Explanation: Rashi explains that this is not a connection of purity regarding two Mikvaos, one of which does not contain forty Se'ah on its own. If Nitzuk (pouring), Kataf'ras (water running down a slope), or Mashkeh Tofei'ach (dripping water) connects them, it is not deemed a Halachic connection to make the Mikvah that does not contain forty Se'ah a kosher Mikvah.

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks that until now Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah quoted in Chagigah (19a) only argued regarding three small pools of water that are on a slant on a mountain. The top and bottom one each contain twenty Se'ah, and the middle one contains forty Se'ah. There is a stream of rainwater that connects all three. In such a case, Rebbi Meir held that one could immerse himself in the top pool, because we say "Gud Asik" (loosely translated as the walls of water are viewed as extending up).

However, the bottom Mikvah everyone agrees is fitting for immersion, as we say "Gud Achis," (loosely translated as the walls of water are viewed as extending downwards). This implies that a Katafras (water running down a slope) is a connection. According to Rashi, our Gemara implies that it is not a connection at all!

Answer (#1): Rabeinu Tam says that this is specifically discussing a case where there were two pools, and each had only twenty Se'ah. Being that there is no full Mikvah at all, there is no connection and one cannot even immerse in the bottom Mikvah. However, in the Gemara in Chagigah (19a) where the middle pool is a full Mikvah, everyone agrees that one can immerse in the bottom Mikvah. They only argue regarding the top Mikvah. The case was specifically that there was a middle Mikvah.

However, in a case where there are two pools and each does not have a full Mikvah, everyone agrees that one cannot immerse in the bottom Mikvah.

Answer (#2): Rabeinu Tam says that because the water in the first one is eventually going to fall and go down into the Mikvah the Katafras is a connection. However, Nitzuk (pouring) is worse than Katafras, because the stream of the pouring stands in the air and is not a connection, even if it will end up falling, as is apparent in the last chapter of Avodah Zarah (72b).

Implied Question: The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (ibid.) deduces from an incident where Rava forbade wine when a Kusi put his hand on the secondary straw (the flow of wine coming out of a V shaped set of straws that draw wine from one barrel into another), that Nitzuk is a connection. This is despite the fact that this flow is actually a Katafras, not Nitzuk. (Note: How can the Gemara deduce that Nitzuk is a connection from a case of Katafras, which is more of a connection than Nitzuk?)

Answer: The Gemara is still able to deduce from here that Nitzuk is a connection, being that the part that the Kusi touched is the upper part, where the wine is not going to end up in the barrel as one end is leaning on the large straw. This is therefore not better than Nitzuk. (Note: The Ritva in Avodah Zarah (59b) explains that this is not a direct connection as the wine is separated from the barrel. Therefore it is not better than Nitzuk.)

Question: He also asked that in our Gemara the implication is that if something is so wet that it can make other things wet as well, it is a connection. However, in Mikvaos (6:7), quoted in Yevamos (16a) and Chagigah (21a), the Mishnah states that in order to combine Mikvaos are mixed they must be connected by a passageway that is as thick as the size of a reed used to stop up the mouth of a leather jug. It also must be a hole that is large enough to have the size of two fingers go around inside of it all the way around.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that in order for a hole to combine them, the hole indeed must be like the size of a reed. However, in order for the water alone to combine, it is enough for it to be something that can makes other things wet.

Question: This does not seem correct according to the Ri. The Mishnah states in Mikvaos (6:9) that a wall between two Mikvaos that has a vertical crack can now make the two Mikvaos combine. However, if the crack is horizontal, it does not make the Mikvaos combine until there is a hole the size of a reed in one place. (Note: These cases are when the top of the wall remained whole, and the crack was in the middle of the wall.) Rebbi Yehudah says that the opposite is true (vertical does not combine, horizontal does). If a hole was broken from the top of the wall down (vertically), the height only must be like a garlic peel, and the width like a reed which is two fingers wide (as mentioned above).

If so, when the Mishnah discusses the mixing of Mikvaos and that the hole is like the size of a reed, the hole must be full of water. When the water is connected above the wall, only a (height of a) garlic peel and width of a reed is needed. If Rabeinu Tam is correct that water combines Mikvaos as long as something that can make other things wet combine them, and only when there is a hole is the size of a reed required, if so the width of the water will not end up being two fingers, as the hole is round and narrow on the bottom, as stated earlier that it is measured by two fingers that can go around the hole. (Note: Tosfos in Chagiga (19b) explains that this ends up being like a hole half the size of a regular reed filled with water. It is certainly enough to make something else wet, which according to Rabeinu Tam should be good enough (see Maharsha DH "v'Omer Rabeinu Tam" at length).)

Answer: Only according to Rebbi Yehudah is it enough to have a transfer of wetness. However, according to the Rabbanan a height of a garlic peel that is two fingers wide is required. When there is a wall between them, an entire size of a reed is indeed required, meaning that there has to be an amount of an entire hole of a reed that is full of water.

