Olamis" that is stated by a man who becomes insane but not by a woman who becomes insane. (Note: If Abaye agrees that this indicates Rebbi Yitzchak's law, why doesn't he state this in our Gemara?)

Answer: Rather, in our Gemara he deduces from the fact that "Olamis" is stated regarding both a man who becomes a deaf-mute and someone who becomes insane. He understands that the reason it states this regarding a deaf-mute is to exclude his being able to write that he wants to divorce her. Abaye agrees that the reason it states this regarding one who goes insane is to teach us Rebbi Yitzchak's law.

Rav Papa pushes Abaye's opinion aside, as he understands that it is possible that the entire point of the word "Olamis" is just to teach us Rebbi Yitzchak's law, and nothing more.

Question: Did he not know that the question that it should have said, "Give" would be asked? The entire reason that we already know that the second part of the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Yosi is because it said, "until he says to the scribe "write," and it does not say until he says, "Give."

Answer: The one who gave the answer understood that the second part of the Mishnah doesn't say, "Until he says, "Give" because we can already deduce this from the first part of the Mishnah where it says, "Write." This implies that if he had (also) said, "Give" we would give the Get.

This is why it says in the end of the Mishnah that "Write" (alone) does not help unless he says to the scribe, "Write."

This explains the reason of the first part of the Mishnah. What others do based on "Write" does not help, because words cannot be given over to a messenger. It is not effective until he tells the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign.

The Gemara then asks, "It should say, "Until he says, "Give." Being that we only know this by deducing it from the first part of the Mishnah, the second part of the Mishnah should clearly state, "Until he says, "Give."

Question#1: Here, too, this is difficult. Didn't the one who gave the answer in the Gemara know that the obvious question on his answer was that it should have said, "Until he says to three?"

Question#2: Additionally, if he did not say this to three people, why would it just say, "Write?" Even if he said, "Give" as well it would not be effective!

Answer: The Gemara at this point understands that the first part of the Mishnah is referring to either case, whether he said this to two or three people. It only said, "Write," because it was also discussing three people. If he would also say "Give" to three, they could give the Get.

This is why it could not say in the end of the Mishnah, "Until he says to three." It was already discussing three people as well, and insinuating that "Write" alone will not work for three people as well.

Even so, the Gemara asks that it still should have explicitly said in the second part of the Mishnah, "Until he says to three (to give the Get)."

Explanation: The Gemara at this point understands that the question, "Why didn't the Mishnah explicitly say that he has to say that they should say (to the scribe to write etc.)" cannot be asked. It is understandable that the Mishnah will be consistent with the style of the first part of the Mishnah where the husband is commanding the witnesses themselves to perform (i..e witness and/or write) the Get. However, when he says, "tell others etc." is telling others that they should tell the witnesses.

Question#1: Now that the Gemara establishes that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Yosi, why does it say, "Write?" It should have said, "Give" and certainly (this is true if he only says) "Write."

Question#2: Additionally, being that "Write" is not exact, and that the law would be the same if it said, "Give," why don't we say that this would also be the law if he said, "Say to others etc." We should be able to understand the Mishnah literally, that the Get is only valid until he says to the scribe "Write" etc.

Answer: The Mishnah did not bother to write, "Give" because from the second part of the Mishnah it is obvious "Give" is also invalid, as otherwise it would have said, "Until he says Give."