Answer: Regarding Get, he agrees [that it is Pasul], like I explained there and in Gitin (20a).

Support: We also disqualify a Sefer Torah from being a Get (even though expressions of divorce are written in it), in Gitin (19b), like is proven from the episode in which a man entered a Beis ha'Keneses, took a Sefer Torah and gave it to his wife.

Question: What is the connection of this (he retracted, and gave the Get to another man to use) to Stam?

Answer: One might have thought that since he retracted, presumably, from the beginning he wrote it [with intent] that if he will retract, whoever wants will divorce with it.

Reference: All of these Mishnayos are in Gitin (24a-24b, 26a).

Question: Why doesn't [the Mishnah] teach "further" about this clause [of one who writes Tofsei Gitin]? You are forced to say that it is a bigger Chidush, for from all the previous [clauses] we could not derive that Stam is Pasul, only from this one!

Answer: It is because "he said to a scribe", which was taught in the Reisha of this [clause], we infer from it Ein Bereirah, like we infer from this Stam is Pasul. (Therefore, it is not greater than the previous clause.)

Question (Ri): In Pesachim (14a), a Mishnah says that R. Akiva added, even though according to the opinion that establishes R. Chanina's teaching to discuss a Vlad Vlad ha'Tum'ah mid'Rabanan, we do not learn it from R. Akiva's teaching, which discusses a Pesul mid'Oraisa!

Answer: We can say that even so, it taught that he added, for if not (one might have thought that he holds that Tum'ah of liquids to be Metamei others is mid'Rabanan, and), he would not teach anything.

Explanation: [The Gemara] needed to bring Rav Yehudah's teaching, for from it we infer in Gitin (26a) that [the Mishnah] is like R. Elazar, who says that Edei Mesirah Karsei (the witnesses in front of whom a document is handed over, they empower it; the Get itself must be written Lishmah), for we hold like him;

Some establish [the Mishnah] there like R. Meir (who says that Edei Chasimah, the witnesses who sign a document, Karsei. They must sign Lishmah, but the Get need not be written Lishmah), and explain that [one who writes Tofsei Gitin must omit the names, not due to Lishmah, rather,] "due to the enactment" is due to quarrels (lest a woman learn that a scribe wrote a Get with her and her husband's names, and assume that her husband authorized it). According to him, we cannot infer that Stam is Pasul.

Inference: [We infer this] since it wrote "not l'Shem a woman", which connotes that all women are included (i.e. l'Shem any other woman);

This is unlike Lo Lishmah of "all Zevachim", in which we do not say that even Chulin are included, for there we can explain that they were slaughtered not l'Shem this Korban, rather, l'Shem another Korban.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): A Sheretz is in the outer Kli, and food is in the inner Kli;

This is not only [if the inner one is] a Kli Cheres, which is not Mekabel Tum'ah from its outside. Rather, even a Kli Shetef, which is Mekabel Tum'ah from its outside, food inside is not Tamei, for also a Kli Shetef is not Mekabel Tum'ah from the airspace of a Kli Cheres.

Source: It says in Pesachim (20b) that food is not Mekabel Tum'ah from the airspace of a Kli Cheres, but Kelim are not Mekabel Tum'ah from the airspace of a Kli Cheres.

Question #1: If so, why is a Kli Shetef a bigger Chidush than a Kli Cheres?

Question #2: There is a bigger Chidush regarding a Kli Cheres, e.g. if the Sheretz is in the airspace of the inner Kli Cheres, and food is in the outer Kli Cheres, it is Tahor, even though the inner [Kli] is Tamei!

Explanation #2: The entire Chidush of a Kli Shetef is because it is not Mino (the same kind) as a Kli Cheres, and one might have thought that it does not ruin (the outer Kli's ability to be Metamei all food inside it), and it is Tamei. [The Beraisa] teaches that this is not so;

And only a Kli Shetef, which is not Mino of a Kli Cheres, [its contents] would be Tamei if not for [the Drashah from] the verse, but Toch Tocho in which all (i.e. both Kelim) are of Cheres, i.e. Mino, obviously [its contents] are Tahor without a [Drashah from the] verse, for the Torah said only that Tocho [is Tamei].

Support: It is proven below (3b) that only a Kli Shetef needs a verse, for it asks "did Rava really say that a Chatas slaughtered for one who is obligated to bring an Olah is Kosher? This shows that not Mino does not ruin";

However, a Beraisa teaches "Tocho" and not Toch Tocho, and even a Kli Shetef saves!

[The Gemara] answers that the Torah wrote four [sources for Drashos from the words] Tocho. One is "Tocho" and not Toch Tocho. I.e. even has the Torah written only Toch, we would exclude an inner Kli Cheres, that food inside it is not Mekabel Tum'ah from a Sheretz in the outer [Kli], for the Sheretz is not in it (the inner Kli).

Limitation: Only an inner Kli Cheres, which is like it (the outer Kli), we would exclude (without another Drashah), for Mino ruins, and interrupts. Therefore, [the Torah] wrote the [final] Vov of Tocho, to teach that even what is not Mino, e.g. Kli Shetef, ruins and saves.

Question: Why don't we answer so also in our Sugya? There is different, for the Torah said Tocho, and not Toch Tocho, and this is needed only for a Kli Shetef!

