Question: Rabeinu Elchanan asks, why isn't it forbidden to heal a Nochri, as stated in Avodah Zarah (26a) regarding a midwife and a nursemaid, that even for pay it is forbidden because they raise their children to serve idols?

Answer#1: The Ri answers that perhaps this is permitted in order to better understand how to heal, in order that he will know better how to heal Jews.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the Nochri knew that he was an expert in this method of healing, and permitted this due to hatred that would be caused if he would refrain from treating him.

Answer#3: Alternatively, perhaps the logic that he is raising a person who will serve idols is not pertinent in this case, as it is regarding a midwife and nursemaid.

Explanation#1: This means worry regarding the sin.

Explanation#2: Alternatively, the punishment of the sin.

Explanation: This implies that even if he does one of these things he is close to death. This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara does not say that they must be done in order (of their listing).

Explanation#1: Reish Lakish deduced this from the extra terminology (that "there is nothing to his last words"). It should have said instead, "They should write and give it (the Get)" (if it did not mean that the Get should be given right away).

Explanation#2: Alternatively, Reish Lakish deduced this from the fact that it did not state that it is not necessary to check him again, which would imply that we wait until he becomes sane again.

Question: Now that the Gemara is comparing this case to someone who is taken over by Kurdeikis (the wine demoness), the Mishnah should be difficult! The Mishnah states that someone who is taken over by Kurdeikis and says, "Write a Get for my wife," has not said anything. In our case, when both of his Simanim are cut (foodpipe and windpipe) and he says, "Write," they should write. (Note: If the cases are comparable, this is a contradiction even before discussing Rebbi Yochanan!)

Answer: It is obvious that (in the case of the dying man) when he said, "Write" his mind was clear. It is clearly unlike someone taken over by Kurdeikis. However, before he writes and gives the Get, he will get weak and his mind will go bad (due to his being close to death. Therefore, the husband's mental status at the time when the Get is given is similar to a man taken over by Kurdeikis.

This is therefore difficult according to Rebbi Yochanan who says that we do not write and give the Get until he becomes clear headed.

Question: Rebbi Elchanan asks, why does the Gemara ask a question on Rebbi Yochanan? This question should also be asked on Reish Lakish! The reason Reish Lakish stated that someone taken over by Kurdeikis can still give a Get (when he commanded to do so before being taken over) is because we are able to heal him. In the case of the person clearly close to death whom we cannot heal, Reish Lakish should agree that we do not write and give a Get in this case, as he is like an insane person!

Answer#1: The Sefarim that do not have the text, "And does Rebbi Yochanan say," are understandable, as indeed the question is being asked on both of them.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the Gemara asks its question on Rebbi Yochanan as he explicitly states, "We do not write." (Note: Being that he is the clear opinion saying this would be invalid, we ask the question on him, despite the fact that Reish Lakish would come to the same conclusion.)

Explanation: The case is when they asked him, "Should we give a Get to your wife?" and he nodded.

Implied Question: Perhaps we do not have to check him (whether or not he answers appropriately in this fashion three times) as we do in our Mishnah (with someone taken over by Kurdeikis). (Note: Why wouldn't we have to do so?)

Answer: This is because he has a clear mind, as stated later (we have no reason to suspect otherwise, as opposed to someone recovering from Kurdeikis).

Implied Question: Rabeinu Yitzchak was unsure how long we consider him to be of sound mind. We cannot say that we check him when the Get is given, as if this is the case, the Gemara would not have asked a question on Rebbi Yochanan. (Note: Until when is he considered to be of sound mind?)

Answer: It is possible that until he knows that he is no longer thinking straight he is considered to have a clear mind.

Regarding a Get from a Shechiv Meira (person on their deathbed), the Ri says that one must be careful that he should not become insane between the writing and giving of the document. If he does, even if he ends up regaining his sanity, the document is even invalid according to Reish Lakish, as there is no cure for him.

Sometimes a Shechiv Meira is not of sound mind, and we have a doubt if we consider him at that point to be insane, or he is merely a little unclear because of his weak state, and he is like one who is asleep.

Explanation: The Gemara thinks at first that we testify about him that he already died. The Gemara answers that they testify that he is alive, but will eventually die before Beis din permits her to remarry.

