Implies Question: Rebbi Oshiya says earlier that this (the case of her being in her house) is even if she is in Teverya and her yard is in Tzipori. (Note: He explained that when the Mishnah (77b) there stated "in her house" it means "like she is in her house." How does he explain our Mishnah?)

Answer#1: When our Mishnah states "standing," it means "as if she is standing." In other words, the area is guarded, as the Gemara answered earlier according to Rebbi Oshiya regarding the Mishnah's statement there that "she was standing in her house or her yard."

Answer#2: Alternatively, our Mishnah states "standing" to teach us that she in on her roof and she is standing in her own domain, as stated in our Gemara.

Explanation: Right after it left the domain of the roof, it went into the domain of the yard.

Question: Why does it help that the walls are sticking out? In any event, when he throws it over the fence it is not guarded opposite the roof! (Note: When it left the airspace of the roof, it is enclosed by the walls of the yard that are on the other sides of the yard, but it is not enclosed on the side where it entered the yard!)

Answer#1: Being that there are three walls that stick out on the sides of the yard, it is considered guarded. We do not have to be concerned that there is no fourth wall.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the case is where the roof is short (i.e. narrow) and the yard is wide, and the walls sticking up are on either side of the place where the Get entered the yard. Opposite the gate of the roof there is merely a small entrance where the Get can go. (Note: In other words, the Get is enclosed on the side of its point of entry, and there was only a small area on that side that was open that enabled the Get to be thrown into the yard.)

Answer#3: Alternatively, the case is where the roof is standing in the middle of the yard and not on the side, and the walls of the yard surround the rood on all sides.

Question: The Gemara says in Bava Metzia (70b) that if someone says, "Throw your stolen items into my yard, and my yard should acquire your stolen items" the prohibition of Shabbos (carrying) and stealing arrive at the same time.

How do they arrive at the same time? Regarding Shabbos one is liable even if the item is above the walls, before it even goes into a place where it is surrounded by walls, as the walls of a private domain (regarding Shabbos) extends until the sky. However, regarding acquiring, he only acquires the item when it is within the walls of his domain. (Note: How, then, do these two prohibitions arrive at the same time?)

Answer: The case is where he threw the item through a doorway, not from above the walls.

Question: It is difficult that the Gemara chose to establish the Mishnah as being according to Rebbi. Rebbi (Shabbos 5a) is only discussing a case where there is a roof above the private domain, and therefore the house is as if it was filled, as we state in Shabbos (5a). Our Gemara seemingly should have stated that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds in general that when an object is in the air it is as if it has been placed down, even in the public domain.

Answer: It appears that the Gemara at this stage thinks that Rebbi's reasoning is not due to the roof, but rather that it is considered to be full because there are walls there. This is why our Gemara establishes the Mishnah as being according to Rebbi.

It did not establish the Mishnah as being according to Rebbi Akiva, as our Mishnah requires that there be walls sticking up, while Rebbi Akiva holds that the object is viewed as if it was placed down even in a public domain.

Rather, it is certainly like Rebbi. The Gemara answers that it could even be according to the Rabbanan etc. According to the answer, Rebbi's reasoning could be because of the roof.

Question: This is unlike Rava's question in Bava Metzia (12a) that if one threw a wallet (and made it ownerless) from one doorway and it went out another, what is the law? Do we say that when something is in the air but it will end up falling to the ground in another domain that it is still as if it is placed on the floor, or not? (The difference is in a case where two people own these two different domains. Does the first person acquire the wallet due to the law that when something is in the air it is as if it is placed down, or do we say the second person acquires it because it came to rest in his domain?) (Note: What is the difference between this question and our Gemara's law that if it is not going to end up resting the Get is invalid?)

Answer: In our case where it is going up, it is not very similar to something that should be considered about to rest (i.e placed down). (Note: Everyone would agree that it is not as if it is placed down.)

Answer#2: Alternatively, in Bava Metzia the case is regarding a house with a roof, which makes it more understandable why the object is considered to be about to rest (i.e. placed down).