Answer: [The Gemara] gave a better answer here, that we discuss a Chatas l'Shem Chulin, which is Kosher. It answered that [Chachamim] made Chulin totally not Mino of Kodshim, therefore it does not ruin;

It is like a wall in an oven and an inferior straw hive. It is not a Kli at all, and it does not save at all;

However, a Kli Shetef is called Mino somewhat, for it is called a Kli, Therefore, it ruins and saves.

Distinction: However, below it refers to a Chatas slaughtered for one who is obligated an Olah. It is Kosher. Even though [Olah] is Kodshim, it is called Eino Mino, and it does not ruin;

Regarding this it asks "why is this different than Kli Shetef? It is a Kli, and it is not Eino Mino, and it ruins!

However, he cannot answer that they made it like a wall regarding an oven, for that is not a Kli at all.

Support: Now, here and below we answer similar to what is similar.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is normal for people to divide Ohalim through a Mechitzah. Therefore, it is a different Ohel. However, it is not normal to divide an oven.

Inference: They argue even about an oven that they partitioned with boards or curtains.

Question: Toras Kohanim connotes they argue only about an inferior hive that was corked and lowered into the airspace of an oven, but not when they partitioned with boards!

The reason is because a hive, which has four walls, interrupts, for it resembles a Kli. Therefore, it is Metaher [its contents];

However, one Mechitzah in an oven, R. Eliezer agrees that does not partition, and [the entire oven] is Tamei.

Citation (Toras Kohanim, Parshas Shemini, regarding Tocho v'Lo Toch Tocho): What is the case? A barrel that was put in an oven, and its mouth is above the oven... From here [Chachamim] said that an inferior hive... R. Eliezer says that it saves;

Citation (cont. - R. Eliezer): If [a hive] saves regarding a Mes, which is stringent, will it not save in a Kli Cheres, which is lenient?!

Citation (cont. - Chachamim): If it saves regarding a Mes, which (i.e. even though it) is stringent, in a case that a Mechitzah saves, will it save in a Kli Cheres, which is lenient, for which a Mechitzah does not save?!

Implied question - Inference: "We divide an Ohel" that they said to him in our Sugya, this means like they said to him in Toras Kohanim! (It does not depend on what is normal.)

Explanation #2 (Rabbeinu ha'Kadosh): [Our Gemara] means as follows. If an inferior hive that was corked saves in Ohel ha'Mes, for we divide Ohalim... I.e. one Mechitzah that interrupts, it saves;

Will you say that it partitions in a Kli Cheres, in which we do not divide Ohalim, i.e. one Mechitzah that interrupts in an oven does not partition? This shows that in an oven that was partitioned, they do not argue!

Implied question: Why does it conclude in Toras Kohanim afterwards with the words of our Sugya, that R. Yochanan ben Nuri said to [R. Eliezer] "if Ohalim save from [Tum'as] Ohalim regarding a Mes, which is stringent, for we divide Ohalim, will Ohalim save from [Tum'ah in] a Kli Cheres?"

Citation (Toras Kohanim - cont. - R. Yosi): I said to R. Yochanan ben Nuri "I am astounded if R. Eliezer received an answer from you, for this is the discussion (he argues with you about this. You did not answer him at all!)"

[Tosfos'] Rebbi explained that also there, R. Eliezer argues. This requires investigation.

Explanation #3 (R. Baruch): Also from here it connotes that the Perush of "we divide Ohalim", which R. Yochanan ben Nuri said, is a Mechitzah that saves. About this, R. Yosi said to him that also about this, R. Eliezer argued.

Support: The question "they said to him" and the question of R. Yochanan ben Nuri, are the same, just one said in these words, and one said in these words.

Alternative text: Some reverse the text, like in some texts of Toras Kohanim, that say "they said to him", for we divide Ohalim, and explain like the Rashbam, and regarding R. Yochanan ben Nuri the text says "for a Mechitzah saves."

Support: According to this, it is fine that R. Yosi said "this is the discussion!"

Rejection: The Tosefta in Kelim (Bava Kama, 6:3) proves that the only matter they said to him is R. Yochanan ben Nuri's words "for we divide Ohalim", and about this R. Yosi said "this is the discussion!"

There we cannot change the text, for it does not discuss there "they said to him."

Inference: "We divide Ohalim" means that it interrupts and saves, like the question of a Mechitzah that saves of "they said to him";

Both of them (those who "said to him", and R. Yochanan ben Nuri) hold that R. Eliezer agreed about a Mechitzah regarding an oven, and about this R. Yosi said "this is the discussion. Also there R. Eliezer argues." [This is from R.] Baruch.

Question: Until now, we concluded oppositely from reasoning! Just the contrary, because they are Kodshim, and Mino, therefore it ruins. However, Chulin, which is not Mino, does not ruin!

Answer: It seems that he makes a Kal v'Chomer as follows. Kodshim do not profane, e.g. one who slaughters a Chatas Stam, and he thought that it was an Olah. It is Kosher. Even so, Kodshim profane when he slaughters l'Shem Olah;

Chulin, which profane, e.g. [he slaughters Kodshim] thinking that it is Chulin, which it says below (46b) "due to Chulin is Pasul", all the more so it profanes Kodshim when he slaughters l'Shem Chulin!

Implied question: This verse is written regarding Tevel and Terumah, like is proven below (11b) in the Gemara of Shimon Achi Azaryah!

Answer: Perhaps he expounds an extra "Kodshei". It could have written "v'Lo Yechalelu Es Asher Yarimu."