Implied Question: It could have answered that being that Mar said that while it is valid it should not be done etc., and can conclude like the conclusion of the Gemara earlier (67a). (Note: Why didn't the Gemara go through the answers and questions that the Gemara earlier (67a) went through before reaching its conclusion?)

Answer: Rather, being that the Gemara already gave this answer (and discussed the resulting discussion), it did not warrant it necessary to go back through the discussion again.(Note: Being that in the end our Gemara would still have to answer the answer it gives now, according to the opinion that while it is valid it should not be done (as is apparent from the Gemara earlier (67a), it did not go through the entire lengthy discussion of this matter.)

Observation: We can prove from here that the chapter of "Mi she'Achzo" was originally arranged after the chapter of Hiskabel (where this original discussion appears at length).

Explanation#1: The first time the Gemara states, "It is not necessary" it is even according to Rebbi Meir who says that not only, "Write," but even "Give." This is because it is even discussing a case where he said this to two people, as stated afterwards, "It is not necessary to state a case where he did not say to three."

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara is currently discussing Rebbi Yosi's opinion. (Note: Why would the Gemara discuss something according to Rebbi Meir while discussing Rebbi Yosi's opinion?)

Answer: There is no reason to say it cannot also be according to Rebbi Meir, as it is merely stating every type of, "It is not necessary" that it can say.

Explanation#2: Some Sefarim have the text "It is not necessary to have a case where he did not say to three, "Give," rather even if he said to three Give etc." (Note: This text can only be according to Rebbi Yosi.)

Observation: It seems that the Gemara is only proving from this Beraisa that Rebbi Yosi does not agree that if he says to people that they should tell (the scribe to write etc.) that it is a valid Get. (Note: This is indeed stated by Rav Ashi. However, there is no proof that his answer is correct aside from that detail.)

Explanation: However, Rebbi Elchanan explains in the name of Rebbi Yitzchak that it is apparent from this Beraisa that the explanation of our Mishnah is "It is not necessary etc.," as stated by Rav Ashi.

Certainly, if it would have said, "Let us write a Get for your wife etc." we would deduce that if he had said, "Give" we would give the Get, as we deduced regarding the Mishnah. We would then say that the first part of the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Meir.

However, now that it says a case where the scribe wrote the Get Lishmah, this implies that if he said to anyone that a Get should be written it is valid. This is not true, of course, as even Rebbi Meir holds that this is invalid. (Note: What, then, does the Beraisa mean?)

Rather, it certainly means to say, "It is not necessary etc." as stated by Rav Ashi. It doesn't have to say a case of "Write" as even if he says this etc. It does not have to say a case of "Give" etc., in the same way that Rav Ashi similarly understands the Mishnah.

Question: Why does the Gemara say that it excludes the position of Rav Kahana? We could similarly disprove his position from our Mishnah that permits nodding without requiring a voice!

Answer: It is logical that the nodding of our Mishnah helps like a voice. Being that we understand he wants to give a Get, we do not require that we hear his voice. This is like someone (who cannot talk but is clearly sane, see Pnei Yehoshua) who says, "Give a Get to my wife." If it is good for her to receive the Get, he cannot retract this, even if she does not say anything. Being that she accepts this, without her voice he is her messenger. (Note: Accordingly, the Mishnah might not exclude Rav Kahana's position.)

The Beraisa that states, "Until they hear his voice" is only stating this to exclude the case of a deaf-mute that Rav Kahana says may also communicate in this fashion. It is logical that the Beraisa excludes this position.

Opinion#1: Rabeinu Tam says that if the man says, "From today if I die" and he dies on that day, I am not sure how to judge this (whether or not she is divorced, as it is unclear which came first).

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Elchanan says that it seems, "From today" is like "From now." He has intent that the Get should take effect from this instant, as he probably is giving the Get because he fears he may die anytime. Isn't he scared he may die that day as well? It must be that he means it should take effect immediately. Even so, it is good to be stringent.

Implied Question: The Gemara says later (85b) that Rav instituted that a Get contain the words, "From this day onward," excluding the position of Rebbi Yosi. (Note: How, then, can Rav say here that we rule like Rebbi Yosi?)

Answer: This is only an enhancement of the document, as Rav really holds like Rebbi Yosi, as stated here.

Observation: Some later (85b) have the text, "Rava."

According to this opinion as well this must be merely an enhancement of the document, as the Gemara states later that according to Rava it is obvious that we rule like Rebbi Yosi, even when a person mentions this condition (orally) while giving the Get. (Note: He does not mention it in the document, but by the giving of the Get (see 72b and top Rashi there).)

