Implied Question: This is despite the fact that "besides" is invalid even after the main body of the Get, as stated later, and alternatively everyone agrees that it is invalid in such a case, we still do not decree that "on condition" is invalid due to "besides." (Note: Why not?)

Answer: "Besides" after the main body of the Get is only unfit mid'Rabbanan, as a decree lest one might permit "besides" before the main body of the Get. We do not make a decree lest one might transgress another decree.

Explanation: Rebbi decreed that "on condition" after the main body of the Get makes a Get invalid lest one might write "on condition" before the main body of the Get.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that when "on condition" is written before the main body of the Get it is only a Rabbinic decree that it is invalid due to "besides." (Note: Didn't we just say above that we do not make a decree lest one might transgress another decree (only lest one might transgress a Torah law)?)

Answer: This is all considered one decree. (Note: In such a case we do make a decree lest one might transgress another Rabbinic decree. This is often done when similarities between the cases are so striking that we suspect that if we do not forbid every case, none of the laws will end up being kept. Rava understood that this is what Rebbi held regarding this case.)

Explanation: We decree that this causes the Get to be invalid lest people come to write "besides." "Besides" cause a Get to become invalid even if it is said orally (and not written in the Get). This is as Rava holds that it causes the Get not to be written for "Kerisus."

Explanation: Without this reasoning we would also need to say that the Mishnah is referring to a case after the main body of the Get was written. This is as the Mishnah states, "If they wrote it..." This implies that if the condition was only stated orally, it is valid.

Question#1: Perhaps this is referring to a case where she is divorced from Eirusin and when she has a father? This would mean she is a girl who is able to have Kidushin (right away through her father)!

Question#2: Why don't we quote the Mishnah earlier (65a, instead of this Beraisa) where we say that a young girl who says, "Accept my Get for me" is only considered divorced when she physically receives it in her hand? We say in Kidushin (44b) that this is when she does not have a father.

Answer: The Ri says that the Gemara understands that this Beraisa implies that it is true in any scenario, even if she has no father or is divorced after marriage, meaning that her father no longer has her in his domain (regarding Kidushin). However, the Mishnah in Gitin (ibid.) can be understood as when she has a father, as is implied by the simple explanation of the Mishnah. This is as it says later, "And if her father said etc."

The Gemara in Kidushin (44b) indeed wants to say that this Mishnah is referring to a case where she has a father.

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that if she will marry a Kohen she should not eat Terumah.

Question: This does not seem correct according to the Ri. In any event she cannot eat Terumah, as a divorcee becomes a Chalalah if she has relations with a Kohen. This is even if he is Mekadesh her and marries her and did not yet have relations with her. She has this status because she is being saved for relations that are unfit.

Even though the fact that he leaves her out (from being able to eat Terumah) is effective so that she cannot eat Terumah according to Torah law (otherwise she would be prohibited solely because of Rabbinic law), it still seems difficult to give this explanation.

Explanation#2: It appears that the explanation of "besides for Terumah" is that he is a Kohen, and he is divorcing her for anything besides that she should not become forbidden from her eating Terumah. This is very possibly called leaving something out because the Torah stated, "Kinyan Kaspo" -- "the acquisition of his money" telling us that through Kidushin she eats Terumah. If so, she still is partially Mekudeshes to him, and this Get is not called Kerisus. On the other hand, it is possible that this is not called leaving something out because she can become Mekudeshes to anyone she wants.

Rashi gave a similar explanation regarding the Gemara's case, "Besides for your inheritance and the nullification of your vows."

Text#1: In some Sefarim it does not have the text, "Get Piturin."

Additionally, when the Gemara says, "And let us lengthen the "Vav" of the word Teiruchin and of the word "Shivukin" it does not add that we should also do this to the Vav of "Piturin." (Note: This also indicates that the Gemara did not have the text "Get Piturin" in our Mishnah.)

Text#2: However, in Nedarim (5b) the Sefarim (Tosfos' Sefarim, ours do not) have the text "Get Piturin" in our Mishnah.

It appears that this is the correct text, as the Targum of "Sefer Kerisus" is "Piturin." We are also accustomed to writing this text in Gitin.