Answer (of the Ri to (b): The Mishnah regarding pouring, according to our conclusion in the Gemara that this is regarding Mikvaos and is according to Rebbi Yehudah, can also be according to the Rabbanan. Only the law that being wet enough to effect a transfer of wetness is considered a connection is according to Rebbi Yehudah (Mikvaos 6:7). However, when the Mishnah in Taharos (8:9) states regarding Nitzuk and Katafras that if the wetness transfers it is not a connection, it is even if it makes other items very wet.

The Ri additionally states that even Rebbi Yehudah does not hold that something so wet that it can make other things wet is a connection in itself when his feet are touching the water. The connection is due to the law of Gud Achis (that what is above is considered as if it has gone down). However, when the land is even and therefore it is not possible to say Gud Achis, the size of a garlic peel is required. The case of a break in the top of the wall between the two Mikvaos is even according to Rebbi Yehudah who is discussing this there in the first part of the Mishnah.

Explanation: (Note: The Ri now explains the Gemara in light of this explanation.) The Ri says that the Mishnah regarding Nitzuk and Katafras is not discussing connecting Mikvaos, but rather Hashakah (connecting a Mikvah to other liquids, see Pirush Hamishnayos on Taharos 8:9). Now, the law regarding purity is like regarding impurity. This is also implied from the Gemara's answer that this is regarding Mikvaos and is according to Rebbi Yehudah. This implies that until now the Gemara had not been dealing with Mikvaos.

The Gemara extrapolates that a liquid that is wet is not considered a method of connection regarding Hashakah or washing one's hands. The Gemara answers that the case is when the liquid (or soaked item) makes other things wet as well. The Gemara then inquires regarding the Mishnah that states that something wet is not considered a connection regarding Hashakah: Is it discussing something that cannot make other things wet, or even something that has enough liquid to make other things wet as well? The Gemara says that we indeed have a Beraisa stating that this makes a connection.

The Gemara pushes aside that perhaps the law regarding something that can make other things wet is regarding Mikvaos, and is according to Rebbi Yehudah, due to the law of Gud Achis. However, regarding Hashakah, it might not even be considered a connection according to Rebbi Yehudah, just as Rebbi Yehudah himself agrees that by a Mikvah that when there is flat land we do not say Gud Achis.

Now, the question regarding the Gemara in Chagigah is not difficult. We can say that according to everyone one can dip in the lower Mikvah, even if there is not forty Sa'ah in the middle Mikvah.

Implied Question: The Tosefta quoted in Chagigah (19a) states that there are forty Sa'ah in the middle Mikvah. (Note: If the discussion is whether the top and bottom Mikvaos containing twenty Sa'ah each are considered connected, why even include in the case a middle Mikvah that is forty Sa'ah?)

Answer#1: This is to teach us even so, in the second half of this Tosfeta the Chachamim are quoted as saying that one can only go to the Mikvah in the middle Mikvah. Even though there is forty Sa'ah in the middle Mikvah, the Chachamim hold one cannot dip in the bottom Mikvah, and certainly not in the top one.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the Tosefta teaches us that we do not decree that the middle Mikvah is unfit being that it is connected to a Mikvah that is indeed unfit.

Question: However, there is a difficulty based on our original thought that if something can make other things wet, it is considered a connection regarding Hashakah. This implies that we are more lenient regarding such a connection regarding Hashakah than we are regarding the connection of Mikvaos, where this is not considered a connection. Regarding Nitzuk and Katafras, the opposite is true. They are not a method of connection for Hashakah, but they are a method of connection for Mikvaos.

Observation: This is the text in Shabbos (13b). They only decreed this regarding a Tevul Yom who entered (with his head and most of his body into water that was contained in a vessel), and certainly if it fell on him. However, a regular pure person would only become impure in this fashion if the water fell on him.

The Ri explains that they were more stringent regarding the water falling on the person because this is the way the incident(s) that caused them to make the decree happened. They used to pour three Lugin of water contained in a vessel over a person (who had just washed in foul water).

Explanation: When Rashi explains that they both are actually holding onto the Get, it is not literal.

Both people do not have to actually be holding on to the Get. Rather, they both say that the husband made them a messenger, and that he said to both of them, "Take this Get to my wife." One of them indeed gave it to his wife in front of his friend. This is as it says later (67b), if a person says to a group of people that they should all take the Get to his wife, one person gives the Get in front of all of them.

If one of them is a messenger and the second testifies that the husband gave the Get to his friend in front of him in order to take it to his wife, according to Rava this is valid. This is because they have a Migu, as they wanted to lie they could just say that he divorced her in front of them. However, according to Rabah even after they learned (about writing a Get Lishmah) this is invalid, as they are not both messengers.

Only when they are both messengers do we say earlier (5a) that according to Rabah the Get is valid, as two people who bring a Get together is an uncommon occurrence (and we do not make a decree). However, in such a case, the Get is invalid.

Rashi's Opinion: Rashi explains that the reason is because there are no witnesses that are commonly found to uphold the validity of the Get.

Tosfos' Opinion: The Gemara could even be according to the opinion that the reason that the witness must say "b'Fanay Nechtav etc." is because people outside of Eretz Yisrael are not experts in writing a Get Lishmah. After the people outside Eretz Yisrael learned to write a Get Lishmah and two people bring the Get, which is not a common case, there is no reason to decree it should be unfit lest it go back to a situation where people did not write Gitin Lishmah (see 5a).

