Observation: It is not proper to ask "do we need a verse to exclude a Safek?", like it asks in Chulin (22b). (There, when Turim and Bnei Yonah begin to yellow, it is improper for a Drashah to call this a Safek, for the Torah could simply give the law. Here, it is proper that a Drashah teach us the law when we have a Safek.)

Question #1: In Bechoros (11a), it says that one Seh exempts many firstborn donkeys, Why must he separate 10 Seiyim?

Question #2: What is the Chidush? A Mishnah teaches this! "The Sefekos enter the pen to be tithed."

Question #3: Since he said that he tithes them, why must it teach that they are his? Obviously, since he tithes them, they are his. If they were the Kohen's he would not tithe them, for this is like something bought!

Citation (Bechoros 55b - Mishnah): What one buys, or receives for a gift, is exempt.

Suggestion: It teaches that even though he tithes them, they are still his.

Rejection: This is obvious, that Ma'aser Behemah belongs to the owner!

Note: R. Chananel holds that Ma'aser Behemah is given to a Kohen.

Assertion: It seems that the text does not say "and the rest", for even what his hand reaches, he swears about it. Once the Shevu'ah was enacted lest one go and grab, for this reason he swears even about what he holds.

Implied question: If so, below, how is it proven that in Kinyan (Sudar), what one is holding, it is as if it was cut off?

Answer: Since here, after the Shevu'ah, he receives all that he is holding, even more than half (this shows that it is as if what he is holding was cut off, and he alone holds it);

The Shevu'ah is due to the claim, and due to an enactment.

Assertion: If her hand was open when he put the Get in her hand, and a string remained in his hand, and she closed her hand tightly, so if he would pull the string, he cannot bring it to himself, she is not divorced;

Since when he put it in her hand, before she closed her hand tightly, he could have brought it to himself, and he did not close her hand, rather, she did, this is like "take your Get from the ground;

She is not divorced, because this is not called "he put it in her hand."

Explanation #1: Here we say that if he cannot bring it to himself, she is divorced, e.g. her hand was closed, and he inserted it so tightly that if he will pull the string, the Get will not come to him.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): If the Get is so heavy that if he wants to pull the Get to himself, the string will break, she is divorced;

The case is, her hand is open. She did not close it, or do anything.

Explanation #1: According to Seforim in which the text says "what is the case? E.g. a Henpek (validation of Beis Din), is written in it, now he (the Makshan) did not know that "it fell to the hand of the judge" refers to a Henpek;

Rather, he thought that the judge found it. Therefore, he asked why a judge is different than someone else.

Explanation #2: According to Seforim that do not say afterwards "what is the case? E.g. a Henpek is written in it", now he properly knew that "it fell to the hand of the judge" means that a Henpek is written in it;

He asks "what is different when a Henpek is written in it", that he never releases it? If no Henpek is written in it, it seems that all the more so he should never release it, for perhaps it was written to borrow with it, and he did not borrow!

He answers that the Beraisa teaches a bigger Chidush. (Even if it was validated, and surely the loan was given, he does not return it, lest the loan was paid.)

Explanation: We are not concerned for scheming;

Implied question: We should be concerned lest he wrote it in Nisan, and did not marry until Tishrei!

Answer: There is a lien on him to pay 100 or 200 from Eirusin, even without a Kesuvah, for Eirusin has publicity (so buyers knew to beware);

We need not be concerned lest he wrote to her before Eirusin [for no one does so].

Also Tosefes, according to Abaye who says that witnesses acquire for [the recipient] through their signature, this is fine (for her lien began from the date on the Kesuvah);

R. Asi [who disagrees with Abaye] establishes it when he was Makneh to her [a lien from when he wrote it].

Implied question: He need not reverse the opinions! He could say that R. Yosi is concerned for two Kesuvos!

Answer: He cannot say so, for if so, when she is still married, why do we return it to her when her husband does not agree?

Explanation (Rashi): This refers to "they divide" that R. Shimon ben Gamliel said.

Support: This is correct. He did not want to explain that it refers to the argument of Rebbi and R. Shimon ben Gamliel, for how could we say "but if one holds the Tofes..."?

This would connote that in such a case they do not argue, but this is not true. Also in such a case, if it is not validated, according to Rebbi he does not receive anything!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We do not estimate [the value of] the [amount] of money, and the [names of] the borrower and lender, for these are written also in the last line, in the Tofes, and this is primary;

Citation (Bava Basra 165b - Mishnah): If above it says 100 [and below it says 200... we follow what is written below].

Question: We do not learn from the last line! This is why we recap the document [in the last line];

The Mishnah that says "if above it says 100..." does not discuss [when it says 200 in] the last line, (rather, it says 200 below, but before the last line)!

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi also explained that we do not estimate [the value of] the witnesses (i.e. the signatures), for R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that if one admits that he wrote a document, [the bearer] need not validate it.

Question #1: If he considers the one who is not holding the witnesses as if he holds a document without witnesses, if so, also according to R. Shimon ben Gamliel, this is difficult!

Granted, he holds that one need not validate it. In any case, when there are no Edei Chasimah (witnesses who signed) at all, it is Pasul!

Question #2: How is the Toref better than the Tofes? The document is Pasul without the Tofes, just like without the Toref! If even one line was erased from the document, it is Pasul!

Explanation #2: Rather, surely we do not estimate what disqualifies the document [if it is missing]. It is worth the same when he holds one line of the Tofes, like when he holds the borrower, lender, the amount and the witnesses;

The document is not Kosher without this, just like without this.

Distinction: However, the document is Kosher without the date. We estimate how much it is worth.

Citation (Yerushalmi - R. Elazar): Everything depends on who holds the witnesses.

Assertion: He argues with the Bavli, which mentions the date. [R. Elazar] holds that Edei Mesirah Karsei (the witnesses who saw a document handed over, they empower it), and the document is Kosher without Edei Chasimah;

We estimate how much it is worth that [he has Edei Chasimah, and] he need not pursue Edei Mesirah.

Observation: He argues with the version in Bava Basra (170a) that holds that R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that Edei Chasimah Karsei.

Explanation: We do not divide the debt like [the amount] written in the document, rather, what it is worth to sell it. He pays half of this.

Proof #1: If you would not say so, rather, literally half the debt written, regarding a Talis do we really divide it?! This causes a loss!

The text does not say "we cut the document." If so, what [proof] does he bring from a Talis?

Just the contrary, if a Talis is cut in two, this is not such a loss. If a document is cut in two, it is not worth anything!

Proof #2: Also, it is obvious that we do not divide the document into two [pieces], for above we establish the argument of Rebbi and R. Shimon ben Gamliel to be about one who admits that he wrote a document (whether or not the bearer must validate it)! Rather, it is like I explained.