Text: The Ri understands that the text should read in the opposite fashion. "Min Aruri u'Min Aluli Malka u'Malkisa." The word "Aluli" (traitorous behavior) is in regards to the king (and therefore should be referring to the king and queen), while the world "Iruri" (complaints) is in regards to other people.

Explanation: Rashi explains that they would make a mark and sign for servants.

Text: Some Sefarim have the text "v'Rashu d'Inshi" meaning that he does not have any outstanding loans.

Explanation: This is as Rashi explains here that if someone is wanted by the king then it is a mistaken deal, as stated in Bava Metzia (80a).

Proof: In Bava Basra (92b) the Gemara explicitly states that he (the buyer) can say, "Here is yours before you" (and return the slave in exchange for a refund).

Implied Question: In Kidushin (11a) and Kesuvos (58a) regarding the discussion of a blemish (and therefore mistaken sale which could lead a slave to mistakenly eat Terumah, as explained there) in a slave, the Gemara discusses the opinion that there is no such thing. It asks, what will you tell me (is a case of a mistaken purchase)? It is in a case where the slave turns out to be an armed robber or someone wanted by the king. This is incorrect, as they always have a rumor attached to them (that this is their behavior, and he purchased them anyway). (Note: How can we reconcile the first two Gemaros that imply this might not be known with these two Gemaros that imply it might not be known?)

Answer: We must explain as does Rabeinu Tam that they have a rumor, but it is uncommon. (Note: Accordingly, we will not suspect that a slave should not eat Terumah by his new Kohen owner because he in fact might be a wanted man, as rumors abound about this person, and it is uncommon that the owner would not have found out about his slave being wanted. Being that it is so uncommon, we will not make a decree that a slave should not eat Terumah by his new master's house. However, if in fact his new master finds out about this and says he did not know, everyone agrees he would get his money back.)

Opinion: This is unlike Rashi's explanation there that rumors abound about the slave and therefore the owner must have known about his status and done the sale anyway.

The reason Rashi holds that this terminology is in the document (even though it is impossible that this will cause a mistaken sale anyway) is just to make a better worded (i.e. airtight) and clear document, so that people will not misunderstand the document. This is the same regarding the statement that he is not a free man, as it is obvious that if he is a free man then the entire sale is null and void.

Implied Question: The Gemara states (i.e. Kidushin 11a) that according to the opinion that there is no worry of a mistaken purchase due to a blemish regarding a servant, this is for the following reason. If the blemish is apparent on the outside of his body, one can see it! If it is on the inside of his body, we do not care! (Note: What about our Gemara that states he must be free of boils for two years? How would the buyer know (and why isn't this opinion therefore worried about a mistaken purchase)?)

Answer: This is regarding blemishes that are currently on or in his body. However, blemishes that will come afterwards and will make him unfit to work are definitely reason for a mistaken purchase (if it could have been foreseen).

Implied Question: This means that there is a case where one would not know about a blemish regarding a servant. (Note: Accordingly, how can there by an opinion that there is no case of a blemish in the sale of a servant?)

Answer: It is possible to say that this is an uncommon case. (Note: The opinion above is stating that it is extremely uncommon to find such a case.)

Explanation: I explained this earlier (3b).

Opinion: Rashi explains that this Mishnah is unlike Rebbi Elazar or Rebbi Meir.

Implied Question: This does not seem correct, as some opinions in the Gemara establish the Mishnah as being according to Rebbi Meir.

Text: It appears that we do not have the text "ha'Hi," as it is referring to our Mishnah (not a different Mishnah or Beraisa which would be implied by "it").

Implied Question: All of the Mishnayos (quoted in our Gemara above) are excluded from the number stated in the first part of the Mishnah, while this Beraisa is only excluded from the second number stated in the second part of the Mishnah. (Note: Why do we require a second number to exclude this Beraisa? Why can't we exclude along with everything excluded from the first part of the Mishnah?)

Answer#1: This teaches us that this Beraisa is answered for (that even though it is quite a novel law that such a child is a Mamzer according to Rebbi Meir, the Mishnah indeed agrees that this is so, as is apparent by its stating the number a second time).

Answer#2: Rabeinu Yitzchak says that this Beraisa needs a special exclusion because it is possible to fix the situation Lechatchilah even according to Rebbi Meir. He can take the Get from her and give it to her before marriage. (Note: This is as opposed to the other Gitin that are totally invalid.)

Opinion#1: The case is specifically regarding his having written the Get himself and the signature of one witness. However, if the scribe wrote it and one witness signs it this is not the case, even if the scribe is an expert. This is because Rav holds that we learned the case is about a scribe signing as a witness along with another witness (not a scribe writing and a witness signing).

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Chananel's text is that the case where the Get is invalid is specifically regarding his having written the Get himself and with the signature of one witness. However, if the scribe wrote it and one witness signed it, she can get married Lechatchilah. Shmuel says that even if the scribe wrote the Get and it has the signature of one witness, it is only valid b'Dieved. The Gemara then asks on Shmuel, doesn't the Mishnah state that if the scribe wrote it and a witness signed it is valid?

Implied Question: This text does not appear in any (other) Sefer.

Opinion#3: Additionally, it is possible to say that according to Rav, if an expert scribe writes it and a witness signs it, is even valid Lechatchilah. However, if the scribe is not an expert and a witness signs it is even invalid b'Dieved.

Question: Why does the Gemara ask earlier that this is understandable according to the opinion that she does not have to leave her husband, but what is there to say according to the opinion that she does have to leave him? What is the question? Why don't we answer that regarding a mistake in peaceful relations with the kingdom, even if she has children she must leave her husband?

Answer: Regarding a mistake of peaceful relations with the kingdom as well, being that the Rabbanan hold that the children are not Mamzerim, if she has children with him she does not have to leave him.

Observation: In Yevamos (30b), the Gemara notes that regarding a similar case of divorce where it is unclear if the Get is close to him (or her) etc., the Beraisa does not state nor explain such a case (as an example of a doubtful giving of a Get).

Explanation: The reason for this law is because the water has to have its life in this vessel. (Note: We derive from the verse, "Mayim Chayim El Keli" (Bamidbar 19:17) that the water has to have its life solely in this vessel (see Rashi in Temurah 12b, DH "v'Eima"). Accordingly, it cannot be taken into a bird's mouth. When it is spit back into the vessel, it does not meet this requirement.)

However, due to its having had "work" done with it, it does not become invalid after it already was sanctified (i.e. the ashes of the red heifer were added). This is stated in the Sifri and in Mishnayos Parah (4:4). However, if he removed his thought from watching it, it would become invalid even after it was sanctified. In a different place I have discussed this at length (see Pesachim 18a, DH "Batlu").