Question: Doesn't Shmuel rule according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon in Eiruvin (91a) that all roofs are one domain?

Answer: Our Gemara is discussing carrying from the roof to the house (which Rebbi Shimon also forbids). (Note: Rebbi Shimon says roofs are one domain regarding vessels that were on the rooftops when Shabbos arrived. However, these items cannot be carried into a house. Additionally, items from a house cannot be carried onto a roof, and items from the roof cannot be carried into the house (unless these domains are all owned by only one person, and the items were there when Shabbos arrived).)

Question: If so, why does the Gemara say, "from his friend's roof?" Even from his own roof he should not catch rainwater to take into his house, as his roof is open to the roof of his friend where he cannot carry (making him unable to carry on his roof)!

Answer: Shmuel holds there that even when the walls are not noticeable (i.e. the building are attached to each other, and therefore the walls between the building are not noticeable) we say Gud Asik (that the walls are considered to go straight up) on the walls of the house. This enables one to carry from his roof to his house (as the walls separate the two roofs to the point that they are not considered like two yards that are open to each other, which would cause each to be forbidden to carry without an Eiruv).

Implied Question: However, we hold like Rav that the walls must be apparent to say Gud Asik. (Note: This answer therefore is not in accordance with Halachah. It is difficult to conclude that our Gemara is not according to the Halachah.)

However, the term, "Just like the inhabitants are split up underneath (i.e. under the roof) etc." implies he is carrying it from one roof to another. (Note: This implies that Shmuel is specifically discussing a case where one is carrying from one roof to another. Why does he do this?)

Answer: Perhaps Shmuel is saying his statement according to everyone. According to the Rabbanan the case is from one roof to another, while according to Rebbi Shimon it is from the roof to the house (as it would be permitted to carry from roof to roof).

Question: What is Shmuel teaching us? All of this is stated in a Mishnah in Eiruvin (89b)!

Answer: Shmuel is teaching us that this even applies to rainwater that never rested on his friend's roof. Even so the fact that they have separate domains applies, according to each Tana (as explained above in (f).

Question: Our Gemara could have quoted this from the Mishnah in Eiruvin (89b). (Note: Why didn't it?)

Answer: It was easier for the Gemara to quote Shmuel (who explains the reasoning).

Explanation: Rashi's explanation that the outer walls are "Meshubad" -- "on lien" to the inner yard is not literal.

Implied Question: If it would be, instead of differentiating between yards and boxes, the Gemara should differentiate between walls that are "on lien" and wall that are not.

Answer#1: Rather, the reason is that since the outer walls are permanent and are intended to stay there, the inner yard is considered guarded by them.

The case is where the walls of the outer yard separate between outer and inner yards. If they do not separate, when the Get reaches the airspace of the inner yard and did not yet go inside the walls, why should she be divorced? The Get is not being guarded from the people in the outer courtyard. If so, the inner yard is not deemed guarded (and cannot acquire the Get for her).

This is like the question asked in Bava Metzia (11a) regarding the incident involving Rabban Gamliel and the elders. The Gemara there asks, "were they standing next to his field?" This is despite the fact that the produce that was in Rabban Gamliel's house was guarded, as is apparent from the Yerushalmi that it was already in his house. Nevertheless, it was not guarded as far as the elders go due to the presence of the people of Rabban Gamliel's household (in Rabban Gamliel's house).

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that the case is indeed when the outer walls are not separating (between the two yards). The case is where the woman is standing at the side of her yard. Therefore, it is considered that the yard is guarded because of the outer walls, as they ensure the Get will not be blown to the public domain (and she is physically guarding it by standing next to it). However, regarding the elders, the walls of Rabban Gamliel's house would not have helped, being that the elders did not stand next to the house.

Implied Question: The Gemara says in Bava Metzia (102a) that the fertilizer belongs to the householder, meaning the landlord, if it is from oxen that come from outside the yard. His yard acquires the fertilizer, even though it is not guarded from the renter (who is currently renting the house and yard from him). (Note: Based on what was stated above, how can the landlord acquire when he is not standing next to the yard?)

