Clarification: If, Rashi explains, it is a matter of a space between the lines when he opens it, that is not a problem ...

Reason: Since there are many Sofrim who, not being expert in arranging their script, leave spaces between the lines.

Clarification(cont.): And presumably, even if the spaces are large it doesn't matter.

Implied Question: And although a 'Get Kere'ach' is Pasul ...

Answer: It is not called a 'Get Kere'ach' unless the empty spaces exceed the number of witnesses who have signed on it, but if the number of witnesses equals the spaces, it is Kasher.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it means 'important'.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Because since people consider her important, they take her words seriously.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Chananel however, explains that she plaits hair - like 'Megadla Se'ar Neshaya' in Chagigah (Daf 4b) ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And because she goes from house to house plaiting women's hair, she passes on information from one to the other.

Explanation #1: Meaning literally - for instance, he translates "Lo Sa'aneh al Riv" (Sh'mos 23) as 'Do not testify against the ruling', 'He is a liar' ...

Reason: Because, on the contrary, it is a Mitzvah to arrive at the correct ruling.

Explanation #1 (cont.): But this is how one should translate it 'Do not withhold judgement from someone who comes to you for a Din Torah!'.

Explanation #1 (concl.): 'And someone who adds to it' - This refers, Rashi explains, to someone who says that 'Since one is permitted to add, I will add wherever I please' 'He is a blasphemer' - meaning that he despises Hash-m by changing His words.

Implied Question: And when Unklus added ...

Answer: He did not do so of his own accord, since the official Targum was given at Sinai, only it was forgotten and he went and re-established it

Source: As the Gemara tells us in Megilah (Daf 3a).

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Chananel however, explains 'ha'Metargem Pasuk je'Tzuraso' - where for example, someone translates "Vayir'u es Elokei Yisrael" (Sh'mos, 24) as 'And they saw the G-d of Yisrael' , 'he is a liar'.

Reason: Because they cannot have seen the actual Shechinah, as the Torah writes (Ibid. 33) "For no man can see Me and live!"

Explanation #2 (cont.): And someone who adds to it' - that he translates it as "ve'Chazu yas Mal'acha de'Eloka", 'is a blasphemer' - since he connects the praise of Hash-m to a angel.

Explanation #2 (concl.): But the correct translation is 'And they saw the glory of the G-d of Yisrael'.

Clarification: "To built for it", Rashi explains, 'but they did not actually build it' ...

Precedent: This is similar to "Then Sh'lomoh 'will build' a Bamah for K'mosh", which the Gemara in Shabbos (Daf 56b) explains to mean that 'He wanted to build, but did not'.

Explanation #1: Some commentaries learn this from the word "lah" (singular), in place of 'lahen' (plural) - implying that there was only one house - for 'Flattery' (but not for 'Vanity') ...

Refutation: But this is not correct, since throughout nthe Parshah it refers to 'Eifah' in the singular, in which case 'Liv'nos lah" is perfectly appropriate.

Explanation #2: Others attribute it to the fact that "lah" is written without a 'Mapik Hey' (a dot in the 'Hey' - since every "lah" in the Torah has a 'Mapik Hey', except for three - this being one of them ...

Reason: And it is as if it is written "Lo" with an 'Alef' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Which teaches us that it did not retain the current name.

Support: And this is also how Rashi explains the Pasuk in Bamidbar 32) in connection with "And he called it (lah) Novach after his own name".

Inference: This implies that it is only because he did not verbalize his thoughts, but that, if he had said at the time of the sale that he is only selling the fields because he intended to go to Eretz Yisrael, the sale would be negated.

Question: Why is that? Seeing as one requires a T'nai Kaful ( double T'nai) - and he did not mention that in the event that he does not go, the sale will be invalid?

Answer #1: In Bava Basra (Daf 137b) , in connection with Esrog - ' "On condition that you return it", if he returned it, he is Yotzei, and if not, he is not' ... the Rashbam explains that ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Although one requires a T'nai Kaful, that is specifically by Isur, such as 'Be betrothed to me on condition that you give me two hundred Zuz' ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Similarly, in connection with the Get of a Sh'chiv-M'ra (on his deathbed) Shmuel instituted 'If I don't die, it will not be a Get, If I die, it will' ...

Answer #1 (concl.): But by Mamon, a T'nai Kaful is not necessary.

Refutation: This is not correct however, bearing in mind that the source of T'nai Kaful is the T'nai of the B'nei Gad and the B'nei Re'uven, which was a monetary issue.

Answer #2: The Ri therefore explains that one needs to draw a distinction, and to say that there are some things that do not need a T'nai Kaful, only an indication, since we are witnesses that he did what he did on that condition ...

Answer #2 (cont.): And some things do not even need an indication either - such as the ruling in Bava Basra (132a - See Masores ha'Shas) - 'If someone writes all his property to others, and then discovers that he has a son, the gift is negated'.

Precedent: And similarly, the ruling cited in the Gemara (Ibid. 131b) 'Someone who writes out all his property to his wife has only appointed her a guardian' - because we assess that this is what he had in mind.

Answer #2 (concl.): And in the same way we are witnesses that he only sold his fields with the intention of moving to Eretz Yisrael ( See Masores ha'Shas).