Observation: We see from here that we can validate Gitin and documents that have no space on top or on bottom. The entire Gemara in the beginning of Chapter Get Pashut in Bava Basra (162a) also implies that this is correct.

Opinion: Rabeinu Elchanan says that even so, we do not suspect that an owner of a document might cut some of the top lines. This is because the date of the document and all of the rights of the document owner are listed in the beginning of the document. He will not cut up his rights.

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that he nullified the Get, and therefore cannot use it for divorce.

Question: This does not appear to be correct, as according to Rav Nachman who says that he can use it again, what is there to say?

Answer: However, Rabeinu Ezra ha'Navi says, earlier when the Get was already written he could not nullify it (to the extent that it could never again be used according to Rav Nachman). However, when it is not completely written, Rav Nachman agrees that one can never use it for divorce once it was nullified.

He additionally explains that it is like a case where the Get was written during the day and it was signed at night.

Question: This does not appear to be correct, as the witnesses will certainly be careful not to sign on the document beforehand.

Explanation#2: The Ri says that the explanation of, "And perhaps he changed his mind etc." appears to be that he might have started to write the Get with intent for someone else, and he changed his mind and ended it for this person. The case would be when they have the same name, and according to Rebbi Elazar who does not require that the Get be apparent from the document itself (who it is referring to).

Explanation#3: Alternatively, even Rebbi Meir could agree that this is the case, which would be if he changed his mind before writing the name of the man and woman.

Explanation: We specifically do not suspect that he changed his mind between "Harei At" and "Muteres." However, we still require that there should be space on top and bottom. If not, we suspect that he might have cut the Get and worked out that the "Harei At" would be on bottom and "Muteres" on top (of the next page).

Observation: This implies that the law follows Rebbi Yirmiyah. Being that it quotes Rebbi Yirmiyah regarding this incident, it implies that we indeed rule that if the scribe signed together with a witness in any other document (besides a Get), the document is valid. If the scribe wrote the document and a witness signed it, it is invalid even if an expert scribe wrote it.

This is unlike Shmuel, who validates a document written by an expert scribe and signed by a witness. This Lechatchilah (according to Shmuel), and even regarding Gitin.

In any event, one should not rule that a Get signed by a scribe and another witness is valid based on Rebbi Yirmiyah's opinion.

This is because according to all Amoraim in the Gemara earlier (66b) that validate a Get in a case where the husband said to some people that they should tell the scribe to write the Get and others to sign it, one should still say that a case where the scribe signed along with a witness the Get is invalid. This is because ruination will come from this, as explained there. (Note: The Gemara explains that they might ask the scribe to sign out of embarrassment, and it will end up that one of the witnesses the husband designated will not sign, making the Get invalid.)

Explanation: They would only write, "Ish Ploni ben Ploni."

Text: Rabeinu Chananel and Rabeinu Tam have the text, "His family name and her family name, it is valid, and this is the way those with clean knowledge in Yerushalayim would write."

This means that they would only write their personal nickname (see Maharsha). When the Gemara discusses their family name, it is not referring to a personal nickname as is the Mishnah, but rather a family nickname.

Explanation: "Ki Solid" implies one generation, "Banim" implies two more (as "Banim" is plural), "u'Vnei" implies two more generations, and "Banim" implies another two, equaling seven generations.

Question#1: Even if when they came into Eretz Yisrael until they left there were eight hundred and fifty years, they did not serve Avodah Zarah the entire time!

Question#2: Rabeinu Elchanan also asked, perhaps, "You will be destroyed quickly" only applies after "v'Noshantem?"

Answer: The Ri answers that originally they indeed started serving Avodah Zarah (i.e. they are considered as having served Avodah Zarah when they entered Eretz Yisrael), as "Pesel Michah" -- "the idol of Michah" was with them (at that time). (Note: The second question of Tosfos seems to remain unanswered (see Pnei Yehoshua).)

Implied Question: One should not explain that even in this way, meaning that when Nochrim force him to give a Get, it is invalid due to "Before them - and not before Nochrim" even though the Nochrim are forcing him upon the request of Jews. (Note: Why not?)

Answer: This is not called, "Before Nochrim" being that Jewish judges are commanding that he should be hit. Is there any reason to think that expert judges have to hit him themselves, and they cannot command other non-experts to him?

Explanation: Rather, the explanation is as stated by Rabeinu Tam that if the Nochrim are hitting him the Get is valid (when the Jewish judges command that they should do so). The same explanation is advanced by Rav Yehudai Gaon.

This is also stated in the Yerushalmi here. Rav says that if a Jew does an action like a Nochri, the Get is unfit, (even) if he says, "I will not give you food nor support you." (Note: This is in a case where a Nochri court ruled that he should be forced to divorce his wife.)