Explanation: The doubt is whether or not Rebbi Yosi holds that his stated condition nullifies the proof of when the Get was dated, being that it does not state in the date that he is giving it "from today (if he dies)."

Question: This is a question on the explanation of the Rashbam in Bava Basra (136a). The Gemara there states that Rava asked Rav Nachman whether or not this is true regarding a Kinyan. This means that he asked whether having a term in the document stating that a Kinyan is being made is effective like saying that it should be "from today." Rav Nachman answered that this is not necessary.

The Rashbam explained that this is unlike the position of Rebbi Yosi. However, the Gemara here implies that Rava holds like Rebbi Yosi.

Opinion: The Ri answers that the Gemara there is discussing a case where there is no date in the document, and it therefore can be according to Rebbi Yosi.

Opinion#1: Rashi and Rabeinu Chananel explain that just like the present of a Shechiv Meira (person lying on his supposed deathbed) is retracted if the person gets better without requiring a special condition to this effect, so too the Get of such a person is retracted without requiring an explicit condition to this effect.

The Gemara concludes that Rabah and Rava do not agree with Rav Huna. They argue that if we say that if he gets better he can retract, and if he dies it is a valid Get, people will say that it is possible to give a Get after death. They will say that just as a present is only valid after his death, so too his Get is valid after his death.

Implied Question: One cannot ask that according to his (their) explanation, being that the assumption is that if he gets better he retracts, why did the Mishnah have to state, "From today if I die" or "From now if I die," being that the general assumption is that these conditions apply.

Answer: The Mishnah was required to teach us which term implies from when he is alive (and it is therefore valid), and which term implies the transaction is taking place after death (and is therefore invalid).

Question: However, this is difficult. Why did Shmuel have to institute later (75b) regarding the Get of a Shechiv Meira that if he dies the Get is valid, and if he does not it is not valid? The standard assumption is that the Get is retracted if he gets better!

Answer: It is possible to answer that Shmuel does not agree with Rav Huna, and agrees with Rabah and Rava.

Question: However, this is difficult. The Gemara in Bava Metzia (66a) states that a Shechiv Meira wrote a Get for his wife. He groaned. His wife said, "Why are you groaning? If you will live, I will still be yours." The Gemara says that she was just saying this to making him happy (but in fact the Get would remain valid). The Gemara proceeds to ask that this is obvious. Why is it obvious? Rav Huna in our Gemara holds that if he gets better he can indeed retract the Get!

Opinion #2: It therefore seems to Rabeinu Tam that if a Shechiv Meira gave a Get and did not make a condition (that if he gets better the Get is invalid), if he then gets better the Get cannot be retracted.

This is unlike a present of a Shechiv Meira which he can retract if he gets better. This is because this type of present only takes effect after death. However, a Get takes effect when the husband is alive, as he wants it to take effect immediately (before he dies). Therefore, he cannot retract the Get if he does not make an explicit condition that it should only be valid if he dies.

Implied Question: And that which Rav Huna states that the present of a Shechiv Meira is like his Get. (Note: How can this be true if we just stated that they are not the same?)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that from the fact that Rav Huna says, "His Get" and not "The Get of a Shechiv Meira," he implies that he is referring to the Mishnah which said, "From today if I die from this sickness."

Rav Huna is saying that just as his gift is retracted if he gets better, even without him having made an explicit condition to this effect, so too if he makes a stipulation and he gets better his Get is retracted without him having to make another explicit condition to this effect since he got better, even if he gets sick again with the same illness and dies.

Rabah and Rava do not agree with Rav Huna. They hold that even if he got better and walked without support, since he died from the original sickness, he cannot retract and it is a valid Get.

For if it is not a valid Get even though he died from that illness, people will conclude that the stipulation about this illnes is not what causes it to take effect even though he stipulated, because he died from that illness, but rather death is what causes it to take effect, and that is why the Get is not valid when he recovers- and therefore, a Get can take effect after death.

But now that (we say) if he recovered he may not retract, because he died from that illness they will conclude that the prime factor is the illness and not death.

Explanation of Question in the Gemara: And it asks, "if you say that if he recovers he may retract, why then is it necessary to make an estimate?", it is asking according to Rashi's interpetation in a language of how much more so,

Since you said that if he recovers he may retract even when he gave a Get without stipulating, how much more so if he stipulates "from today if I die",

And to Rabeinu Tam's interpreation, it understood simply.