Implied Question: This is unlike the case of a blind person who is unfit to bring a Get (as stated on 23a). (Note: The Tosfos Ha'Rosh explains that this is because it appears to be a falsehood to allow a blind person to say, "b'Fanay Nechtav" when he could not possibly have seen it (even though he can hear them preparing the Get Lishmah just like anyone else).)

Implied Question: The Gemara did not want to say that when it said someone was, "going in and out," it meant going in and out of the house when the scribe was in the attic (and he was only going into the lower floor).

Answer: This is because, "going in and out," implies to the area where the scribe is writing.

Explanation: The argument in our Gemara is referring to a messenger going from one country in Bavel to another within Bavel. Within the same country Shmuel would agree that there is no need to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc.

Implied Question: Shmuel later reasons that, "they are busy with their learning," and therefore don't recognize signatures. (Note: This would seem to mean that there is even a problem within their own country in Bavel, as they simply don't recognize signatures.)

Answer: Shmuel means that they are therefore not different than the rest of Chutz la'Aretz (overseas vs. Eretz Yisrael).

He is also not talking about bringing a Get from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, as is apparent from the fact that this is addressed in an argument between Rav Evyasar and Rav Yosef nearby in the Gemara.

Explanation: And he made many Yeshivos.

Question: This is difficult. If so, why is the Gemara asking from our Mishnah regarding "from Ako to the north?" This Mishnah was taught before Rav came to Bavel! (Note: Even Rav would agree that at this point Bavel was not like Eretz Yisrael!)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the significance of, "when Rav came to Bavel" is that he ruled that from the days of Yechanyah who was exiled to Bavel together with the "Cheiresh and Misgar," its law is like Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin. (Note: The Gemara later (88a) understands that "Cheiresh" refers to people who would teach Torah and everyone would listen (making the others like a deaf-mute), and "Misgar" refers to someone who would be the final authority to consult with in a Halachic question.) This is also how Rabeinu Tam explains similar Gemaros in Eiruvin (28a) and Bava Kama (80a).

Observation: The text should not read that Rav Huna said this in the name of Rav, as Rav himself would not say, "when Rav came to Bavel etc."

Some explain that, "when Rav came" does not mean Rav the scholar, but rather when various Rabbanim and Torah scholars came to Bavel. (Note: This would justify the text of "Rav Huna," as Rav would not have been talking about himself in the third person.)

Question: Why don't we make a decree that someone bringing a Get from Ardshir to Actisfon should also have to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc., lest we think that someone coming from Actisfon should not have to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. when going to Ardshir? Before (4b) we indeed said that we make this type of decree.

Answer: According to the Gemara's conclusion that Rabah holds of Rava's logic, everyone agrees that we do not make this type of decree.

Opinion: It appears that Ardshir is part of Bavel. If it was part of the rest of Chutz la'Aretz, how could the Gemara attempt to say that people were not aware enough that a Get had to be written Lishmah, but the people here were learned? What would it help that they were learned? We suspect that the place might revert to being an area that is not learned!

Actisfon must not be part of Bavel. If it was, Actisfon would also be learned. It would therefore not make sense to say it was not learned.

Additionally, when they do not go to the marketplace we still said earlier according to Rav, whom we rule like in these matters, that there are many Yeshivos (see Tosfos DH "mi'Chi Asa").

Therefore, it must certainly be that Ardshir is in Bavel and Actisfon is not in Bavel. Accordingly, bringing a Get from one to the other is like bringing it from one country to another, and witnesses are not readily available to verify the Get unless they go to the marketplace (as explained in the Gemara).

Now the Gemara's question is understandable. We know that Rabah holds of Rava's reasoning. Accordingly, why doesn't he require b'Fanay Nechtav etc. from Ardshir to Actisfon, as there are no witnesses who can readily verify the Get?

Even though they were close to each other with only the Diglas River dividing the two as stated in Eiruvin (57b),

they are still considered two countries. This is similar to Eiver Ha'Yarden being considered separate from Eretz Yisrael regarding a Chazakah, because the Jordan River separates the two.

