(Ula bar R. Yishmael): [Our Mishnah says that she is divorced when he threw it into her basket. Even though a husband acquires what his wife acquires,] it never crossed his mind to acquire her basket (he does not desire it).

Question: Exert yourself [and you will find the answer]! If her basket was of gold [surely he desires it]!

Answer: All the more so, it never crossed his mind to acquire her basket (since it is an ornament for her. We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

(R. Yochanan): This is only if she uses it at the time. (Then, he lends to her its place. If not, it is considered the buyer's Kli in the seller's Reshus, which does not acquire.)

(Reish Lakish): It is tied to her. (It is like her hand.)

(R. Yosi): This is when it is raised [above the ground] due to her [when she stands. If it drags on the ground, it is not like her hand.)

Support (for R. Yochanan - R. Hoshayah -Beraisa): Even if he threw to her into her pot, she is divorced. (It is not normal that a pot is tied to her! Rather, it suffices that she uses it at the time.)

(Mishnah): If one told his wife 'take this loan document' (and gave a Get to her), or she found her Get in back of him, and read it and realized that it is her Get, she is not divorced unless he says 'this is your Get';

If he put it in her hand while she was sleeping, and she woke up and found her Get in her hand, it is Pasul unless he says 'this is your Get.'

If she was standing in Reshus ha'Rabim and her husband threw a Get to her - [if it landed] close to her, she is divorced; close to him, she is not divorced. In the middle, she is (has the stringencies of being) divorced and not divorced.

(Gemara - R. Yochanan): Our Mishnah is like R. Shimon ben Elazar, for R. Shimon ben Elazar says that it is not a Get unless he tells her at the time he gives it 'this is your Get.'

Question: What is 'close'?

Answer #1 (Rav): It is [within] four Amos.

Support: [Also] R. Ilai ha'Yoresh said, it is [within] four Amos.

Answer #2 (R. Elazar citing R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): [It is so she can bend down and] stretch out her hands [and take it].

Support #1 (Beraisa): [It is so she can bend down and] stretch out her hands [and take it].c

Support #2 (R. Ba citing R. Yirmeyah citing Rav): [It is so she can bend down and] stretch out her hands [and take it].

Question: Rav contradicts himself! There he said four Amos, and here he says so?!

Answer: This is the Halachah (four Amos). This is in practice (she can stretch out her hands).

(R. Lazar - Beraisa): Even if it is closer to her than to him, if a dog could come and take it, she is not divorced.

Shmuel argues with R. Lazar [and holds that according to letter of the law, if it is closer to her than to him, she is divorced, but the clearest [way to conduct in practice is not to permit her] until he puts it in her hand. (PNEI MOSHE)

Question: If it was [close enough to both of them to bend down and] stretch out the hands [and take it, what is the law]?

Answer (Shimon bar Ba citing R. Yochanan): If it is closer to her than to him, she is divorced. If it is closer to him than to her, she is not divorced. If it is in the middle, she is (has the stringencies of being) divorced and not divorced.

(Aba citing R. Yirmeyah): Wherever we learned 'she is divorced and not divorced', he must feed her.

(Mishnah): The same applies to Kidushin, and to a debt;

If a creditor said 'throw to me the money you owe me' and it landed closer to the creditor, the borrower acquired (he is exempt, even if the money was lost just after it landed);

If it landed closer to the borrower, he [still] owes. If it landed in the middle, both of them divide (he owes half).

If she was standing on the roof and he threw a Get to her, once it reaches the airspace above the roof, she is divorced;

If he was above (on the roof) and she was below, and he threw a Get to her, once it leaves the airspace of the roof, even if it was erased or burned in mid-air, she is divorced.

(Gemara - Reish Lakish citing Aba Kohen Bardela): A person acquires a Metzi'ah when it is within four Amos [of him].

Question: What is the source?

Answer: "Hinei v'Anyi Hachinosi l'Veis Hash-m Zahav Kikarim Me'ah Elef v'Kesef Elef Alafim Kikarim vela'Nechoshes vela'Barzel Ein Mishkal Ki la'Rov Hayah v'Etzim va'Avanim Hachinosi va'Aleihem Tosif." (How could David give such wealth for the Beis ha'Mikdash, and call himself poor? We must say that he found Metzi'os within four Amos, and without taking them in his hand, he was Makdish them.)