Answer#1: The case is where the landlord also has a house in that yard. He is therefore standing next to his yard (and can acquire the fertlizer).

Answer#2: Alternatively, a renter is akin to a watchman, and is considered the agent of the landlord. (Note: It is therefore considered that the landlord, through his agent, is standing next to his yard.)

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the walls of the vessel are only made to put something into them. This implies that the airspace of a vessel does not acquire.

Question: This does not appear to be correct. In Avodah Zarah (71b), the Gemara says regarding "Yayin Nesech" -- "wine poured for Avodah Zarah" that when it (wine being sold by a Jew to a Nochri and being poured into the Nochri's vessel) reaches the airspace of the vessel he acquires it. However, it only becomes Yayin Nesech when it reaches the floor of the vessel. This implies that the airspace of the vessel does acquire.

Opinion#2: Rather, it appears that this is the explanation. The Get did not rest in the airspace of the vessel. However, regarding yards, even if it did not rest within the walls, being that it is within the walls of the outer yard she is still divorced. This is because the outer walls are permanent, as explained earlier (in the previous Tosfos).

Our text regarding yards is, "because it reached the airspace of the walls of the inner courtyard." This means it is above the inner yard and over its walls, but it is inside the walls of the outer yard (the walls of the outer yard are taller than the walls of the inner yard).

Regarding boxes, our text is, "even if it reached the airspace of the inner." This means that it is above its walls. If it was inside the walls of the vessel she would be divorced, as I have explained.

Text: Some Sefarim have the text regarding the yards, "being that it reached the airspace of the outer wall."

According to this text, being that regarding boxes it discussed the inner one, the implication is that even if it is placed inside the walls of the inner box (but not resting in it), she is not divorced until it comes to rest on the bottom of the box, as Rashi maintains.

Question: This cannot be correct, as the airspace (inside the walls) of a vessel acquire, as I have explained.

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains that they are basing themselves on their reasoning (regarding Gitin in general). Beis Shamai understands (90a) that a person should not divorce his wife unless he finds that she has been promiscuous. Therefore, she is disgusting in his eyes, and he would not have relations with her. (Note: This is why they hold that there is no suspicion of reconciliation, even though the Get is old.)

Beis Hillel understands that one is allowed to divorce his wife even if she burned his food. She therefore is not disgusting in his eyes, and people will say that they had relations (after the Get was written).

They similarly argue later (81a) in a case where he divorced her and later slept together in a room with her at an inn, according to the opinion that the case is where she was not observed to have had relations with him. (Note: Beis Shamai holds he would not have done so as she is disgusting to him, while Beis Hillel says he would have.)

Implied Question: Rabeinu Elchanan says that it is called "inappropriate" for the following reason. (Note: What is the reason?)

Answer: This teaches us that even though it has no script nor language people will be jealous about it (being cited in the document).

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this refers to her old clothes that she has in her possession (that she brought into the marriage).

Question: This does not appear to be correct, as the Gemara in Kesuvos (101a) explicitly states that if she was promiscuous she does not lose her present wardrobe.

Opinion#2: Rather, the Gemara here is referring to him not having to pay her back for clothes that she brought into the marriage that are no longer present.

Explanation: Rashi explains that even though the Kidushin of the second person is not valid, she still requires a Get from him as well. The reason for this is as the Gemara explains in Yevamos (88b) that otherwise, we suspect people will say that the first Get was valid and she married the second person, meaning that a married woman is leaving a marriage (the second "marriage") without a Get.

Question: This does not appear to be correct to Rabeinu Yosef. In Yevamos (ibid.), the case is where she is certainly the wife of the first husband and is not Mekudeshes to the second man. However, in our case, Torah law would dictate that she needs a Get from the second man, as the first Get was indeed a valid Get according to Torah law, and is only invalid according to Rabbinic law.