(Mishnah - Beis Shamai): If a man wrote a Get to divorce his wife, then decided not to, he disqualified her from Kehunah;

Beis Hillel say, even if he gave her a Get on Tanai, and the Tanai was not fulfilled, he did not disqualify her to Kehunah.

(Gemara - R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): There is [only a stringency of] lineage of Kehunah (Kohanim refrain from marrying her), but Beis Din does not sully (forbid) her. (CHASAM SOFER, Teshuvah 4:72.)

A case came in front of R. Chiyah Rubah, and he did like Beis Hillel.

Question (Rav): Why did you enter into this great Safek\?!

Answer (R. Chiyah Rubah): R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi was with me (we ruled together).

Rav applied to them "Tovim ha'Shenavim Min ha'Echad."

(Tosefta): If a woman sports with her son (an eight year old, and he did Ha'ara'ah), Beis Shamai disqualify [her to Kehunah], and Beis Hillel are Machshir. (They argue about whether or not we learn from previous generations, in which an eight year-old could father a child - CHAZON YECHEZKEL on Tosefta Sotah 5:4, based on Sanhedrin 69b.)

If two women rub their Ervah on each other, Beis Shamai disqualify [her to Kehunah], and Beis Hillel are Machshir.

(Mishnah - Beis Shamai): If a man divorced his wife and spent the night with her in an inn, she does not need a second Get from him;

Beis Hillel say, she needs a second Get from him.

This is when she was divorced from Nisu'in. If she was divorced from Eirusin, all agree that a second Get is not needed because he is not so intimate with her.

If a woman remarried after receiving a bald Get (it has too few witnesses), all these penalties [of Mishnah 5] apply.

(Gemara - R. Mana): Beis Shamai hold like they taught elsewhere, and Beis Hillel hold like they taught elsewhere;

Beis Shamai say that one may divorce with an old Get. They say here that she does not need a second Get from him;

Beis Hillel say that one may not divorce with an old Get. They say here that she needs a second Get from him;

(R. Yosi bar Bun): Beis Shamai hold like they taught elsewhere, and Beis Hillel hold like they taught elsewhere;

Beis Shamai say that one may not divorce his wife unless he found in her immorality. They say that she is repulsive to him, and he is not suspected about [having Bi'ah with] her. Therefore, she does not need a second Get from him;

Beis Hillel say that [one may not divorce his wife] even if she burned (overcooked) his food. They say that she is not repulsive to him, and he is not suspected about her. Therefore, she needs a second Get from him.

One who divorces his wife, she may not live with him in the same Chatzer, and not in the same Mavuy (HA'MASHBI'ACH).

If it was her Chatzer (in which they were living), he must go away. If it was his Chatzer, she must go away.

Question: If it was both of theirs, who must go away?

Answer: She goes away - but if they can, this one opens [his house] to here, and this one opens [his house] to here (in a different direction, so they will not encounter each other, and they may remain in the Chatzer.

When is this? It is if they had Nisu'in, but if they did not have Nisu'in, no (we are not concerned).

If she was a Kohen's wife, even if they did not have Nisu'in (we are concerned, for the Torah forbids her to him).

An Arusah in Yehudah is like a Nesu'ah (they are secluded during Eirusin; they are intimate, as if they had Nisu'in).

If one did Chalitzah to his Yevamah, even if he had made a Ma'amar, he need not go away, for Ma'amar does not totally acquire (she is no more stringent than an Arusah).

Note: KORBAN HA'EDAH connotes that according to the opinion that Ma'amar acquires, he must go away, even though they are not intimate! Perhaps we uniformly forbid every Nesu'ah. Or, perhaps the Gemara merely proves the law via comparison to an Arusah, but one may not infer the law if Ma'amar totally acquires (PF).

(Mishnah): Anyone may sign on a bald Get to complete the required number of witnesses. Ben Nanas says so;

R. Akiva says, the only [Pasul witnesses] who may complete it are relatives who are valid witnesses in other cases.

What is a bald Get? It is one in which there are more folds than witnesses. (A Mekushar Get is one in which we fold the paper onto itself and sew it, and the witnesses sign on the back.).

(Gemara) Question: What is the source for a tied Get?

Answer #1 (R. Imi): "Va'Ekach Es Sefer [ha'Miknah]" refers to a standard Get. "V'Es ha'Chasum" refers to a tied Get;

"V'Es ha'Galuy" is the Tofes (text) of a tied Get;

"Ha'Mitzvah veha'Chukim" are laws and Mitzvos in which [standard and tied Gitin] differ;

This (a Pashut, i.e. standard Get) requires two [witnesses], and this (a tied Get) requires three. In this (a Pashut) on the inside (front), and in this they sign on the back.

(R. Ba citing Rav Yehudah): In a Pashut, they sign along the width [of the parchment]. In a tied Get, they sign along the length.

(Rav Idi): They sign between one knot and another, above (over the fold, so the signatures are visible even when it is tied).

Question: He should be concerned lest [the bearer] forged (added text below, after the witnesses signed)!

Answer (Rav Huna): Witnesses never sign below, until they read above, [for it says below] 'I, Ploni ben Ploni, accept on myself all that is written above.'