Rebbi Chiya taught that if a Nochri does an action like a Jew the Get is valid, even if the case is where he says, "I will not give you food nor support you." (Note: This is in a case where a Beis Din ruled that he should be forced to divorce his wife (see Maharsha, unlike Maharshal).)

The word "even" implies that the Get is not valid if force is used by Nochrim when Jews did not mandate that force be used. This is even if he indeed must divorce his wife according to Halachah. Rebbi Asi says, our Mishnah says this. It says, "And with Nochrim, they hit him and tell him, "Do what the Jew tells you to do, and not what we say you should do."

Explanation: In Chapter Chezkas ha'Batim in Bava Basra (48a, DH "Davar") it is explained why the Shas quotes this there, as it is a mistake.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this ("before them") is referring to the seventy elders that went up with Moshe Rabeinu, even though they are only written about at the end of Parshas Mishpatim.

Opinion#2: The Ri says that this is referring to the many mentions of "Elohim" -- "judges" that are written in the Parshah. The Gemara in Bava Kama (84b) also implies that from "Elohim" we derive that the judges have to be experts.

This is as the Gemara asks, what is the difference between damages of a person to another person and damages of a person to an ox? We require "Elohim" and there is no "Elohim" (expert judges in Bavel). (Note: This clearly implies "Elohim" are expert judges.)

The Pasuk, "Before them" is needed to teach us that in order for a Beis Din to force someone to do something (i.e. give a Get), we require expert judges.

Question: This is difficult, as it implies that the Pasuk is referring to people who are fit to judge. However, in Kidushin (35a) and Bava Kama (15a) we derive from this Pasuk that the Torah equates a woman to a man regarding all laws of the Torah. (Note: It would therefore seem that a woman should be able to judge, as the Gemara implies that this Pasuk includes a reference to women.)

A woman, however, is unfit to judge. This is as stated in Nidah (49b) that anyone who is fit judge is fit to testify. A woman is also unfit to testify, as is apparent from the Gemara in Bava Kama (88a) and Shevuos (30a). (Note: How, then, can this Pasuk be referring to women?)

Answer: The rule cited in Nidah (49b) is only discussing a man. It is as if it says that any man who is fit to judge is fit to testify. (Note: However, a woman is indeed fit to judge even though she is unfit to testify.)

Implied Question: From Devorah, regarding whom the Pasuk says, "And she judged Bnei Yisrael" (Shoftim 4:4), there is no proof that a woman is fit to judge. (Note: Why not?)

Answer#1: Perhaps she did not judge, but rather taught them the laws of the Torah (this is what is meant when it says she judged).

Answer#2: Alternatively, perhaps they accepted her upon themselves as a judge due to the Shechinah being with her. (Note: One is allowed to accept any Jew as a judge, even a relative or someone otherwise unfit to judge, as stated in Sanhedrin (23a).)

Implied Question: However, the Yerushalmi in Yoma states that now that a woman cannot testify, she cannot judge. (Note: This therefore returns us to our original question.)

Answer#3: The Ri says that the Pasuk implies that it is both referring to judges and people being judged (which indeed can include women).

Question: We have found in many places that they judged thefts and injuries! They did so in the case of the shepherd in Bava Metzia (5a), in the case of the man who stole a pair of oxen from his friend in Bava Kama (96b), and in other places.

Answer#1: It is possible to answer that they would push the person to go have the case judged in Eretz Yisrael (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Answer#2: Additionally, the Ri answers, that our Gemara means theft through injury. In other words, it is only discussing a case where a person injured his friend and stole from him.

Explanation: This is like cases of admission and loans.

Implied Question: We accept converts today, even though a convert requires three experts. This is derived in Yevamos (46b) from the Pasuk, "Mishpat" -- "judgement" (regarding converts, implying that expert judges are required). (Note: How, then, can we accept converts today?)

Answer: The Ri answers that we are the messengers of those who have Semichah. This is because it is considered a common case (which we still judge outside of Eretz Yisrael even if it involves a fine). In Yevamos (ibid.), the Gemara implies that they indeed still use to accept converts in Bavel (during the times of the Gemara).

Question: How can we be the messengers of the judges in Eretz Yisrael who have Semichah when there are no longer any such judges in Eretz Yisrael? Who gives us permission?

Answer: It is possible to answer that we are the messengers of those who had Semichah from previous generations.

Question: Why doesn't Rav Ashi say that the Mishnah is referring to a case where there was only Eirusin, as Rav Ashi does have suspicions regarding such rumors (as stated on 89b)?

Answer#1: He understands that the Mishnah is even discussing a case of marriage.

Answer#2: Additionally, we rule later (89b) that we do not even have suspicions regarding rumors of Eirusin.