Explanation: This is regarding a case when the giver dies before the intended receiver. However, the words of a Shechiv Meira are still considered as if they actually give over to the extent that even if the intended receiver dies first it works, as explained earlier.

Explanation: Being that we do not find that Rebbi Shimon was a Nasi (prince), the Gemara asks that perhaps the Tana left out a word, and he should have stated, "Rebbi Shimon says, the Nasi says etc." The Gemara extrapolates (that it is one person, Rebbi Shimon Ha'Nasi) from Rav Yosef.

The Gemara pushes this proof aside by saying that perhaps Rav Yosef was merely quoting the terminology used by the Beraisa.

We find that the Tana indeed makes a similar statement (without saying the word says) Bava Kama (39b). The Tana there states, "Rabbi Yaakov pays." The Gemara asks, "what did Rebbi Yaakov do that he should pay?"

Observation: The Gemara implies that the text in the first part of the Mishnah should read, "The signatures were totally done in front of me, (while) half was written before me."

Question: This is difficult according to the opinion that witnesses are not around to verify the Get. If the Mishnah states a verification that, "half of it was written before me and all of the signatures were done before me," is invalid, certainly if only half the signatures were done before him it should be invalid!

Answer: The Ri explains that it is still necessary to give this last case. One might think it should be valid, as it is better than a case where the scribe and one witness are the ones who are counted upon as the witnesses, as there are two signed witnesses on this Get. The only problem is that the only verification is regarding the writing of the Get and the signing of one of the witnesses.

This is better than a case where all of the signatures were witnessed but only half of what was written was witnessed, as we require that the witness should testify on the main part of what was written. This is as we say in the Gemara (3a), that this is in order that Gitin should not be confused with the regular verification of documents.

Implied Question: According to what was stated earlier (6a) that Rav Chisda required a messenger to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. from Aktisfon to Ardshir because they are not experts in writing a Get Lishmah (in Ardshir), why would it help to have two people testifying about the second person's signature? (Note: Even if the signature of the witness is verified, the problem is that the Get would not have been signed Lishmah!)

Answer: It is possible to say that the case is where two people testify that the signature of the second witness was done Lishmah.

Explanation: Rav Chisda holds that the messenger is not so exacting when the entire testimony does not hinge on his statement.

Rava holds that in any event he is exacting.

Opinion (#1): Rashi explains that according to Rava, even if the messenger only says that he knows the second signatory on the Get, the Get is valid.

Question: Why would Rava think to invalidate a Get where there is another person backing up the messenger? Being that Rava does not suspect that we will mix up the verification of a Get with the regular verification of documents when nobody else supports the messenger, it should be valid as the messenger is also testifying that the writing of the Get was done before him. It should therefore certainly be valid when there is someone else backing him up!

Opinion (#2): It therefore appears as I explained above, that if one witness merely says that he recognizes the second signatory it does not help. This is even if he testifies that the writing of the Get was done before him.

Now it is understandable why Rava wanted to invalidate a case where the messenger and one additional person testify that they recognize the second signature. This is because this might come to be mixed up with the regular verification of documents (where two people testify that they recognize the signatures as valid), just as we indeed invalidate a Get when nobody else supports him (regarding the second signature).

Rav Ashi asks, is there any other instance where a witness who testifies and says that the document was also written before him validates a document, but when someone else agrees and they testify that they recognize a signature there is reason to invalidate it? This is not worse than a case where the messenger himself would merely add that he saw the signature!

Question: Is there any instance where if a person says a document was signed before him it is kosher, but if he says instead "I am the signed witness," it is invalid?

Answer: The Ri understands that just as the Yerushalmi says that saying that he is second witness makes him as if he partial to his testimony, as it looks as if he testified regarding the second signature in order to make his testimony stand.

Question: If that is the reason, why does Rav Ashi seemingly say the reason is, "either it should totally be done through upholding the Get or totally done through verifying the document?"

Answer: This is because the Yerushalmi's reason is not a solid reason without the added reason of "Either the whole thing should be done through upholding the Get etc.," as he is not totally partial to his (previous) testimony.

Explanation: Rashi explains that if the ditch was five Tefachim (handsbreaths) deep and it was surrounded by a wall that was five Tefachim tall, these amounts do not combine to make the inside of this area a private domain.

Question (#1): Rabeinu Tam has difficulty with this opinion. The Gemara in Shabbos (99a) and Eiruvin (99b) says that a pit and its rim combine to make up this amount of ten Tefachim, even though one is height and one is depth.

Question (#2): Additionally, the Gemara openly says in Eiruvin (93b), regarding two courtyards where one is above the other and there is a natural wall of five Tefachim plus a five Tefach wall, that Rav Chisda agrees regarding the bottom courtyard that it only makes an Eiruv as a separate entity from the second courtyard. This is because the bottom courtyard sees the wall of ten Tefachim.

Answer (#1): It is possible to answer that our Gemara is discussing the case of two courtyards one on top of the other, but is only discussing the law of the top courtyard regarding an Eiruv, as is apparent from the Gemara ibid.

Answer (#2): Alternatively, the Gemara is discussing a pile in the public domain that is five Tefachim high, and on top of it was placed a wall of five Tefachim. This is not considered a private domain regarding Shabbos.

Question: Why isn't this a private domain because a person could put something on there and use it, as is stated in Eiruvin (78a) regarding a case where a place was totally filled with pegs?

Answer: The case is where it was very wide, as it is not possible to say that something (i.e. a board) could be placed on it (in order to make it into a private domain) unless the area was very small. (Note: However, being that this is a very wide area and the walls are very far apart, it is not practical to put a board across it and use it, and therefore cannot be considered a private domain for this reason (see Maharsha).)

Explanation: Rashi explains that he washed one of his hands from a vessel as the Chachamim say he should, and the other hand he washed in a Mikvah of forty Se'ah (the required amount of water for a Mikvah to be kosher).

Question: How can the Gemara deduce from here that if someone first washes one hand and then the other that the washing is good? Perhaps the case here is when he simultaneously washed one hand with a vessel and dipped one hand in the Mikvah?

Answer: The Gemara holds that there is no difference. It is logical that if it does not help to wash one after the other, it would also not help to do it at the same time, even if each hand were washed from a separate vessel.

Text: Rabeinu Tam has the text, based on the Mishnayos, "If he washed his one hand with one pouring, it is pure."

He extrapolated this from the Mishnah's terminology, "his hand is impure." This implies that each hand on its own can become pure, meaning that if he twice pours from a vessel onto his hands they become pure, as is apparent from many places in Meseches Yadayim that one must have first and second waters (pourings).

Regarding this it says, "And if he poured one time from a big pouring that is equivalent to two pourings his hand is pure," being that there is an amount of water equivalent to that of two pourings.

The Mishnah ends by saying that if he washed both of his hands with one pouring, Rebbi Meir rules that his hands are still impure until he pours a revi'is. Even though when one pours in two pourings a revi'is is not required for each one, now that there is only one pouring a revi'is is required. However, one hand does not require a revi'is when it comes from remnants of a pure pouring. The pouring merely has to be equivalent to two regular pourings (of one hand).