However, the opinion (the next version of the Gemara) that if two people bring a Get they must say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. must hold like Rabah. According to Rava, even if one did not say "b'Fanay Nechtav" and the other did not say "b'Fanay Nechtam" the Get is kosher, because they say that the husband sent them. They are believed with a Migu that they could have both merely testified that he divorced her in front of them.

Question: Perhaps Rava also holds that they must say "b'Fanay Nechtav etc.," and he only holds that the case of the Mishnah is valid because one of them testified about the writing and one about the signature?

It cannot be said that he would hold the Get is invalid because each witness is not testifying regarding the entire body of testimony, and therefore they are not careful to be accurate regarding their testimony.

The Mishnah says that if one says the Get was written before him, and two say that the Get was signed before them, it is kosher. This implies that one person is believed to testify that the Get was written before him even though he is only testifying regarding the writing of the Get (and not the signing). This shows that the Mishnah holds that one is believed to testify on part of the body of testimony, and we do not say that they will be inaccurate.

Answer: If they would generally need to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc., it would not help in this case. Being that only one of them is testifying regarding the signatures of the document, people will come to mix this procedure up with the regular procedure of upholding documents, even though the other is testifying about the writing of the document. Rabah also agrees that we suspect the procedures will be mixed up, as he holds that once they decreed b'Fanay Nechtav etc. should be said due to Lishmah, they also decreed it should be said because people might come to mix this procedure up with the procedure of verifying documents, as I explained earlier (5a).

They are two people and they do not have to testify because of upholding documents, but rather because of Lishmah. (Note: Accordingly, why would people confuse this with verifying documents?) However, being that their testimony is necessary because of Lishmah, people will mistakenly think that this testimony is due to verifying documents, and they come to mistake this form of testimony as regular verification of documents.

Implied Question: The Gemara deduces this from the Mishnah (that if both would be agents to bring the Get, the Rabbanan would say it is kosher). (Note: This is the direct opposite of the deduction made in the second version of Abaye's statement. What is the reasoning behind these opposite deductions?)

Answer: This is because the Gemara wants to ask, "If the Get is not coming from both of them (as messengers), what is their argument?" The Gemara, in this version, finds it more reasonable if they argue regarding a case when they are both messengers bearing the Get, as is indeed the argument in the next version. (Note: This is why the Gemara is asking what the argument would be if this was not the case, implying that this would not be a question if they argued regarding a case where they were messengers.) The second version understands that the opposite is true. It is more reasonable that they argue when they are not messengers, as is indeed held by the first version. (Note: See Tosfos Ha'Rosh for the reasoning behind each opinion.)

There is a similar Gemara in Chulin (58a) regarding the child of a Treifah.

Explanation: This is according to the opinion of Rabah, as explained above (in Tosfos #1).

Question: Why doesn't this version of the Gemara explain that the reasoning behind their argument is (whether or not we suspect this will be mixed up with the regular verification of documents,) just like the first version in the Gemara?

Answer: The Ri answers that according to the first version it is possible to say that Rebbi Yehuda's reasoning is because we do not suspect this will be mistaken for a regular verification of documents. Being that the Get is only being delivered by the agent who says he witnessed the signing, it is clear that this witness is believed because he is the agent who brought the Get. This is why we need two people to say they saw the writing of the Get, as they were not agents.

However, according to this version that the Get is being brought by the witnesses as agents, we should suspect that this will be mixed up with the regular verification of documents. Now there is no clear proof that this is only a verification of a Get, being that the witness testifying on the writing of the Get is also an agent.

Observation: Now the Gemara can ask (as it does below) that Rebbi Yehudah should argue on the first part of the Mishnah as well. (Note: The Tosfos Ha'Rosh explains at length why, according to the first version, it was understandable that Rebbi Yehudah would not argue on the first part of the Mishnah.)

Observation: The Gemara also could have answered that Rabah holds like the first version. According to him it is also possible to say that two people who bring a Get do not have to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. because it is not common, as we said earlier (5a).

Opinion: Rashi explains that Rebbi Yehudah didn't decree that b'Fanay Nechtav etc. is still required lest the situation outside Eretz Yisrael go back to people not being careful to write Gitin Lishmah. Two people who bring a Get is uncommon, and they are therefore exempt from saying b'Fanay Nechtav etc.

Question: He did not have to say this, as even with one person Rebbi Yehudah does not apply having to say this decree. This is evident from the way the Gemara concludes that Rebbi Yehudah excludes having to say b'Fanay Nechtam, but not b'Fanay Nechtam. The Gemara concludes that Rebbi Yehudah only holds this case (one person saying b'Fanay Nechtam) is invalid because we might mix it up with the regular verification of documents, not because we suspect that people outside of Eretz Yisrael might go back to a situation where they are not writing Gitin Lishmah.

Opinion: The Gemara understands that being that the Rabbanan don't argue, and they say the decree applies whether it is one person or two, Rebbi Yehudah also does not differentiate. Being that he does not make this decree by two people, he does not make it by one person either.