(Mishnah): If an Ervah was Safek Mekudeshes (to a brother) or Safek divorced, the Tzaros do Chalitzah, and not Yibum;

What is the case of Safek Kidushin? He threw Kidushin money to her, and we are unsure if it landed closer to him or to her. This is Safek Kidushin.

What is the case of Safek divorce? [Her husband] wrote a Get in his handwriting and there are no witnesses on it, or it has witnesses but no date, or it has a date but only one witness. This is Safek divorce.

(Gemara) Question: (These are not Safek divorce, rather, Torah divorce that is Pasul mid'Rabanan!) Is there no case of Safek divorce [like Safek Kidushin]?! What is the case of Safek Kidushin? He threw Kidushin money to her, and we are unsure if it landed closer to him or to her. This is Safek Kidushin;

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). 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 (PNEI MOSHE. 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.

(Beraisa): With [one of] these three documents (it is in his handwriting and there are no witnesses on it..., 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 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. Avun): 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.)

Support #1: [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; it seems that also the RASHBA (Teshuvah 76 attributed to the Ramban) explains so).

Support #2 (R. Avun - 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) Rather, it is because it is Pasul. [Also] here, it is because it is Pasul.