Rejection #1 (R. Yonah citing R. Hoshayah) Question: What was the case?

If [he found Metzi'os] within four Amos of himself [and was Makdish them], he is wealthy (he acquired them first)!

If they were outside [his] four Amos (he did not acquire them) - can someone be Makdish what is not his?!

Answer: The case is, (he acquired each Metzi'ah, and) he was Makdish it before he found the next. (He never owned enough to be called rich. There is no source for Reish Lakish's law. We can say that he picked up each Metzi'ah!)

Note: Can we say that he never acquired at once 200 Zuz, i.e. 100 Chulin Shekalim Kesef, or four Shekalim of gold?! A Kikar is 3000 Shekalim. If so, David acquired and was Makdish silver more than 30 million times, and gold more than 75 million times). Even if he started doing so from Bar Mitzvah, and did so all daylight hours on weekdays, this is more than once every eight seconds! In any period of his life (while learning, tending the sheep, fleeing Sha'ul and Avshalom, when he was king), did he spend his entire day finding Metzi'os?! It seems that this is a mere Dichuy. (PF)\

Rejection #2: (David was rich.) What is "v'Anyi"? There is no wealth with respect to the One who said and the world came into existence.

Alternatively "v'Anyi" means that he fasted, and was Makdish [the value of a king's] meal to Shamayim.

Question (R. Yakov bar Idi, to Reish Lakish - Mishnah): If one saw an Aveidah and fell on it, and someone else grabbed it, the one who grabbed it acquired it. (If one's four Amos acquire for him, the first should keep it!)

Answer #1: The case is, he did not say 'four Amos should acquire for me.' (He did not want to acquire through his four Amos, rather, through falling on it, and this is not a Kinyan.)

Question (Mishnah): If one fell on [Pe'ah] or spread his garment on it, others may take it from him.

Answer: Also here, he did not say 'four Amos should acquire for me.'

Question (R. Chiyah's Beraisa): If two were fighting over a sheaf [of Shichechah], and someone else came and grabbed it, the one who grabbed it acquired it.

Answer: Also here, they did not say 'four Amos should acquire for us.'

(R. Yosa citing R. Yochanan): This (she acquires through four Amos) applies to Gitin; it does not apply to a gift.

R. Yochanan taught [about a gift,] for a bigger Chidush, and Reish Lakish taught [about a Metzi'ah, for] a bigger Chidush.

The Chidush of Reish Lakish - one does not acquire a Metzi'ah through another's Da'as, yet he acquires through four Amos. One acquires a gift through another's Da'as - all the more so he acquires through four Amos!

The Chidush of R. Yochanan - one acquires a gift through another's Da'as, yet he does not acquire it through four Amos. A Metzi'ah [which one does not acquire through another's Da'as], all the more so [he does not acquire it through four Amos]!

Question (R. Ze'ira, to R. Yosa): It was taught that the same applies to Kidushin! (Kidushin is like a gift!)

Answer (R. Yosa): Gitin and Kidushin are the same. (The Torah equates them.)

Question (Mishnah): The same applies to a debt. (It should be like a gift!)

Answer #1 (R. Yosa): If he said 'throw [the money owed] to the sea, and [the debt] will be pardoned', it is pardoned. (He said 'throw it to me', i.e. and you will be exempt, even if I do not acquire it.)

Question: If so, even if it is closer to the borrower, the borrower should acquire (i.e. be exempt) - but our Mishnah says that if it landed closer to the borrower, he owes!

Answer: He said 'throw it' [and he intended that he will not be exempt] until it enters his Reshus, and it still did not enter his Reshus.

R. Avin: All these questions that R. Ze'ira asked R. Yosah, Reish Lakish asked them to R. Yochanan, and he gave like these answers.

Answer #2 (R. Avin citing Chizkiyah): Our Mishnah discusses [a borrower who threw the loan document to the lender, and it was lost. It teaches who pays] the scribe's fee [to pay for a second document. The law is like Gitin. If it came close enough to the lender, that regarding Gitin she is divorced, the lender was negligent for losing it, and he pays. If not, the borrower was negligent, and he pays - SEFER NIR.]