(Mishnah): Three kinds of Gitin are Pasul, but if she remarried, the child is Kosher (not a Mamzer):

It is written in Kesav Yado (his, i.e. the husband's, own handwriting), but witnesses did not sign it;

Witnesses signed it, but there is no date on it;

It has a date, and only one witness signed it.

If she remarried relying on any of these three Gitin, the children are not Mamzerim.

(Gemara): [Yevamos 3:9 discusses Kidushin and divorce b'Safek. It suggested that our Mishnah gives cases of Safek divorce, and rejects] 'this is not Safek divorce, rather, it is true divorce!'

Question: How is Safek Kidushin? It is like a Mishnah taught there (Yevamos 3:9) - he threw to her Kidushin. It is a Safek if it was close to her or to him. This is Safek Kidushin;

And here [there is a similar case of Safek divorce]! He threw her Get to her, and we are unsure if it landed closer to him or to her. This is Safek divorce! (We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

(R. Yochanan citing R. Chalafta of Havah): All of them ('Safek' divorce in our Mishnah), if she married through [the Get], she need not leave her husband, lest people malign her children [say that they are Mamzerim, for her divorce was invalid. This leniency is only if she has children from her new husband (SEFER NIR, Yevamos 3:9). The coming cases discuss whether we are lenient even if she has no children.)

If [Ploni's] daughter [was married to his brother], and she remarried a stranger through this [Pasul] Get [and the brother died], she need not leave her husband. [We consider the Get valid] in order to make her Tzarah Zekukah to her father. (If the Get were invalid, her Tzarah would be Tzaras Ervah, and exempt from Chalitzah or Yibum.)

Note: Also in the following cases, Ploni's daughter received such a Pasul Get from his brother, and the brother died.

If her Tzarah remarried a stranger through this Get (she thought that it is void, so she is Tzaras Ervah, and exempt from Chalitzah or Yibum, e.g. Ploni was the only surviving brother), she must leave. (Mid'Oraisa the Get was valid, so she is not Tzaras Ervah; she needs Chalitzah or Yibum.)

If [Ploni's] daughter married [another] brother (did Yibum) through this Get (she thought that it is void), she must leave (mid'Oraisa she was divorced, so there is no Yibum; she is Eshes Ach).

If the Tzarah married his brother (did Yibum) through this Get, even with his father (i.e. Ploni, for she is not Tzaras Ervah), she need not leave. (We explained this like RIDVAZ.)

(Beraisa): With [one of] these three documents (in our Mishnah, a lender) collects from Bnei Chorin (property that the borrower still owns), but not from Meshubadim (property that he sold).

Explanation #1 (R. Ba): This is when the document was not established in the lender's hand, but if the document was established in the lender's hand (Beis Din validated it), he collects [even from Meshubadim, for Beis Din's Kiyum (validation) is like witnesses].

Objection (R. Yosah): If [the Beraisa discusses] when the document was not established in the lender's hand, he should not collect even from Bnei Chorin!

Explanation #2: Rather, [the Beraisa discusses when] the document was established in the lender's hand.

Question: Why does he not collect [from Meshubadim]?

Answer #1 (R. Bisna): It is due to scheming. (Perhaps they conspire to enable the lender to collect fraudulently, e.g. they predated it. HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA (Yevamos 3:9) asks, he should be able to collect from Meshubadim from the date of the Kiyum! Perhaps we decree lest buyers not know this, and they will give back property bought after the date on the document itself. (PF) It seems that there was no question from a document without a date. No buyer would return property without any evidence that the loan preceded his purchase!)

Answer #2 (R. Avina): It is because [any document unlike Chachamim's enactment] is Pasul. He collects from Bnei Chorin, i.e. if the borrower admits that he owes - PNEI MOSHE, Yevamos 3:9.)

Support #1 (R. Avin): [Concern for scheming applies] only when the elder borrowed and the elder (i.e. the same person) sold his property. If the elder borrowed [and died], and his son sold [what he inherited], can you say that he schemes?! (Surely the loan preceded the sale!) Rather, it is because it is Pasul (RIDVAZ Yevamos 3:9; it seems that also the RASHBA (Teshuvah 76 attributed to the Ramban) explains so).

Support #2 (R. Avin - Beraisa): The same applies to divorce documents (with such a Get, she collects her Kesuvah from Bnei Chorin, but not from Meshubadim). Can you say that it is due to scheming? (Her lien is from the time of Nisu'in, i.e. the date on her Kesuvah! - HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA, Yevamos 3:9) Rather, it is because it is Pasul. [Also] here, it is because it is Pasul.

(R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): All of these are written in Kesav Yado (his, i.e. the husband's, own handwriting. If not, it is Pasul mid'Oraisa and the child is a Mamzer.)

Objection (R. Lazar): [In the middle case] there are witnesses. Why do we need Kesav Yado?!

(R. Yirmeyah citing Rav): All of these are written in Kesav Yado, except for when it has witnesses.

