Question: Why can't we answer that our Mishnah is like R. Meir, who says (above 85b) that Ma'aser Rishon is forbidden to Zarim, for he learns from Terumah;

The Mishnah teaches that just like Terumah is forbidden to a Zonah, also Ma'aser!

Answer: Even R. Meir agrees that a Zonah is not disqualified to Ma'aser;

We don't learn from Terumah regarding this, for she is disqualified from Terumah only through a Bi'ah that disqualifies to Kehunah;

Also from Ma'aser, she is disqualified only through a Bi'ah that disqualifies to Leviyah! (No Bi'ah disqualifies to Leviyah.)

You are forced to say that the Beraisa we ask from is like R. Meir. According to Rabanan, we need not teach that a Zonah may eat Ma'aser. Why would we have a Hava Amina to disqualify her?!

Rather, surely also R. Meir permits, if not due to a fine, like it says.

Possibility #1: She is disqualified to Ma'aser only according to R. Meir. They fined her to be considered like a Zarah, and Ma'aser is forbidden to a Zar;

However, according to Rabanan, it is inappropriate to fine her. She is no worse than a Zar! Our Mishnah is R. Meir.

Possibility #2: It is even like Rabanan. They fined not to give Ma'aser to her, even though she may eat it.

Explanation: He does not fine them. It is a considered a fine that her husband does not get her Metzi'ah and earnings, for this leads to enmity. Also, through this she is not fed;

Even so, below we call this "from her to him" (which connotes that it is a loss for a woman that her husband gets these), because for most women their earnings exceed their food.

Question: Since R. Shimon agrees that she needs a Get from both of them, this shows that we are concerned lest people say that the first divorced her and the latter married her. Above (88b) we said that these two depend on each other;

For this very reason, she should not do Yibum, lest people say that the first divorced her and the latter married her, and the "Yavam" marries his brother's divorcee!

Answer (Ri): Since he does not fine after death, we are not concerned [for this].

Support: This is like one who [heard from one witness that her husband died, and] became Mekudeshes, and then her husband came. She is permitted to him. (Maharshal - when we do not fine her, we presume that people will assume that it was Kidushei Ta'os, and not that the first divorced her...)

Question: How do we infer from this that [if she remarried] based on witnesses, she may return according to Rabanan?

I can say that she is forbidden [to return], even though she does not need a Get, just like one who married based on Beis Din, according to R. Shimon, who says that neither requires a Get!

Even so, R. Shimon agrees that if she remarried based on witnesses, she must leave both of them!

Answer (Ri): There is no proof from R. Shimon to Rabanan. R. Shimon holds that there is no fine of a Get in any case;

However, Rabanan hold that they fined to require a Get from both of them in a case of one witness. If they fined also regarding two witnesses, she would need a Get!

Since she does not need a Get, this teaches that they did not fine with two witnesses, and she is permitted to return.

Explanation: The Beraisa means that Beis Din made their ruling like a man [who had Bi'ah] b'Mezid with a [married] woman.

Suggestion: Because she (one who remarried based on one witness, and it was found that her husband was still alive) is considered like Mezid, therefore she is exempt from a Korban, for she should have checked [that he is truly dead].

Rejection - Mishnah (87b): If they ruled that she may marry, and she was Mekalkel (had Zenus, or married someone forbidden to her), and it was found that her husband was still alive), she must bring a Korban, for they ruled only that she may remarry;

One who was Mekalkel is closer to Mezid than one who married [yet she brings a Korban]!

Explanation: Rather, the reason is because an individual who acts according to a ruling of Beis Din is exempt [even if he transgressed Kares through this].

R. Shimon holds like this in Horiyos (3b).

Implied question: Why does the Beraisa compare that to a man b'Mezid with a woman? (It does not depend on being Mezid!)

Answer: It is a mere Siman [that she is exempt from a Korban].

Implied question: In Avodah Zarah (10a) we say that we count [the years on documents] only from Malchus Yavan!

Answer (R. Tam): That refers to other documents. Regarding Get, we are concerned for Shalom with the kingdom;

[A Get] is a great matter to them, to separate a man from his wife. We count only from the reign of the king in that city.

Explanation #1 (Rivan): This refers to the [location of] the husband.

Rejection - Citation (Gitin 80a) Rhetorical question: Who was in the east? If it was the husband, this is the case of changing the name of his city!