Question: When the Gemara previously said that they are involved in their study (and therefore do not recognize the signatures), why don't we say that the people of the place recognize their signatures? This would be just as we say here, that the people of Actisfon recognize the signatures of the people of Ardshir, even though the people of Ardshir themselves are busy in the marketplace.

Answer: The people who are involved in Torah study are busier, and they have no time to sign at all. (Note: It seems Tosfos is saying that they therefore rarely sign, and their signatures are totally unknown.)

Question: This is difficult. It implies that if Rava would hold that people do not always write a Get Lishmah, there would be no problem. Why? Mechuza is part of Bavel, where people did know to write a Get Lishmah!

Answer: It is possible that regarding divorces and lineage Mechuza is not considered part of Bavel, as it contained many converts. The Gemara in Kidushin (73a) states that Rebbi Zeira taught in Mechuza that a convert may marry a Mamzeres (and the people were upset because he showed that converts are not called "Kehal," see Rashi there). This implies that this is not the main (fine) lineage of Bavel.

Implied Question: The Gemara could also have asked the same question on Rabah bar Avuha and Rav Sheshes as they must hold like Rava, who holds that the reason is that witnesses are not around to verify the document. If they would hold of the reason of Lishmah and these people were not learned, even in the same neighborhood b'Fanay Nechtav etc. should be required! (Note: Why didn't it ask this question on Rabah or Rav Sheshes?)

Answer: Rather, it was better for the Gemara to ask this question from Rava who explicitly holds this position.

Explanation: The Gemara answers that the people of Mechuza are different as they move around. This is why Rabah bar Avuha required them to say b'Fanay Nechtav from block to block, as the people who recognize the signatures leave before their leaving is known to the people of the other block. They therefore are not careful to have their documents verified before they leave.

However, from one "neighborhood" (three houses) to another he would not require this, as he holds that on each block everyone knows when his friend on the block is leaving. The woman would therefore ask them to verify the document before they went.

Rav Sheshes suspects that even on the same block people will not know, and Rava suspects that even within the same "neighborhood" people will not know.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam rules that nowadays one always has to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc.

Implied Question: We rule like Rava who says that the problem is witnesses are not commonly found to verify the document, not because of Lishmah. (Note: Why, then, does one always have to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc., even in situations where this problem does not exist?)

Answer: It is anyway, as now in all places we are considered constantly traveling, just like the people of Mechuza.

Explanation: This implies that b'Fanay Nechtav etc. also for this (that the husband cannot later make the Get Pasul) if said in Eretz Yisrael.

Implied Question: Later (23b), the Gemara states that (a woman is believed to bring her Get within Eretz Yisrael) as we do not rely on her word anyway, she is believed. (Note: This implies that in Eretz Yisrael b'Fanay Nechtav does nothing.)

Answer: This is because the case there is when she did not say b'Fanay Nechtav, like most people who bring a Get within Eretz Yisrael. However, if someone were to say it, we would rely on their statement as stated in our Gemara (that the husband would no longer be able to make the Get Pasul).

Implied Question: How can we understand our Gemara's teaching from the phrase, "va'Yitnu Es ha'Yeled b'Zonah?"

Answer #1: Being that these people stayed in Eretz Yisrael, their sons and daughters were indebted/enslaved in order to earn their food. The word "b'Zonah" here therefore means "for (their) food."

Answer #2: It could also be as explained in the Yerushalmi that there was once someone who sold his daughter in order that he could learn Torah, and he went and learned.

Opinion: The Bahag ruled like Rav Yitzchak. Even though he argues on a Beraisa, he did so because he know the Beraisa was not the main opinion in Halachah.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam and the Riva in the name of Rabeinu Eliyahu state that this is only when a person writes a Pasuk to teach from it, as here. However, when someone is merely writing a friendly letter he is permitted to use the phraseology found in Pesukim in order to write in a crisp fashion, and he does not need to use Sirtut.