Question: He should be concerned lest [the bearer] returned and forged (and wrote 'I, Ploni...' again after his additions)!

Answer (Rav Huna): If it says twice 'I, Ploni ben Ploni, accept on myself', it is Pasul.

Question: He should be concerned lest he wrote other matters, and returned and erased [the first 'I, Ploni...' and forged (wrote new matters! (Normally, it is evident if the document is on erased parchment and the signatures are not. Here it is not evident, for the signatures are on the back.)

Answer (Rav Huna): An erasure [in a place where 'I, Ploni...' could have been written disqualifies, even if it was validated (witnesses signed that there was an erasure).

(R. Yochanan): [If one remarried based on a bald Get,] she need not leave.

R. Imi: Many times [a bald Get] came in front of R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish, and they said 'go complete it like R. Akiva' (you may use a relative, but not other Pesulim).

(R. Yochanan): Our Mishnah discusses when it is lacking one witness, and provided that there are more than three folds;

[If the Pasul signed] in [one of] the top two [folds], it is Pasul. If one [Pasul signed,] from the third [fold] and below, it is Kosher.

Question (R. Mana): [Perhaps R. Yochanan disqualifies when two relatives signed] only if they are adjacent [lest one validate the document through them]. If they were intermittent [what is the law? We explained this like SHIREI KORBAN.]

Answer: It is like was said [in the last Perek - if Pesulim signed to fill the space between the document and the Kosher witnesses, we do not disqualify because the Kosher] testimony is distanced [from the text], for they come only to be Machshir the document. Also here (since they sign to be Machshir, it is Kosher).

Question: If there were nine [folds, and he had only five Kosher witnesses - can he] untie two [folds] and sign two [Pesulim]? Or, perhaps there cannot be two Pesulim in a tied Get at all?

Note: The one who asked did not hear or accept the previous answer (PF).

If there were five [folds, and he had only three Kosher witnesses], obviously, he can untie one and sign one [Pasul]. It turns out that untying it is its Heter;

This is like R. Chananyah ben Gamliel, for R. Chananyah ben Gamliel says, [if the witnesses they signed on the front, and later signed on the back, and] he untied it, it is Kosher.

Question: Is this even if he tied it and afterwards signed?! (R. Chananyah agrees that if it was signed only on the back, one cannot untie it, and sign on the front like a Pashut!)

Answer: That is when he tied all of them, and afterwards the first three signed. However, if he tied the first three and signs (three Kosher witnesses inside, it was already a Kosher document, so), even if he ties and signs many [on the back], it is Kosher;

The tied Get [that R. Chananyah agrees that it cannot be made Pashut] is when he tied and afterwards signed [on the back.]

If he tied each fold and signed [a witness before tying the next], obviously [all agree that one can make it Pashut], the first two did not sign on a tied Get (it is not a tied Get until it has at least three tied folds).

Question: What is the case [in which Chachamim and R. Chananyah argue in the Mishnah, Bava Basra 10:1]?

If he tied and [three] signed inside (it was already a Kosher document, so) all agree that he can make it Pashut;

If he tied and signed outside (it was already a tied Get, so) all agree that he cannot make it Pashut;

Answer: The case is, he tied it and signed inside, and afterwards signed outside. In this [case] R. Chananyah ben Gamliel says that he can make it Pashut, and Rabanan say that he cannot make it Pashut. (We explained this like ME'OR HA'SIMCHAH.)

Question (Rebbi, against R. Chananyah ben Gamliel): The document itself proves whether it is Pashut or not Pashut!

Question: What is 'the document itself' [that proves this]?

Answer (R. Ba): It is like Rav Huna said - witnesses never sign [a tied Get] below, until they read above, 'I, Ploni ben Ploni, accept on myself all that is written above.'

Question (Beraisa): This is the Tofes [standard text] of [all] documents.

Answer #1 (R. Mana): It is the Tofes of tied documents.

Answer #2 (R. Avin): Even if you will say that [l'Chatchilah, we write it both in] a Pashut or tied document - it is Me'akev in a tied Get, and it is not Me'akev in a Pashut. (This is why Rav Huna discussed only a tied Get.)

Answer #2 (R. Acha): If one adds to the Halachah (what is required, one cannot distinguish Pashut from tied, so Rebbi's question against R. Chananyah is not difficult). A Pashut [needs] two [witnesses]; if the custom is three, we make it with three;

A tied Get, [the witnesses] are in back. If the custom is in front and in back, we do make in front and in back.

Question: It was taught here (Mishnah 9:7, that if the witnesses signed on back of a Pashut, it is Pasul. Why was) it taught [also] there (Bava Basra, Mishnah 10:1)?

Answer: It had to be taught there. If it were taught only here, and not there, we would say that here, due to the severity of Arayos, it is Pasul. There (regarding monetary documents), since there is not the severity of Arayos, it is Kosher. Therefore, it had to be taught there;

If it were taught only there, and not here, we would say that since he collects with it, it is Pasul. Here, since he does not collect with it, it is Kosher! Therefore, it had to be taught here and it had to be taught there.