Citation (cont.) Answer: Rather, it is the scribe, like Rav told scribes "when you sit [and write a Get] in Hini, write [in the Get] 'in Hini' [even if it will be given elsewhere]."

Question #1: Granted, the witnesses must write the place where they sign. We are concerned that Hazamah be possible (it can be proven that they were not there on the date written);

However, why are we concerned about the scribe?

Question #2: Nowadays, the custom is that l'Chatchilah, the scribe writes the Kesuvah in one city, and sends it to the Chasan in another city, where the Chupah is. There they write the city of the Chupah, where they sign!

Answer: Perhaps this that the Gemara said that the scribe was in the east, it is not precise. Really, it means that the witnesses were in the east;

[The Gemara mentioned the scribe] because the Mishnah said "he was in the east." The singular connotes that it was the scribe. Normally, the witnesses sign in the place where the scribe writes. It is Pasul only due to [writing the wrong place of] the witnesses.

Explanation: Rav told scribes [to write the city they write in]. He was particular only due to the witnesses.

Regarding other documents, even if he changed the place of the witnesses, b'Di'eved it is Kosher, like it says in Sanhedrin (32a);

Citation (32a - Beraisa): [If witnesses were signed on a document dated Nisan 1, in the place Ploni], and other witnesses said 'you were with us on Nisan 1 [elsewhere, too far to get to Ploni the same day]', the document and its witnesses are Kesherim. We assume that it was postdated.

Chachamim were stringent [only] about Gitin.

Implied question: Why are postdated Gitin Kosher? (Perhaps the witnesses and scribe were not in that place on the date written!)

Answer: They are Kosher only when the witnesses and scribe were in that city on the date written in the Get. (Maharsha - above, Tosfos merely showed that perhaps we are concerned only that the witnesses were in the place written. He concludes that we are stringent about Gitin, even for the place of the scribe.)

Question: If one found a Get in the trash, why is it Kosher according to R. Meir [who holds that "v'Chasav Lah" means that a Get must be signed Lishmah, but the Torah is not particular about how it was written]?

We should be concerned lest they postdated it, and the scribe was not concerned to be in that place on the date written, and threw it to the trash!

The case of one who was in the east is also like R. Meir. This is clear from Gitin (86a), according to R. Tam's explanation regarding Gitin Pesulim;

The Gemara asked "there is Shalom Malchus". We are not concerned for Shalom Malchus. This is permitted l'Chatchilah according to Rabanan of R. Meir, like we write according to Beriyas Olam;

Rather, we ask from the Seifa, one who was in the east and wrote "in the west." This is clear from R. Chananel, whose text says "there is the case of one who wrote l'Shem Malchus v'Chulei." This (v'Chulei) connotes that the question is from the Seifa.

It is proven that the Sugya is like R. Meir.

Answer #1 (Ri): We do not establish a Get to be postdated. Stam, it was written on the day it was found, like it (the date written) proves;

Presumably the scribe was there and wrote his place.

Answer #2: It is [Kosher only] when it is known that the scribe was there. (See also Tosfos Gitin 80a DH Ki.)

Explanation: One might have thought that regarding one who did Yibum, we can say that she should have waited, for she had Chezkas Isur l'Shuk. She should not marry until it is clarified that she is permitted l'Shuk;

However, here she had Chezkas Heter l'Shuk. (One might have thought that she need not clarify her Heter l'Shuk.)

Explanation: One might have thought that we cannot say that she should have read the Get, like [we said] above, for we discuss even a case in which the Get was read after it was written, before it was given, and he put it up his sleeve and switched it;

We answer that she should have read the Get after the scribe gave it to her.

Explanation: E.g. he has two names - one in Yehudah and one in Galil. He was in Yehudah and wrote he said Galil name;

One might have thought that here, what should she have done? Even if she read it, she thinks that it is Kosher!

We answer that she should have read it, asked, and it should cross her mind that perhaps here in Yehudah, this is not his name.

Explanation: One might have thought that here, she was not so negligent. It need not cross her mind that this disqualifies;

We answer that she should have read her Get in a Beis Din that is very expert in the matter.

The Gemara does not bring the Mishnayos in the order of the Mishnah, rather, in the order that it is proper to ask [from them], one after the other. The latter question is not answered through the previous answer, like I explained. (See also Tosfos Kesuvos 102b.)

Assertion (Ri): We are not concerned to write where he was on that day, only his primary residence.

Proof: Regarding Gitin that come from overseas, we cannot know where he is on that day!