Implied Question: However, the Yerushalmi in the last chapter of Megilah implies somewhat that this is forbidden. The Yerushalmi there asks, can a person write two or three words from a Pasuk? It quotes Rav Muna as having written a letter to Rebbi Oshiya bar Simi, "Your beginning was very small, your end will be very great" (see Iyov 8:7).

It appears that this letter was merely a friendly, not a scholarly, letter, and even so he was stringent not to write the Pasuk in its correct order (see Iyov ibid.).

Implied Question #2: However, there were a lot of letters quoted there that contained teachings from Pesukim. For example, Mar Ukva wrote a letter to the Reish Galusa, who would rise and sleep to music, and he cited the verse, "Yisrael, do not rejoice as the nations rejoice." The Yerushalmi there brings many similar Pesukim (that were paraphrased differently from what actually appears in the Pasuk). (Note: The Maharsha explains that Tosfos here is not answering his implied question (becasue if he was, he would not use the word "u'Mihu"). Rather, he is asking another implied question on Rabeinu Tam. While Rabeinu Tam implies that Sirtut would be required whenever one would use a Pasuk for teaching the lesson of the Pasuk, even if he quotes it out of order, this does not seem correct according to this Yerushalmi. Here Sirtut was not used, apparently because the Pasuk was quoted out of order.)

Question: In Menachos (32b) and Megilah (18b), the Gemara says that Tefilin do not require Sirtut. According to our Gemara, even three of four words require Sirtut!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that Tefilin do not need Sirtut on every line. However, one line must be made on top, and underneath it many lines (of words) can be written.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam additionally stated that one should not do Sirtut to every line of one's Tefilin, as stated in the Yerushalmi in the second chapter of Shabbos that, "whoever is exempt from something and does it is called a plain person."

This is also the implication of the Gemara in Menachos (32b). The Gemara there states that Tefilin do not need Sirtut. The Gemara asks from a Beraisa that says that a Sefer Torah and Tefilin that became worn out should not be used to make Mezuzos, because one cannot bring an object down from a more stringent holiness to a more lenient holiness. This implies, the Gemara asks, that if one could bring the holiness down one could make Mezuzos out of a Torah or Tefilin. (Note: How can this be?) Doesn't a Mezuzah need Sirtut (and Tefilin doesn't)? The Gemara answers that this is an argument among the Tanaim.

Being that the Gemara does not answer that the case is where the Tefilin that were worn indeed had Sirtut, the implication is that a Sefer Torah and Tefilin never had Sirtut. The reason for this is, as mentioned above, that anyone who does something which he is exempt from is called a plain person.

However, if a Sofer cannot write nicely without Sirtut, he must do Sirtut on every line in order to fulfill the Pasuk, "Zeh Keili v'Anveihu" - "This is my G-d, and I will glorify him" (Shemos 15:2).

Implied Question: The Gemara in Megilah (16b) says that from the Pasuk, "Divrei Shalom v'Emes" - "Words of peace and truth," (Megilas Esther 9:30), we see that a Megilah requires Sirtut like "the truth of Torah." (Note: This implies that it needs Sirtut just as a Sefer Torah does. How, then, can Rabeinu Tam say that a Sefer Torah does not need Sirtut?)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that this Pasuk is not referring to a Sefer Torah, but rather to a Mezuzah. A Mezuzah is described as, "the truth of Torah," because it contains the concept of the Oneness of the Kingdom of Heaven. This is also the explanation of Rabeinu Chananel, and this appears to be correct.

Proof: If the Gemara is talking about the Sirtut of a Sefer Torah, as Rashi there indeed explains, a later Gemara is problematic. The Gemara later (19a) says that a Megilah written on Diftara (has not fully been processed into parchment) and not with Dyo (special ink) is Pasul. This is because of a Gezeirah Shaveh of "Kesivah, Kesivah" from the Pasuk "v'Ani Kosev Al ha'Sefer u'vi'Dyo" - "and I was writing on parchment with ink," (Yirmiyah 36:18). If Rashi here is correct, why didn't the Gemara derive instead from this teaching that a Megilah has to be, "like the truth of Torah?" (Note: Just as we derive Sirtut from here that a Megilah has to be like a Sefer Torah, we should also derive that Diftara cannot be used and Dyo must be used!)

