Orphans who come to divide, etc. - יתומין שבאו לחלוק כולי
Summary:
If all the (minor) parties agree to a division we appoint an אפוטרופוס to divide; if one expressly disagrees we do not divide; if not all are present, we still divide; however תוספות did not have conclusive proof (unless it is a case where it is clearly beneficial to the absent יתום).
בי"ד appoints for them an אפוטרופוס and they choose for them, etc. - בית דין מעמידין להם אפוטרופוס ובוררים להם כולי
Summary:
It is בי"ד who assesses the value of the estate, if the minor children wish to divide it. The division is done by lottery but it does not include single use items which are divided by גוד או איגוד (when the יתומים reach maturity). תוספות questions whether מחאה ברוחות is applicable where one partner wishes to remove his assets from the partnership without the participation of the remaining partner.
There it is money; here it is a prohibition - התם ממונא הכא איסורא
Summary:
תוספות offers two explanations to reconcile the גמרא (the view of ר"נ), which differentiates between ממונא ואיסורא, and the גמרא (the view of רב יוסף), which compares them. Either ר"נ ור"י argue (regarding רבי), or all agree that איסורא and ממונא שלא טעו are different; however איסורא וממונא שטעו are similar.
And if because of גלויי דעתא; that is a dispute between אביי and רבא, etc. - ואי משום גלויי דעתא פלוגתא דאביי ורבא
Summary:
According to אביי any indication that he does not want the גירושין to take place is considered a גלוי דעתא בגיטא (but it is not effective). רבא maintains that a גלוי דעתא בגיטא (which is effective) is where he wants to be מבטל the גט, but not where he does not want the גירושין to happen (there it is not effective).