Answer (to objection - Rav Hamnuna): These [witnesses] brought guilt upon themselves. They accepted to lie, to sign a Get without a date. (Since they enable the bearer to predate it, it is as if they testify falsely. They are Pasul witnesses, therefore we need Kesav Yado - OHR SOMAYACH Hilchos Gerushin 1:25, Sof.)

(R. Ba bar Hamnuna citing Rav Ada bar Achah citing Rav): [Our Mishnah] is [like] R. Meir [who says that Edei Chasimah Karsei (the witnesses who sign a document empower it. Even though R. Meir holds that anyone who deviated from Chachamim's rules of Gitin, if she remarried based on the Get, the child is a Mamzer, here they enacted that the child is not a Mamzer.)

Question: What [need] did you see to say so? (R. Elazar argues in the coming Mishnah. Surely our Mishnah is R. Meir, who argues with R. Elazar! Also, according to R. Elazar, a Get is Kosher through Edei Mesirah even without any witnesses or Kesav Yado! - PNEI MOSHE)

Answer #1 (R. Mana): It is because Rav Huna, citing Rav, said that the entire Perek is like R. Meir (who says that due to any deviation from Chachamim's rules, the child is a Mamzer), except for if [the scribe] changed his or her name, or the name of his or her city. (Then, even Chachamim agree that the child is a Mamzer);

You should not say that the first [half of the Perek, i.e. ha'Zorek] is like R. Meir, and the second [half of the Perek, i.e. ha'Megaresh] is Rabanan. Therefore, he needed to say that also our Mishnah is R. Meir.

R. Mana held that ha'Zorek and ha'Megaresh are both one Perek (HAGAHOS R. DINAR, 8:5). Normally, there is one Stam Tana for an entire Perek. One might have thought that here is an exception; it cannot be R. Meir, for the child is not a Mamzer. Alternatively, we deduce that they are separate Perakim, like R. Yosa told him. Even though R. Elazar argues in the coming Mishnah, we could say that the coming Mishnah discusses monetary documents. - PF)

Answer #2 (R. Yosi): It is because Rav and Shmuel, both of them said that the Halachah follows R. Lazar. Do not say that also here (our Stam Mishnah is like R. Lazar, and the Halachah follows him. R. Meir holds that without witnesses, the child is a Mamzer!) Therefore, he needed to say that also our Mishnah is R. Meir. (Kesav Yado is like witnesses - PNEI MOSHE.)

(Mishnah - R. Elazar): Even if no witnesses signed on it, but it was given in front of witnesses, it is valid, and [this suffices to] collect from Meshubadim (land that was sold).

Witnesses sign a Get only due to an enactment for Tikun ha'Olam.

(Gemara - Rav and Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Elazar.

(R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): Chachamim disqualify.

A case came in front of R. Yochanan of a Kohenes [divorced with such a Get]. He wanted to rule like R. Yanai's teaching [that she is permitted to her husband].

When he heard that Rav and Shmuel argue, [afterwards,] even a [wife of a] Yisrael, he evaded [ruling about] it.

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): According to everyone it is Kosher.

Question: R. Elazar says that it is Kosher, and Chachamim disqualify!

Answer: (All agree that it is Kosher to collect from Bnei Chorin.) R. Elazar says that it is [fully] Kosher and we collect [even] from Meshubad property. Rabanan say that it is Pasul (for Meshubadim), and we collect [only] from Bnei Chorin.

(Mishnah): If two men sent identical Gitin (all names are the same), and they got mixed up, [the Shali'ach] gives both Gitin to this [wife], and both to this.

Therefore, if one Get was lost, the other is Batel.

(Gemara) Question (R. Eliezer bei R. Yosi, to R. Yosi): Just like you say that one Get is Pasul if it was written for [one of] two women (and he did not decide until later - above, 3:1), similarly two Gitin written for one woman (and he will choose one of them later, they should be Pesulim, for it was not clarified which will be used)!

Answer (R. Yosi): Correct!

Question (R. Eliezer bei R. Yosi, to R. Yosi - Mishnah): If two men sent identical Gitin, and they got mixed up, he gives both Gitin to this, and both to this.

Answer (R. Yosi): There, this [Get] was clearly [written] Lishmah (for this woman) and this was clearly Lishmah (for the other woman, just) the mixture caused [that now we do not know which is which. We say that each is divorced through the Get that was written for her];

However, here [at the time he wrote it,] it was not clearly Lishmah (l'Shem this woman) and not clearly Lishmah (for the other woman. We explained this like OHR SOMAYACH, Hilchos Gerushin 3:4.)

Question: [When a Get was written for one of two women, since in the end he gave to her, it should be as if it were [written] clearly Lishmah from the beginning! (MEICHAL HA'MAYIM - our Sugya relies on the Gemara above (3:1), which answered that this depends on Bereirah, and the Tana of that Mishnah holds that Ein Bereirah.)