If the Gemara means Mezuzah this is understandable, as otherwise we would say that one should write a Megilah on Duchsustus (the inner part of the hide of an animal) just as a Mezuzah is written (Lechatchilah). (Note: The Maharsha explains that Tosfos means that this teaching of "Divrei Shalom v'Emes" from Mezuzah is clearly only used for Sirtut. If it would be used to teach other laws of writing the Megilah as well, we should say that a Megilah should be written Lechatchilah on Duchsustus just as a Mezuzah is written Lechatchilah on Duchsustus. The fact that the Gemara requires the Gezeirah Shaveh of "Kesivah, Kesivah" for the other laws of writing a Megilah shows that the teaching of "Divrei Shalom v'Emes" is limited to Sirtut. However, if we would say like Rashi, the Gemara later should not require a separate Gezeirah Shaveh.)

Implied Question: We find in Meseches Sofrim (1:1) that one is not allowed to write on a sheet of parchment unless he makes lines. A sheet without lines is Pasul. (Note: This implies that Sirtut is required for a Sefer Torah!)

Answer: It must be that this is referring to four lines, one on top, one on bottom, and one on each side.

Explanation: They are both deriving from the word, "va'Tizneh" either an implication of (marital) relations or food.

Question: How do we know that the Pasuk does not simply mean promiscuous relations (as the root of the word implies)?

Answer: Rabeinu Chananel answers that he wanted to bring her back (it is therefore clear that she did not have promiscuous relations with someone else). The Pesukim clearly indicate that they would not even return concubines if they found out that they had had promiscuous relations with someone else. The Pasuk states, "He had relations with the concubines of your father," and it later says, "and they were tied until the day of their death as live widows" (Shmuel Beis 20:3). (Note: Being that Avshalom had been with them, David never had marital relations with them again.)

Question: Doesn't it say in Sanhedrin (21a) that Jewish girls did not have any hair by their armpits or their private parts?

Answer: She was an Eishes Yefas To'ar, as the Gemara answers there (ibid.) regarding Tamar (and originally was not Jewish).

Implied Question: How is Chilul Shabbos connected to Pilegesh b'Givah?

Answer #1: The Seder Olam records that the day of the incident was Shabbos.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Chananel wrote that the correct listing of these three sins is Giluy Arayos (promiscuity), Shefichus Damim (murder), and Chilul Hash-m (not Chilul Shabbos), which all happened during this incident. This is why (it only lists these three and) the Gemara does not mention a sin like Aiver Min ha'Chai.

Implied Question: What "Eiruv" is the Gemara referring to?

Opinion: Rashi explains this is referring to Eiruvei Chatzeiros (allowing many houses open to one courtyard to carry from their houses to their courtyard and visa versa on Shabbos).

Opinion: This does not seem right. Rather, the correct explanation is as Rashi explained in Shabbos (34a). The Gemara there asks that the Mishnah is difficult. It said that when dark is about to fall, one should ask his household if they made an Eiruv. This implies that an Eiruv can no longer be made when it is even possibly dark. The Mishnah then says that if it is possibly dark, one can still make an Eiruv.

The Gemara answers that here we are talking about Eiruvei Techumin (that allow one to walk further than what would otherwise be the confines of his Techum Shabbos). Rashi there explains that when the Mishnah says that if it is possibly dark an Eiruv should not be made, it refers to Eiruv Techumin. This is also the opinion of Rabeinu Chananel. The reason Eiruv Techumin is more stringent is because it has a source in the Pasuk.

This is also implied in Eiruvin (46b) regarding the statement that the Halachah follows the one who is lenient regarding Eiruv (Techumin). Rav Papa says that this statement is required, because otherwise we would think that it only refers to Eiruv Chatzeiros, but not Eiruv Techumin which is more stringent. (Note: See Pnei Yehoshua who answers the contradiction in Rashi.)