Explanation: The Gemara is asking its question on Shmuel. Being that he says that he dies right away (and this implies soon after the incident happens), he should have went to Galus (exile to a city of refuge).

The Gemara is not asking it question on the answer that he is alive and will eventually die. Certainly if you consider him already dead, this is even more difficult (that he does not go to Galus). One would think that Galus is dependent on dying immediately, and that if he does not die immediately there would be no obligation of Galus.

One would think that the obligation to go to Galus is dependent on immediate death, as the Pasuk states regarding Galus, "And he made it fall on him and he died" (Bamidbar 35:23). This implies he dies immediately.

Even though one is killed for killing someone on purpose, even if his victim does not die immediately, there is a difference between the punishment of death and Galus. This is similar to another prominent difference regarding Galus, where it matters whether the person was killed on a downswing (Galus) or upswing (no Galus), and regarding murder where there is no difference (he is liable either way).

The Gemara currently does not hold of the question asked in Kesuvos (33b), "How do we know that the Pasuk, "And the hitter will be cleansed (i.e. exempt)" applies to killing on purpose? Perhaps it refers to someone who killed accidentally and the Pasuk is saying that he is exempt from Galus?" The questioner clearly implies that one would even be liable to go to Galus if the victim does not die right away. (Note: This is as the Pasuk is referring to someone who is alive sometime after he was wounded.)

Implied Question: These suspicions only apply to a case of killing accidentally. However, regarding a person who kills on purpose we do not apply any of these suspicions. (Note: Why? What is the difference?)

Answer: Perhaps there is a Derashah regarding Galus, just as there is a difference between the punishments of Galus and death regarding one who kills on a downswing and upswing (see previous Tosfos).

Implied Question: The implication in Kesuvos (33b) is that the Pasuk, "And the hitter will be cleansed (i.e. exempt) is referring to someone who is liable to go to Galus even though the victim did not die immediately. (Note: Aren't we saying here that there are all sorts of possibilities why the victim died over time, and that they would make the accidental killer exempt from going to Galus?)

Answer: The case there is that he was in a house of marble (no wind or negative effect from the climate), and he did not move around before dying. (Note: He therefore clearly died because of this blow.)

Explanation#1: One opinion holds that the wind negatively affecting his health hastens death more than the victim convulsing, while the other opinion holds the opposite is true. Both require that he die due to the killer, and not from something else.

Explanation#2: Alternatively, one holds that moving is because of the killer, as it is normal for people to convulse due to being killed. The other opinion holds that the wind affecting the body is called because of the killer, as it happens by itself. (Note: It is possible the second opinion understands that while the person's action of convulsion could be controlled somewhat, and not controlling it as if he did this to himself, the wind that comes naturally is certainly connected to the action of the killer who put him in this place.)

Explanation#3: Alternatively, these two opinions are not really arguing. They agree that he is only liable for Galus if he is in a marble house and he does not convulse. The Gemara explains the difference between the two reasons (not the two opinions).

Explanation: Three times includes that he correctly motions "no" three times, and that he correctly motions "yes" three times, for a total of six questions.

Implied Question: When the Gemara says that we should suspect that he simply got into a pattern of bowing in a manner implying "yes" or "no," it is not because we do not require both, as we have just explained (that we do require both). (Note: Why, then, does it say them separately?)

Answer#1: Rather, it means that with one of them, either yes or no, he is not answering with a clear head.

Answer#2: There are some Sefarim that do not have the text "Alternatively."

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains the way the checking is done. It says, "How does one check? They say to him, "Should we write a Get for your wife?" He says (or motions), "Yes." They ask, "For your mother?" He says, "No." They ask, "For your sister?" He says, "No." They ask, "For your daughter?" He says, "No."

Implied Question: It does not appear correct to say that they argue, as why shouldn't the checking of our Mishnah help? (Note: How can they agree when it seems they are two separate opinions?)

Answer: Rather, Dvei Rebbi Yishmael holds that the Mishna's statement regarding checking is best carried out in this fashion.

It is not possible to say that he merely started bowing in a pattern of "no, no" or "yes, yes," as he is clearly acting smart by not making a mistake between summer and winter. Even if we need three "no's" and three times "yes," it does not have to be every other answer. (Note: There can be two questions in a row with the same answer.)

Explanation: Why should we consider him insane and therefore say that his Get is invalid, and cause his wife to become an Agunah for no reason?