Implied Question: Our Gemara implies that they (Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah) argue regarding whether or not one must write "And this." However, in the beginning of Nedarim the Gemara implies that they argue regarding the word "Minai" -- "From me." According to the Rabbanan it is a Yad (it is obvious that this is the Get he is giving her, as that is what he is doing). Even though the Get does not say, "Minai" she is divorced, as a person does not divorce his friend's wife. (Note: What are they arguing about: "v'Dan" or "Minai?")

Answer: The Ri answers that they argue regarding both. This is explained there (by Tosfos in Nedarim 5b).

Implied Question: One should not ask that Abaye who says in Nedarim (ibid.) that Yadayim that are not clear are indeed Yadayim, but later in our Gemara he says that one should not write, "v'Din" (but rather "v'Dan," as "v'Din" implies that it is a law that he must divorce her). (Note: What does Abaye hold? If it is not clear, is it valid or is the Get invalid?)

Answer: Perhaps he says this (to write "v'Dan" and not "v'Din") just for the beauty of the Get (so that there should be no question about the meaning, even though it would not make it invalid if it would say "v'Din").

Implied Question: The Gemara states this despite the fact that the word "Igeres" normally would not have a "Yud" in it anyway. (Note: Why, then, did the Gemara bother to state it should not have a "Yud?")

Answer: Even so, "Igra" which is used to mean "a roof" usually is written with a "Yud," as it is not a Hebrew word. (Note: Abaye therefore is warning to make sure that it is not written with a Yud, as it can change the meaning to mean "a roof.")

However, "b'Igeres" which comes from the word "Igeres" in Hebrew does not usually have a Yud. This is as the Pasuk states, "On all the words of this "Igeres (without a Yud)." Every mention of the word "Igeres" is indeed without a "Yud."

Opinion: In the Seder Tikun Shetaros written by Rabeinu Yitzchak Tav Alam, he wrote, "And do not write "Igeres" without a "Vav." This is because it implies a simple letter that a person sends to his friend. Rather, write "v'Igeres" implying that this is referring to "Get" and "v'Dan" stated earlier.

Opinion: The Ri says that he saw in the writing of earlier Gitin that they required five "Yuds" in these words. They required three together at the end of the word, one after the Daled, and one after the Tav (as spelled at the end of the above quote from Tosfos). These words are similarly written in the way documents are set up by Rabeinu Yitzchak Tav Alam. "v'Dy Ty'havy'y'yn" ("y" symbolizing "yud") are two words. "Dy" is instead of the word "Asher" -- "that." (Note: Tosfos appears to contradict himself by first implying this is one word and then stating it is two words. The Beis Shmuel (E.H. 126:25) explains Tosfos means it is two words, but they must be written on one line.)

Opinion: However, "d'Yasva" -- "the one who sits" by a certain river" is one word ("d'Yasva" and not "Di Yasva"). One should not write "Di Yasva," as this implies "that is (currently) sitting."

Query: Perhaps the Gemara means that one does not have to make it long, but rather that he should not shorten it at all in a way where it might look like a Yud. Similarly, when the Gemara says that the foot of the "Heh" in the word "l'Mhach" should be far from the top of the "Heh," perhaps it does not mean it should be distanced more than usual. Rather, it means that one should ensure that he should not connect it to the roof of the "Heh." On the other hand, perhaps it means that one must lengthen the Vav and distance the Heh more than usual, in order that people should not make this mistake.

Opinion: The custom is to lengthen and distance more than usual. However, certainly the Get is not invalid if it was not lengthened (or distanced). The same applies to the Heh of "Meihach," if it was not distanced (the foot of the Heh from its top) more than usual (it is still valid).

There was an incident regarding a Get where it was not noticeable whether the letter was a Vav or Yud. The Get came before Rabeinu Eliyahu, and he brought a child who was neither smart nor dumb to read the word. This is as it is stated in Menachos (29b), that he brought a child who was not smart or dumb to read the word. If he would read it, "va'Yehareg" it would be valid. If not it would be read "Y'Yeihareg" and it would be invalid.