Question (R. Lazar bar Yosi, to R. Yosi): [The Seifa of our Mishnah] teaches that one Get is Pasul [when it was written] for [one of] two women (and it was not decided which until afterwards) - similarly, two Gitin should be Pasul for two women [when he did not specify which is for which, e.g. they have the same names - HAGAHOS R. DINAR, PNEI MOSHE]!

Answer (R. Yosi): That is correct.

Question (R. Lazar bar Yosi, to R. Yosi): A Mishnah teaches that if two men sent two Gitin, and they became mixed, [the Shali'ach] gives both of them to this [woman], and both of them to this [and they are divorced]!

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: [In the Seifa, since in the end] he gave to her, it should be as if it were [written] clearly Lishmah from the beginning [due to Bereirah]!

Answer (R. Yosi citing R. Bivun): [Our Mishnah] is like R. Shimon [who holds that Ein Bereirah];

(Beraisa): If one told a craftsman 'make for me two bells - one for [something attached to] land, and one for an animal' (only the latter is Mekabel Tum'ah), or 'make for me two mats - one to lie on, and one for a tent' (only the former is Mekabel Tum'ah), or 'make for me two sheets - one for a tent, and one for designs (for a sample, or to hang on the wall - only the former is Mekabel Tum'ah), [if the craftsman made both, and did not specify which is for which,] both are Tamei until he specifies which is [for the need that is] Tahor. (Then, that one is retroactively Tahor.)

R. Shimon is Metaher, until he specifies which is [for the need that is] Tamei.

Just like you say there [according to R. Shimon, it is Tahor] until it is a Kli Ma'aseh from the beginning, so he says [here, it is not a Get] until it is clearly Lishmah from the beginning.

(R. Chananyah citing R. Bivun bar Chiyah): It is like Rebbi [who holds that Ein Bereirah].

Support (R. Yochanan - Beraisa): All Tanayim disqualify in a Get [even if they were fulfilled. We do not say that retroactively, it was Kerisus.] Rebbi says so;

Chachamim say, what disqualifies verbally disqualifies in writing (the Get was not written for Kerisus). What does not disqualify verbally does not disqualify in writing;

'You are permitted to every man except for Ploni', since it disqualifies verbally, it disqualifies in writing. 'This is your Get on condition that you give to me 200 Zuz', which does not disqualify verbally, does not disqualify in writing.

(R. Yudan): About what do they argue? It is when he was not Mevatel his Tenai, but if he was Mevatel his Tenai, even Rebbi agrees [that retroactively, it was written l'Shem Kerisus].

Question: This means that all Tanayim taught in Mishnayos in Gitin, are unlike Rebbi!

Answer (R. Chinena): There (the Beraisa of Rebbi), he wrote on this condition (it was not written for Kerisus. It is Pasul even if he fulfills the Tenai. The same applies to a Get written on Tenai, e.g. to divorce the one I will want.) Here (Tanayim in Mishnayos), he gave on this condition. (The Get itself it was written for Kerisus. We explained this Sugya like MILCHAMOS HASH-M.)

Question (R. Ezra, to R. Mana): (Rebbi disqualifies what was written in the Get, even after the Toref.) This means that there is no [difference between Toref and] Tofes according to Rebbi!

Answer (R. Mana): Do not question Rebbi. [Perhaps] Rebbi holds like R. Yehudah, who [decrees and] disqualifies Tofes [Lo Lishmah, due to the Toref]!

(Reish Lakish): All Tana'im disqualify in a Get. All say so!

A case came in front of R. Yirmeyah, and he ruled like Reish Lakish.

R. Yosi: Do you abandon R. Yochanan, and do like [his Talmid] Reish Lakish?!

R. Yirmeyah: Is R. Yochanan's ruling the Halachah, and Reish Lakish's ruling is not the Halachah?! (Here, the Halachah follows Reish Lakish!)

(R. Yakov bar Acha): Reish Lakish does not argue with R. Yochanan [based on his own reasoning]. Rather, he heard a Beraisa, and relied on it.

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): Reish Lakish did not argue with R. Yochanan to do unlike him, rather, in order to derive the Halachah in practice;

When he heard a Beraisa [unlike R. Yochanan], he relied on it. When he did not hear a Beraisa, he nullified his opinion to (i.e. accepted) R. Yochanan's opinion.